141–150 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty telling that what? The show is racist? I think there might be more nuance involved.
I think (s)he was implying not that they're racist, but that they are ignorant of the cultures they are trusted to portray
A native Arabic speaker here, I must say that I admire the courage and innovation of the graffiti artists and activists who chose this medium to protest and convey their message, which needless to say, that I don't necessarily endorse or share the creators' point of view. I have to admit that I haven't seen the show yet not even a single shot and I could say too that I have a very thick skin when it comes to "cultura…
Hi 'gotchange! Since you speak (and read) Arabic, could you tell what's in the top left corner of that picture[0]? Seems like hashtag-something, but it wasn't mentioned in the article. [0] - http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/10/16/world/middleeast/1...
[0] http://www.hebaamin.com/arabian-street-artists-bomb-homeland...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The producers also admire the hack. From the show's creator & executive producer: "We wish we’d caught these images before they made it to air. However, as Homeland always strives to be subversive in its own right and a stimulus for conversation, we can’t help but admire this act of artistic sabotage.” [0] [0] http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/oct/15/homeland... (edited for clarity)
... and there's the hack. It's us. If you ever needed proof of the adage that capitalism will co-opt even the most accurate and stinging criticism of it, here it is. The show was criticized as being racist and so the show appropriated that message (by hiring the "street artists" and instructing them to "go rogue") in order to sell more of the show.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> France is not a race. There are no races in the human species. Claiming otherwise without providing strong scientific proof is what racism actually is.
No, racism is discriminating based on (perceived) race, not merely the belief that race exists. (Which it manifestly does, as a cultural construct .) Nationality and ethnicity likewise exist as related, but usually distinct, cultural constructs to race, and we have different names for bigotry based on them. Though, obviously, the distinction between these forms of bigotry is somewhat nitpicky, and often not meaningfu…
That's like saying that aliens exist as a cultural construct. Let's not mix reality and widely shared fantasies.
How would you call the unscientific belief that races exist in the human species, if not "racism"?
> a lot of time "racism" is used broadly to refer to bigotry based on race, ethnicity, or nationality
True, just like "vagina" is used to refer to the vulva. Errors need to be pointed out, not accepted in silence, even if the hoi polloi will make you pay for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are the creators of the show absolved of their personal responsibility regarding the impact of their actions? If a company poisons the local reservoir with their chemical run-off, are they morally able to say, "Well, they shouldn't have drank that water. They knew they lived near a chemical plant." No, we trust fiction-based-on-reality to have a semblence of reality to it and to not be blatently racist. That's a…
> Why are the creators of the show absolved of their personal responsibility regarding the impact of their actions? Because they aren't democratically elected public officials, they're just making a TV show from private funding. And watching the TV show is optional. > If a company poisons the local reservoir with their chemical run-off, are they morally able to say, "Well, they shouldn't have drank that water. They k…
We can and should discuss whether something is ethical, and we can and should advocate for legal ways of opposing such things, like publicly criticizing it, boycotting the show, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile, a Texas church burned the holy book of millions of Muslims. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dove_World_Outreach_Center_Q... What's your point?
> Meanwhile, a Texas church burned the holy book of millions of Muslims. And Muslim (extremists?), killed 30 people in response, and resulted in a fatwa against Terry Jones. > What's your point? Artistic demonstration against the west, is (nearly) a right. Artistic expression against Muslims, is (nearly) a death sentence. --- It's a false equivalency to compare our (White Christian) nutjobs to their (Islam) nutjobs.
In case you can't see the issue: the series treats all Arabs and Muslims as dangerous terrorists willing to kill any "infidel" at the drop of a hat. And yet that is because of extremists, which exist everywhere - like, for example, Terry Jones.
It's false to say that EVERY Muslim will kill someone who criticises their religion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell that to the U.S. Supreme Court, who believe a tomato is a vegetable, not a fruit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden
Well, the US Supreme Court (in 1893) believed that the Congress (in 1883) in writing a tariff act was using the words "fruit" and "tomato" as they are commonly used in English, and not as they are strictly used botanically. In the absence of specific definitions in the law to the contrary that seems a fairly reasonable interpretation of the meaning most likely intended by Congress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are the creators of the show absolved of their personal responsibility regarding the impact of their actions? If a company poisons the local reservoir with their chemical run-off, are they morally able to say, "Well, they shouldn't have drank that water. They knew they lived near a chemical plant." No, we trust fiction-based-on-reality to have a semblence of reality to it and to not be blatently racist. That's a…
> Why are the creators of the show absolved of their personal responsibility regarding the impact of their actions? Because they aren't democratically elected public officials, they're just making a TV show from private funding. And watching the TV show is optional. > If a company poisons the local reservoir with their chemical run-off, are they morally able to say, "Well, they shouldn't have drank that water. They k…
We're not talking about the viewers of the show, we're talking about the people (Muslims, Arabs, etc) who are affected by the people who choose to watch the show -- that is, the impact on the culture that racism has.
>Would you propose to curtail the right to free speech?
We already do. The FCC does this. But I'm not suggesting that there be a law against it -- though other countries have gone this route -- I'm critizing the production of the television show. For being racist.
>It's a TV show, not real life.
Ah, but here we are: it is real life for millions of Muslims. Remember after 9/11 when Sikhs got beat up because people thought they were Muslims? Remember in the 60s when a black man couldn't get a hotel room in Atlanta?
We know that television and media have an impact on people, their opinions, and how they treat others. The people who broadcast that content have a moral responsibility to use that power in a way that does not negatively impact a single group.
Edit: since we reached our limit here:
>So one of the solutions to solving fundamental societal problems is to criticize a TV show?
Sure has worked for gay people. The public opinion turnaround time for gay marriage has been astoundingly fast. Television featuring strong portrayals of gay people certainly helped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>many people, seeing only stereotypes, come to believe them. Seems like the local education system has failed if people can't think critically or rationally. Blaming the arts is wrong and only treats the symptom. Do you believe that all information needs to be carefully controlled so that people don't get the wrong ideas? If so, what are you doing on an open/liberal/libertarian forum like HN then? Anyone can post any…
This. Thanks for posting this. Everyone likes to shirk personal responsibility and put the blame on others. If you are too challenged to distinguish between real life vs reel life, you should excuse yourself from such matters. EDIT: Thanks for the down votes, the truth is a bitter pill to swallow, isn't it?
If someone fails to distinguish between reality and fiction, that may be their fault.
But if you know that many people are unable to properly distinguish the two, and you do something that you know may lead those to hurt innocent bystanders, don't you have some responsibility if the expected happens?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I won't attempt to address this show which I haven't seen, but in general, propaganda can function to normalize or justify the obscene. Through presenting two sides of an issue, it gives the illusion of honesty or fairness. Even if that strike was represented as a complete mistake with no justification, it has normalized drone strikes simply by exposing them as a thing you witness in sympathy from the comfort of your…
There was nothing normalizing about their depiction. Most of the aftermath is showing a father's response to his dead young child. If anything it reinforces how horrific drone strikes on civilians are.
Showing the desperation of the victims, might also reassure you of the fact that you care about them (while in reality things like these happen every day without you even reading it in the news).
Finally, when you register that the ugly sides are taken in consideration, as you just did:
> In the same episode, a drone strike kills tens of innocent people. If you think that is "propaganda", you obviously weren't paying any attention.
your trust in the rest of the details of the episode and the series is enhanced. While they could be totally random, you have no clue about that.