-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Guardian explains why it's time to cancel Quentin Tarantino, asks for donations
- Thread starter llien
- Start date
Whitesnake
Banned
"problematic"
MiyazakiHatesKojima
Banned
Moron detected!
H
hariseldon
Unconfirmed Member
Well they've driven me away for starters.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
hateful eight is one of my favorite westerns of all time
Papa
Banned
Honestly, let's just remake Saving Private Ryan with an all female cast and send the cognitive dissonance into overdrive. Women can do anything a man can do! Wait, not like that! Just expose the sheer absurdity and historical ignorance of the ideology until it implodes and leaves the rest of us the fuck alone to enjoy whatever media we like in peace.
GreyHorace
Member
Oh just realised it's this soy-swilling cunt again
Do all of these social justice warriors shop at the same store for clothing and eyewear?
Rolling_Start
Banned
This thread is a bit of a hot-take.
An accurate thread title wouldn't elicit such a response.
"The Guardian" isn't explaining anything, it's an opinion piece by the person whos name is in large font under the title. You'll notice that news articles don't do this, and have a different format.
It's actually listed under the "opinion" section of the film page.
Here's a counter opinion to the above -a letter directly in response - that they also post on the film front page:
www.theguardian.com
The actual "Guardian view" of Tarantino's latest is from their film critic (note it does not have the format of the opinion piece either). It gets five stars and it's a glowing review:
www.theguardian.com
As for this part:
The "donation" bit didn't appear for me, and when it does is unrelated to the content of news articles or opinion pieces, as implied by the OP. It's possible it appears for them as they have detected it's the kind of article they like to read.
The Guardian is one of the few papers still undertaking real investigative journalism, unfortunately they still need hits and so have clearly marked opinion pieces like this "cancel Tarantino" nonsense. They attract people who love / hate this kind of article.
TL : DR - this OP is every bit as bad as the opinion piece it links to and is misleading. Bad OPs like this lead to bad, reactionary threads. Check to see if the OP is misleading - it's never a bad idea.
An accurate thread title wouldn't elicit such a response.
"The Guardian" isn't explaining anything, it's an opinion piece by the person whos name is in large font under the title. You'll notice that news articles don't do this, and have a different format.
It's actually listed under the "opinion" section of the film page.
Here's a counter opinion to the above -a letter directly in response - that they also post on the film front page:
Quentin Tarantino’s take on women and violence | Letter
Letter: Andrew Clifford says whatever Quentin Tarantino’s directorial vices, violence against women is not one of them
www.theguardian.com
The actual "Guardian view" of Tarantino's latest is from their film critic (note it does not have the format of the opinion piece either). It gets five stars and it's a glowing review:
Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood review - Tarantino's dazzling LA redemption song
With Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt playing a TV actor and stuntman who cross paths with the Manson cult, Tarantino has created outrageous, disorienting entertainment
www.theguardian.com
As for this part:
The "donation" bit didn't appear for me, and when it does is unrelated to the content of news articles or opinion pieces, as implied by the OP. It's possible it appears for them as they have detected it's the kind of article they like to read.
The Guardian is one of the few papers still undertaking real investigative journalism, unfortunately they still need hits and so have clearly marked opinion pieces like this "cancel Tarantino" nonsense. They attract people who love / hate this kind of article.
TL : DR - this OP is every bit as bad as the opinion piece it links to and is misleading. Bad OPs like this lead to bad, reactionary threads. Check to see if the OP is misleading - it's never a bad idea.
pel1300
Member
It was obvious to me that this was an opinion piece. That doesn't change anything.This thread is a bit of a hot-take.
An accurate thread title wouldn't elicit such a response.
"The Guardian" isn't explaining anything, it's an opinion piece by the person whos name is in large font under the title. You'll notice that news articles don't do this, and have a different format.
It's actually listed under the "opinion" section of the film page.
Here's a counter opinion to the above -a letter directly in response - that they also post on the film front page:
Quentin Tarantino’s take on women and violence | Letter
Letter: Andrew Clifford says whatever Quentin Tarantino’s directorial vices, violence against women is not one of them
The actual "Guardian view" of Tarantino's latest is from their film critic (note it does not have the format of the opinion piece either). It gets five stars and it's a glowing review:
Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood review - Tarantino's dazzling LA redemption song
With Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt playing a TV actor and stuntman who cross paths with the Manson cult, Tarantino has created outrageous, disorienting entertainment
As for this part:
The "donation" bit didn't appear for me, and when it does is unrelated to the content of news articles or opinion pieces, as implied by the OP. It's possible it appears for them as they have detected it's the kind of article they like to read.
The Guardian is one of the few papers still undertaking real investigative journalism, unfortunately they still need hits and so have clearly marked opinion pieces like this "cancel Tarantino" nonsense. They attract people who love / hate this kind of article.
TL : DR - this OP is every bit as bad as the opinion piece it links to and is misleading. Bad OPs like this lead to bad, reactionary threads. Check to see if the OP is misleading - it's never a bad idea.
It's just surreal to me that we have people like this working in the mainstream media as journalists, even if it's an opinion piece. Back in the day things like this would be relegated to Rosie O Donnell ranting on her show in the late 90s about Fight Club being violent trash.
H
hariseldon
Unconfirmed Member
The problem with them needing hits and publishing this (and btw an opinion piece still ultimately reflects the views of the publisher when they're mostly of a particular type - you don't get any opinion pieces praising Trump or Boris for instance) is that it tarnishes the brand, which drives away people like me who are naturally left wing but find this kind of shit a bit much. It ends up as an echo chamber of the woke.
Ultimately I think right now if you want a good newspaper the only one left is The Times. It regularly has columns written by members of the left and the right, often in disagreement with each other, and reporting is pretty good, including for instance some coverage of the trans issues such as the centre that's working with kids who have been coached by the trans charity etc, which the likes of BBC news have fully ignored.
Ultimately I think right now if you want a good newspaper the only one left is The Times. It regularly has columns written by members of the left and the right, often in disagreement with each other, and reporting is pretty good, including for instance some coverage of the trans issues such as the centre that's working with kids who have been coached by the trans charity etc, which the likes of BBC news have fully ignored.
Last edited by a moderator:
ROMhack
Member
This thread is a bit of a hot-take.
An accurate thread title wouldn't elicit such a response.
"The Guardian" isn't explaining anything, it's an opinion piece by the person whos name is in large font under the title. You'll notice that news articles don't do this, and have a different format.
It's actually listed under the "opinion" section of the film page.
Here's a counter opinion to the above -a letter directly in response - that they also post on the film front page:
Quentin Tarantino’s take on women and violence | Letter
Letter: Andrew Clifford says whatever Quentin Tarantino’s directorial vices, violence against women is not one of them
The actual "Guardian view" of Tarantino's latest is from their film critic (note it does not have the format of the opinion piece either). It gets five stars and it's a glowing review:
Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood review - Tarantino's dazzling LA redemption song
With Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt playing a TV actor and stuntman who cross paths with the Manson cult, Tarantino has created outrageous, disorienting entertainment
As for this part:
The "donation" bit didn't appear for me, and when it does is unrelated to the content of news articles or opinion pieces, as implied by the OP. It's possible it appears for them as they have detected it's the kind of article they like to read.
The Guardian is one of the few papers still undertaking real investigative journalism, unfortunately they still need hits and so have clearly marked opinion pieces like this "cancel Tarantino" nonsense. They attract people who love / hate this kind of article.
TL : DR - this OP is every bit as bad as the opinion piece it links to and is misleading. Bad OPs like this lead to bad, reactionary threads. Check to see if the OP is misleading - it's never a bad idea.
Good comment and I think it gets to the real heart of the matter: The Guardian has a collection of good writers; it also has a collection of bad writers (subjective, I know).
The latter shouldn't matter but the modus operandi of the paper in the past few years has been to elevate coverage of conjecture, inevitably through social media. I'll admit that I'm guilty of being a bit of a pleb because I tend to see articles like this and it decreases my opinion of the paper, making me believe it's largely all they do. However, deep down, I know it's probably also true that if I go onto the website and look at their stories then it won't be as conjecture-driven as I think it is.
I think a similar thing can be said of games journalism too - most games stories are news and not SJW rants (though they do exist).
Ultimately I think online journalism has a problem because it gets dominated by the weakest stories. It's why I've stopped reading MSM as it takes time and energy to find the good stuff.
Last edited:
Wwg1wga
Member
BTW the page was archived 17 times so...
End of the affair: why it's time to cancel Quentin Tarantino | Roy Chacko
Whatever the merits of his new film, Tarantino’s films have revelled in extreme violence against female characters. This has to stop
web.archive.org
Papa
Banned
This thread is a bit of a hot-take.
An accurate thread title wouldn't elicit such a response.
"The Guardian" isn't explaining anything, it's an opinion piece by the person whos name is in large font under the title. You'll notice that news articles don't do this, and have a different format.
It's actually listed under the "opinion" section of the film page.
Here's a counter opinion to the above -a letter directly in response - that they also post on the film front page:
Quentin Tarantino’s take on women and violence | Letter
Letter: Andrew Clifford says whatever Quentin Tarantino’s directorial vices, violence against women is not one of them
The actual "Guardian view" of Tarantino's latest is from their film critic (note it does not have the format of the opinion piece either). It gets five stars and it's a glowing review:
Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood review - Tarantino's dazzling LA redemption song
With Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt playing a TV actor and stuntman who cross paths with the Manson cult, Tarantino has created outrageous, disorienting entertainment
As for this part:
The "donation" bit didn't appear for me, and when it does is unrelated to the content of news articles or opinion pieces, as implied by the OP. It's possible it appears for them as they have detected it's the kind of article they like to read.
The Guardian is one of the few papers still undertaking real investigative journalism, unfortunately they still need hits and so have clearly marked opinion pieces like this "cancel Tarantino" nonsense. They attract people who love / hate this kind of article.
TL : DR - this OP is every bit as bad as the opinion piece it links to and is misleading. Bad OPs like this lead to bad, reactionary threads. Check to see if the OP is misleading - it's never a bad idea.
If they put their brand on it, they take responsibility for the content. It’s part of being a publisher. The criticism is absolutely warranted. I guarantee if a large media organisation published an opinion article by someone like, say, Richard Spencer (oops), they would rightfully be criticised. This tactic of handwaving hateful leftist content because omg you brainlets it’s just an opinion piece duh allows for some ridiculously honking ideas to backdoor their way to mainstream publication and hence legitimacy.
Papa
Banned
Nah, disagree. It’s naive to think that if the salacious opinion articles are driving clicks and hence revenue that they wouldn’t also be dictating general editorial practices. Outlets like the Guardian and Independent have sold their souls to the devil and have given up their claim to credibility in the process.
pel1300
Member
I find this to be the case for many traditionally left leaning people - they are turned off by the media now and have become politically disengaged and don't care anymore. No one on my FB posts about politics anymore.
Trevor Noah was way too lenient on ANTIFA too.
This is why I stopped watching the Colbert show and Trevor Noah. The Trump jokes were funny for about a year.....but I got tired of it.
Last edited:
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
You're quantifiably full of shit.
Reservoir Dogs: 1 woman is shot and dies quickly, 10 men are shot, 1 takes a very long time to bleed out, another has his ear sliced off
Pulp Fiction: 1 woman is accidentally shot, tons of men are shot, 1 of their heads explodes gruesomely, 1 is sliced and stabbed, 1 man is raped and another implied tortured
Jackie Brown: 1 woman, 2 men are shot
Death Proof: several women die comically gruesome deaths, at the end of the movie several women given a comical revenge beatdown to the antagonist
Kill Bill Volume I: 1 woman kills 88 fucking people with a sword, most of whom are men, bites her would-be rapist's tongue off, has a one-on-one fight with 3 women. Several other women disembowel, decapitate and shoot other men
Kill Bill Volume II: 1 woman kills 2 men, the other kills 1
Inglorious Basterds: men, women, children are indiscriminately killed by Nazis. A team of men hunts down Nazis and scalps them. They are shot, suffocated, stabbed, and brutally beaten with a baseball bat. 1 woman is strangled, another is shot. A woman then burns an entire theater full of Nazis to the ground
Django Unchained: I think maybe 1 woman dies in a movie absolutely littered with men being shot to pieces
The Hateful Eight: 1 woman (a known killer) suffers some beatings at the hands of some men, and is hanged, everyone else in the movie dies at the hands of other men
It's literally the opposite of what you think it is. Have you actually seen any of these movies..? These accusations and criticisms have zero validity. Said it in the other thread, Tarantino has done more for powerful female characters in film than most other big-name directors combined.
Last edited:
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
I guess because there weren't enough women in his movies to be murdered, so he added some more and now the violence against them is uneven and sickening. Literally vomiting everywhere rn
no im not quantifiably full of shit because i didnt make a quantifiable observation. i didnt do a kill count and say most of the deaths in his movies are women. most are almost certainly men because most of his characters are men. its the attention paid to each. i struggle to think of many of his male deaths that didnt suffer relatively quick deaths. like theres a difference between dying in an instant via gunshots, and dying via protracted strangulation.
reservoir dogs is kind of a cheat, because its literally all male characters. its like trying to give tarantino credit for not using the n-word in once upon a time when all of the characters are white.
the bride and daisy literally suffer over the course of entire movies. darryl hannah suffers probably the most gruesome fate in the entire kill bill saga. alabama gets one of most drawn out beatings male or female in any tarantino script. the female deaths in once upon a time are again the most drawn out.
you also neglected to address the matter of him actually being the one to abuse women on set to "get the take just right," which comprised half my post. i didnt even mention putting uma thurman in mortal danger or the weinstein thing or defending polanski's rape of a 13 yo girl.
again, i dont get why anyone has a problem acknowledging this kinky, vulgar foot fetish dude gets off on some woman pain too. like, lots of guys (and girls) get off on pain - thats what s&m is about. getting off on asphyxiation is also a thing. there are worse fetishes out there so at least theres that?
Last edited:
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
Did you even read the post you quoted? The one that describes the various ways in which men and subjected to horrible and prolonged deaths in these movies such as bleeding out, tortured to death, disemboweled, stabbed slowly until they bite so hard their teeth snap, suffocated, beaten at length with a baseball bat, and burnt alive?
The bride is the main character. You can't complain that Reservoir Dogs is a "cheat" because all the characters are men, and in the same post complain that the bride suffers a lot when she's naturally going to be on-screen more than anybody else. That's insane.
Elle Driver has her eye removed after setting a deadly snake on a man and killing him. Alabama is brutally beaten and still gives the middle finger to her attacker. Edit: forgot Daisy. She's a wanted murderer who is given a few whacks to the face, in a movie where two men are poisoned and violently vomit blood until they die, whilst Daisy cackles maniacally because she known who did it and they're doing it for her benefit.
None of these things have anything to do with the content of his movies, which is what I'm talking about. But sure, if you want to completely remove agency from Uma Thurman by saying Tarantino "put her" in mortal danger rather than her being able to decide for herself what she wants to do, go ahead. Just like Tom Cruise was "forced" to do all his own stunts and break his ankle. How many other directors have stories of doing mean things to get good reactions? How many other people knew about Weinstein and did nothing? You're casting a pretty wide net.
He also publicly apologised for his Polanski comment over a year ago, saying that he was ignorant, insensitive and incorrect.
I'm not going to "acknowledge" that Tarantino "gets off on some woman pain" because it's an incredibly thin lie shit out by you. At least you're correct about him having a foot fetish.
Last edited:
Papa
Banned
danielberg
Neophyte
Am i taking crazy pills or Isnt kill bill that the movie with thurman hacking ~100 dudes to pieces, lol i dont care but its a weird movie to name drop in this.
If anything everyone gets it badly in his movies.
If anything everyone gets it badly in his movies.
Papa
Banned
When Jackie Chan and Tom Cruise describe the brutality they subject their bodies to for movie stunts: wow those dudes are so badass, I can’t believe they do that to themselves!
When Uma Thurman describes a dangerous stunt she did for Kill Bill: wow who put her in harm’s way? I can’t believe they did that to her!
When Uma Thurman describes a dangerous stunt she did for Kill Bill: wow who put her in harm’s way? I can’t believe they did that to her!
yeah i did, most male deaths are relatively quick, and the ones that could be protracted via bleeding out are off screen. did you read my post where female violence/deaths are more protracted and intimate?
this presumes that any tarantino main character is naturally going to suffer a lot of mental/physical violence across the entire film by virtue of their role and screen time, when that isnt the case. no one comes close to the bride.
empowering.
but its what im talking about. a person's personal history can inform/illuminate aspects of their art. if someone's like me and was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, then hearing not-so-sly shit like "im the only that can strangle this girl for real" can be a clincher. you dont have to acknowledge all of his kinks, but it becomes more obvious and foolish to deny with every passing film, including literally the one released this year.
you really cant draw a distinction between uma thurman being coerced into something by a collaborator she trusted versus literal stuntmen-actors?
Papa
Banned
Why do you not consider Uma Thurman a stuntman-actor?
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
Aside from there being far more iconic Tarantino male deaths than female, do you think their deaths being (sometimes) more noticeable might have something to do with the female characters themselves being rarer? Are you saying Tarantino should actually give less screen time to women by having them die quickly... simply because they're women?
Do you think Beatrix might suffer more overall due to the fact that she's the star of two full movies? Does Jackie Brown suffering the least of all Tarantino-directed protags hold any weight to you? And that both of those characters, and the Death Proof girls, are some of the only Tarantino-directed protags to come out alive?
It can. It can also have absolutely nothing to do with it and can just mean an artist wants something to feel authentic. Just like you've decided to use one scene from one movie to illustrate your point several times and glaze over Tarantino's works as a whole, you've read some headlines and then not bothered to actually read into the stories themselves. Uma Thurman herself suggested being choked, and Diane Kruger was happy for Tarantino to do it because she trusted him so much. She even offered to do it once more if needed. https://www.indiewire.com/2018/02/q...er-kill-bill-inglourious-basterds-1201925510/
But no, Tarantino has a creepy fetish for causing women pain. These women can't make decisions for themselves and are victims of a Hollywood predator or some shit. It's odd just how sexist you're making yourself look in a desperate bid to defend women and paint the guy as a villain.
Last edited:
Wimbledon
Member
If you want to say he has a fetish then so be it. You have to be a bit nutty to be where he is, and how he depicts violence.
The reason why in this context it may be more alarming to people, is because it's a woman. A women can get punched in public RIGHT NOW by a guy everyone will freeze up, like a deer in the headlights.
A guy, or several guys will step in to protect the women from being hurt. We are programmed to find violence against women appalling, and horrible he breaks that taboo, like so many others in his films. No one is safe and that's the point.
The reason why in this context it may be more alarming to people, is because it's a woman. A women can get punched in public RIGHT NOW by a guy everyone will freeze up, like a deer in the headlights.
A guy, or several guys will step in to protect the women from being hurt. We are programmed to find violence against women appalling, and horrible he breaks that taboo, like so many others in his films. No one is safe and that's the point.
Last edited:
im not saying he should or shouldnt do anything - he can make his films however he wants. im merely pointing out whats there - and i can do that as an observer.
right, and im saying in this case it does have something to do with it. his content plus slip ups are enough for me to conclude this isnt a squeaky clean/wholesome dude - and for some reason thats controversial. and just as you were incorrect to question whether ive seen his films, so too are you incorrect to question whether ive read the details of the on set stories i alluded to. notice i didnt actually mention the choking of uma thurman (because it came at her insistence).
its odd how youre acting like theres isnt precedent for men using positions of power to coerce women into action in the movie industry. its not like theres a whole movement about it or anything - involving one of tarantinos former bros no less.
I'll trust someone who's open and unapologetic about his weirdness 100x more than someone fervently claiming to be "squeaky clean/wholesome" in a degenerate culture like Hollywood.
true he's at least copped to and apologized for things (which makes people still denying/defending werid to me) .
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
So you don't actually have a point to make, you're just "pointing out" what I keep demonstrating over and over again doesn't exist and your entire argument is "well I think it exists" without giving me any hard data.
So what if he's not a "squeaky clean dude"? Exactly how many "squeaky clean dudes" are there in Hollywood? How many of those people do you think have weird shit you don't know about? Why is Tarantino singled out for this because he's unashamed of what he does and doesn't try to hide it? It's not controversial, you're just plain wrong and can't admit it.
What in the flying fuck does Weinstein(or anyone in Hollywood)'s rape allegations have to do with "coercing" a woman he'd worked with for a decade to do one stunt? One poor professional judgement call in an entire career and somehow suddenly it's all about gender with you people. The women are weak and helpless and are being manipulated by big scary men. Gimme a break. Every post you've made in this thread reads like you read that Guardian article and thought "jeez, that's the moral high ground, better agree with what he says without backing anything I say up with anything remotely interesting or factual".
Dirk Benedict
Member
Do all of these social justice warriors shop at the same store for clothing and eyewear?
Cucks dressing like they're ready for the retirement home. Attempting to emulate Grandpa isn't working out.
yes i do have a point to make - see my op for the most concise singular post about it.
exactly, so what? i already pointed out that plenty of people are into woman pain and asphyxiation and worse. the real question is, why continue to deny something thats unashamed and un-hidden?
because theres levels to coercion that dont involve rape? whether its performing a stunt, a nude scene, etc, a lot of women havent been in strong position of power to tell people no if they want a job, particular when working with a forceful personality like tarantino. to deny that is to completely lack any kind of awareness of the industry at large.
Last edited:
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
My entire response is based on what you wrote in your OP.
Because Tarantino doesn't have what you think he has, he has a fucking foot fetish and we've known about that since the 90s. You've decided that he, and I quote, "is a creep that gets off on causing/seeing woman pain". I'm continuing to deny a thing that doesn't exist just because you said it does.
And yet you just had to bring up #MeToo even though it has absolutely nothing to do with Tarantino's treatment of women in films. But because it's about rape, it makes your case look stronger, in your mind. That aside, the idea that Tarantino convincing Uma Thurman to do that stunt has anything to do with the gender of either party is batshit insane, and again, pretty sexist on your part. She did it for Tarantino because she'd worked with him before, trusted him and believed that she could do it. You don't think Uma fucking Thurman of all people would be capable of just saying "no, I don't feel safe doing that, sorry Q"? No, it must be because she's a woman and didn't have a choice in the matter, she felt pressured because he's a male and "because Hollywood".
I'm going to walk away from this now because you're so immeasurably dense that if I have to expend any more energy demonstrating in detail how wrong you are, I might have a brain aneurysm. Or have to take a ban for calling you something worse. Pleasant day.
GamingKaiju
Member
Before I even clicked on the thread I knew it would be a Guardian article. I wouldn't put to much stock into what these "Journalists" have to say, they want to stop Brexit, kill freedom of speech complain about the lack of female representation in gaming without looking at the stats and skill gaps in competitive gaming. They are basically the UKs arm of SJW's.
Only read that tat if you want your rendition of the daily chuckle.
Only read that tat if you want your rendition of the daily chuckle.
Last edited:
Rolling_Start
Banned
I find pieces like this "concel Tarantino" one odd, and unfair, but I understand they're a response to society and the market. In the UK we've had shitty opinion peices about media and art since before I can remember (e.g. Mary Whitehouse's decades long crusade against "indecency" being one, and the scare mongering about games and satirical shows another).
I think the big change is the pressure to push opinions as hooks, with the real time, immediate, viral element now so much stronger. None of which lends itself to reasoned thought or cool heads. I don't like how immediate and total public judgement seems to be.
Hopefully those growing up with it now will become adults with some immunity to internet mob outrages. Or at least some degree of disinterest.
Yeah, I think I'm in the same boat as yourself. Some great reporting, but some poor opinion pieces that would be far better if published within the framework of some kind of discussion or multi viewpoint back and forth.
Totally agree about the way "coverage of conjecture" has been pushed as means of gaining traction on the internet. I'm guilty of being a pleb too - I get turned off by some stuff without digging and miss out as a consequence. What I try and avoid is letting the stuff that needles me turn into some kid of "it's all SJW propaganda there are no journalists cancel the news!!" goon. I do sometimes go "urgh" and close the tab though.
Weak stories do seem to have that hook though. Simple and an instant hit, no work to process and no chance of making a change that would require something of you. Like eating McDonalds every day instead of trying to diet and cook good food.
I agree you take responsibility for what you publish. But in this case that includes the opposing opinion and also the review which basically said not "cancel Tarantino" but "this movie is outstanding it needs to be watched".
In this case, the responsibility for the "cancel tarantino" opinion is also the responsibility for the excesses of the "cancel culture" being highlighted aptly, and the partiality and agenda of the writer being given a spotlight for critical dissection. I don't consider that a bad thing,
Where I take issue with your post is:
- Introducing a hypothetical opinion piece from an actual Nazi
- Saying I use a "tactic" of "handwaving hateful leftist content"
- ... with a justification of claiming that people are "brainlets"
- That pointing out factual inaccuracies in the OP, and that good content is mixed with bad, is creating some kind of "slippery slope" (presumably for hateful leftist nazis).
That's a pretty potent mix you've thrown together for me.
Rolling_Start
Banned
The very first fist word of the thread title is "Guardian".
I commend you on your clairvoyance.
GamingKaiju
Member
Papa
Banned
I find pieces like this "concel Tarantino" one odd, and unfair, but I understand they're a response to society and the market. In the UK we've had shitty opinion peices about media and art since before I can remember (e.g. Mary Whitehouse's decades long crusade against "indecency" being one, and the scare mongering about games and satirical shows another).
I think the big change is the pressure to push opinions as hooks, with the real time, immediate, viral element now so much stronger. None of which lends itself to reasoned thought or cool heads. I don't like how immediate and total public judgement seems to be.
Hopefully those growing up with it now will become adults with some immunity to internet mob outrages. Or at least some degree of disinterest.
Yeah, I think I'm in the same boat as yourself. Some great reporting, but some poor opinion pieces that would be far better if published within the framework of some kind of discussion or multi viewpoint back and forth.
Totally agree about the way "coverage of conjecture" has been pushed as means of gaining traction on the internet. I'm guilty of being a pleb too - I get turned off by some stuff without digging and miss out as a consequence. What I try and avoid is letting the stuff that needles me turn into some kid of "it's all SJW propaganda there are no journalists cancel the news!!" goon. I do sometimes go "urgh" and close the tab though.
Weak stories do seem to have that hook though. Simple and an instant hit, no work to process and no chance of making a change that would require something of you. Like eating McDonalds every day instead of trying to diet and cook good food.
I agree you take responsibility for what you publish. But in this case that includes the opposing opinion and also the review which basically said not "cancel Tarantino" but "this movie is outstanding it needs to be watched".
In this case, the responsibility for the "cancel tarantino" opinion is also the responsibility for the excesses of the "cancel culture" being highlighted aptly, and the partiality and agenda of the writer being given a spotlight for critical dissection. I don't consider that a bad thing,
Where I take issue with your post is:
- Introducing a hypothetical opinion piece from an actual Nazi
- Saying I use a "tactic" of "handwaving hateful leftist content"
- ... with a justification of claiming that people are "brainlets"
- That pointing out factual inaccuracies in the OP, and that good content is mixed with bad, is creating some kind of "slippery slope" (presumably for hateful leftist nazis).
That's a pretty potent mix you've thrown together for me.
Hypothetical? I suppose you missed that CNN actually had Richard Spencer on as a guest last week. That was what I was alluding to.
Public demand is not a valid excuse for the embrace and promotion of such hateful ideas. There are several historical events that demonstrate why. The people embracing left wing hate like the author of this article are the same who would be quickest to denounce milquetoast conservative opinions as right wing hate speech. He's literally demanding another person be cancelled because he doesn't like his movies. Another article calling it an outstanding movie that needs to be watched is not the equal and opposite of calling for him to be unpersoned.
Ancient Dragon
Member
I don't get the angst this movie receives.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Do all of these social justice warriors shop at the same store for clothing and eyewear?
Designer label peasant looking breadline clothing.
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
There's always one, isn't there?
Similar threads
- Locked