8.3 KiB
"So yeah. Stay away from the History Channel. Unlike most of the other networks, they don't even try to make their stuff believable."
-
Author: u/None *
-
URL:
-
Score: 36
-
Created: 2014-12-04T08:52:07
Post:
Comments:
u/None [+21] (49 seconds later)
And in the next season after the "World War II" arc, that minority group who just got mass-murdered fight a war of independence and gain a state of their own after 2000 years. As if minority groups regularly survive 2000 years in exile.
u/daydev [+13] (22 minutes later)
And those guys, they all follow this archaic patriarchal religion, but they have female conscription in their army when no secular country on the planet does. That's like, could you even make your fanservice look more blatant and out of place?
u/None [+2] (an hour later)
Even the other characters think those women are awful, though.
u/None [+2] (2 hours later)
What is this song about?
u/None [+2] (3 hours later)
A "samelet" is a female drill sergeant. The whole song is, "Death to the samelet! Fuck the samelet/dick to the samelet!"
u/Lugnut1206 [+7] (12 hours later)
It took me twelve paragraphs to get the joke.
Twelve. Out of fifteen.
u/Rouninscholar [+5] (11 hours later)
u/aldonius [+2] (2 hours later)
Reality is ASB.
u/nerdguy1138 [+1] GNU Terry Pratchett (4 days later)
Asb?
u/aldonius [+1] (4 days later)
u/ZankerH [+2] Remove Kebab (2 days later)
Fiction has to be believable. History suffers from no such restrictions.
u/None [+0] (9 hours later)
and then I would lose my chance to look at the pretty actress who plays Amy Pond.
Oh no, she's not important enough to merit even mentioning her name. She's just an ornament, right? Fucking hell.
u/sicutumbo [+4] (12 hours later)
Well, more people would know her as Amy Pond than her real name. I agree it is kinda odd though
u/E-o_o-3 [+3] (16 hours later)
eeeeeh I don't know the name of any actors or actresses in any films, even if I like them, and Scott seems like that kind of person too.
In film, who you are just sort of inherently doesn't matter, since you're pretending to be someone else.
u/None [-4] (17 hours later)
I wouldn't complain if the author said he (I'd bet $50 that the author is a guy) wanted to watch her because he thinks she's a good actor or because he likes the character but didn't know her name. Instead, he's treating her as a thing that he can view in different poses, and he's not doing a good enough job pretending to value her as a person to learn her name.
u/E-o_o-3 [+3] (17 hours later)
If you're in the mood for reading, this is what I want to tell you.
Sorry it's long, I can't think of a shorter way to say that which isn't easily misunderstood. But if you agree with the link, then my reply is "it really does not matter if he views the representation on the screen as a thing in different poses, as long as he doesn't systematically pigeonhole people into a stereotype during interpersonal interactions, and while That type of objectification might be loosely related to This type of pigeonholing, the two are not nearly closely related enough to justify you policing the very notion of watching a TV show in whole or part because you think one or more of the characters are attractive."
In fact, as the very first comment quoting M. Monroe in that article illustrates, knowing her name wouldn't have helped a thing. There's no indication that thinking an actress is attractive and thinking nothing else of note about her will make you treat her as an object after you meet her - that's an important but sufficiently unrelated issue to how you see any works she performed, sufficiently unrelated in that you don't get to judge people by the way they experience the works.
(That is to say - some people thought Monroe was a sex symbol and treated her like an object when they met her. Some people thought Monroe was a sex symbol and treated her like a person when they met her. Some people saw her as something more than a sex symbol, and still treated her like an object in the sense that they just saw her as a famous person commodity type thing. And so on. Related but still Pretty Separate issues.)
u/None [+1] (18 hours later)
I realize that's not going to be taken well unless you realize where I'm coming it from, hence the link
I trust lukeprog on some things, but not on feminism and objectification.
One thing that makes this example of objectification problematic is the fact that Karen Gillan probably didn't set out to show off her body and use acting as a means. She probably set off to be a good actor and got her role as a result of hard work and skill. Reducing her efforts to bodily objectification is a violation of that preference. It's especially vexing because women's worth (as perceived by society) tends to be no more than how easily people can objectify them. And doubly so because there are plenty of women in the porn industry who explicitly decide that they want people to objectify them like this.
u/E-o_o-3 [+1] (19 hours later)
Not a question of "trust", just a question of understanding the argument. This isn't the sort of issue that one is supposed to trust experts on!
Karen Gillan probably didn't set out to show off her body and use acting as a means. She probably set off to be a good actor and got her role as a result of hard work and skill. Reducing her efforts to bodily objectification is a violation of that preference.
I don't disagree with the ideals you're outlining here - that it would be nice if there existed a form of art which incorporated acting without incorporating the artist's physicality - but the practical reality is that it's film. It's about appearance and skill in roughly equal parts - both are necessary, but neither is sufficient. I say this as a person with family in acting - the very first thing they ask from a new actor is a photograph. Every aspiring actor and actress understands that when they set out in the career. It is an inherently physical medium.
No one wants to be treated as an object within interpersonal interactions, but within the context of media I feel like it's a bit taboo to start dictating what viewers are supposed to get from it. It's the artist's job to convey what they wish to convey, not the viewers job to receive the correct message.
u/None [+1] (17 hours later)
[deleted]
u/None [-2] (18 hours later)
The author is emulating problematic behavior for amusement, you say? How does that help anyone? I suppose it helps him justify his behavior to himself. He can sleep better at night. But in terms of the effects on others, it'd be better if he hadn't said that in the first place rather than saying it and then letting people whisper "It was a joke, he actually admires Karen Gillan's acting." (An assertion, I might add, that has absolutely no evidence behind it.)
u/None [+1] (18 hours later)
[deleted]
u/None [-2] (18 hours later)
I'd bet you wouldn't be as offended by a joke about police shooting rich white people, compared to one about shooting poor black people. While that would be a much larger magnitude of offense, the distinction is similar in kind.
u/None [+3] (a day later)
I'd bet you wouldn't be as offended by a joke about police shooting rich white people, compared to one about shooting poor black people.
This is, of course, completely incorrect. Since the shooting of poor black people is normal, we're inured to it. A joke about police shooting rich white people would be supremely offensive, since it would confront the privileged classes with the pain, horror, and despair we put ever so much effort into ignoring.