The Clever Badger I'm not dead yet!

3Aug/114

That’s Offensive!

(The following post, or parts of it, have been bouncing around in my head for a couple of weeks.  It hasn't come together the way I hoped it would, so I'm putting it out there in the hope of sparking some comment discussion.)

Through some odd coincidence, I've recently had the opportunity to be on both sides of the offended/not offended table.

a couple of weeks back, I rented a copy of a movie that's likely to become a cult favorite - Hobo with a Shotgun.

I'd initially planned to write a review of it, figuring that Rutger Hauer as a shotgun-wielding hobo trying to clean up a corrupt town might be good for some Badgering.

The first, I don't know, 20 minutes were pretty well what I expected.  Then it brought in some elements that seemed maybe a bit over the top, and ultimately went down some paths that I found to be grossly unnecessary and just vile.1

While I ultimately did finish Hobo, it came very close to earning a place on my list of Films That I Couldn't Force Myself To Sit Through.  That list currently has one entry.2

Now, as it happened, fresh off of my encounter with Hobo, there was some mandatory training at work.

We get a lot of mandatory training, including training on avoiding and preventing sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace.  I'd been through this training a few weeks back, but some friends in another department were in a later session.  There are some videos that go along with the training, and they're fairly graphic in content and language.

My session showed one of the three.  The other two were "suggested", which I interpreted as meaning "optional", so I took the "don't watch them" option.

My friends saw a different one in their session, and chose to watch the others at their desks.

Now, the video they saw in their session was, according to them, useful and appropriate.  I have no reason to doubt them on that.

The video that they watched at their desks that I didn't see, they both found inappropriately graphic - to the extent that someone watching similar material at work outside of the context of official training could well have been written up for it.  Again, I have no reason to doubt them on that.

The video that all three of us  saw is the interesting one.  When I watched it, I thought that it was somewhat raw and had some crude language in it, but didn't find it unusually shocking.

They did, and they told me about it quite clearly.3

I'm somewhat ashamed to say that my knee-jerk reaction to their concerns was to think "it didn't really bother me much, so it shouldn't bother them."

I hope that didn't come out in my initial response to them, because if it did, I was a complete assclown.

The fact of the matter is that whether I found the video offensive or not is completely immaterial to whether or not they did.  That point took a few minutes to sink in, but part of the reason that it finally did was because my reaction to Hobo was still fresh in my mind.  I don't get to declare my perspective to be the correct one simply because it happens to be mine.

As it turns out, the question of whether or not someone finds a particular video (for example)4 offensive isn't even the interesting question.  Why someone finds a particular video offensive is more intriguing because discussion of those reasons offers opportunities for people to learn from one another.

It can be a tricky discussion to have, though, because of the all-too-common view that we have some right to not be offended, and if I dare question your offense, I'm guilty of violating that right.  Such discussions can easily collapse into arguments and personal attacks.

But you have no more right to not be offended than you have a right to drive around in a brand new red Corvette.  Neither do I.  Neither does anyone else.  That doesn't mean that I have a right to go out of my way to offend you just for the sport of it, or that crudeness and vulgarity should be the norm.

I think that deliberate offensiveness can serve a purpose - witness the cigarette warnings used in Canada - because offensive things can stick in your head whereas milder approaches might not.  I also think that it's sometimes a good idea to seek out things that you find offensive and try to understand the other perspective.5

Now, the thing that I'm having trouble with is this:  Given that certain things offend me (or you), just how much effort should I put into avoiding those things?  Should I go out of my way to avoid them?  Should I accept that some level of offensiveness is just a part of life and deal with it?  Should I develop a thicker skin?  What's an acceptable daily allowance of offense?

Feedback wanted!

-Jay
----------

1It was suggested to me by a colleague that perhaps it was necessary to make the villains in the film extra-reprehensible in order to make a shotgun-toting vigilante vagrant into a more sympathetic character. That's a good point.

2As distinct from the very long list of Films That I Have No Desire To Sit Through Again.  That list includes some excellent films, such as The Exorcist, and some not-so-excellent films, such as anything directed by Uwe Boll.

3If there's one thing I can usually count on these two for, it's brutal honesty.

4Or word.  Profanity can be a fun topic to discuss.  Odds are that you use a somewhat different vocabulary when you're by yourself vice with a group of people, and a different vocabulary if you're in a social situation vice a business setting.

5Politics and religion tend to be the heavy hitters in this scenario.  Remember that understanding another perspective doesn't obligate you to agree with it.

17Dec/100

I Haven’t Cross-Posted From James McGrath In A While…(Take Two)

(NOTE:  To anyone who noticed that I posted this, then unpublished it - when I re-read it this morning, I realized I had left out a significant portion of what I intended to say.  Sorry 'bout that.)

...so I thought I'd take a cue from this post and re-post (or perhaps re-re-post) this video:

The video is from a blog called Recovering Fundamentalists1.

I liked this particular video mainly because he gives a very nice visual explanation of the circular reasoning that goes into claims of Biblical inerrancy.

There are a number of flaws in the reasoning, not the least of which is that when books of the Bible refer to scripture, they're referring to scripture as it was understood when the text in question was written.  In other words, a reference to scripture in Psalms doesn't include books like 2 Timothy, which was written much, much later.

This is something that seems quite obvious to people outside of the circle, but can be very difficult to recognize and acknowledge to people who are caught up in it.

He makes a couple of other good points in the vein of not letting fear of the answers2 (or of Hell) prevent you from asking the questions that might be bouncing around in your head.

That's important.

It's extremely easy to set aside questions you really need to get on the table simply because you might not like the answers.  Maybe they run counter to what you've been taught.  Maybe they force you to look closely at some doubt or concern that you hoped would just go away.  Or perhaps they make you realize that it's time to set some changes in motion that have been needed for a while.

The take-aways are these:

  1. It's often useful to take a step back and look at things from a different perspective than you're used to.
  2. Don't be afraid to ask tough questions.  The answers may challenge you, but in the long run you'll be the better for it.

Good advice, I think.

Now, I am slightly concerned that he goes down a path towards the end that may be more aggressive than it needs to be for an introduction type video.  My thinking is that people who are starting to question fundamentalist beliefs are likely to be doing so bit by bit, so perhaps terms like "undermine" and "dismantle" aren't the most useful.  I could be wrong.  I agree with him that the question of Biblical inerrancy is central to the matter, but that's a question that can be addressed with history and scholarship without the need for overt hostility.  I think people would be more receptive to that approach, and more inclined to ask deeper and more involved questions.

-Jay
----------

1I haven't browsed around Recovering Fundamentalists enough to get a good feel for what they're all about, so other than saying that it looks like they might have some interesting things to say, I'm not going to get into much about them right now.

2I kind of understand this one...

27Aug/101

Cripes!

No, I haven't fallen off the face of the Earth, nor have I been eaten by a sharktopus.

The previously mentioned job change occurred a couple of weeks ago, and I haven't adapted to the new schedule as quickly as I'd hoped.

Anyhow, I've got a couple of articles queued up that I should be able to finish this weekend, and will hopefully get back into a regular pattern of writing.

-Jay

12Aug/108

Retro

I distinctly remember the afternoon of my 13th birthday.  

I bolted home from the bus stop, because I knew that waiting for me at home was The Most Awesome Video Game Experience Ever!  

The object of my obsession was a new offering for the Atari 2600 console, Haunted House.  

Haunted House could be thought of as Resident Evil -20.  The graphics, though looking a bit dated today, were pretty damn stunning at the time.  Since I no longer have access to a functioning Atari 2600 console, I'm unable to get my own screenshots, but I found one that I think beautifully captures the graphic artistry that was possible in home video games circa 1982.  

10Jul/102

I Want My MTV!

In the 1980(ish) when my family got cable TV, there weren't really that many channels - WTBS from Atlanta, WGN from Chicago, ESPN, a few movie channels, and...not much else that I can remember.

Before long, though, this strange beast called MTV appeared on the cable box.  To be frank, I thought MTV was the stupidest thing I'd ever seen - I mean, really, watching music?

I have a cousin who from the very start became MTV's Biggest Fan In The World!  She would plan her summer afternoons around the upcoming videos as announced by The Rocket at the top of the hour.

For the most part, the MTV landscape of the early 80's, as I recall it, was populated by such artists as Culture Club, Cyndi  Lauper, Duran Duran, and such like, which I really couldn't have cared less about.

However, there were a few videos that I kinda liked.  One of them was the video for Dire Straits' Money for Nothing.

I only recently learned just how many different edits of the song were floating around to work around some fairly controversial (especially for the mid-80s)  lyrics.  The video below is the full, unedited version.  (I'm not out to offend anyone by using this version, but that's how Mark Knopfler wrote the song, and I tend to prefer the artist's original version of things like music and films.  Call me quirky.  The conspicuous exception is that I don't care for George Lucas' endless noodling with the original Star Wars trilogy - I can't decide if he's really pursuing his vision or simply seeing how many times he can go back to the well.)

I liked the computer animation in the video, and I love Mark Knopfler's guitar work.

In later years, music videos became less of a novelty and more of a recognized form of film making, and MTV became much less music oriented and, based on what I saw earlier today (and what inspired me to put this post together) has decayed to yet another channel running trashy reality shows.

We've got enough of those...

-Jay