Disaster movie political correctness

[paulsby]

i guess you can't blame him. who wants a "fatwa on my head"...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/movies/08gray.html

Not lost on Mr. Emmerich was the potential outrage from showing realistic disasters hitting California, a state plagued by wildfires and earthquakes, or toppling city towers in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Still, he pressed ahead with annihilation as usual: “If I cannot destroy a big high-rise anymore, because terrorists blew up two of the most famous ones, the twin towers, what does this say about our world?”

He razed Rio de Janeiro; Rome; California; Washington, D.C.; Tibet; Las Vegas; Yellowstone National Park; and more but decided against destroying Islamic symbols. “My co-writer, Harald” Kloser, “said, ‘I’m not writing this to get a fatwa on my head,’ ” Mr. Emmerich said. “We have Jesus falling apart in all kinds of forms. The Vatican falls on people’s heads, and we can do that because we’re a free, Western society, but if there would be, like, Mecca destroyed, there would be an outrage. And so you don’t do it. At the end of the thing it’s entertainment.”

[Luminous Animal]

1. And this is political correctness, how?

[paulsby]

2. do i need to draw a schematic diagram?

here's the first sentence of wikipedia's entry on political correctness

"Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term denoting language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social offense in gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, handicap, and age-related contexts"

note... behavior seen as seeking to minimize social offense in... cultural... context

the behavior was to show buddhist symbols collapsing, christian symbols collapsing, but NOT muslim symbols collapsing so as to minimize social offense. same social offense predicted by his employee as rising to the level of a fatwa imposition. textbook political correctness, with a side order of protecting yer ass from fanatics.

hth

[Electric Monk]

3. so PC = fatwa?

nice

[paulsby]

4. no. do you have a difficulty with reading comprehension?

emmerich's writer said that showing the inclusion of muslim figures being destroyed would bring a fatwa.

i quote (for the 2nd time)

“My co-writer, Harald” Kloser, “said, ‘I’m not writing this to get a fatwa on my head,’"

thus, PC =/= fatwa

PC was employed to AVOID fatwa

[Luminous Animal]

7. So if I walk into a biker bar and refrain from yelling

hogs suck, am I being PC or am I engaging in self-preservation?

[paulsby]

8. those aren't mutually exclusive

grok it?

political correctness, as mentioned in wikipedia, and understood by anybody who is sentient, is very often employed to avoid conflict, or at least to try to avoid predicted conflict.

in fact, i'd say most cases of political correctness come wholly or in part out of a desire to avoid conflict.

the sad thing is that there is in effect, a heckler's veto going on with the whole fatwa thang.

[Luminous Animal]

11. Political correctness is defined by the right.

It's derisive usage is a reaction to a changing society where kicking the "cripple" just isn't as funny as it used to be. Or employing broad stereotypes to complex issues is no longer conventional wisdom.

[paulsby]

12. only in your narrow understanding

is it defined by the right.

and regardless of who is calling people out for it, it exists

2012 is a perfect example of it.

one religion's symbols is singled out and protected, and the rest are destroyed.

if you can't accept facts, throw yer blinders back on. gotta avoid those inconvenient truths ya know

[Luminous Animal]

15. One religious symbol was left out because he was afraid

of a few fanatics. Not because society, as a whole, would have been offended.


Abortion doctors continue to ply their trade despite the danger from fanatic christians, but nobody would characterize one as PC if she or he, motivated by self-preservation, quit.

[paulsby]

16. exactly

he was forced to BE politically correct OUT of fear . hth

thus, it is politically correct, in a work of fiction to depict the destruction of some religious symbols, but not others.

it is politically INcorrect to depict destruction of things sacred to muslims.

[Luminous Animal]

5. I believe the motivation was to save his ass from fanatics.

It is pretty obvious, based on the evidence, that he's been unconcerned about being "politically incorrect" in the past.

But thanks anyway for dragging that right wing smear over here.

[paulsby]

6. lol

it's a rightwing smear to recognize that art (let's not get into an argument about whether emmerich's movies are "art") has to employ political correctness in order to avoid fatwa's on directors?

fwiw, we've already had a fatwa on a director (in europe) and he was murdered for his art.

of course his motivation was to save his ass from fatwa. that was WHY emmerich decided to be politically correct.

speaking truth about artists (mostly self-imposed) political correctness, is not a "right wing smear"

nor is the NYT prone to publishing "right wing smears"

hth

[Luminous Animal]

9. Was it politically incorrect for him to blow up the Vatican?

[paulsby]

10. no. because it's

ok to target catholics in art.

see: piss christ, for example.

why?

mostly because they are seen as oppressor-class and don't have sufficient victim status(tm). and also because they whine and moan, but don't kill people for making fun of them.

[Luminous Animal]

13. So, it's okay to revile papists, mackeral-snappers,

or cod-eaters because catholics are seen as the oppressor class. Sweeeeeet!

[paulsby]

14. exactly

plus, they won't let you wear a little rubber thing on your john thomas.