3 ms·

> And matches are perfectly safe, if you don't happen to be surrounded by flammables. My point goes back to personal responsibility. Whose fault is it if you'r

> And matches are perfectly safe, if you don't happen to be surrounded by flammables. My point goes back to personal responsibility. Whose fault is it if you're surrounded by flammables labeled appropriately? The analogy is that this is labeled as a "TV show" not a documentary.

lotyrin 11y ago
You seem to have gotten caught on the analogy and failed to read my argument. It doesn't matter if something is fiction, the reality is that fiction has a great impact on its audience, and that impact comes with proportional responsibility. It does not matter what ideal rational actors should theoretically do when it comes to managing their opinions and knowledge about the world in the face of fiction, we don't have any of those. We don't get to pretend society works a particular way, just so we can justify bad television that uses real places and real names of groups in a farcical way because it's capitalizing on a contemporary societal phenomenon of fear and ignorance of those things.
intopieces 11y ago
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 cultural evolution we've developed. We are criticizing a show for not being what it should be. That's our responsibility as viewers, and we're fulfilling it.
- ashwinaj 11y ago
  > 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 knew they lived near a chemical plant." That's a violation of environmental laws; how is this analogy applicable to a TV show? Would you propose to curtail the right to free speech? It's a TV show, not real life.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Nobody mentioned laws or curtailing their rights. Not everything is reduced to whether an action is legal or not. 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.
  - intopieces 11y ago
    >And watching the TV show is optional. 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.
    - ashwinaj 11y ago
      > 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. I agree, but I don't agree that this is the problem of the show's creators. > 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? So one of the solutions to solving fundamental societal problems is to criticize a TV show?
anigbrowl 11y ago
It might be my fault if I put you in a room full of flammables, turn the lights out, and close the door. People who trot out the 'personal responsibility' mantra tend not to have much experience with situations in which their autonomy is curtailed. This is not to say there is no such thing as personal responsibility, but you plainly have a hard time conceiving of a context where you are not the author of your own situation.

lotyrin 11y ago

You seem to have gotten caught on the analogy and failed to read my argument. It doesn't matter if something is fiction, the reality is that fiction has a great impact on its audience, and that impact comes with proportional responsibility. It does not matter what ideal rational actors should theoretically do when it comes to managing their opinions and knowledge about the world in the face of fiction, we don't have any of those. We don't get to pretend society works a particular way, just so we can justify bad television that uses real places and real names of groups in a farcical way because it's capitalizing on a contemporary societal phenomenon of fear and ignorance of those things.

intopieces 11y ago

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 cultural evolution we've developed. We are criticizing a show for not being what it should be. That's our responsibility as viewers, and we're fulfilling it.

ashwinaj 11y ago
> 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 knew they lived near a chemical plant." That's a violation of environmental laws; how is this analogy applicable to a TV show? Would you propose to curtail the right to free speech? It's a TV show, not real life.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Nobody mentioned laws or curtailing their rights. Not everything is reduced to whether an action is legal or not. 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.
- intopieces 11y ago
  >And watching the TV show is optional. 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.
  - ashwinaj 11y ago
    > 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. I agree, but I don't agree that this is the problem of the show's creators. > 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? So one of the solutions to solving fundamental societal problems is to criticize a TV show?

anigbrowl 11y ago

It might be my fault if I put you in a room full of flammables, turn the lights out, and close the door. People who trot out the 'personal responsibility' mantra tend not to have much experience with situations in which their autonomy is curtailed. This is not to say there is no such thing as personal responsibility, but you plainly have a hard time conceiving of a context where you are not the author of your own situation.