ChatterBank1 min ago
9/11 - Time To Make Light Of It?
Answers
First off - it is too soon to try and 'make light' of a tragedy like this,but it begs the question, why would you want to 'make light' of it in the first place? ""The idea was to depict a modern-day horror that happened in our lifetime and was not intended as a joke." //" If it's not intended as a joke, why put on these constumes for a fancy dress party? By definition -...
11:22 Wed 06th Nov 2013
All the hand waving from the media seems a bit excessive, but I do think it is in poor taste. As for how long it takes before you can make jokes about something- not sure there is a time limit really. People still do not make jokes, even now, about Pearl Harbour, or about concentration camps set up in WW2, do they? Even now, someone dressing up in a Nazi outfit for fancy dress raises eyebrows.
And if you consider that the Twin Towers was the most high profile of the current terrorist campaign, then that campaign is not yet over, so difficult to make jokes about something that is still ongoing...
And if you consider that the Twin Towers was the most high profile of the current terrorist campaign, then that campaign is not yet over, so difficult to make jokes about something that is still ongoing...
I didn't say it was serious, andy, I said it can be many things but there's no evidence at all that it was a joke. My own understanding is that students do take quite a bit of care over their dress when going to a club. The easy way is just to hire a costume, which jno jnr has done many a time; these students didn't do that, they clearly thought it was something worth putting time and effort into. In my view, they were making a statement, whether it's one I agree with or not
But to repeat: my main point is that if tastes are shifting, there's nothing we can do about it. Huffing and puffing by tabloids is just so much hot air - as it was when tabloids were outraged by the sort of stuff I got up to at university.
Incidentally, the NY Daily News, cited in the article, is edited by a former Sun man. He also worked at other UK tabloids and resigned from one after publishing an article that prejudiced the trial of Lee Bowyer. I don't see any reason to sign up to the moral outrage proclaimed by such people and I hope today's students don't either.
But to repeat: my main point is that if tastes are shifting, there's nothing we can do about it. Huffing and puffing by tabloids is just so much hot air - as it was when tabloids were outraged by the sort of stuff I got up to at university.
Incidentally, the NY Daily News, cited in the article, is edited by a former Sun man. He also worked at other UK tabloids and resigned from one after publishing an article that prejudiced the trial of Lee Bowyer. I don't see any reason to sign up to the moral outrage proclaimed by such people and I hope today's students don't either.
Thanks Gromit, I guess your point about privately educated is meant to mean something?
With those subjects you would perhaps expect a little more thought, but like I say, at 19 you think you are invincible and right on everything. (I have had 4 kids all in their 20's now so I do have a bit of a clue!)
With those subjects you would perhaps expect a little more thought, but like I say, at 19 you think you are invincible and right on everything. (I have had 4 kids all in their 20's now so I do have a bit of a clue!)
Ymb
// Thanks Gromit, I guess your point about privately educated is meant to mean something? //
You were enquiring about their education, and I passed on what I had read in the Daily Telegraph, who thought it relevent to mention it.
//Mr Langford's privately-educated daughter, a biology student at the University of Chester, wore the matching costume with friend Ms Collinge, a criminology student. //
http://
// Thanks Gromit, I guess your point about privately educated is meant to mean something? //
You were enquiring about their education, and I passed on what I had read in the Daily Telegraph, who thought it relevent to mention it.
//Mr Langford's privately-educated daughter, a biology student at the University of Chester, wore the matching costume with friend Ms Collinge, a criminology student. //
http://
jno - "In my view, they were making a statement, whether it's one I agree with or not"
I admire your teancity, and your willingness to back a view that only emerged from the protagnosts when the balloon went up.
Again, the idea that these two girls thought about making a 'statement' at a nightclub fancy dress party is frankly too laughable to be given thread room.
What about the 'Jimmy Savile' lookalike they beat into second place - a 'statement' about the rights of underage women not to be assaulted perhaps?
I admire your teancity, and your willingness to back a view that only emerged from the protagnosts when the balloon went up.
Again, the idea that these two girls thought about making a 'statement' at a nightclub fancy dress party is frankly too laughable to be given thread room.
What about the 'Jimmy Savile' lookalike they beat into second place - a 'statement' about the rights of underage women not to be assaulted perhaps?
IhateWillsnKate - because we live in a civilsed society, and that means taking into account the thoughts, views and feelings of those around us.
If you start with the notion that everyone can say what they want, then pretty soon, everyone will do as they want.
For instance, if I like electrocuting puppies, why should i not be allowed to electrocute puppies, who is to say I can't? Why must everything be tasteful?
In fact, i am nbored with puppies, i think I'll move onto small children.
Why not? i can do as I want can't I?
Well, actually no.
And to prevent that extreme scenario, we as a society start with the small details, which include not upsetting people simply for the fun of it - even when, as in this case, the motive is a cash prize combined with naiivity, rather than any malice, or indeed intention to dignify this crass behaviour by trying to disguise it as a 'statement'.
We try to be nice in the hope and belief that others will be nice too, and that nasty people will remain in the minority.
If you start with the notion that everyone can say what they want, then pretty soon, everyone will do as they want.
For instance, if I like electrocuting puppies, why should i not be allowed to electrocute puppies, who is to say I can't? Why must everything be tasteful?
In fact, i am nbored with puppies, i think I'll move onto small children.
Why not? i can do as I want can't I?
Well, actually no.
And to prevent that extreme scenario, we as a society start with the small details, which include not upsetting people simply for the fun of it - even when, as in this case, the motive is a cash prize combined with naiivity, rather than any malice, or indeed intention to dignify this crass behaviour by trying to disguise it as a 'statement'.
We try to be nice in the hope and belief that others will be nice too, and that nasty people will remain in the minority.
Gromit - "Without knowing the girls it is impossible to know their motive. They say it wasn't meant to be amusing. You do not believe them. I do."
I am amazed that people on here are seriously backing the attempted back-pedaling of these two students that they were 'making a statement'.
I would give that some credence if they informed the media that they were sending their prize money to the 911 museum in New York, now that would be a 'statement'.
I am amazed that people on here are seriously backing the attempted back-pedaling of these two students that they were 'making a statement'.
I would give that some credence if they informed the media that they were sending their prize money to the 911 museum in New York, now that would be a 'statement'.
I know nothing about the second-placed runner, andy, so can't comment.
But in short, my feelings are:
They didn't dress inappropriately. They dressed for a party and won a prize. They mocked nobody, they offended nobody. The papers are acting as though they crashed a memorial service.
The tabloids are outraged. That's what tabloids are for. Anyone who gets up their nose has my vote.
Students took a different view from the moral majority. That's what students are for. Good for them. I did the same at their age. (Still do, obviously...)
And above all: 9/11 is becoming history. People's views change. I might think it's too soon to make jokes about it (which these two were not doing); but I cannot compel others to agree. The opinions of someone who was 6 at the time cannot be the same as those of someone who was 60, but they are every bit as valid.
But in short, my feelings are:
They didn't dress inappropriately. They dressed for a party and won a prize. They mocked nobody, they offended nobody. The papers are acting as though they crashed a memorial service.
The tabloids are outraged. That's what tabloids are for. Anyone who gets up their nose has my vote.
Students took a different view from the moral majority. That's what students are for. Good for them. I did the same at their age. (Still do, obviously...)
And above all: 9/11 is becoming history. People's views change. I might think it's too soon to make jokes about it (which these two were not doing); but I cannot compel others to agree. The opinions of someone who was 6 at the time cannot be the same as those of someone who was 60, but they are every bit as valid.
andy-hughes
so you think that these girls' actions are a slippery slope to electrocuting small children for pleasure. sorry but I'm not convinced.
" because we live in a civilsed society"
says who? as ludwig says, these girls have broken no laws, and they haven't harmed anyone else. personally I'm more proud to live in a country where people can say what they like rather than your sanitised prim "civilisation".
so you think that these girls' actions are a slippery slope to electrocuting small children for pleasure. sorry but I'm not convinced.
" because we live in a civilsed society"
says who? as ludwig says, these girls have broken no laws, and they haven't harmed anyone else. personally I'm more proud to live in a country where people can say what they like rather than your sanitised prim "civilisation".
Turns out it wasn't even original...
here are a couple of young Israeli children, Trick or Treating...
http://
And some others.
http://
http://
http://
here are a couple of young Israeli children, Trick or Treating...
http://
And some others.
http://
http://
http://
Gromit
I know where you're coming from with regards to 'The Producers', but I genuinely think that the humour is derived from our shock, rather than the think that's shocking us.
Also, I think that a lot of the offence is deflected by the fact that the only true Nazi in the film is shown up to be a complete jerk.
Another deflection (for me) is Mel Brookes' Judaism. I kind of think, "Well, what right do I have to be offended!
I know where you're coming from with regards to 'The Producers', but I genuinely think that the humour is derived from our shock, rather than the think that's shocking us.
Also, I think that a lot of the offence is deflected by the fact that the only true Nazi in the film is shown up to be a complete jerk.
Another deflection (for me) is Mel Brookes' Judaism. I kind of think, "Well, what right do I have to be offended!
IHateWillsNKate - I have advised many previous times that when a post begins with the words 'So you think ...' it is usually preceeding a statement that does not refer to the post to which it responds.
And so it is here.
"so you think that these girls' actions are a slippery slope to electrocuting small children for pleasure. sorry but I'm not convinced."
Nor should you be, that is a facile argument, which is why I did not say it.
My point was that if you allow everyone to say as they wish, before long everyone wishes to DO as they wish, and that led to my extreme example,which was purely for illustative purposes.
"personally I'm more proud to live in a country where people can say what they like"
Which country is that then?
Because it is not this one.
As has been shown by this debate, and the media coverage that started it off, no-one can say anything controversial without a response being generated, and don't get me wrong, I support that concept utterly, it's called free speech.
But that dopesn't mean that anyone can say anything anywhere, and that is the mark of a civilised society. As the oft-quoted reference has it - 'Free speech does not entitle you to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.
Thus, in our free society, people enjoy the luxery of taking offence if they so wish.
To return to my original point - the notion that these girls dressed this way for a nightclub fancy dress party in order to 'make a point' simply doesn't hold water.
I have no problem with students doing thougtless immature things, it's part of learning to grow up. But if you are caught out in taking a step too far, at least have the common sense to admit that your action was simply misjudged, and the wider population will accept that, and move on.
Trying to pass of this nonsense as a 'statement' simply insults the intelligence of those who hear it, and that is what i would take issue with - not the action, but the facile attempted justification.
And so it is here.
"so you think that these girls' actions are a slippery slope to electrocuting small children for pleasure. sorry but I'm not convinced."
Nor should you be, that is a facile argument, which is why I did not say it.
My point was that if you allow everyone to say as they wish, before long everyone wishes to DO as they wish, and that led to my extreme example,which was purely for illustative purposes.
"personally I'm more proud to live in a country where people can say what they like"
Which country is that then?
Because it is not this one.
As has been shown by this debate, and the media coverage that started it off, no-one can say anything controversial without a response being generated, and don't get me wrong, I support that concept utterly, it's called free speech.
But that dopesn't mean that anyone can say anything anywhere, and that is the mark of a civilised society. As the oft-quoted reference has it - 'Free speech does not entitle you to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.
Thus, in our free society, people enjoy the luxery of taking offence if they so wish.
To return to my original point - the notion that these girls dressed this way for a nightclub fancy dress party in order to 'make a point' simply doesn't hold water.
I have no problem with students doing thougtless immature things, it's part of learning to grow up. But if you are caught out in taking a step too far, at least have the common sense to admit that your action was simply misjudged, and the wider population will accept that, and move on.
Trying to pass of this nonsense as a 'statement' simply insults the intelligence of those who hear it, and that is what i would take issue with - not the action, but the facile attempted justification.
