Animals & Nature1 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
Andy-hughes
// Are you going to get off this defence line now, it is getting beyond silly. //
I happen to have a different opinion than you. I am not going to change it because you think it is silly or because The Sun tells me I must be outraged. I'm not outraged. Some things do outrage me, but a choice of fancy dress outfit does not.
// Are you going to get off this defence line now, it is getting beyond silly. //
I happen to have a different opinion than you. I am not going to change it because you think it is silly or because The Sun tells me I must be outraged. I'm not outraged. Some things do outrage me, but a choice of fancy dress outfit does not.
andy, let me try to spell out how I imagined the evening when I first read the report...
Student Union holds a Halloween party. Prize for best horror costume.
Two smart women realise that taking the first Dracula costumes off the rail at the costume rental shop isn't going to win any prizes.
They go instead for modern horror with their WTC costumes, evidently going to some pains to make them; and they win the prize. (In all likelihood they had a drink, and they may even have had fun.)
Nobody seems to mind at the time but Murdoch's minions subsequently find out and try to cash in ("Subscribe to see the sick costumes in full!"). The women explain their thinking. People assume they're lying.
Now that seems to fit all the available facts; it's the sort of parties student unions hold, and it's the sort of costume that inventive people come up with. It's not at all inappropriate within its context (ie it's at a party, not being paraded down the high street). And it assumes they were telling the truth, which, like Gromit, I do assume.
The one thing it doesn't fit is the assumption many have made that they are immature, heartless, liars, or sociopaths. That's tabloid characterisation. (As I said, when I was a student our pursuits used to get the same treatment from the newspapers, and we just ignored it.) They sound like bright students to me.
Student Union holds a Halloween party. Prize for best horror costume.
Two smart women realise that taking the first Dracula costumes off the rail at the costume rental shop isn't going to win any prizes.
They go instead for modern horror with their WTC costumes, evidently going to some pains to make them; and they win the prize. (In all likelihood they had a drink, and they may even have had fun.)
Nobody seems to mind at the time but Murdoch's minions subsequently find out and try to cash in ("Subscribe to see the sick costumes in full!"). The women explain their thinking. People assume they're lying.
Now that seems to fit all the available facts; it's the sort of parties student unions hold, and it's the sort of costume that inventive people come up with. It's not at all inappropriate within its context (ie it's at a party, not being paraded down the high street). And it assumes they were telling the truth, which, like Gromit, I do assume.
The one thing it doesn't fit is the assumption many have made that they are immature, heartless, liars, or sociopaths. That's tabloid characterisation. (As I said, when I was a student our pursuits used to get the same treatment from the newspapers, and we just ignored it.) They sound like bright students to me.
jno - "They go instead for modern horror with their WTC costumes ..."
The point that you appear to miss, and that they appeared to miss, is that dressing as a fictional horror character from literature, such as Dracula, or Frankenstein's Creature, or some nameless ghoul, is an entire world away from representting a catastrophoic tragedy well within living memory which caused ongoing events that have affected millions of lives, in an environment designed to be a fun party event.
This ongoing justification is not going to hack it with the majority of posters on this thread, although as with Grommit, your willingness to fight your corner is commendable.
The point that you appear to miss, and that they appeared to miss, is that dressing as a fictional horror character from literature, such as Dracula, or Frankenstein's Creature, or some nameless ghoul, is an entire world away from representting a catastrophoic tragedy well within living memory which caused ongoing events that have affected millions of lives, in an environment designed to be a fun party event.
This ongoing justification is not going to hack it with the majority of posters on this thread, although as with Grommit, your willingness to fight your corner is commendable.
thanks for the factual point in your last post, andy; I wasn't aware of it (as I mentioned, I have no access to the Sun website). Those will doubtless be the people who, as naomi surmised, called up the editor to tell him of their outrage.
It doesn't materially affect my argument, nonetheless. You point out that summoning up the memory of real-life horror is different from imagined ones. The thing is - I know. And so did the young women. They said as much. You have chosen to disbelieve them; I have not. Though I don't believe they were laughing, joking, mocking or deliberately offending, it would scarcely be unheard of if they had (just google "9/11 jokes"). I remain unoffended.
In conclusion... I'm not bothered if I don't agree with most of the people on this thread (indeed the disesteem of some of them greatly cheers me); but I'm happy to restate my respect for you and sp1814, in particular. Long may we argue.
It doesn't materially affect my argument, nonetheless. You point out that summoning up the memory of real-life horror is different from imagined ones. The thing is - I know. And so did the young women. They said as much. You have chosen to disbelieve them; I have not. Though I don't believe they were laughing, joking, mocking or deliberately offending, it would scarcely be unheard of if they had (just google "9/11 jokes"). I remain unoffended.
In conclusion... I'm not bothered if I don't agree with most of the people on this thread (indeed the disesteem of some of them greatly cheers me); but I'm happy to restate my respect for you and sp1814, in particular. Long may we argue.
i do kind of think it depends on the actual joke really -
if its a clever bit of word play or a good pun or twist or something with a bit of wit, and not just shock value or vulgar - then maybe it would be ok ... but merely mocking and just sort of saying 'haha look at us!' then its not really funny or a joke.
there are massive differences in what some consider humour
there is a definite issue with the fact that it is in our living memory
it seems anything that directly affects people who are still alive is off limits.
no-one would bat an eyelid if people dressed up as people from the middle ages etc who were responsible for a lot of terrible deaths - kings, queens etc.
if its a clever bit of word play or a good pun or twist or something with a bit of wit, and not just shock value or vulgar - then maybe it would be ok ... but merely mocking and just sort of saying 'haha look at us!' then its not really funny or a joke.
there are massive differences in what some consider humour
there is a definite issue with the fact that it is in our living memory
it seems anything that directly affects people who are still alive is off limits.
no-one would bat an eyelid if people dressed up as people from the middle ages etc who were responsible for a lot of terrible deaths - kings, queens etc.
6 pages in and no-one's mention Frankie Boyle yet?
He's not averse to coming out with what you might describe as 'transgressive' humour, sometimes followed up by a secondary laugh just by saying "What? Too soon?"
In fact, unless the primary joke is particularly sickening, referencing events involving actual deaths, the "Too soon?" part loses its depth of meaning.
Not that this is what the girls in this story were trying to emulate but it's a style that their peers would be familiar with and thus available to borrow from.
@zeuhl
//There are funny jokes about The Holocaust
Some of them will have been told by camp and ghetto inmates while it was happening //
I sincerely doubt that. Have you seen the 1970s documentary series "The World at War"? In all the still photos and contemporary cine footage, they haven't got the energy to fake a smile for the cameras, much less have a laugh amongst themselves.
He's not averse to coming out with what you might describe as 'transgressive' humour, sometimes followed up by a secondary laugh just by saying "What? Too soon?"
In fact, unless the primary joke is particularly sickening, referencing events involving actual deaths, the "Too soon?" part loses its depth of meaning.
Not that this is what the girls in this story were trying to emulate but it's a style that their peers would be familiar with and thus available to borrow from.
@zeuhl
//There are funny jokes about The Holocaust
Some of them will have been told by camp and ghetto inmates while it was happening //
I sincerely doubt that. Have you seen the 1970s documentary series "The World at War"? In all the still photos and contemporary cine footage, they haven't got the energy to fake a smile for the cameras, much less have a laugh amongst themselves.
Hypognosis - 'Not that this is what the girls in this story were trying to emulate but it's a style that their peers would be familiar with and thus available to borrow from.'
In common with a couple of other voices on this thread, I believe you are offering to invvest this behaviour with a level of subtlety and intellect that it clerly does not merit.
The protagonists have attempted to explain their abhorrant behaviour by dressing it up as some sort of social statement, the subtlety of which was clearly lost on the party guests, who booed their receipt of the prize, and the majority of people who have heard about it since.
As I have opined previously, I fully understand and accept that people of this age are finding their way in the world, and may lack the understanding of the wider impact of somewhat thoughtless behaviour.
But to try and pass this unpleasant incident off as some level of unspoken acknowledgement of their understanding of something that happened when they were both in junior school is simply ludicrous, even more badly thought out than their original stunt, and shows an unwilingness to behave like adults and acknowledge poor judgement and move on.
In common with a couple of other voices on this thread, I believe you are offering to invvest this behaviour with a level of subtlety and intellect that it clerly does not merit.
The protagonists have attempted to explain their abhorrant behaviour by dressing it up as some sort of social statement, the subtlety of which was clearly lost on the party guests, who booed their receipt of the prize, and the majority of people who have heard about it since.
As I have opined previously, I fully understand and accept that people of this age are finding their way in the world, and may lack the understanding of the wider impact of somewhat thoughtless behaviour.
But to try and pass this unpleasant incident off as some level of unspoken acknowledgement of their understanding of something that happened when they were both in junior school is simply ludicrous, even more badly thought out than their original stunt, and shows an unwilingness to behave like adults and acknowledge poor judgement and move on.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Developing Fast': Britain Facing...
News4 mins ago
Jobs & Education6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
