Are we allowed to Romanticize anything anymore?

[Rblade]

I sure hope so, because most people are completely boring 99% of the time. Especially while doing their job, and the brave usually don't live long

 

[Reikan]

People get offended easily. I doubt their is more backlash today versus any other time, but instant communication makes everyone's voice heard. As far as movies, companies rarely care if attention is negative as that still generates money from people seeing the movie wondering what the fuss is about. Also they are stories. Being offended by a story is stupid.

Of course you can romanticise. That's what movies are FOR.

What this guy said.

I don't know how to put this without sounding like a right-wing nutjub shouting "Liberal hate America!", but yeah, the PC crowd do have a negative of opinion of America. As such, they lash out of any positive, or even non-critical, portrayal of America, American history, or American figures.

Well their is plenty of shit in America to have a negative opinion on.

 

[Dansen]

We must hang out on different Internets. Pretty much everything I saw lauded Captain America because it was a romanticized view of the past. It wasn't dark, it wasn't gritty, it was just fun.

Especially given the era. I mean, this is about a war where a genocidal fuck actually was attempting to wipe out an entire people. they downplayed that, and played up Hydra and their super-science and Red Skull and it was fine.

Yeah, but didn't he actually fight, like, Nazis in the comic?

I think the reason they went with Hydra was because they felt uncomfortable romantizing the Nazis as villains a la Indiana Jones. And as you said, it's a war where the main bad guy was a genocidal fuck, yet the movie goes 'Oh but this guy right here was way worse. Really!' It felt like the Nazi B-team being played up as the real threat.

But you are forgetting something, they had space tanks, SPACE TANKS!

I don't know how to put this without sounding like a right-wing nutjub shouting "Liberal hate America!", but yeah, the PC crowd do have a negative of opinion of America. As such, they lash out of any positive, or even non-critical, portrayal of America, American history, or American figures.

I...what, no just no. Not true and incredibly ignorant.

Well things continue to be romantacised, movies in particular, but I do feel like there is a growing demographic that despises any sort of embelishment. They demmand only the upmost realism and believability from their media and anything that doesn't fall in line is kiddy crap. Frankly its annoying as fuck and only serves to show how immature said demographic is. Romanticism is fine as long as it isn't a circle jerk sesion to your favorite topic, then it gets rather boring.

 

[Reiper]

snip

I think it is more that I disagree with the criticism. I am all for being inclusive, and I would never intentionally offend anyone, though I am simply having trouble understanding how mankind does not meet those criteria. Every dictionary I have checked lists the definition of mankind as something along the lines of "encompassing all of humanity".

I don't think it is universally rejected by academics either. A search of peer reviewed journals in my library turned up more published results with "mankind" as a keyword than "humankind" published since 2000. It seems like it is one of those things where it varies depending on which professor you ask.

In the future I would probably substitute mankind with humanity (because I can at least stomach that word), but sometimes it seems like you cannot win. In your writing, if you were giving an example (ie. one where you had to use a pronoun like he/she), how would you do it? It seems that using "they" in place of he/she is becoming popular, but I thought it was grammatically incorrect.

 

[wizzy555]

snip

I think it is more that I disagree with the criticism.

We all know that you disagree with it, but your use of "PC" to denigrate the criticism means it is impossible for us to get the teacher's rationale- unless you change argument tracks and choose to give it. That's why the accusation of "political correctness" is a tool for silencing free speech- it is nothing more than a strategy for shutting down discussion of criticism. In a rational world, you would take your teacher's rationale for marking you down, allow them to explain their position fully and completely, and then you would rebut using your own rational argument and whoever has the clearest, most straight-forward argument would win. In a world where "PC" is used, you just respond to criticism by shouting, "PC run amok!" and the audience is manipulated into believing the criticism is automatically invalid before they even have a chance to hear it.

Also your tactic of declaring "PC" an invalid conclusion is also a tactic of shutting down anyone who would come to that conclusion as the poster evidently has.

He could be manipulating the situation and not presenting the criticism or the criticism is in-fact invalid and his conclusion is warranted. Of course we as posters on an anonymous forum will never likely find out.

Secondly, the etymology of "PC" has it's origins in enforcing a political/social orthodoxy, which the teacher evidently is - but then I suppose so would be enforcing correct spelling.

 

[wizzy555]

snip

I think it is more that I disagree with the criticism.

We all know that you disagree with it, but your use of "PC" to denigrate the criticism means it is impossible for us to get the teacher's rationale- unless you change argument tracks and choose to give it. That's why the accusation of "political correctness" is a tool for silencing free speech- it is nothing more than a strategy for shutting down discussion of criticism. In a rational world, you would take your teacher's rationale for marking you down, allow them to explain their position fully and completely, and then you would rebut using your own rational argument and whoever has the clearest, most straight-forward argument would win. In a world where "PC" is used, you just respond to criticism by shouting, "PC run amok!" and the audience is manipulated into believing the criticism is automatically invalid before they even have a chance to hear it.

Also your tactic of declaring "PC" an invalid conclusion is also a tactic of shutting down anyone who would come to that conclusion as the poster evidently has.

That's a pretty tough row to hoe given that the two of us have posted reams of dialogue about this, and that I gave them ample opportunity to explain their position. I didn't automatically agree with it, but when I disagreed I also gave them the courtesy of explaining why I disagreed rather than shutting them down with a two-letter argument. Not everything has two equal and opposite sides. Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong here.

Besides, if Reiper's school is like any decent school in the US, there is a procedure in place for him to appeal grades he feels are unfairly marked. So one way or another his opinion will be heard. Declaring the grader to have been "PC run amok" doesn't give the opportunity for their side to be heard.

That is no different to how most people present anecdotes. They present the experience and state a conclusion. You could say any of those conclusions is to prevent the other side from being heard. You're taking umbrage with a standard rhetorical device because you are sensitive about this particular conclusion.

 

[wizzy555]

You're taking umbrage with a standard rhetorical device because you are sensitive about this particular conclusion.

No, I pretty much call out "PC" as a dishonest tactic every time I see it used.

Yes and that's the problem you've instantly discounted the idea it COULD be correct.