- Peaceful Anarchy
- Sep 18, 2005
-
sXe
I am the math man.
|
What bothers me about the discourse is the arguments some people are making. Not here, but on Youtube or Discords or Twitter or wherever else.
'They should've used actors who look like kids without actually being children.'
'It would've been okay if it was a documentary.'
'I wouldn't have a problem with it if the girls were one or two years older.'
Like, those are all really uncomfortable things for people to claim.
The desire to compromise is a pretty common one. "On the one hand people saying the movie is exploitative and gross have a point, but on the other I believe in artistic freedom and it is important to expose these concerns about society, how can I balance these ideas?" The first two things you posted are pretty in line with that, trying to devise ways of showing that this happens without inflicting the harm on new people, whether by using adults capable of consent or by showing what is happening regardless of your filming. It says that their concerns are on the production side, not on the viewer side. Whether these are appropriate compromises for either perspective, or would have the same effect on viewers and the general conversation, is debatable, but they're an understandable position. Doesn't seem any more uncomfortable than the rest of the discussion.
That third one is pretty yikes, though. I hope it's just someone not thinking through what that implies.
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2020 17:07
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2024 10:24
|
|
- Peaceful Anarchy
- Sep 18, 2005
-
sXe
I am the math man.
|
PT6A understands why I find them weird arguments, thanks. Each argument struck me as an attempt to see the same images but in a 'guilt-free' sense. But would still, ultimately, not do anything about the issue they're claiming to rail against - images of 'exploited' children.
Is that the issue they're claiming to rail against? Some people are, but some people in this thread and the other one were railing against the actual exploitation if children, not the imagery itself. For them fake exploitation can be ok as long as no children are harmed in the making, or a documentary is ok because that exploitation is happening anyway so it's just documenting reality.
This isn't meant to negate your finding them weird arguments, because one could reasonably follow through and say that depictions, even if no harm was caused by their creation, can still create harm in their depiction. Or on the other side that enough precautions were taken that the actors weren't really exploited by the film so it's an arbitrary difference. The entire discussion is one that pits various values against each other and, combined with personal experiences, people are going to give different things different weight.
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2020 02:13
|
|