Re: Is Palin's blood libel sacred? was oh please

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Bruce Geerdes wrote:

>> You know, maybe I'm not concerned with what the "majority" were 
>> thinking consciously.  Maybe I'm concerned with how the word works 
>> subliminally for pretty much *everyone*.  But even if it works on that 
>> level of nuance only for a minority, it could still be a very important 
>> minority.
>
> Curious, do you think similarly about the arts? Should everyone be 
> curtailing their speech because of "very important" minorities?

Not everyone, but sure, some art is designed to incite certain kinds of 
responses, and the artists in question should arguably stay away from 
that.  But note, I'm talking self-restraint here, not censorship.

Also, there is lots of art that is *not* designed to incite certain kinds 
of responses.  Some art is more propagandistic in nature than other art; 
and some art that is understood by some to be propaganda is actually *not* 
so easy to categorize as such once you take a closer look at it.

This is why I have resisted bringing up movies like Death of a President 
whenever people discuss the need for "calmer" rhetoric and the dangers of 
indulging in violent political fantasies.  Yes, Death of a President 
depicts the assassination of George W. Bush, and yes, this image *was* 
plastered all over the posters and the interent and so on.  But if you 
take a closer look at the film, it doesn't necessarily endorse this.

Victor Morton, aka the Rightwing Film Geek, had a brilliant review of the 
film on one of his earlier blogs, but alas, it seems to be offline now, 
and there doesn't seem to be an archived copy at his current blog.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot