<story><title>Steven Spielberg: ‘No film should be revised’ based on modern sensitivity</title><url>https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/apr/26/steven-spielberg-et-guns-movie-edit</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>shafyy</author><text>I agree. I&amp;#x27;m still annoyed that they started censoring It&amp;#x27;s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. For example, they (Hulu) removed one episode where one of the characters does a black face. But the whole point of the show is to surface these social and political issues in a comedic way. They&amp;#x27;re not endorsing black facing, they&amp;#x27;re saying it&amp;#x27;s wrong. That&amp;#x27;s why it&amp;#x27;s funny.&lt;p&gt;This also reminds of something the comedian Ricky Gervais often says (I&amp;#x27;m paraphrasing): You can joke about everything. The problem is people mistaking the target of the joke with the subject.</text></item><item><author>monero-xmr</author><text>I grew up in a small city and one thing they had was some rich dude who donated a library, and filled the reading room with beautiful statues and paintings which were in the classical style, commissioned completely by himself. This was early 1800s.&lt;p&gt;Then in the later 1800s the townsfolk decided the paintings and statues were scandalous because they had nudes, so they painted over the breasts and genitals, and covered over the statues with togas &amp;#x2F; cloths.&lt;p&gt;Luckily in modern times it was easy to remove the cloths, but unfortunately the paintings are ruined. The cover-job was done poorly and the paintings have an off-color paint on it that looks wrong. There have been talks to fix it but I don’t think anything has been done.&lt;p&gt;My point is that, the desire to censor prior art that disagrees with fad-interpretations of what is taboo and scandalous, will certainly be looked at in a few decades as a very weird and Victorian era. Definitely should not re-cut movies to be “safe” or whatever.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>hn_throwaway_99</author><text>This is what I despise so much about modern sensibilities when it comes to being offended. Somehow we skipped right pass the intended &lt;i&gt;meaning&lt;/i&gt; of a piece of art or language, and went right to &amp;quot;does this contain any imagery or words on our &amp;#x27;disallow&amp;#x27; list&amp;quot;. It&amp;#x27;s like the dumbest spam filter of all time.&lt;p&gt;The complete sociological ban on the utterance of any words &lt;i&gt;that even sound like&lt;/i&gt; &amp;quot;the actual N word&amp;quot; is so bizarre to me. As a kid in the early 80s it was very clear and unambiguous to me that actually &lt;i&gt;calling&lt;/i&gt; someone the N-word was extremely taboo and racist. But it wasn&amp;#x27;t like using the phrase in a sentence such as &amp;quot;Calling someone the &amp;lt;N word&amp;gt; is extremely taboo and racist&amp;quot; was considered offensive. When I first heard about a story where a college professor was suspended for giving a lesson in Chinese where the Chinese word &lt;i&gt;just happened to sound like&lt;/i&gt; the N word [1], I was convinced it was either an Onion article, or an example of the right trying to make a caricature of anything that smelled of &amp;quot;wokeness&amp;quot;. But alas, it was actually real, and just as absurd as I originally thought.&lt;p&gt;1. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&amp;#x2F;ideas&amp;#x2F;archive&amp;#x2F;2020&amp;#x2F;09&amp;#x2F;fight-against-words-sound-like-are-not-slurs&amp;#x2F;616404&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&amp;#x2F;ideas&amp;#x2F;archive&amp;#x2F;2020&amp;#x2F;09&amp;#x2F;fight-agai...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Steven Spielberg: ‘No film should be revised’ based on modern sensitivity</title><url>https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/apr/26/steven-spielberg-et-guns-movie-edit</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>shafyy</author><text>I agree. I&amp;#x27;m still annoyed that they started censoring It&amp;#x27;s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. For example, they (Hulu) removed one episode where one of the characters does a black face. But the whole point of the show is to surface these social and political issues in a comedic way. They&amp;#x27;re not endorsing black facing, they&amp;#x27;re saying it&amp;#x27;s wrong. That&amp;#x27;s why it&amp;#x27;s funny.&lt;p&gt;This also reminds of something the comedian Ricky Gervais often says (I&amp;#x27;m paraphrasing): You can joke about everything. The problem is people mistaking the target of the joke with the subject.</text></item><item><author>monero-xmr</author><text>I grew up in a small city and one thing they had was some rich dude who donated a library, and filled the reading room with beautiful statues and paintings which were in the classical style, commissioned completely by himself. This was early 1800s.&lt;p&gt;Then in the later 1800s the townsfolk decided the paintings and statues were scandalous because they had nudes, so they painted over the breasts and genitals, and covered over the statues with togas &amp;#x2F; cloths.&lt;p&gt;Luckily in modern times it was easy to remove the cloths, but unfortunately the paintings are ruined. The cover-job was done poorly and the paintings have an off-color paint on it that looks wrong. There have been talks to fix it but I don’t think anything has been done.&lt;p&gt;My point is that, the desire to censor prior art that disagrees with fad-interpretations of what is taboo and scandalous, will certainly be looked at in a few decades as a very weird and Victorian era. Definitely should not re-cut movies to be “safe” or whatever.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>toyg</author><text>Same for &amp;quot;elf blackface&amp;quot; in the Community episode about D&amp;amp;D. An excellent episode airbrushed out of history because of &lt;i&gt;ELF&lt;/i&gt; blackface. Unbelievable.</text></comment>