Letters to the Editor
shuvalkin
Published Letters: 49 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Please reconsider your argument
[Read the article: "Untraceable"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The problem is that even as 'Untraceable' pretends to lecture us on our enjoyment of the suffering of our fellow humans (and animals), it can't resist serving up its own numerous, prolonged images of torture."
Just how is watching a movie in which sadism takes place the same as being a sadist? I'm not saying you're wrong about the movie, but I'm not at all convinced by the argument you've supplied--an argument that provides a (seemingly) high-minded reason for panning this particular movie. (Of course, it also seems obvious to me that the movie isn't particularly "good" in other more mundane ways... the review could easily have left it at that.)
Anyway, the ethical implication of the fact that a horror film may be appealing to its audience is a question that some films have dealt with in subtle and interesting ways. It's a shame that this movie (apparently--I'm trusting parts of your review even while Iriticize others) fails to do so. However, the fact that it isn't subtle does not mean that watching it is tantamount to participating in the sadism that it depicts. It COULD mean that, but if you really want to make that argument, you're going to have to do better than you have here. I would happily consider such an argument, so, by all means, please don't hold back.
-
WTF
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"For them to continue to grow, there's a certain dumbing down that has to happen, because you have to attract new people."
We're truly in deep shit if a television channel devoted to sports has to dumb things down. A TELEVISION channel!! Devoted to SPORTS!!! And it's lowering the bar!?
-
Yes, you're paranoid... here's why
[Read the article: Conservative crackup over McCain continues]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't know if you're the only one who is paranoid. But, whether or not you are paranoid might have very little to do with whether you are correct in your diagnosis of the intentions of the adversaries you have identified.
Still, regardless of whether it's generated by paranoia or by some other cause, your conclusion does seem to rest on a faulty assumption. Your conclusion seems to be that the Coulters and Limbaughs of the world are trying to help McCain get elected by criticizing him in order to manipulate the views of idependents and centrist Democrats concerning McCain's viability as a presidential candidate. However, the required enthymeme here is that the Coulters and Limbaughs of the world believe that their audiences are composed at least in part by attentive and interested listeners from among the ranks of independents and Democrats. But, even if it were true that their audiences are in fact composed in such a way, I think it is stretching the bounds of credulity to believe that Coulter, Limbaugh, and their ilk really imagine themselves to be speaking to such an audience. Indeed, they seem invariably to insist on offending all but their own rank-and-file of ditto-heads (many of whom seem to be pretty paranoid, by the way) whenever possible. I imagine that the reason this happens is because the conscious or unconscious motivation of these loud-mouths is to make manifest the content of and to solidify consent about the opinions of their own audiences. In other words, if they're trying to persuade anyone of anything, then it only makes sense to conclude that it is those already similar to them in outlook, attitude, and character that are the targets.
-
Paranoia reconsiderd
[Read the article: Conservative crackup over McCain continues]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Having given the matter additional thought, perhaps I misidentified the paranoia. I do not believe that Limbaugh and Coulter are intending to persuade independents and Democrats to vote for McCain by criticizing him (and in Coulter's case, going so far as to state a preference for Clinton). However, they may, indeed, have this effect despite their intentions. If that is true, then paranoia concerning the influence and influenza of Coulter, Limbaugh, and company may be an important innoculation against them. But, in any case, paranoia may not be the best variety of innoculation.