Internet arguments about pop culture: Serious Business.

From TFA:

Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of New Demographic, a diversity education firm. Her perspectives on race and diversity have been featured on CNN, MSNBC, NPR, USA Today, and The New York Times.

She hosts the podcast Addicted to Race and blogs at Racialicious and Anti-Racist Parent.

So it's a "hip", "edgy" blog devoted to parroting PC platitudes on race. Sounds like the makings of a good sit-com. But maybe I'm over analyzing this.

SphericalTime: What exactly is the law? That irony abounds?

I'm trying to figure out exactly what the expression of the law is. Without a sweet one-liner it isn't likely to get picked up into popular internet parlance.

This law is too long! It is several paragraphs.
You expect us to read the entire thing?

SphericalTime: What exactly is the law? That irony abounds?

I'm trying to figure out exactly what the expression of the law is. Without a sweet one-liner it isn't likely to get picked up into popular internet parlance.

I think you're overanalyzing the law. Can't you just accept it for what it is?

GO WATCH A GODDAMN FUNNY CAT VIDEO.


That's all I got from this. Am I missing something? What was he getting at?

One word: "chooching."

Holy shiat, these people are full of themselves. They put Farkers to shame.

oh for the love of...


If you're going to see any CGI-laden waste of celluloid for the "artistic integrity" you have bigger problems than the people who say "just watch the movie for what it is".

Films like Avatar aren't made to stimulate the mind, they're made to numb it. Big studios don't give a flying fornication about art, they want what's going to fill the seats. Right now what's filling the seats is drek like Avatar.

#1 law of The Tubes:

Don't fall in love.

/If you do, you'll find out she don't love you.
//Why would I live?
///Now why would I lie?

i wish these people could just enjoy Avatar for what it is...

"Moff's Law" sounds dirtier, and therefore more fun, than what the article describes.

MasterThief: To quote Bill Watterson, in the context of Calvin's post-modern snowmen (which he was using to lampoon the art world), "I enjoy art, but the field sure attracts its share of pretentious blowhards." Not thinking about art is one vice. Over-thinking art is another.

Not the one you are talking about but one of my favorites.

MasterThief: To quote Bill Watterson, in the context of Calvin's post-modern snowmen (which he was using to lampoon the art world), "I enjoy art, but the field sure attracts its share of pretentious blowhards." Not thinking about art is one vice. Over-thinking art is another.

That and the fact that the review in question was not actually a review of the movie Avatar. It was political threadshiatting, and racialist political threadshiatting at that, more about mapping the author's own biases onto the film than about explaining why the move was good cinema or not. (Science fiction sure seems to be doing a metric assload of navel-gazing on the subject of race lately. Which I find both ironic and facepalm-worthy, considering we are probably among the last generations of human beings for whom race will be an issue at all.)

Your Calvin and Hobbes link was great.

WTF was that other crap?

Which I find both ironic and facepalm-worthy, considering we are probably among the last generations of human beings for whom race will be an issue at all

I seriously doubt that.

I gotta say that I agree with Moff.

People that are willing to "turn off their brains" to enjoy certain kinds of entertainment annoy me. You should NEVER want to turn off your brain.

FIRST!

/can I submit the "first" corollary?

Eddie Hazel: Which I find both ironic and facepalm-worthy, considering we are probably among the last generations of human beings for whom race will be an issue at all

I seriously doubt that.

i can see it... technological haves and have-nots will be the races of the future.

MasterThief: To quote Bill Watterson, in the context of Calvin's post-modern snowmen (which he was using to lampoon the art world), "I enjoy art, but the field sure attracts its share of pretentious blowhards." Not thinking about art is one vice. Over-thinking art is another.

That and the fact that the review in question was not actually a review of the movie Avatar. It was political threadshiatting, and racialist political threadshiatting at that, more about mapping the author's own biases onto the film than about explaining why the move was good cinema or not. (Science fiction sure seems to be doing a metric assload of navel-gazing on the subject of race lately. Which I find both ironic and facepalm-worthy, considering we are probably among the last generations of human beings for whom race will be an issue at all.)

I like you. For the moment.

I came in here hoping Moffs law was something along the lines of Never Surrender in Your Moment of Triumph.

I refuse to refer to anything as "Moff's Law". Seriously. Pretentiousness should not be rewarded. F*ck Moff, f*ck Latoya Peterson (the author of the article), and f*ck all the people who seconded Latoya's suggestion that they adopt this law.

If one person wants to suggest that you're over-thinking something, and that it really is just a light entertainment meant to be absorbed without a lot of deep thought, who the f*ck are you to rant at them? They're as entitled to their opinion as you are, and when it comes to art their interpretation is just as accurate as yours.

Because it's art, and it's in the eye of the beholder.

If you say art MUST be appreciate a certain way, or interpreted as "deep" instead of just enjoyed for its surface value, then you're a colossal douche-bag who needs to STFU, have a cheeseburger, get laid, and stop listening to Morrissey for a little while, because you're taking things WAY too seriously.

But then, that whole blog looks like a dedication to racial butt-hurt. There's a fine line between "discussing the issues" and "looking for reasons to get pissed off."

realmolo: You should NEVER want to turn off your brain.

people turn off their brains all the time to be in the moment, whether it's eating, farking, playing sports, enjoying a movie or whatever. some people just want to be able to judge for everyone else when turning off the brain is appropriate.

i guarantee you all the people that complain about Avatar have some favorite movie of their own that is a complete load of stupid shiat.

realmolo: People that are willing to "turn off their brains" to enjoy certain kinds of entertainment annoy me. You should NEVER want to turn off your brain.

How else was I supposed to survive sitting through G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra?

spleef420: oh for the love of...


If you're going to see any CGI-laden waste of celluloid for the "artistic integrity" you have bigger problems than the people who say "just watch the movie for what it is".

Films like Avatar aren't made to stimulate the mind, they're made to numb it. Big studios don't give a flying fornication about art, they want what's going to fill the seats. Right now what's filling the seats is drek like Avatar.

Read the rest of the website. Avatar is EXACTLY the kind of movie an "Everything is racist!" author wants to fixate on without being told it is just mindless drek. Hence the linked post.

ZeroCorpse: I refuse to refer to anything as "Moff's Law". Seriously. Pretentiousness should not be rewarded. F*ck Moff, f*ck Latoya Peterson (the author of the article), and f*ck all the people who seconded Latoya's suggestion that they adopt this law.

If one person wants to suggest that you're over-thinking something, and that it really is just a light entertainment meant to be absorbed without a lot of deep thought, who the f*ck are you to rant at them? They're as entitled to their opinion as you are, and when it comes to art their interpretation is just as accurate as yours.

Because it's art, and it's in the eye of the beholder.

If you say art MUST be appreciate a certain way, or interpreted as "deep" instead of just enjoyed for its surface value, then you're a colossal douche-bag who needs to STFU, have a cheeseburger, get laid, and stop listening to Morrissey for a little while, because you're taking things WAY too seriously.

But then, that whole blog looks like a dedication to racial butt-hurt. There's a fine line between "discussing the issues" and "looking for reasons to get pissed off."

The point is that their opinion is not as valid as mine because they are telling me not to have an opinion.

Moff?

ne2d: Internet arguments about pop culture: Serious Business.

Well the dude who blogged that was most likely paid to do it

/and people could have came to fark to see it for free

Orgasmatron138: ZeroCorpse: I refuse to refer to anything as "Moff's Law". Seriously. Pretentiousness should not be rewarded. F*ck Moff, f*ck Latoya Peterson (the author of the article), and f*ck all the people who seconded Latoya's suggestion that they adopt this law.

If one person wants to suggest that you're over-thinking something, and that it really is just a light entertainment meant to be absorbed without a lot of deep thought, who the f*ck are you to rant at them? They're as entitled to their opinion as you are, and when it comes to art their interpretation is just as accurate as yours.

Because it's art, and it's in the eye of the beholder.

If you say art MUST be appreciate a certain way, or interpreted as "deep" instead of just enjoyed for its surface value, then you're a colossal douche-bag who needs to STFU, have a cheeseburger, get laid, and stop listening to Morrissey for a little while, because you're taking things WAY too seriously.

But then, that whole blog looks like a dedication to racial butt-hurt. There's a fine line between "discussing the issues" and "looking for reasons to get pissed off."

The point is that their opinion is not as valid as mine because they are telling me not to have an opinion.

No, they are telling you that your opinion is laced with a lot of your own, personal baggage, and that none of the racism you imagined was actually there, most likely.

You're still entitled to your opinion, but other people are entitled their opinion that your opinion is a load of dingo's kidneys.

/then go watch some guy gettin' hit in the nuts on AFHV

Is it simply about people who think art shouln't be overanalyzed, or is it people who enter the discussion just to say they think the discussion should't be had.

If it's the second, it could also apply, for example, to all those arseholes that enter discussions of a particular sport, only to express their distain for anyone who would expend effort commenting about that sport, or about sports in general.

I'm not sure what the actual "law" is here to make it comparable to "Godwin's Law" or "Poe's Law", but it may be that I'm reading too much into this rant. So, Moff's Law...

... is it that no matter what, someone's going to write, "You're reading too much into this [Beyoncé video/book/sci-fi movie/whatever]?

... is it that no matter what, there are stupid people who like to not use their brains when they look at things around them?

... is it that dumbasses should STFU? Is it thus a "law" law and not a law of nature? Can we start enforcement?

... is it that internet threads can't go a page or two without people freaking out over What Art Is and How To Look At Art? If so, this law actually makes me appreciate the internet more.

... is it that we must defend the practice of applying the same standards to "high" and "low" art, and when someone disagrees, we must type SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP. SHUT THE F*CK UP, and then maybe beat them physically with books about cultural studies? (I would avoid Sontag's Notes on Camp. Not heavy enough. Maybe a big Bourdieu compilation would leave more injuries.)

Whatever, I'm still on team Bruisin' Bourdieus. Although, I will acknowledge that sometimes, cultural products exist more as targeted money-making opportunities than artistic statements, and this itself is worthy of analysis.

Of all the varieties of irritating comment out there, the absolute most annoying has to be "Why can't you just watch the movie for what it is??? Why can't you just enjoy it? Why do you have to analyze it???"

Everyone analyzes the movies they watch, what this quote is really asking is why are you thinking about the movie *more* than the questioner. Its just another form of the common human conceit of "everyone driving slower than me needs to get off the road, everyone driving faster than me is a farking maniac".

In other words, humans are self-absorbed assholes. This is not a newsflash.

angelslogic: GO WATCH A GODDAMN FUNNY CAT VIDEO.


That's all I got from this. Am I missing something? What was he getting at?

See, you're analyzing it too much - just read the article for what it is.

ZeroCorpse: Because it's art, and it's in the eye of the beholder.

As Dustin Shuler said in an interview when his sculpture "Spindle" was being removed to build a Walgreens: "The quote is 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder', and people think Art is in the eye of the beholder. Well, no, it isn't. Art is based on intent of the artist. It doesn't make it good art and it doesn't make it beautiful art, but it's still art. It doesn't mean you have to like it."

Wombatzu: i guarantee you all the people that complain about Avatar have some favorite movie of their own that is a complete load of stupid shiat.

yup.

Mine is "Up The Academy".