Another can of worms?

Red_Cedars · Post by **Red_Cedars** » Thu Aug 29, 2002 7:28 pm

At the risk of sending the whole forum off on another unpleasant tangent, I'm going back to the Aug. 19th strip. ( ... ducking for cover behind a big rock... )

Cudos, BJ, on the handling of the second panel. LOVED the simplified artwork! :) And the "Bonk-Ow", too. Reminded me a bit of Boxjam.

( ... peeks over top of big rock to gage reaction ... )

R_C

BJ · Post by BJ » Fri Aug 30, 2002 2:31 am

Thanks! Yeah, the BoxJam similarities were not lost to me...

That panel served two purposes: first, as a comment about the sanitisation of violence (I know, "what??") since the attack. Removing the Trade Center from the Spider-Man trailer, for example, pulling "Collateral Damage" from release until it could be re-edited (instead of pulling it forever, which might've been a better idea), telling Joey that Tonja Steele is a little too violent "in times like this" (no lie!).

It's become an excuse for censorship. And the now-tired phrase, "in times like this" is for people who would rather give up, sit on the ground and say, "Man....I still can't believe you stepped on my foot last year" instead of Getting On With It.

Second, even though I had a nice layout for that panel with the mallet smash, complete with the mallet splitting on impact (you can see it in the last panel), it was very very late and I was very very tired. And some guy a while back who wrote stuff once said "Simplify, simplify", so I did.

Black Mantha · Post by **Black Mantha** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 4:51 am

I don't think your big rock is required. Any reasonbly thick skin will be enough.

As for the subject of censorship: I know there is a lot more in America than here, often resulting in making good works defunkt. I remember BC made a strip about that. Removing the WTC from the trailer it not such a good example here, though. I seems kind of pointless, but there might be people that sensitive. And it's not that much a bother. Criticising Tonya Steele, however, is way over the top. Who suggested that?
Here's a question: For who exactly is the censorship? Is it because of some political lobby, or because componies need it to appeal to a large enough population?

Finally, about the art: You originally wanted a normal one? Well, it works way better this way. And pure action shot would look strange in such a text-intensive (in more way than one) strip. And than you have the bonus jab.
I noticed the crack. A fun detail to spot.

This fractured post brought to you by: Black Mantha

T'Renn · Post by **T'Renn** » Mon Sep 02, 2002 4:45 pm

I didn't have much problem with pulling the Spider-Man trailer. It's not like it was in the movie; and if it ever was more than a Cool Thing for the Trailer, the movie didn't end up needing it. And at the time (September 12) folks were still just a bit sensitive, and understandably so.

Of course, the other reason I'm relatively cool with it could have something to do with the fact that I had long since dug the Quicktime file out of my browser cache (back with QT4, when you could do that) and saved it to my hard drive.

T'Renn "Up yours, Columbia!" Vraomrell

DukeNuke · Post by **DukeNuke** » Tue Sep 03, 2002 6:39 am

Black Mantha wrote: Here's a question: For who exactly is the censorship? Is it because of some political lobby, or because componies need it to appeal to a large enough population?

It's for the people who still think any kind of animation is geared toward kids, thought Pok

Appendix Q · Post by **Appendix Q** » Tue Sep 03, 2002 2:31 pm

Yeah! Pokemon isn't gambling, it's cockfighting!

BanditAngel · Post by **BanditAngel** » Tue Sep 03, 2002 11:57 pm

*Derailing thread*
Duke, why do you think the people who wanted "Under God" removed from the pledge would be for censorship, or linked to the other two groups you mentioned? I ask since I'm one of the people who is quite happy to see "Under God" removed.

BanditAngel, hoping he doesn't get flamed for this

DukeNuke · Post by **DukeNuke** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:47 am

BanditAngel wrote:*Derailing thread*
Duke, why do you think the people who wanted "Under God" removed from the pledge would be for censorship, or linked to the other two groups you mentioned? I ask since I'm one of the people who is quite happy to see "Under God" removed.

Because I don't see the need for removing Under God, and it is a form of censorship, just like they replace "Oh, God!" with "Oh my gosh!" I mean, it's not like people are praying in school. Hell, most of America doesn't even say it! Plus, the teachers don't really care whether or not you say it. I'm just saying that it's a pointless petition to get it out. I mean, there were a bunch of Jews in my high school a few years ago, and not one of them ever complained about the pledge containing God in it, except if they were really bored or something.

Elizabeth Sherry · Post by **Elizabeth Sherry** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:54 pm

Don't Jews and Christians essentially have the same god?

Wow. I just realized that the Canadian anthem contains the word 'God' in it. (note: the fact that it contains it is not amazing, but the fact that I didn't think of it until now is.)

DukeNuke · Post by **DukeNuke** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 2:36 pm

Elizabeth Sherry wrote:Don't Jews and Christians essentially have the same god?

If you wanna get really technical, all religons pray to the same God, he/she/it just has different names and interpretations.

Ahayweh · Post by **Ahayweh** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 3:10 pm

I'm personally all for removing the words "Under God". So far as I've seen, everyone* who doesn't think they should be taken out simply thinks it's too much of a fuss over such an inconsequential thing. Well, ya know what? They're right. The words should never have been added, and they should be taken out now, quietly and without fuss, with their addition in the first place being recognized as Silly with a capital S. But that won't work. There are too many people ready to make it into an issue. I'm thinking that their removal would (will? Where does the whole issue stand right now?) be a step in the right direction for general niceness all around. Of course nobody minds saying it, of course hardly any classes say it anyway- but it still shouldn't be in there. It shouldn't be an issue, either.

I'm rambling, aren't I? I've never really tried to sort out my thoughts on this coherently. Much apologies.

*'everyone' not counting the Christians who worry that if their kids don't have an opportunity to not say 'Under God' in the mornings, said kids will suddenly start wearing black trenchcoats and shooting their classmates.

Red_Cedars · Post by **Red_Cedars** » Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:14 pm

(R_C gets out his scout knife and flips open the can opener blade)

ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket-ricket

(Lifts back lid of can, looks inside ... )

Yep, worms.

Blech.

R_C

DukeNuke · Post by **DukeNuke** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 4:42 am

Ahayweh wrote:I'm personally all for removing the words "Under God". So far as I've seen, everyone* who doesn't think they should be taken out simply thinks it's too much of a fuss over such an inconsequential thing. Well, ya know what? They're right. The words should never have been added, and they should be taken out now, quietly and without fuss, with their addition in the first place being recognized as Silly with a capital S. But that won't work. There are too many people ready to make it into an issue. I'm thinking that their removal would (will? Where does the whole issue stand right now?) be a step in the right direction for general niceness all around. Of course nobody minds saying it, of course hardly any classes say it anyway- but it still shouldn't be in there. It shouldn't be an issue, either.

I still don't see the problem with "Under God" being in the Pledge. Does this mean we need to take "In God We Trust" out of our money? O.o

Why am I the lone person speaking for this side of the issue? Somebody give their 2 cents. Unless they don't agree with me, in which case they shouldn't be disagreeing because my egomaniacal side says that I'm right. And that side is always right.

--
Spubman: Defender of the Way of the Spub says: "Don't argue with Duke. He's always right."

DocMan · Post by **DocMan** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 5:25 am

DukeNuke wrote:I still don't see the problem with "Under God" being in the Pledge. Does this mean we need to take "In God We Trust" out of our money?

I disagree with the REASONS for removing "Under God" from the pledge. If you really wanted to separate church and state, you'd make it illegal for members of the clergy to serve in elected or appointed office. Like that will happen.

As for "In God We Trust" on the money, the quote is incomplete. The second line, "All Others Must Pay Cash" needs to be added.

Doc

BJ · Post by BJ » Thu Sep 05, 2002 1:48 pm

I really don't care either way--it can stay or go. It's to small an issue to really matter. People who believe in god will do so whether or not it's in the pledge; those who don't won't change their minds if it's there and won't notice if it's gone. The fact that it's been blown so far out of proportion is what annoys me, since I feel there are far more important issues from which this one is distracting us.

*grabs one of Red Cedars's worms and goes fishin'*

Citrish · Post by **Citrish** » Thu Sep 05, 2002 6:28 pm

Saying that all religions have the same God is kind of simplifying religion a whole whole lot. Many beliefs plainly do not have a God - Atheism, Buddhism, Agnostic, certain kinds of Paganism, and so on.

I'm a bit ignorant about the Pledge of Allegiance and its use in American schools. If 'most of America doesn't say it', does that mean it's only something they do in certain schools, rather than in all schools?

I mean, when I heard about how the British government was meaning to have some sort of pledge-of-allegiance spiel that refugee asylum seekers would be required to say, I was like, christ, what abomination is this? "Under God" or no, it still seems a bit disturbing that this is still something that some/most schools still do in America. I take it that it must just be something there'd be too big a fuss made over if you tried to ban it, like in Britain with the 'we have to pay money to the Royal Family and then they go and buy nice things from Ikea with it'. And now that's way off-topic.

Ahayweh · Post by **Ahayweh** » Fri Sep 06, 2002 2:17 pm

OK, now that I've had some time to think about it, my line on the 'under god' bit goes as follows. It should be taken out. It is not nearly enough of a big deal to complain about, and if it's too much trouble to take it out, it shouldn't be bothered about. However, I'm stubborn enough to be perfectly willing to fight to the death (or to well-flamed crispiness on the Net) for something that I don't really care that much about at all. It's one of my more annoying traits.

Jdhays · Post by **Jdhays** » Sun Sep 08, 2002 8:34 am

Citrish wrote: I'm a bit ignorant about the Pledge of Allegiance and its use in American schools. If 'most of America doesn't say it', does that mean it's only something they do in certain schools, rather than in all schools?

Traditionally, American public schools open the day with the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court has struck down laws that made reciting the Pledge mandatory. I doubt most Americans refrain from saying the Pledge but, on the other hand, I doubt most Americans say it after leaving school.

If this case gets to the Supreme Court, they will probably strike down the act that put "Under God" into the Pledge but keep "Under God" in the Pledge for tradition's sake. The Court allows God on the money and prayer in Congress on the theory that these things don't promote religion because they are either trivial or voluntary. Since the government school can't force you to say the pledge, it doesn't matter that "God" is in it. It's Catch-22. Either "Under God" is constitutional therefore unimportant or important therefore unconstitutional.

Btw. unless it's the government suppressing speech, it's not censorship. A law banning the sale of Pokemon cards would be censorship but people campaining against them isn't. If a company removes the Twin Towers from it's movie trailer, that company is exercising it's right to free speech.

Comic Genesis Forums

Another can of worms?

Another can of worms?

Um...

Re: Um...