sparkle wrote: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:32 pm
Re: BBFC - at 18 level, virtually anything is allowed without cuts. It's purpose isn't to control, but to inform.
With what constitutes harm? The biggest example is suicide. They've worked with The Samaritans to avoid harming vulnerable people by showing gratuitous details. I personally cannot watch anything with graphic self harm and I'm glad that it's something I don't HAVE to do because you know, BBFC ratings.
Re: Dan, Phil, BBFC - Iconic. Absolutely iconic.
Hi. Thanks for your opinion. Didn't want to lump my reply in with my other post or it all becomes to cluttered
I do believe that informing is what they do in the large majority of cases but if you look at what they actually can and must do according to the laws, it
is also control. Which one can find good or not.
But i wanted to respond on the suicide example with a example of a real life friend who attempted suicide at age 15.
I can understand you would really not like to see examples of suicide full of (gratuitous) details. Everyone's different and some people cannot watch any graphic self harm. That's one reason why I'm all for voluntary regulation, maybe even obligatory one for certain limited cases where you can prevent great harm, but then that harm needs to clearly specified, demonstrated and the process much less vague and catch-all than the everything that is now put under the umbrella of 'potentially harmful'.
I the case of my friend, she really wanted and felt helped by watching movies where you had very explicit images of self-harm though. She found it helpful in talking about her own issues, gaining perspective, and liked it when suicide was brought in an ultra-realistic, sometimes very graphic way. Or sometimes she just found it fit the movie and didn't mind it even if it was just entertainment, or some cheap horror flick. I'm giving this example just to make clear that perspectives, also among those we are supposedly protecting from the harm, can really differ.
I think it's a strong argument to look for ways we can inform people so they 'know what they get to see' - even though i think listing up stuff like curse words and 'references to chlamydia and koala's' are meaningless without context and not the way to go forward. But it also provides a strong argument to leave matters up to adults and parents themselves, since there is no singular way in which people approach these things and it is imo wrong to force one interpretation on this matter on the public at large. Especially when it comes to what people want to view in their own home.
. it was fun y'all, keep it real, I'm off to go look at namjoon's face all day (not jimins, smh, this quiz is fake they can't even get my bts bias right 
Yes, clickbait very good.
#phanconspiracy
