Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8740779" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Sure, I've heard of slapstick. Seen some good slapstick. There is a difference of course between say, a man walking around a yard and hurting himself on accident, and that same man doing a slapstick routine of beating a woman, even by accident. Even if it is fiction, one is okay, and the other isn't. And I will completely agree with you that some of the worst elements of Kyrnn were intended as comic relief. The problem is &quot;intended as comedy&quot; doesn't buy you a free pass. You can't say &quot;but they were trying to be funny, so you can't be upset by it.&quot; Especially when the discussion is FAR MORE about &quot;should they do it again.&quot; I don't plan to roast anyone over a fire for how things were done 40 years ago. But if they want to repeat themselves today, then we have an issue. Because while it may have been funny 40 years ago, it isn't funny today.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8740779, member: 6801228"] Sure, I've heard of slapstick. Seen some good slapstick. There is a difference of course between say, a man walking around a yard and hurting himself on accident, and that same man doing a slapstick routine of beating a woman, even by accident. Even if it is fiction, one is okay, and the other isn't. And I will completely agree with you that some of the worst elements of Kyrnn were intended as comic relief. The problem is "intended as comedy" doesn't buy you a free pass. You can't say "but they were trying to be funny, so you can't be upset by it." Especially when the discussion is FAR MORE about "should they do it again." I don't plan to roast anyone over a fire for how things were done 40 years ago. But if they want to repeat themselves today, then we have an issue. Because while it may have been funny 40 years ago, it isn't funny today. [/QUOTE]

Verification