Christoffer Glans
Well-known member
Karim, I don't think it is about being offended but it can be about caring. And perhaps context.
Personally, I don't like the skulls - I think they are really bad taste - but I've had young people come up and think they were really cool. That's fun. Conversely, filming in old peoples homes and in hospitals with the terminally ill - not so cool. That's why I have them covered up.
Perhaps it is worth caring about?
Exactly. I think there's a common thing nowadays that whenever something is criticized, the counter-argument is that people are offended. That whole type of counter-argument is a fallacy and has no place in critical debate. It's equivalent of saying that people who criticize something "can't handle the truth", while what they are actually doing is arguing the truth-value of something and criticizes it.
Arguing that people who question a status quo are "offended" is just a blanket covering the fact that there are no better arguments coming from the person uttering it. If anything, it's the person who defends against the criticism who's the offended one, since they can't justify past their own subjective world view and need to "weaken" the ones criticizing. This is like pure "trumpism" actually, and I don't think it's a coincidence that this type of debate behavior has taken root over the past years. The way that the discussion climate has changed through "trumpism" clearly shows how just attacking the character rather than the argument, and trying to weaken an opponent through positioning them as "weak" and "offended" rather than contemplating the argument proposed and countering that.
There are clear benefits to use logos and equipment names that are more neutral for something that makes its way into a large variety of places and situations. Skulls might be ok for military families, or such places where it's considered irrelevant, but as William points out, an elderly home and hospitals for the terminally ill, yeah, that can become rather fucked up. And there are far more examples, like if you're filming in a culture where skulls have a very negative meaning.
Skulls is not in any way a neutral imagery, so why keep using it? Calling people "offended" by the style and naming is the weakest form of an intellectual answer to this question, it's a fallacy and attack on character that just ignores the actual argument.