Sometimes, not giving a crap comes back to haunt you

By -
I have complained often about TV and movie directors not bothering to get details correct when it would have been simple to do so. So it is with great schadenfreude that I report:

The TV series Homeland hired people to paint pro-Muslim graffiti on some walls, in Arabic, for an episode. Typically, they didn't bother to check what their contractors were painting. Well, it turns out it was things like "Homeland is racist!"

Millions for special effects, but not a couple of hundred bucks for a linguist!

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy2:19 PM

    Nah, I'm going to give them a pass on this one. You're assuming the linguist wouldn't have taken their money and lied to their faces. But, they were assuming the artists wouldn't take their money and lie to their faces.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah2:42 PM

      Well, except when this story broke, The linguist would have been embarrassed, but the actual perpetrators are proud of themselves.

      Delete
    2. Silas Barta6:01 PM

      If they were smart, they wouldn't tell the linguist the context of the image; it would just be some random job that says "Translate this mural", no way to know that it's a prank on Homeland.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more