Viewers are divided over whether the film should have shown Japanese victims of the weapon created by physicist Robert Oppenheimer. Experts say it’s complicated.

  • atzanteol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    What? How? It’s discussing whether the victims of the bomb Oppenheimer created should be represented more. It’s a direct result of his actions and germane to the plot.

    • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not germane to the plot at all as the film is about him as a character and his experience, not about the bombing or the war more generally. His realisation of the distance he has from his victims and how he’s been forced out the loop once the bombs were finished is crucial to his arc in the later part of the film.

      • atzanteol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        His realisation of the distance he has from his victims

        Yes… And the effect his weapon had on them isn’t relevant?

        He is literally known for saying “now I am become death destroyer of worlds” and you don’t think showing that death is germane to the plot?

        I’m not saying it should have been in the movie but it’s not “whataboutism” to say that it could have been. Unless you don’t know what whataboutism is.

          • atzanteol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You don’t think the victims of the weapon he created are relevant to a story about his life??? I can’t even. Either way saying it is is not whataboutism which is my point anyway.

    • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      What about the victims of the bomb? Okay we put them in the movie. What about the victims of the Japanese? Okay we put them in the movie. What about what about what about

      And now we just have a movie that’s a documentary on all of human history.

      The movie is about the creation of the bomb. Stop.

      • atzanteol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What about the victims of the bomb

        That’s not… Whataboutism. Whataboutism is a tu quoque style counter-argument.

        This article is just people discussing other things that could be in the film.

        The “whatabout what the Japanese did?” is whataboutism. It’s a cheap diversionary tactic used by defensive people when a discussion makes them uncomfortable.

        • ormr@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Whataboutism is a stupid concept in itself as this term is now hurled at anyone who wants to make a comparison or add some context to an argument. So I’d say using the word “whataboutism” isn’t helpful.

          • atzanteol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No. Whataboutism is lazy misdirection and nothing more. It’s not “providing context” it’s changing the subject. It’s weak and used by people who have no argument or defense for their position. “You too” is a logical fallacy for a reason.

      • Sentrovasi@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not what a whataboutism is, at least in common parlance. What the OP of this particular thread was saying, though, was. The idea is that people should aim to be better than lower common denominators.

        Your version of “what about” as being about inclusion is strangely almost the exact opposite.