It doesn't look we disagree at all...

9 hours ago, swiftcoder said:

We appear to disagree on the definition of the word "controversial". I quote the dictionary:

"giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement"

"giving rise" through deliberation, "likely to give rise" through potentiality... When something has the "potential" to do something, we use the word "can". The same word I used in capital letters...

9 hours ago, swiftcoder said:

Controversy is purely subjective. It only exists when multiple people disagree about an issue. Your actions in isolation cannot be either controversial or noncontroversial - they become such only in the court of public opinion.

Subjectivity is necessarily directional... "It only exists when multiple people disagree about an issue", which is a multitude of people that does not need to include you. Ergo, you can say something that ""gives rise to public disagreement" (ie, you can say something that becomes/or will become controversial) without you disagreeing (or agreeing with it) yourself (without you considering it to be so).

9 hours ago, swiftcoder said:

And once you are in the court of public opinion, your intent (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to any controversy that arises. Lack of intent at best might help dodge some of the fallout.

Your intent "or lack thereof" may be relevant to those present in "the court of public opinion", but that does not make it necessarily relevant to yourself.

It still is not up to me what "the court of public opinion" finds controversial, who sits in "the court", when "the court" sits, and so on. I can intentionally spark a controversial debate (by spouting deliberately homophobic comments, for instance), I can unintentionally spark a controversial debate (by being English and wearing white after labour day, for instance), I can participate in that controversial debate (by defending my actions, for instance), or I can not participate in that controversial debate.

And we weren't discussing the meaning of controversy. We were discussing whether "Choosing to engage with a controversial topic is itself a statement thereon", which, does not follow from your definition of controversial. To quote the dictionary for "to state":

to declare definitely or specifically

to set forth formally in speech or writing

to set forth in proper or definite form

You can feature a theme that can "giv[e] rise or [be] likely to give rise to public disagreement" without doing any of the above.

9 hours ago, Scouting Ninja said:

You can't. I know this is hard to understand at first but artist deal with this all the time.

Any topic you choose to draw, paint, write or make a game from, will reflect your understanding of the topic. This is because anything you make is build upon what you know. You can't make something from nothing.

Yes, and many, many, many artists choose to not participate in this debate because those many, many, many artists do not believe that to be the case.

That's why we have separate modes of referral to controversial art (pieces that give rise to public debate), and controversial artists (those who use their work to give rise to public debate). The two can, and often are, used distinctively.

9 hours ago, Scouting Ninja said:

You will make statements, often ones you are unaware of.

To make a statement is a deliberate and considered activity. To claim that you know when another person has acted/is acting deliberately, when they suggest that they aren't, is a very, very dangerous precedent to set.

You are confusing the deliberate specificity of making statements with implication, and then you are confusing implication with inference.

6 hours ago, SomeoneRichards said:

To make a statement is a deliberate and considered activity. To claim that you know when another person has acted/is acting deliberately, when they suggest that they aren't, is a very, very dangerous precedent to set.

You are confusing the deliberate specificity of making statements with implication, and then you are confusing implication with inference.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but it seems like you are saying that people can only do something controversial deliberately?

People will make controversial actions unintended, happens all the time.

40 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but it seems like you are saying that people can only do something controversial deliberately?

People will make controversial actions unintended, happens all the time.

Of course. But there are different types of controversial actions. Some can be done unintended, others cannot.

There is a subtle distinction, and I will try to indicate it here:

A person does something, and IT is controversial.

This IT can refer to 1) the thing that the person is doing, 2) the act of the person doing the thing.

It's very subtle, and easy to miss, but it is important. It can be summarised as the distinction between 'doing something' and 'doing something about'.

Specifically, in the context of our conversations, it is the distinction between making a statement, and making a statement about.

To make a statement can mean either 1) to say something, 2) to say something about something.

To make a controversial statement can mean

1) To say something that is a controversial theme <- the outcome, or subject, of the 'saying' is controversial

2) To say something about the controversial theme <- the use of the outcome, or subject, of the 'saying' is controversial.

It is analogous to the distinction between doing something controversial (I didn't know a certain custom, the performing of that custom caused a controversy), and doing something about that controversy (I know that such and such was controversial, and I did it to prove a point).

So, in response to your comment (and adapting it to our conversation):

"People will make controversial STATEMENTS unintended".

1) A person will say A THING, and by mentioning that THING the person has unintentionally mentioned a CONTROVERSIAL THING. <- Yes, this happens unintentionally, all the time.

2) A person will SAY A THING, and by SAYING THAT THING the person is unintentionally SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT THE THING. <- No, this does not happen unintentionally.

"John said that the soldiers in his game were children. THAT was controversial"

1) The soldiers being children was controversial.

2) John using child soldiers in his story was controversial.

1) John is saying that some soldiers are children. <- Controversy is potentially unintentional

2) John is saying something about children being soldiers. <-This cannot be done unintentionally

To put it in other words, the speaker is uncharge of what they are saying. No ifs, or buts. They decide where intentionality and action begins and ends, and they decide on what they SAY or IMPLY. They are not in charge of the general meaning of words (they can be wrong about this), nor are they in charge of what people can INFER (people can infer whatever they like) from what they SAY.

19 minutes ago, swiftcoder said:

To use your example of homophobic slurs, one might use such intentionally, or one might use such because they are unaware such slurs are offensive. Is the latter (ignorance) better than the former (intent)? Maybe a little. But you only get to use the ignorance defence once.

Ignorance is a risky choice of term here because it has negative connotations (IE, it suggests undesirability) without needing to.

And there are more than two available avenues here... If we adopt a model where a controversial theme is either used deliberately to incite controversy, or else it was done so accidentally (and is only acceptable once) we are creating two HUGE problems. Firstly, we are artificially restricting or pigeonholing certain topics (and related themes), and giving them additional power of automate over the user. Secondly, we are giving the 'other party' the ability to decide the first party's intentionality and use of speech - which makes our language a potential booby trap in all social encounters.

To continue with the example, by your explanation, we cannot ever use the subject of a homophobic slur without it being a deliberate attempt at controversy, or an accidental cause (which I can only use one). So no homophobic jokes (that might be OK), no homophobic characters in books (books no longer representative of certain aspects of reality), I can't mention my homophobic uncle (I'll just repress that then), and if I ever encounter encounter the mere mention of homophobic slurs, I should inform the speaker that they are either ignorant or a deliberate trouble-maker...

A third, alternative, route is that of neutrality, and we see this commonly. We can, as I have said, feature a subject that causes controversy, without deliberately inciting controversy, or accidentally doing so.

19 minutes ago, swiftcoder said:

And in either case, once one has debated the possibility on a public internet forum, one lacks plausible deniability that the subject might cause controversy...

To deny what? The initial poster has every right to say "I was worried about the potential controversy* of the subject, so I looked for a few opinions, but, ultimately, I decided that I didn't need to engage with those aspects of the topic. Child soldiers is a possible theme in fiction, so I used it."

*And by 'potential controversy', he means the potential for the SUBJECT to cause controversy amongst some audiences, and NOT the potential for him to be eliciting controversy by USING THE SUBJECT".

Choosing to incorporate a topic and then refusing to engage with it is a statement within itself. Doing so would, intentionally or otherwise, trivialise the subject, implying that you as the artist don't believe that it is worth discussion.

That said, by marrying child soldiers with a young love narrative, you have created a metaphorical link between your themes. In both cases, your characters are young, inexperienced and lack the maturity required to fully rationalise their situation. You should expect an audience to follow this link, and read the outcome of the romance as a critique of child-solider matter.

11 minutes ago, OandO said:

Choosing to incorporate a topic and then refusing to engage with it is a statement within itself. Doing so would, intentionally or otherwise, trivialise the subject, implying that you as the artist don't believe that it is worth discussion.
 

Yes. It is a statement that the artist does not want to engage with the discussion. The artist is stating directly that he or she does not wish to engage with the discussion. The artist not stating anything, directly or otherwise, about the discussion. There is no further statement made.

You can INFER that the artist does not believe the discussion to be worth having, but that is your INFERENCE.

The artist does not need to IMPLY anything.

2 minutes ago, NanaMarfo said:

When did I say I wanted to MARRY child soldiers? 

MARRY in this context just means to bring together or combine.

2 minutes ago, NanaMarfo said:

When did I say I wanted to MARRY child soldiers? 

I worded that badly, I meant "marrying" in relation to themes, putting two themes together, nothing to do with children getting married!

2 minutes ago, SomeoneRichards said:

Yes. It is a statement that the artist does not want to engage with the discussion. The artist is stating directly that he or she does not wish to engage with the discussion. The artist not stating anything, directly or otherwise, about the discussion. There is no further statement made.

You can INFER that the artist does not believe the discussion to be worth having, but that is your INFERENCE.

The artist does not need to IMPLY anything.

It doesn't work that way. As an artist you need to have an understanding of how your audience will interpret your work. If you meant one thing and they take away something else, you failed.