Calling a Kid the "C" Word

[rbstewart7263]

Only in America, can one word cause so much anger out of NOTHING.
I'm sorry to just sweep your entire country with that, but the bottom line is that your country is so dedicated to be politically correct that you brush off all intent and all common sense in pursuit of seeming just and righteous.

Here in Europe, that tweet would literally raise an eyebrow on most people, they'd exclaim "Well that was a shit joke" and move on. I'm not saying Europe is better, but on this point, on social interaction and competence, Online America has evolved and de-evolved to a prude society.

Just to stoke the flames, let's take feminism as an example.
I absolutely love what feminism stands for; It is a group of people who are fighting to straighten out some preconceptions that are not alright and improve society for all mankind.
I can debate with a feminist for hours and gain insight in things I've never thought about.
But if you take a place like Sinfest(webcomic), their forum is so hyped up about the idealism of feminism, that there is no space for reason, reality or responsible behaviour. They thrive on mob mentality and are turned completely inwards.
This, is happening here on the Escapist forums as well, you simply can't have a reasonable mature debate without someone judging people one or the other way, from either perspective. Ironically, it is the absolute minority that is actually misogynist, almost no one dismisses women completely.

I'm willing to bet that someone will quote me out of context and accuse me of hating America or pretending that Europe is a far superior place or that it's not true of every place in the US or something else that's completely irrelevant to the discussion. Even when I write this, they'll likely skip reading my entire post and just focus their inferiority complex or need to point out the obvious, on/to me.

This piece of news is just the latest global example of the complete lack of social competence and common sense that people have. And no, you're not socially incompetent because you dislike the tweet, but you are if you think it's important to fight against this "injustice".

Like Bob says, just shun them. It's that simple. Unsubscribe from them, ignore them. But don't react to it and don't tell them how offended you are, because the second you followed The Onion, you chose to get satirical and stupid commentary from a low-brow comedy institution and you should've known better.

If some asshole quotes me out of context on this, they are a **** and a half

Yeah and that day no one dared try to call smilomaniac out, for his defense against selfrighteous prudes was indeed inpenetrable.

 

[InvisibleMan]

Here's my question: Was she a ****?

I ask this because honestly, if she behaved in a way that would classify her as a ****, then in my opinion there is no problem saying it.

No, that was precisely the problem with that "joke": Quvenzhané looks and acts as the most adorable child you will ever encounter, both on and off screen, and that's why everyone was shocked and couldn't believe the Onion's tweet. Which was the point of the tweet, as MovieBob just explained: there is no way anyone would think that about this actress, except for the worst of the Hollywood media reporters. Which the Onion's reporter was trying to parody. And it didn't work. Hence the controversy (if you can call this a controversy, I'd say it's more of a f*ck up).

 

[wulf3n]

Is a joke still a joke if no one laughs?

I don't see anyone with more than one brain cell laughing at this.

"HAHA they said the opposite of how she behaved, that's so funny"

 

[flarty]

I call will smiths kids cunts all the time. whats the problem?

 

[PeterMerkin69]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some prude who can't stand lowbrow humor, every thing has a time and place after all. The reason I don't think that this particular joke works is because I find it needlessly inappropriate and unfunny.

It's relative to the observer. Had they said something more benign and it had been brought to my attention for whatever reason, I would have said it didn't work because it wasn't provocative enough; it would have been on the order of prime-time schoolboy mischief, precisely the kind of thing that sends me running into the arms of brainless miscreants with a penchant for c(unt)-bombs.

Is a joke still a joke if no one laughs?

Yes. Yes it is.

 

[Mikeyfell]

If the shoe fits. But I actually didn't mean you in particular. Rather the Bro Brigade that come out in force and tell us how absolutely ok and vital to Freedom of Speech it to call a 9-year old a ****.
If that's what Freedom of Speech has been reduced to, a bunch of bro's to pt each other on the back while shouting bullshit then screw freedom of speech.

Dude, you're ok with calling a kid a ****. I'm not the sexist one here. Brat would have done just fine in this joke.

I don't see it as a "freedom of speech" issue. My problem with it is people not getting the joke. (Or that it was even a joke at all) The Onion is all satire, to even have the notion that this comment is meant to be taken at face value is ludicrous.

The most important take away from all this should be that The Onion didn't call a kid a ****. What they did was poke fun at the people who say horrible things about celebrities by taking the practice to it's logical extreme to call to attention just how hateful the news media is being.

MovieBob thinks the statement was poorly constructed, I on the other hand think it was elegant, I understood what they were saying immediately and lost respect for them when they apologized for it.

Also, in our society the female sex is receiving, thus weaker. So when calling someone a ****, you're pretty much stating. "You're weak and 'worthless'"
For example, in Swedish to call a guy "fitta" (****) insinuates they're a weak sub-male. The use of **** in English strikes me as similar.

And I'll reiterate. Putting an inherent negative connotation on something that is exclusively female is sexism.

The fact that you associate "female" with "sub-male" should frighten you and shake your sensibilities.

 

[wulf3n]

Is a joke still a joke if no one laughs?

Yes. Yes it is.

How so?

What is the difference between a joke and a statement if not humour?

 

[PeterMerkin69]

Is a joke still a joke if no one laughs?

Yes. Yes it is.

How so?

What is the difference between a joke and a statement if not humour?

A joke is a statement made with the intent to cause amusement or laughter. It needn't be successful to be a joke.

Jokes can be hurtful. They're still jokes.
Jokes can be hilarious, or dumb, or blue, or black, or uplifting. Still jokes, too.

Beyond that, it's hard to imagine that someone, somewhere, didn't think this was amusing or funny. Maybe even just the person who wrote it. So then where's the threshold between funny and not funny? 2% of the audience? 5%? 73%?

 

[NortherWolf]

If the shoe fits. But I actually didn't mean you in particular. Rather the Bro Brigade that come out in force and tell us how absolutely ok and vital to Freedom of Speech it to call a 9-year old a ****.
If that's what Freedom of Speech has been reduced to, a bunch of bro's to pt each other on the back while shouting bullshit then screw freedom of speech.

Dude, you're ok with calling a kid a ****. I'm not the sexist one here. Brat would have done just fine in this joke.

I don't see it as a "freedom of speech" issue. My problem with it is people not getting the joke. (Or that it was even a joke at all) The Onion is all satire, to even have the notion that this comment is meant to be taken at face value is ludicrous.

The most important take away from all this should be that The Onion didn't call a kid a ****. What they did was poke fun at the people who say horrible things about celebrities by taking the practice to it's logical extreme to call to attention just how hateful the news media is being.

MovieBob thinks the statement was poorly constructed, I on the other hand think it was elegant, I understood what they were saying immediately and lost respect for them when they apologized for it.

Also, in our society the female sex is receiving, thus weaker. So when calling someone a ****, you're pretty much stating. "You're weak and 'worthless'"
For example, in Swedish to call a guy "fitta" (****) insinuates they're a weak sub-male. The use of **** in English strikes me as similar.

And I'll reiterate. Putting an inherent negative connotation on something that is exclusively female is sexism.

The fact that you associate "female" with "sub-male" should frighten you and shake your sensibilities.

Considering I don't, but I understand how society works it doesn't.
That you on the other hand backpedal to try to make this about me speaks volumes about you.

The extent of the hateful things you're allowed to say about women is held down by a Glass Ceiling. A Glass Ceiling that we'll have to break through if we ever want to see any true gender equality!

Remember that? Sorry, somehow I don't think you give a shit about equality, you do give a shit about being allowed to be an ass though. So yeah, sorry if I don't give you the benefit of a doubt anymore, but you've removed my doubts about you being part of the Bro Brigade. But do lets see how you'll put the "Well, the horrible sexist here is you!" into the topic again. (Here's a hit, knowing about the problem does not make me a supporter of said problem.)

 

[Mikeyfell]

You're not even talking about The Onion anymore but I'll rebut

I'm surprised that so many commenters here don't get it. 1) Calling someone a **** is worse than calling them a dick because women are less (in the eyes of many men) than men are. Calling someone a woman (especially if they are male) is an insult- or intended to be insulting. Same with "womanly". The only time "mannish" is an insult is to a woman, implying that she can't even be a *good* man. Likewise, "douche" is something a woman uses to clean out their uterus, which is why it's also used as an insult. "Manly", on the other hand, is something to aspire to be. "Act like a man", "Be a man"... a man is something to aspire to be, something good to be. That's why female gendered insults are worse than male-gendered insults.

I was getting at the inherent sexism ingrained in the culture it's self.
You're inferior, therefore a woman.
That is sexism. Not "sexist" it is sexism.

You can't think like that.
I place you on the woman tier, now you have been degraded.
If you think like that you are sexist.

The Onion is just using **** as a general derogatory term, and that was kind of the point of the joke, No one would be willing to insult a kid, but they're all fine with insulting all the other people who are her piers now. What's the difference between what you're doing and what we just did? Nothing!

It's how satire works.

2) "freedom of speech" isn't the right to be an idiot and say whatever you want, no matter how insulting it is, and be free of the consequences. It just means the government can't stop you from saying it. It does not give you the right to scream or yell, "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre and escape prosecution, nor does it mean that someone cannot sue you, punch you in the face, or allow you to get off scot-free from saying anything that crosses your mind. It's being free of government oppression of speech (barring the "fire in a crowded theatre" types of expression).

Obvious statement is obvious.
Freedom of Speech pretty much only applies to criticizing the government in a public forum
Which is why people in the business of celebrity tabloid journalism can get sued for libel.
But they so rarely do, but what would happen if one of those tabloiders called a 9 year old a ****?
That's the difference between that and what they do? Nothing!

3) saying "******" is worse because it has a longer history of being bad is also wrong, as even in the Bible, it comes down on women. Women were held responsible for original sin, being duped by the serpent and so on. Considering the Bible is at least 2000 years old (as more or less currently written- the Hebrew Scriptures are far, far older), I doubt that "******" is a worse insult because of age than being a woman is considered to be.

Well, yeah there's that.
What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Therumancer]

Well to sound off for myself, I have lost respect for "The Onion" for backing down and issueing an apology. I'm firmly in the court of those who have been complaining about out of control political correctness here, and feel that anything PC needs to be abolished as it's an affront to free speech as a matter of general principle, especially when it comes to humor.

At the end of the day the point of "The Onion" and other sources like it is that nothing and noone is sacred, your supposed to talk at look at a lot of what they say/post and go "wow, I can't believe they said that" and chuckle because of how wrong it is

Whether or not this girl is 9 years old is irrelvent, she's a public person, and fair game for this kind of thing. What's more I think people complaining about this made it more of a big deal that it ever would have been if they decided to keep their mouthes shut and go after their 5 minutes of fame from liberal trolling. Sure, calling a 9 year old a **** to her face is wrong, but remember this is on a humor website/twitter feed which a 9 year old has no business accessing. Had nobody gone "wow, I can get five minutes of fame by complaining and donning a suit of liberal white knight armor" the odds of her ever even having expected this was said would be pretty much obselete. Anyone looking at "The Onion" enough to follow it's twitter also likewise understands the context.

So you prioritise free speech over not abusing 9 year-olds. Got it.

She's NINE. A damn CHILD. How is she "fair game"?

Because she's a public person, and yes freedom of speech trumps everything else.

This entire issue is a big part of why "child stars" have been so contreversial for so many years. Whether society should allow a kid to achieve this kind of celebrity (capable or not) is a question for the ages. That said once someone becomes public like this, they are fair game.

To be blunt with you, this is all a bunch of trolling to get attention. We've done this song and dance before so many times in the past it's not even funny. Right now though the pieces are in place that if someone pretends to be a good, crusading, liberal and goes about it the right way they can create a bunch of chaos, and potentially a platform for themselves, which is the entire point.

I think this is pretty much nonsense given that those "outraged" over this entire thing weren't exactly lining up to support Justin Bieber (who has been slammed worse than just about nayone), or Honey Boo Boo, who has pretty much become a national punch line.

The only reason why this "matters" is because some trolls realized there is the perfect storm of a minority, a child, and a big award, so when a group like "The Onion" did what they always do, it was easy to make a giant mess out of it.

Are there issues here? Yes, but not the ones being talked about. Freedom of speech comes with it's down sides, every good thing does. Right now there is no issue in a public person, no matter the age or etnicity, becoming a target for jokes or whatever else. Indeed we've seen it happen for decades now. The issue is instead the larger issue of whether a minor should ever be allowed to become this kind of a public figure/celebrity to begin with. Weather it's music, acting, or hosting a TV program, we've seen all this before and it generally does not turn out well for the children. To be honest it could be argued that people like Lindsey Lohan became the wrecks they are due to the whole "child star" experience.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Whilst I understand the whole stigma thing, The idea that it's a word thats casual and common in use in the UK, or at least throughout the UK, is completely wrong. With pretty much everyone I've ever met, people are happy to use pretty much every other swearword when they're with friends, excluding racist slurs, but I hardly ever hear the word '****' said out loud, and when someone does use it, there's usually a pause as most people dont feel comfortable using it. Hell, I don't even like writing the word. Then again, that could be a regional thing in itself.

I, on the other hand have never noticed anyone have a problem with it outside of people who would just have a problem with straight up swearing. I think it's more of a class thing than regional, having lived in London, Manchester and the far South West of Cornwall I haven't really noticed any difference. "Casual" might be a bit of a stretch, but I'd definitely say it was was common.

 

[LordMonty]

The 'c' word isn't to be said around girls/women in the UK, but lads and london gansters will say it a lot. Mostly thanks to Guy Richie.

They should have used another word but its comedy/satire so whatever I wouldn't want them censored for tis there freedom of speach. But its a fine line.

 

[mgirl]

I, on the other hand have never noticed anyone have a problem with it outside of people who would just have a problem with straight up swearing. I think it's more of a class thing than regional, having lived in London, Manchester and the far South West of Cornwall I haven't really noticed any difference. "Casual" might be a bit of a stretch, but I'd definitely say it was was common.

Huh, interesting that we would have such different experiences. I'm not sure what that difference can be attributed to then.

EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, it could possibly with a gender thing? I've spent my life up north, with a mixture of people, from different social backgrounds, but most of the people I've spent enough time with to notice these things have been female.

 

[Sixcess]

For my international readers, in the U.S. "the C word" (which I understand to be common to the point of casual use in the UK) is for whatever reason considered to be just about the worst anti-female insult one can utter.

Wait, what?
Maybe I'm not representative of the U.K. but I'm pretty sure it's treated as the worst swear word over here too. I'm not sure where Bob got this impression...

...oh yeah, I forgot about Jim and Yahtzee. They undermine my point somewhat.

Weirdly this isn't the first time I've heard this 'fact'. I can only guess it comes from people whose only experience of real live brits is listening to them on skype/mumble/whatever during games of Call of Duty or League of Legends.

Neither of which are exactly representative, thankfully.

 

[MopBox]

The Onion has produced like 20 years of infallible satire. They were wrong and they apologized, can't we just let them slide on this one?

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Huh, interesting that we would have such different experiences. I'm not sure what that difference can be attributed to then.

EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, it could possibly with a gender thing? I've spent my life up north, with a mixture of people, from different social backgrounds, but most of the people I've spent enough time with to notice these things have been female.

Maybe, I'd say women use it less frequently, but I can't think of any woman I've known for any length of time that hasn't called someone a **** (except for those who I've never heard swear full stop), though of course my memory is not perfect. Certainly none of them have ever batted an eyelid at the word. That said, I've never kept particularly salubrious company, which might skew my experience on this.