I am sincerely hoping this is the start of a career downturn for these talentless juvenile hacks. The sooner people like them and (*gag*) tosh.0 go away the happier I will be.
Wait, what? Unfunny toilet humor is not protected free speech?Andrew_C said:I think you are confusing unfunny, juvenile toilet humour and satire. One is a protected form of free speech in the USA, the other isn't.theApoc said:I was just wondering when satire automatically became bigotry... And seriously, some of the "legitimate" portrayals of LBGT are more offensive than anything I read above. Is this really what we are coming to? Whining about everything any anything? This is almost as stupid as the rodeo clown who got fired for making fun of Obama...
DVS BSTrD said:When the Man of Steel was asked how he felt about this transformation, he merely replied: I'm Super, thanks for asking.
It is protected under free speech, the guy above is wrong. However,no speech is protected in the private sector. Free speech only means that the government cannot limit your speech, but your employer certainly can. And it doesn't even have to involve work, an employer can fire you if you write racist rants on your own free time as well as if you do it at work. This is where you've ALWAYS been by the way, it hasn't just now come to it. An employer has to make a decision, will this hurt or improve my bottom line, and act accordingly.Doopliss64 said:Wait, what? Unfunny toilet humor is not protected free speech?Andrew_C said:I think you are confusing unfunny, juvenile toilet humour and satire. One is a protected form of free speech in the USA, the other isn't.theApoc said:I was just wondering when satire automatically became bigotry... And seriously, some of the "legitimate" portrayals of LBGT are more offensive than anything I read above. Is this really what we are coming to? Whining about everything any anything? This is almost as stupid as the rodeo clown who got fired for making fun of Obama...
Easy, here are the reasons:Ihateregistering1 said:I gotta be honest, I don't really get the offense here.
"Modern Family" is considered by most to be an excellent depiction of a gay couple (Mitchell and Cameron), but both of them often act in stereotypically effeminate ways. Same with characters from "Will and Grace", "Glee", and "The New Normal".
Ok yes, it is, at its core, stereotyping, but when stereotyping is very clearly utilized in a joking manner (as it is here) I find it significantly less damning.
You just made my morning. Also, I hate you.DVS BSTrD said:When the Man of Steel was asked how he felt about this transformation, he merely replied: I'm Super, thanks for asking.
1: Considering they turned Superman, a fictional character with fictional powers from a fictional planet, gay by putting fictional fairy dust on him, I think it loses a lot of the "oh well that parallels real beliefs!' idea.maxben said:It is protected under free speech, the guy above is wrong. However,no speech is protected in the private sector. Free speech only means that the government cannot limit your speech, but your employer certainly can. And it doesn't even have to involve work, an employer can fire you if you write racist rants on your own free time as well as if you do it at work. This is where you've ALWAYS been by the way, it hasn't just now come to it. An employer has to make a decision, will this hurt or improve my bottom line, and act accordingly.Doopliss64 said:Wait, what? Unfunny toilet humor is not protected free speech?Andrew_C said:I think you are confusing unfunny, juvenile toilet humour and satire. One is a protected form of free speech in the USA, the other isn't.theApoc said:I was just wondering when satire automatically became bigotry... And seriously, some of the "legitimate" portrayals of LBGT are more offensive than anything I read above. Is this really what we are coming to? Whining about everything any anything? This is almost as stupid as the rodeo clown who got fired for making fun of Obama...
Easy, here are the reasons:Ihateregistering1 said:I gotta be honest, I don't really get the offense here.
"Modern Family" is considered by most to be an excellent depiction of a gay couple (Mitchell and Cameron), but both of them often act in stereotypically effeminate ways. Same with characters from "Will and Grace", "Glee", and "The New Normal".
Ok yes, it is, at its core, stereotyping, but when stereotyping is very clearly utilized in a joking manner (as it is here) I find it significantly less damning.
1. First of all, the whole "turning gay" or "turning straight" thing is already offensive. I hope you can see that without me explaining it.
2. Turning gay actually weakens superman. Being gay does not make Mitchell a worse lawyer, or Cameron a worse dad.
3. Cameron and Mitchell are complete and complex characters. Do you think its offensive to show a black person be good at basketball and speak in ebonics? No, but if he has no other characteristics then all he is is a one note cardboard cut out of a human being built up of stereotypes.
4. As someone above mentioned, the whole Takei being gay therefore Sulu is IS offensive. It basically says that gay actors make their characters gay. This has been a huge and complex issue in the acting community, especially in plays. Here is something from a little while back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek_gay_actor_controversy
5. Will and Grace, by the way, was in fact criticized by parts of the gay community for promoting stereotypes, but I think that they were generally good role models and that some of the community (like some in the Jewish community, as I am a Jew) overreact.
6. Lastly, I'd imagine a gay superman as far more a Will kind of gay then a Jack. Would turning gay actually suppress everything else that superman is? Undermining his all being and self? That sounds weird and offensive.
Well done, you were funnier than that entire depiction it seems.DVS BSTrD said:When the Man of Steel was asked how he felt about this transformation, he merely replied: I'm Super, thanks for asking.
I think its unfair to say "I don't find it offensive therefore it is not offensive", so I assume you don't mean to say that. Comedy can be biting and ridiculous without being offensive, or at least offending a rather small group of affected people. Are you from any minority group? Because I feel like its often hard to explain such thing to people when they're not. It is often time really hard to take yourself out of your own circumstance and the way you see the world because of them.Ihateregistering1 said:1: Considering they turned Superman, a fictional character with fictional powers from a fictional planet, gay by putting fictional fairy dust on him, I think it loses a lot of the "oh well that parallels real beliefs!' idea.maxben said:It is protected under free speech, the guy above is wrong. However,no speech is protected in the private sector. Free speech only means that the government cannot limit your speech, but your employer certainly can. And it doesn't even have to involve work, an employer can fire you if you write racist rants on your own free time as well as if you do it at work. This is where you've ALWAYS been by the way, it hasn't just now come to it. An employer has to make a decision, will this hurt or improve my bottom line, and act accordingly.Doopliss64 said:Wait, what? Unfunny toilet humor is not protected free speech?Andrew_C said:I think you are confusing unfunny, juvenile toilet humour and satire. One is a protected form of free speech in the USA, the other isn't.theApoc said:I was just wondering when satire automatically became bigotry... And seriously, some of the "legitimate" portrayals of LBGT are more offensive than anything I read above. Is this really what we are coming to? Whining about everything any anything? This is almost as stupid as the rodeo clown who got fired for making fun of Obama...
Easy, here are the reasons:Ihateregistering1 said:I gotta be honest, I don't really get the offense here.
"Modern Family" is considered by most to be an excellent depiction of a gay couple (Mitchell and Cameron), but both of them often act in stereotypically effeminate ways. Same with characters from "Will and Grace", "Glee", and "The New Normal".
Ok yes, it is, at its core, stereotyping, but when stereotyping is very clearly utilized in a joking manner (as it is here) I find it significantly less damning.
1. First of all, the whole "turning gay" or "turning straight" thing is already offensive. I hope you can see that without me explaining it.
2. Turning gay actually weakens superman. Being gay does not make Mitchell a worse lawyer, or Cameron a worse dad.
3. Cameron and Mitchell are complete and complex characters. Do you think its offensive to show a black person be good at basketball and speak in ebonics? No, but if he has no other characteristics then all he is is a one note cardboard cut out of a human being built up of stereotypes.
4. As someone above mentioned, the whole Takei being gay therefore Sulu is IS offensive. It basically says that gay actors make their characters gay. This has been a huge and complex issue in the acting community, especially in plays. Here is something from a little while back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek_gay_actor_controversy
5. Will and Grace, by the way, was in fact criticized by parts of the gay community for promoting stereotypes, but I think that they were generally good role models and that some of the community (like some in the Jewish community, as I am a Jew) overreact.
6. Lastly, I'd imagine a gay superman as far more a Will kind of gay then a Jack. Would turning gay actually suppress everything else that superman is? Undermining his all being and self? That sounds weird and offensive.
2: No, but doesn't it often depict them as being terrible at sports?
3: Cameron and Mitchell have an entire TV series to become complex characters, this (sounds like) a short skit, one in which they basically ignore any complexities of Superman in favor of quick humor.
4: Sorry, but anytime you have something that's clearly humorous and intended to be a parody, saying "it basically says" sort of loses its meaning.
5: I'll agree with the overacting part.
6: Only if you take seriously something that is very clearly not meant to be taken seriously.
I don't particularly care for this skit because it just sounds like lazy writing and cheap laughs, and there are few laughs that are cheaper than using established stereotypes for comedic purposes, but I just don't find it particularly offensive.
"I think its unfair to say "I don't find it offensive therefore it is not offensive","maxben said:Snip
First of all, the whole unathletic thing is an archaic stereotype a la black people and watermelon. Even if we are talking about dance, that is athletic. It is based on old assumptions about what men SHOULD spend their time doing, not based on the objective athletic value and the fact that gays were and are excluded from sports by the mainstream (think about recent comments from NFL players regarding playing with an openly gay teammate).Ihateregistering1 said:"I think its unfair to say "I don't find it offensive therefore it is not offensive","maxben said:Snip
I never said anywhere that "it is not offensive", I only said that I don't find it offensive, and I don't understand the offense people take considering that so much other media has relied on using the "gay men are effeminate and unathletic" stereotype for cheap laughs without angering so many people.
"As someone above mentioned, the whole Takei being gay therefore Sulu is IS offensive"
THAT is declaring something offensive.
"Are you from any minority group? Because I feel like its often hard to explain such thing to people when they're not. It is often time really hard to take yourself out of your own circumstance and the way you see the world because of them."
'Any' minority group? Define minority. If I was black but I lived in Detroit, would I be a minority? If I was gay but lived and worked on Castro street, would I be a minority? If I'm a white and live in the US but I'm Jewish, am I a minority? How about a Hispanic living in El Paso? An Asian living in Chinatown? A Catholic living in the Southeast US? A white Muslim living in Texas?
In that case then I have been a minority at multiple points in my life, where I was a minority there and faced bigotry, so, I guess I'm kind of a minority?? My point is how arbitrary the concept is of declaring oneself to be a "minority".maxben said:First of all, the whole unathletic thing is an archaic stereotype a la black people and watermelon. Even if we are talking about dance, that is athletic. It is based on old assumptions about what men SHOULD spend their time doing, not based on the objective athletic value and the fact that gays were and are excluded from sports by the mainstream (think about recent comments from NFL players regarding playing with an openly gay teammate).Ihateregistering1 said:"I think its unfair to say "I don't find it offensive therefore it is not offensive","maxben said:Snip
I never said anywhere that "it is not offensive", I only said that I don't find it offensive, and I don't understand the offense people take considering that so much other media has relied on using the "gay men are effeminate and unathletic" stereotype for cheap laughs without angering so many people.
"As someone above mentioned, the whole Takei being gay therefore Sulu is IS offensive"
THAT is declaring something offensive.
"Are you from any minority group? Because I feel like its often hard to explain such thing to people when they're not. It is often time really hard to take yourself out of your own circumstance and the way you see the world because of them."
'Any' minority group? Define minority. If I was black but I lived in Detroit, would I be a minority? If I was gay but lived and worked on Castro street, would I be a minority? If I'm a white and live in the US but I'm Jewish, am I a minority? How about a Hispanic living in El Paso? An Asian living in Chinatown? A Catholic living in the Southeast US? A white Muslim living in Texas?
Second, you would know if you were in a minority group because you and those you care about face discrimination and bigotry. My Jewish friend from Charleston South Carolina was told to find Jesus in her heart every week by coworkers. My muslim Saudi roommate in university drank every night because people were constantly talking about how his people are all terrorists. That is where you get the mindset of a minority, and when you hear such stories regularly from others in your group it solidifies the need for a strong community bond.
I get where you're coming from, but the "well dumb people are influenced by this so we need to get rid of it" is a VERY slippery slope, because by that logic there's literally millions of things in media that you have to not portray because "dumb people are influenced by it and do dumb things", both related to stereotypes and not.Racecarlock said:People are offended because gay rights is still a big struggle in america. While more and more states are legalizing gay marriage, there's still quite a lot of stupid people on there, including many who believe everything they see on tv (They hired steven seagal to train armed posses because apparently steven seagal can do that), and will then take those stereotypes and apply them to people.
So you'll end up with shit like "You're gay? Please don't start any random ballet or musical numbers and try to keep the celine dion down.". Then there's the fact that it pushes the idea that being gay is either a choice or some kind of satan magic.
Dumb people are influenced by this shit. That's why it's offensive, because it means that many more dumb people will take what they see on TV and generalize a large swath of people. And with generalization can potentially come dehumanization, and with that can sometimes come some very horrible things.
CriticalMiss said:They'll have to roll out their backup show where a Batman fights against Joker, who accidentally falls in to a bucket of fried chicken and emerges fully 'blacked up' before running off to steal Gotham's watermelon supply. There's no way that could offend! (seriously, sarcasm warning)