Gay Superman Gets Universal Horror Nights Bill and Ted Canned

[Rebel_Raven]

Wait, wait, wait, this is confusing the hell out of me. Bill and Ted?
<youtube=Yx8FanC70S4>
Those two? They have a show, and I didn't know about it?

With superman? What?

And Sulu?

I'm terribly lost. Mind's blown to the point of lacking tracks for a train of thought.

 

[Lieju]

That's like saying nerd-stereotypes are the same as stereotypes about white people. Is heterosexuality specifically singled out as worthy of ridicule? Are you saying that there is a stereotype that all heterosexual people misspell things?

It's not making fun of heterosexual people, it's making fun of people who happen to be heterosexual.
And that's the difference.
If you had a gay character and the joke was that he liked video-games and was thus a huge nerd, that might be making fun of nerds, but not his sexuality.

No, nerd stereotypes can be about anyone bookish or inclined towards science and technology, they don't have to be white. But the character of say, Sheldon, from the Big Bang Theory is a collection of stereotypes about a white, well-off, heterosexual nerd. Just because the joke comprises more than one demographic doesn't negate the stereotype.

The character of a horny teenage alpha male sports jock or a lonely perverted nerd are just as much negative stereotypes about heterosexuals as Superman being really happy is a stereotype about homosexuals. In all these instances these characters sexuality is a subject of mockery through the means by which they express it.

But no-one looks at Sheldon and says 'Yeah, that's so right. That's exactly how all the heterosexuals I've ever met act!'

There are stereotypes about heterosexual behaviour, but heterosexual people don't get stereotyped down to their sexuality.

And even if they did, it's not as harmful, because people generally meet openly heterosexuals on a daily basis and see portrayals of them in media that don't focuse on their sexuality.

But, okay, let's try this one more time.
Describe me a stereotypical heterosexual man without mentioning what they are attracted to.
Not a stereotypical heterosexual nerd, or a teenage guy, something that when you describe to people they are going to go 'so he's straight, then?'

And then convince me all heterosexuals were like that in the show.

 

[UberPubert]

But no-one looks at Sheldon and says 'Yeah, that's so right. That's exactly how all the heterosexuals I've ever met act!'

There are stereotypes about heterosexual behaviour, but heterosexual people don't get stereotyped down to their sexuality.

And even if they did, it's not as harmful, because people generally meet openly heterosexuals on a daily basis and see portrayals of them in media that don't focuse on their sexuality.

But, okay, let's try this one more time.
Describe me a stereotypical heterosexual man without mentioning what they are attracted to.
Not a stereotypical heterosexual nerd, or a teenage guy, something that when you describe to people they are going to go 'so he's straight, then?'

And then convince me all heterosexuals were like that in the show.

No one says that about Sheldon because most people don't accept such broad, sweeping generalizations about groups of people to begin with, regardless of their sexuality.

How do you define a stereotype as harmful? In what way is a joke - even a bad one - about someone belonging to a minority demographic damaging?

And fine, to describe the average society image of a club-going douchebag: Gelled up hair, bad cologne, fake tan and fake jewelry. Wears tight shirts, goes to the gym just enough to make his arms look big, has a meaningless tribal tattoo in plain view, and wears sunglasses indoors. Acts arrogant and aggressive, and is probably a little shorter than the national average height for men.

I don't have to convince you that was at the show, because like I said I didn't see it, but the above description fits with just about any reference to Jersey Shore that doesn't instead feature Snooki, who is the poster child of yet another heterosexual stereotype.

 

[Lieju]

No one says that about Sheldon because most people don't accept such broad, sweeping generalizations about groups of people to begin with, regardless of their sexuality.

How do you define a stereotype as harmful? In what way is a joke - even a bad one - about someone belonging to a minority demographic damaging?

It is if it's the only way the minority tends to be represented. Luckily media is becoming better at this, but gays have to face stereotyping a lot.
And considering in a lot of countries gays aren't treated equally, dehumanising them as caricatures that can be boiled down to their sexuality is damaging.
Humor can be used to oppress and bully.
That doesn't mean we should attack humor, but the underlying attitudes. If the message is that being gay (or camp) makes you unheroic molester, that's a nasty message.

And even if we don't consider any of that, the joke is that gay = funny. (Or, sexual harassment when it happens to guys = funny) It's a lazy joke, and non-sensical.
Or can you explain why we should find that funny?
What does it have to do with Superman, especially the recent events with him and his new movie?

And fine, to describe the average society image of a club-going douchebag: Gelled up hair, bad cologne, fake tan and fake jewelry. Wears tight shirts, goes to the gym just enough to make his arms look big, has a meaningless tribal tattoo in plain view, and wears sunglasses indoors. Acts arrogant and aggressive, and is probably a little shorter than the national average height for men.

I don't have to convince you that was at the show, because like I said I didn't see it, but the above description fits with just about any reference to Jersey Shore that doesn't instead feature Snooki, who is the poster child of yet another heterosexual stereotype.

So, there is a common stereotype that heterosexual men are all like this; Gelled up hair, bad cologne, fake tan and fake jewelry. Wears tight shirts, goes to the gym just enough to make his arms look big, has a meaningless tribal tattoo in plain view, and wears sunglasses indoors. Acts arrogant and aggressive, is short.

Not a stereotype on heterosexuality, but on clubbing douchebags.

On contrast, there are a lot of people who believe gay men are 'sissy', camp, ineffectual queens who are a threat to straight men because they can just decide to harass them.

 

[UberPubert]

It is if it's the only way the minority tends to be represented. Luckily media is becoming better at this, but gays have to face stereotyping a lot.
And considering in a lot of countries gays aren't treated equally, dehumanising them as caricatures that can be boiled down to their sexuality is damaging.
Humor can be used to oppress and bully.
That doesn't mean we should attack humor, but the underlying attitudes. If the message is that being gay (or camp) makes you unheroic molester, that's a nasty message.

And even if we don't consider any of that, the joke is that gay = funny. (Or, sexual harassment when it happens to guys = funny) It's a lazy joke, and non-sensical.
Or can you explain why we should find that funny?
What does it have to do with Superman, especially the recent events with him and his new movie?

Lots of people have to face stereotyping a lot. Just because it's sexuality specific in this case doesn't make it more severe. I've already pointed out a few stereotypes of people of certain ages or groups and could make many more, as could you, and we continue to do so to this day, but it's not a valid indicator of oppression. Feel free to attack underlying attitudes as irrational or even criticize the jokes as tasteless - I even agree - but attribution of bigotry or exclusionary attitudes still seems far-fetched.

I also disagree with this calling into question the attitudes of foreign nations. The idea that someone, somewhere, is being oppressed means that no one, anywhere can make a joke about it is absurd. Humor is made out of tragedy, past, present, and future all the time, it's actually a major coping method of society; to make light of a terrible situation. But that isn't even what's happening here, the audience is just being invited to laugh at a gay superman's childish sexual antics on a stage populated by utter buffoons.

Not a stereotype on heterosexuality, but on clubbing douchebags.

On contrast, there are a lot of people who believe gay men are 'sissy', camp, ineffectual queens who are a threat to straight men because they can just decide to harass them.

How else would you describe a clubbing douchebag? They do what they do to impress members of the opposite sex in order to mate with them, down to excessive vanity and bloated sense of self-worth, and it has everything to do with their sexuality. If anything this stereotype is a closer boiling down of one person to their sexuality than the one of the sissy gay man. The gay man is depicted as choosing to act as he does, the clubbing douche bag is seen as a slave to their own sex drive.

And what's more, this stereotype is far more prolific than the one gay men are depicted as. If I ask people what the first few words that spring to mind when I say "strong homosexual man", they will tell me he is brave, that he is sexually liberated. If I ask them to do the same for a heterosexual man, the words will be chauvinist, pig, pervert - and once again - douchebag.

 

[Lieju]

Lots of people have to face stereotyping a lot. Just because it's sexuality specific in this case doesn't make it more severe. I've already pointed out a few stereotypes of people of certain ages or groups and could make many more, as could you, and we continue to do so to this day, but it's not a valid indicator of oppression. Feel free to attack underlying attitudes as irrational or even criticize the jokes as tasteless - I even agree - but attribution of bigotry or exclusionary attitudes still seems far-fetched.

I also disagree with this calling into question the attitudes of foreign nations. The idea that someone, somewhere, is being oppressed means that no one, anywhere can make a joke about it is absurd. Humor is made out of tragedy, past, present, and future all the time, it's actually a major coping method of society; to make light of a terrible situation. But that isn't even what's happening here, the audience is just being invited to laugh at a gay superman's childish sexual antics on a stage populated by utter buffoons.

Foreign nations? I live in Finland, a country where gay rights are rather good.

And yet, back in highschool our glass bullied a girl they suspected of being a lesbian (because she looked like a 'stereotypical' butch) so much she stopped coming to school.
I have friends who were disowned by their families when they came out, my grandparents who raised me told me several times that 'lesbians just don't make good mothers, that's just a fact', and I have been attacked physically for taking part in a Pride-parade.

I'm not saying you shouldn't make jokes about this stuff, but I am also going to point them out, and this whole discussion between us has been about whether it's okay to make fun of some being gay if they also make fun of someone ebing straight.

And to reiterate my argument; heterosexuals are very very very unlikely to face discrimination based on their sexuality, and that show didn't make fun of heterosexuality.

Not a stereotype on heterosexuality, but on clubbing douchebags.

On contrast, there are a lot of people who believe gay men are 'sissy', camp, ineffectual queens who are a threat to straight men because they can just decide to harass them.

How else would you describe a clubbing douchebag? They do what they do to impress members of the opposite sex in order to mate with them, down to excessive vanity and bloated sense of self-worth, and it has everything to do with their sexuality. If anything this stereotype is a closer boiling down of one person to their sexuality than the one of the sissy gay man. The gay man is depicted as choosing to act as he does, the clubbing douche bag is seen as a slave to their own sex drive.

And what's more, this stereotype is far more prolific than the one gay men are depicted as. If I ask people what the first few words that spring to mind when I say "strong homosexual man", they will tell me he is brave, that he is sexually liberated. If I ask them to do the same for a heterosexual man, the words will be chauvinist, pig, pervert - and once again - douchebag.

Clubbing douchebags cant be gay? Have you ever been to a gay club?

Really? Where do you live?
Because I can't say heterosexual men seem to be represented like that media to the extent I'd call that a 'stereotype'.
And if people really think that way where you live, I guess your country is run by women and gay men who get more easily promoted and voted in power than those people viewed as chauvinists, pigs, perverts and douchebags?

 

[Gorrath]

Really? Where do you live?
Because I can't say heterosexual men seem to be represented like that media to the extent I'd call that a 'stereotype'.
And if people really think that way where you live, I guess your country is run by women and gay men who get more easily promoted and voted in power than those people viewed as chauvinists, pigs, perverts and douchebags?

This line of thinking starts to make me a bit uncomfortable, as it suggests that so long as you're using a harmful stereotype against a member of a majority, then all is fine and dandy. It would not be true that in my country it would be harder for a heterosexual to get promoted or voted into office, but using that as an excuse to dismiss the effects of negative stereotyping is illogical.

As always, these sorts of exercises always treat individuals as if they belong to some kind homogeneous collective, and that way of thinking ends up damaging to individuals. It essentially says that because I share the same skin color and sexuality as people who are in power, I can be treated exactly as if I am just like those people, have the same advantages as those people and fit into the same stereotypes as those people.

There are stereotypes associated with being heterosexual and male in my society and many of them are anything but flattering. Now I am not going to claim offense to those stereotypes or try and get people who make jokes based on those stereotypes fired, but I'm also not going to pretend as if such stereotypes do not exist either.

 

[Lieju]

Really? Where do you live?
Because I can't say heterosexual men seem to be represented like that media to the extent I'd call that a 'stereotype'.
And if people really think that way where you live, I guess your country is run by women and gay men who get more easily promoted and voted in power than those people viewed as chauvinists, pigs, perverts and douchebags?

This line of thinking starts to make me a bit uncomfortable, as it suggests that so long as you're using a harmful stereotype against a member of a majority, then all is fine and dandy. It would not be true that in my country it would be harder for a heterosexual to get promoted or voted into office, but using that as an excuse to dismiss the effects of negative stereotyping is illogical.

As always, these sorts of exercises always treat individuals as if they belong to some kind homogeneous collective, and that way of thinking ends up damaging to individuals. It essentially says that because I share the same skin color and sexuality as people who are in power, I can be treated exactly as if I am just like those people, have the same advantages as those people and fit into the same stereotypes as those people.

There are stereotypes associated with being heterosexual and male in my society and many of them are anything but flattering. Now I am not going to claim offense to those stereotypes or try and get people who make jokes based on those stereotypes fired, but I'm also not going to pretend as if such stereotypes do not exist either.

And I never said it was okay.

What I said was that a stereotype is less damaging if it's not the only thing we keep hearing about some group.
And with majority, it's pretty likely that they are represented in a more complex manner.

Uberpubert has been saying that both Sheldon from Big Bang and a clubbing douche are examples of stereotypical heterosexuality, I'd say those two alone are pretty different representations.

There are stereotypes about men, certainly. (I can't think of any about heterosexuality, though)
But do those stereotypes have power? For example, it's a common joke that men never grow up, but if people actually believed that, surely they'd stop voting for men, and didn't give them promotions as easily?

Also, you do have some advantages and priviledges if you belong to the same groups as the people in power. (What those people are might differ from community to community, though)
Priviledge just means you aren't penalised for example for being straight, or having two arms, your life can still suck.

 

[Gorrath]

And I never said it was okay.

What I said was that a stereotype is less damaging if it's not the only thing we keep hearing about some group.
And with majority, it's pretty likely that they are represented in a more complex manner.

Uberpubert has been saying that both Sheldon from Big Bang and a clubbing douche are examples of stereotypical heterosexuality, I'd say those two alone are pretty different representations.

There are stereotypes about men, certainly. (I can't think of any about heterosexuality, though)
But do those stereotypes have power? For example, it's a common joke that men never grow up, but if people actually believed that, surely they'd stop voting for men, and didn't give them promotions as easily?

Also, you do have some advantages and priviledges if you belong to the same groups as the people in power. (What those people are might differ from community to community, though)
Priviledge just means you aren't penalised for example for being straight, or having two arms, your life can still suck.

I would say that there are very harmful stereotypes leveled at straight men in particular. As Uberpubert pointed out, there is an oft believed misconception that men are ruled by their sexual drive almost to the point of having no control. This is a negative stereotype that can very much be damaging in cases where the man is accused of sexual misconduct or in cases of domestic abuse calls. This may be very different than where you hail from, but it is something that affects legal cases and the way police treat calls related to domestic issues in my country.

Your second paragraph is exactly what I mean. The presumption that I enjoy any specific privilege because I am a certain race is not a given. The idea that I am not penalized for being white is a presumption of privileged that is not at all borne out by my own personal history growing up in predominantly poor neighborhoods where white people were a massive minority. My family and I were very much at a disadvantage specifically because we were white. Both my nationality and the color of my skin were of great personal disadvantage when I lived in Germany as well, as I lived in an area dominated by immigrants. Many Turkish youths would single me and my brother and sister out for harm because we looked German and the local German youth gangs would do the same to us because we were American. It was very similar when we lived in the housing projects in the US as well, the three of us being harassed to the point of physical violence simply because we were white.

The whole idea of privilege is that you are statistically more likely to receive beneficial (or at least not negative) treatment from the majority in power because you are of the majority's race/ethnic background/sexual preference ect. That is certainly borne out by the evidence of course. However, privilege is not a guarantee of anything at all, and that's how many now treat it. I may very well be statistically more likely to have a better education, or go to college, or find a job, or less likely to be a target of violence, but if you don't know anything about a person and you simply say that they are privileged because they share the same skin color as people in power, you are making an unqualified assumption about that individual based on statistics and their race. Making unqualified assumptions about people based on statistics and race is one of the biggest contributing factors to prejudiced or racist behavior.

This is what I mean by treating everyone as if they belong to a homogeneous collective, it can very much be damaging to individuals. If my race has been used as the single biggest reason for what was years of physical violence leveled against me and my family, it can hardly be said that it was a source of privilege, and when people (not yourself, people in general)come back and tell me that white people don't face significant levels of racial discrimination, it does nothing at all to abate anything that happens to the individuals who are affected by it. It matters not one whit to me that other people who share my skin color are more or less likely to have happen to them statistically, since none of that ever stopped me from getting my ribs kicked in because I was white.

I may exist as a rarity, a statistical anomaly but that does not in any way excuse people from making unqualified assumptions about me based on my race, which is exactly what calls (or in some cases, accusations) of privilege does. I want privilege to remain a reminder to people to think about their social advantages and the way it affects their preconceptions. I do not want privilege to become a word slung around in a way that implies prejudice or as a way of dismissing someone's opinion out of hand. I'm not accusing you of doing so, but I've seen a lot of things that come very close to doing exactly that. Sorry for the wall of text and my life story, but I do feel people need to carefully evaluate the way they use the word privilege. My thanks to you for the conversation by the way, you have done a fine job of making your point while maintaining civility and I appreciate that. I find it pleasurable.

 

[Lieju]

I would say that there are very harmful stereotypes leveled at straight men in particular. As Uberpubert pointed out, there is an oft believed misconception that men are ruled by their sexual drive almost to the point of having no control. This is a negative stereotype that can very much be damaging in cases where the man is accused of sexual misconduct or in cases of domestic abuse calls. This may be very different than where you hail from, but it is something that affects legal cases and the way police treat calls related to domestic issues in my country.

That's a stereotype on men, not just heterosexual ones.
For example in that show the joke was that a gay man will harass other men and just immediately want sex if they spot another gay man. (Bisexual men probably have it the worst when it comes to this stereotype)

A lot of homophobic men feel threatened by gay men because there is the fear that they just can't resist their attraction, and of course they will be attracted to all other males. (Including underage, because especially in the past it was a common assumption that gay men were all pedophiles.)

In contrast, women weren't supposed to feel sexual desire at all.

Your second paragraph is exactly what I mean. The presumption that I enjoy any specific privilege because I am a certain race is not a given. The idea that I am not penalized for being white is a presumption of privileged that is not at all borne out by my own personal history growing up in predominantly poor neighborhoods where white people were a massive minority. My family and I were very much at a disadvantage specifically because we were white. Both my nationality and the color of my skin were of great personal disadvantage when I lived in Germany as well, as I lived in an area dominated by immigrants. Many Turkish youths would single me and my brother and sister out for harm because we looked German and the local German youth gangs would do the same to us because we were American. It was very similar when we lived in the housing projects in the US as well, the three of us being harassed to the point of physical violence simply because we were white.

I am careful to never assume being white means you're in a priviledged position, because it depends a lot on the culture, and the ethnicity. Also 'white' is a vague concept, especially if we look at something like Europe and the race-politics here.

If asked, I'd probably describe myself as 'white', but people have pointed out to me I'm not white enough and that Finnish people are mongols. There has been some pretty interesting research and 'research' on this subject.
Also there have been cases where a Finnish person has confused me for a Romani and harassed me on a street.
It's puzzling, as I don't particularly look Romani and definitely don't dress in a traditional Romani way.

Sorry for the wall of text and my life story, but I do feel people need to carefully evaluate the way they use the word privilege. My thanks to you for the conversation by the way, you have done a fine job of making your point while maintaining civility and I appreciate that. I find it pleasurable.

Well, you were civil, so you get the same in return.

When it comes to priviledge, though, I'd say straight people enjoy the priviledge pretty much everywhere on the planet. Apart from some small communities of non-heterosexual people, where the hostility is more of a response to the way things are in the society in general.

At least I can't think of any.

 

[Gorrath]

I would say that there are very harmful stereotypes leveled at straight men in particular. As Uberpubert pointed out, there is an oft believed misconception that men are ruled by their sexual drive almost to the point of having no control. This is a negative stereotype that can very much be damaging in cases where the man is accused of sexual misconduct or in cases of domestic abuse calls. This may be very different than where you hail from, but it is something that affects legal cases and the way police treat calls related to domestic issues in my country.

That's a stereotype on men, not just heterosexual ones.
For example in that show the joke was that a gay man will harass other men and just immediately want sex if they spot another gay man. (Bisexual men probably have it the worst when it comes to this stereotype)

A lot of homophobic men feel threatened by gay men because there is the fear that they just can't resist their attraction, and of course they will be attracted to all other males. (Including underage, because especially in the past it was a common assumption that gay men were all pedophiles.)

In contrast, women weren't supposed to feel sexual desire at all.

Your second paragraph is exactly what I mean. The presumption that I enjoy any specific privilege because I am a certain race is not a given. The idea that I am not penalized for being white is a presumption of privileged that is not at all borne out by my own personal history growing up in predominantly poor neighborhoods where white people were a massive minority. My family and I were very much at a disadvantage specifically because we were white. Both my nationality and the color of my skin were of great personal disadvantage when I lived in Germany as well, as I lived in an area dominated by immigrants. Many Turkish youths would single me and my brother and sister out for harm because we looked German and the local German youth gangs would do the same to us because we were American. It was very similar when we lived in the housing projects in the US as well, the three of us being harassed to the point of physical violence simply because we were white.

I am careful to never assume being white means you're in a priviledged position, because it depends a lot on the culture, and the ethnicity. Also 'white' is a vague concept, especially if we look at something like Europe and the race-politics here.

If asked, I'd probably describe myself as 'white', but people have pointed out to me I'm not white enough and that Finnish people are mongols. There has been some pretty interesting research and 'research' on this subject.
Also there have been cases where a Finnish person has confused me for a Romani and harassed me on a street.
It's puzzling, as I don't particularly look Romani and definitely don't dress in a traditional Romani way.

Sorry for the wall of text and my life story, but I do feel people need to carefully evaluate the way they use the word privilege. My thanks to you for the conversation by the way, you have done a fine job of making your point while maintaining civility and I appreciate that. I find it pleasurable.

Well, you were civil, so you get the same in return.

When it comes to priviledge, though, I'd say straight people enjoy the priviledge pretty much everywhere on the planet. Apart from some small communities of non-heterosexual people, where the hostility is more of a response to the way things are in the society in general.

At least I can't think of any.

I'll grant you that the "inability" of men to control their sexual urges is a stereotype that affects both gay and straight men, I was simply pointing out that it is a stereotype that is leveled against heterosexual men. It is not to say that it is only against heterosexuals, just that it is used against them. I would say that in our current society, a man professing a fear that a gay man will try to rape them will likely result in that individual being ridiculed for being ignorant and offensive. A woman professing a fear that a heterosexual man will rape them will be met with understanding and sympathy. It isn't just that the stereotype is used against both homosexual and heterosexual people, but the reaction to that stereotype as well.

I would propose that a joke about a gay man being unable to resist hitting on, say, Bill and Ted, is likely considered by the audience to be funny (even if I don't find it humorous) because the situation is ridiculous. However, switch out the gay man for a straight guy and Bill and Ted for a woman and suddenly I doubt anyone would find it funny. Why? Because the first is a situation no one is taking seriously. The idea that a "fabulous" gay man is going to try and rape you isn't actually taken seriously at all. The second example is something people will take very seriously. So which is the more damaging stereotype? The one no one's taking seriously, or the one people believe is totally true?

For me though this is all an intellectual exercise though, as I wouldn't call for either joke I talked about being censored no matter how tasteless or how much damage I think it might do. The reason being that jokes are just jokes and being offended by something is not a good reason for censorship of the offending material. The idea put forth by some (Not you, as far as I can tell) that we shouldn't make jokes about stereotypes because stupid people might act stupid based on them is akin to saying we shouldn't have violent video games because violent people might act violent based on them. If people act like prejudiced ignorant jackasses it's on those people, not on people who they heard make a tasteless joke.

 

[BoogieManFL]

This show is the main reason my girlfriend and I even go to Universal's Hallow Horror Night. Secondly for The Walking Dead haunted house. The other stuff is just a bonus, although the Resident Evil one was surprisingly good. They also usually have a Rocky Horror stage show going that is enjoyable even though I'm somewhat neutral towards the movie itself. Just because the actors/actresses are that damn good.

For those asking, it's a live comedy show that parodies public culture trends and individuals, often those movie based.
It should be getting near the end of the event, but I wonder how accurate the title really is. They change the show as it plays from day to day, cutting things that didn't get as good a crowd reaction as they hoped and replace it with something else. That seems more likely to have been what's occurred.

Also as far as I can tell it's the same two dude that has been playing Bill and Ted for years. I don't see them "canning" them. just altering the show, as they have done countless times.

To all those offended or debating the content, it's a parody show so treat it as such. I want to slap people who get all pissy about things like this. These types of shows are for people with a broad and versatile sense of humor. It even says before the show starts that you shouldn't watch it if you're easily offended or have sensitive tenancies. And if that Superman bit offended you, you're an idiot and you know you shouldn't have watched the show. Move on with your life and stop ruining other people's work and fun because YOU don't like it. That's far more wrong than your feeling or beliefs being hurt by a PARODY SHOW. Grow up.

 

[Lieju]

I would propose that a joke about a gay man being unable to resist hitting on, say, Bill and Ted, is likely considered by the audience to be funny (even if I don't find it humorous) because the situation is ridiculous. However, switch out the gay man for a straight guy and Bill and Ted for a woman and suddenly I doubt anyone would find it funny. Why? Because the first is a situation no one is taking seriously. The idea that a "fabulous" gay man is going to try and rape you isn't actually taken seriously at all. The second example is something people will take very seriously. So which is the more damaging stereotype? The one no one's taking seriously, or the one people believe is totally true?

Well, the show also had this part:

there's a part where Wreck-It Ralph comes and beats Nicki Minaj and Amanda Bynes into unconsciousness. He then picks Nicki up, throws her over his shoulder and starts to take her off stage. "Where are you taking Nicki Minaj?" asks Bill. Wreck-It Ralph gestures toward Nicki's ass and says "I'm gonna wreck it."

I don't know how the audience reacted to that, but apparently the wirters also felt that rape of unconscious women was funny. At least with that joke you can take it as being a joke on how Ralph would never do something like that, so it might be that it being horrible is the joke.

With Superman, if you take the same approach you just end up with the implication that being gay or acting camp is a horrible thing.

For me though this is all an intellectual exercise though, as I wouldn't call for either joke I talked about being censored no matter how tasteless or how much damage I think it might do. The reason being that jokes are just jokes and being offended by something is not a good reason for censorship of the offending material. The idea put forth by some (Not you, as far as I can tell) that we shouldn't make jokes about stereotypes because stupid people might act stupid based on them is akin to saying we shouldn't have violent video games because violent people might act violent based on them. If people act like prejudiced ignorant jackasses it's on those people, not on people who they heard make a tasteless joke.

What makes you think I don't criticise violence in video-games? I think it's often misused, and there definitely is an over-abundance of games with violence in them. That doesn't mean that I want them banned or censored, or think they are all bad. I don't think they make you violent, though.

Stereotypes are just bad writing, though. As are jokes like that Superman one that made no sense. But if someone is making a joke that is based on ignorance and prejudice, why shouldn't that be called out?

Also it's not necessarily stupidity but ignorance. If you don't personally know anyone of some minority, (or don't know you do) it's easy to base your opinion on stereotypes.

I have had people tell pretty weird things totally seriously to me, including that I am not actually a lesbian because I don't have short hair, and because I'm not ugly. So that I'd eventually 'come to my senses' and start being straight.

 

[Gorrath]

What makes you think I don't criticise violence in video-games? I think it's often misused, and there definitely is an over-abundance of games with violence in them. That doesn't mean that I want them banned or censored, or think they are all bad. I don't think they make you violent, though.

Stereotypes are just bad writing, though. As are jokes like that Superman one that made no sense. But if someone is making a joke that is based on ignorance and prejudice, why shouldn't that be called out?

Also it's not necessarily stupidity but ignorance. If you don't personally know anyone of some minority, (or don't know you do) it's easy to base your opinion on stereotypes.

I have had people tell pretty weird things totally seriously to me, including that I am not actually a lesbian because I don't have short hair, and because I'm not ugly. So that I'd eventually 'come to my senses' and start being straight.

I find it interesting the a joke about gay-superman hitting on Bill and Ted, and thus suggesting that gay man can't control their sexual urges, has draw such an outcry while a joke about a heterosexual man in the same situation, but with the added suggestion of violence, doesn't seem to have raised much ire. I find both jokes equally obnoxious myself (low hanging fruit and all that) but as I mentioned, I don't find either joke offensive. Which is not to suggest that I think other people should or should not be offended themselves. I would be quite curious as to how the crowd reacted to the different jokes though, as the example I gave was purely hypothetical. I'd love to see a study done. In any case I don't see that the super-man joke necessarily means homosexuality = bad any more than I think the Wreck it Ralph joke is meant to suggest that heterosexuality = bad.

In both cases the writers are playing off stereotypes to make an awful joke and I don't think in either case the joke is meant to be taken seriously. Between the two though the example of Wreck it Ralph certainly is more poignant. While the idea of homosexual rape might be hinted at in the super-man joke, heterosexual rape is outright stated in the Wreck it Ralph one. And so I wonder, which is the more damaging stereotype, "Gay men are promiscuous and will totally come onto you even if you're straight!" or "Heterosexual men are violent rapists!"? Both are stereotypes, possibly damaging ones, and I believe that was the main crux of the argument correct, that people who are part of the majority don't get stereotyped? I may have lost sight of the actual points being made since we've discussed a lot of things and I've enjoyed the diversity of subjects we've touched on.

As for your particular stance on violence in video games, I did not mean to suggest you had any particular point of view, I am only speaking to the majority view point I've seen expressed on this site. I do not presume to know how you feel on any given subject, though I am quite interested in learning. But the main point I was making was that violent media should be no more a scapegoat for violent behavior than ignorant media should be a scapegoat for ignorance. I used the word stupidity because that was the example another poster had used, and though I agree that it is ignorance that drives prejudice I think there's often a fair amount of stupidity as well. I think the idea that your haircut would have some bearing on your sexuality, or be some kind of indicator of it, is ignorant, I also think it's rather stupid, or foolish if you prefer.

 

[Lieju]

In both cases the writers are playing off stereotypes to make an awful joke and I don't think in either case the joke is meant to be taken seriously. Between the two though the example of Wreck it Ralph certainly is more poignant. While the idea of homosexual rape might be hinted at in the super-man joke, heterosexual rape is outright stated in the Wreck it Ralph one. And so I wonder, which is the more damaging stereotype, "Gay men are promiscuous and will totally come onto you even if you're straight!" or "Heterosexual men are violent rapists!"? Both are stereotypes, possibly damaging ones, and I believe that was the main crux of the argument correct, that people who are part of the majority don't get stereotyped? I may have lost sight of the actual points being made since we've discussed a lot of things and I've enjoyed the diversity of subjects we've touched on.

If Ralph was the only heterosexual character in the show, it might be taken as a joke on heterosexuality.
Or if he was gay, got turned straight and this made him want to rape women.

The Superman joke just baffles me.
(Nice discussion, though)

 

[UberPubert]

Foreign nations? I live in Finland, a country where gay rights are rather good.

And yet, back in highschool our glass bullied a girl they suspected of being a lesbian (because she looked like a 'stereotypical' butch) so much she stopped coming to school.
I have friends who were disowned by their families when they came out, my grandparents who raised me told me several times that 'lesbians just don't make good mothers, that's just a fact', and I have been attacked physically for taking part in a Pride-parade.

I'm not saying you shouldn't make jokes about this stuff, but I am also going to point them out, and this whole discussion between us has been about whether it's okay to make fun of some being gay if they also make fun of someone ebing straight.

And to reiterate my argument; heterosexuals are very very very unlikely to face discrimination based on their sexuality, and that show didn't make fun of heterosexuality.

Well your class and grandparents all sound like terrible people. The strongest opinion my hard right conservative christian dad can come up with on gays is that... He actually couldn't care less, and here in America where in some states gays don't have the right to marry he thinks that should be changed, and that it's none of the government's business who marries who. I went to high school where a lot of students there were openly gay - holding hands, making out in the parking lot, etc etc - and went completely unmolested. Someone in my small circle of friends came out (though I can't remember specifically if he was bi or gay) and all any of us could muster was a shrug before going back to talking about video games and hanging out every day at lunch like we always did. I'm sorry our anecdotal evidence doesn't exactly match up but that's kind of why it's unreliable.

And to reiterate my point: The show makes fun of sex in general, the line between knocking gays for being sissies and knocking heterosexuals for being any number of stereotypes still doesn't seem indicative of bigotry or exclusionary attitudes. The gay stereotype type is on the stage with all the others, the writer maybe should've come up with a more complex or nuanced one but it's hard to do or convey so much in less than twenty minutes of a comedy show.

Clubbing douchebags cant be gay? Have you ever been to a gay club?

Really? Where do you live?
Because I can't say heterosexual men seem to be represented like that media to the extent I'd call that a 'stereotype'.
And if people really think that way where you live, I guess your country is run by women and gay men who get more easily promoted and voted in power than those people viewed as chauvinists, pigs, perverts and douchebags?

Most people would assume that no, the average clubbing douchebag is not gay, mostly because the average man isn't gay and also because most people presume gay men dress better. And no I haven't been to a gay club but I haven't been to a straight one either, I'm just working off society's stereotypes here.

Florida, vaguely. Southeastern United States, not exactly renowned for tolerance but I get along just fine most days.

The clubbing douche bag archetype is just one stereotype of many for heterosexuals. Heterosexuals have, understandably, been represented in modern media for a longer time and the public perception of them has had time to sort through the popular perceptions of them... And I can't think of a one who hasn't, at some point, been dragged through the mud. There isn't a position a straight man can hold, a job he could do or a role he could play that hasn't been the butt of a joke. It's just what society does to amuse itself, it's not unique to straight men either, and while you can try to paint the gay sissy man archetype as being especially prejudiced, it's useless: Society makes fun of people for much less than their sexuality all the time.

Also, power has little to nothing to do with it. More men run for offices, more people vote for them, ergo more men are in office than other demographics. Almost any one can run and everyone is free to vote for who they please, mechanically, the system couldn't be any more fair.

EDIT: And I didn't say Sheldon was a stereotype of heterosexuals, I was using him as an example of a nerd.

 

[Lieju]

Well your class and grandparents all sound like terrible people.

Please refrain from insulting the people who raised me.
They aren't horrible people, that's why it's so tragic that they believe these stereotypes they read and watch.

And to reiterate my point: The show makes fun of sex in general, the line between knocking gays for being sissies and knocking heterosexuals for being any number of stereotypes still doesn't seem indicative of bigotry or exclusionary attitudes. The gay stereotype type is on the stage with all the others, the writer maybe should've come up with a more complex or nuanced one but it's hard to do or convey so much in less than twenty minutes of a comedy show.

...

EDIT: And I didn't say Sheldon was a stereotype of heterosexuals, I was using him as an example of a nerd.

This discussion is going in circles.

You are't getting my point; heterosexuals don't get stereotyped down to their sexuality; unless you end up in a situation where the majority of the people in some company or organisation are non-hetero, you won't be boiled down to 'the straight one'.

There won't be a joke in a show like this where the punchline is 'he is straight!'.Just like there won't be a joke about how someone can see or has two arms; those are things that are expected to be the norm.

Also, you claimed that

The character of a horny teenage alpha male sports jock or a lonely perverted nerd are just as much negative stereotypes about heterosexuals as Superman being really happy is a stereotype about homosexuals.

You just aren't getting my point here, apparently I'm not being clear enough, sorry.

But why is that stereotype about Superman there in the first place? What sense does it make? Why is there the rape -joke about Wreck-it-Ralph either?

That writing just doesn't sound good.

 

[UberPubert]

Please refrain from insulting the people who raised me.
They aren't horrible people, that's why it's so tragic that they believe these stereotypes they read and watch.

Then it does seem odd you would make similar insults about the Bill and Ted show, doesn't it?

This discussion is going in circles.

You are't getting my point; heterosexuals don't get stereotyped down to their sexuality; unless you end up in a situation where the majority of the people in some company or organisation are non-hetero, you won't be boiled down to 'the straight one'.

There won't be a joke in a show like this where the punchline is 'he is straight!'.Just like there won't be a joke about how someone can see or has two arms; those are things that are expected to be the norm.

Your point seems to change with every post, so I apologize if it seems I'm not addressing it adequately.

In response to a stereotype not being made about the majority I can only respond with an agreement. Stereotypes can rarely be made about a majority factor because it's not discriminating enough. The entire point of the stereotype is to divide and categorize people into smaller groups, if you made a stereotype that only described a majority group it would fail in it's task upon conception.

But if you did have a show about gay men and there was just "the straight one" you'd have almost the exact same scenario played out backwards, him walking around acting in stark contrast to whatever the gay men were doing and probably being clueless about how homosexuality works ("So like, which one of you is the woman?" cue laugh box)

But why is that stereotype about Superman there in the first place? What sense does it make? Why is there the rape -joke about Wreck-it-Ralph either?

That writing just doesn't sound good.

I'd already agreed the writing seemed tasteless and nonsensical, I only argued this molehill of ineptitude was not actually a mountain of bigotry (or representative thereof).

Besides, the Superman gay joke has already been made a long time ago during some issue where he came into contact with pink kryptonite or whatever, so I recognize the joke isn't even original, and I also don't remember anyone losing their mind about the icon of "Truth Justice and the American Way" being into dudes.

 

[Lieju]

Please refrain from insulting the people who raised me.
They aren't horrible people, that's why it's so tragic that they believe these stereotypes they read and watch.

Then it does seem odd you would make similar insults about the Bill and Ted show, doesn't it?

Saying a show is horrible is not the same thing as saying people are horrible.
I haven't, at any point, said that I think people who wrote and acted that are horrible. It is possible to criticise a work without going into personal insults.

Your point seems to change with every post, so I apologize if it seems I'm not addressing it adequately.

In response to a stereotype not being made about the majority I can only respond with an agreement. Stereotypes can rarely be made about a majority factor because it's not discriminating enough. The entire point of the stereotype is to divide and categorize people into smaller groups, if you made a stereotype that only described a majority group it would fail in it's task upon conception.

I am so sorry of my failure at explaining things.

But we seem to be in agreement here. I think.