Homophobia in a university newspaper, as well as other things!?

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Can't believe people are offended at this. It's such an incredibly lame joke I found it funny.

They should be able to publish whatever they want. That comic isn't going to change anyone's find and they just look like idiots for publishing it.

 

[Woodsey]

Fuck me, they could have at least made it funny.

You realize that you totally are comparable to a pedo right? Especially if you insist on the whole "born this way" thing. Pedos are born that way too. Also, a pedo does not equal a child molester.

Uh... yeah. That makes every straight person comparable to paedophiles as well. In fact it makes everyone of every and any sexual orientation comparable to paedos.

 

[runic knight]

I don't get it. The joke offended some people but other than that I chuckled at the strip. Not really seeing the point here. Oh well I just account this to the left being as whiny as the right. You guys complain about every damn thing, at this point I don't really care anymore. Guy made a stupid joke, the PC crowd rears it ugly head, and my apathy grows. I really don't see how you guys can be bleeding heart about everything, there is such a creature as going to far, and man have you guys gone far in the deep end. I use to care, and now thanks to complaining about everything, I can't really find the effort to care now. Seems like everyone wants to create their own version of what should be censored, and what shouldn't, disguising it as trying to be cultured, or the children, or rights. Really everyone is shoving their viewpoints as right, and it's tiresome.

umm... I thought this was actually sort of capitalistic at heart. The paper is for a university who has a vested interest in making sure they are represented the way they want to be. Thus, being they sell their services and they probably don't want to be associated with bigots, the would do well to listen to those who think the comic was offensive and use that accordingly.
No one here has said they can't say that, and the only arguments about firing the editor or what not seem entirely based in the pre-established ideal that it is a university paper that has the right to respond to the comic (and whatever public outcry it caused) in any way they see fit, including denying the maker of the comic a further use of the university's paper as a forum for his ideas.

You want an argument about what is right, I am more then happy to go there, but don't be trying to twist this as some sort of "liberal bleeding heart" crap when it seems so rooted in the very idea of the university's right to dictate the rules of what can or can not be said through a medium they own. The fact they listen to public opinion to determine that choice doesn't change that it is still a business decision in the end, not a moral one in how they act. And at no point was anyone given the right to say what they want all over another's property without their permission.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I don't know about anyone else (since there seem to be some rather stark divisions in this thread) but I think people are confused about which part was offensive.

The fruit rollup pun? Stupid, but not all that offensive.

The father talking about murdering his son for being gay, and then laughing about it - that... that's pretty fucked up. And there are real people out there like that.

I don't know if it was trying to be satirical - some people in this thread seem to think so - but I didn't see any indication of that. The son seems to agree with his father - hence making the bad pun - and thus the comic appears to support the father's POV.

That, more than anything, I believe is why people are getting offending over this comic - it appears to be supporting the father.

Maybe that wasn't the intent. I don't know - the comic doesn't make that clear. Just being extreme doesn't make something a satire and I don't see how this insults homophobes (which would be required if it is a satire of homophobes like the father).

So yeah.

... I'm posting on page 3, so only like three people will read this anyway. **sigh**

 

[DeltaEdge]

I'm not going to lie, that didn't really seem very homophobic to me at all. How blatant the father was about his feelings toward homosexuality made this comic seem more akin to a parody that missed its punchline versus actually trying to express an opinion about how terrible homosexuals are.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

You realize that you totally are comparable to a pedo right? Especially if you insist on the whole "born this way" thing. Pedos are born that way too. Also, a pedo does not equal a child molester.

...actually, yeah. They kinda do. People don't 'out' themselves as pedophiles. That tends to happen pretty much entirely if they're A) caught with CP or B) actually molesting a child.

About your Joke earlier in the Thread, I'd say the Joke sucks but I wouldn't really give a shit. But I can see that you clearly belong to the people that think along the lines of "you can think whatever you want as long as I agree with it."

Except that there's a difference between posting a controversial opinion and taking "Father expresses desire to murder son should he ever turn out gay" and making it look like a big joke. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with someone over an issue. Hell, there might've been a more legitimate case of free speech to be made if the comic had been openly advocating the slaughter of homosexuals at the first sign of their orientation. At least then it would've seemed like it wasn't just making a godawful joke that was also so tasteless it could make a cut of filet mignon seem like a slab of thick cardboard.

Things don't work that way, people are allowed to hate you. I don't understand why some people aren't indifferent, but then again, I also don't see what you find so attractive in a dick.

...seriously? You're taking "I don't know why you're attracted to the same gender," and using it to justify, "I don't know why people hate you based purely on your orientation, so I won't call them out for it"?

Oh and as a aside, you make a target of yourself by calling yourself "Gaymer", seriously, does your hobby have to be about who you like fucking? Can't you just be a gamer like everyone else? Do you really find it so surprising that you meet resistance when you show such signs of defining yourself over your sexuality? Seriously, I don't care if you are gay, but if you really do define yourself by it, I think something is wrong with you.

On one hand, I do see your point: being gay has nothing to do with video games.

But then the other, bigger hand has this: it's people pretty much just like you who make homosexuality something that warrants open pride. If you spend your life being told that a pretty basic part of you (who you're attracted to) is something to be ashamed of, you probably wouldn't buy that the instant that you met someone else who shared that trait, or even just went to the internet and discovered that no, you're not the only one, and no, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

See, the hilarious irony is that people who get horribly offended by people being 'openly' gay are exactly the sort of people who try to drive home that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of. How is his orientation and less valid an aspect of his online screenname than, say, anything? How is, for instance, my memory of a nuclear-powered grill related to a forum dedicated largely to video game news? Even my Live name is a semi-obscure reference to The Odyssey/Iliad, but I don't get people sending angry messages demanding I justify why I'm flaunting my taste in literature.

The Joke isn't homophobic, it's just a stupid pun. It does portray a homophobe however. That's fine. Please stop trying to tell art what it is allowed to do and what not, doing that makes you a moron and you surely do not want to be a moron Mr./Ms. Unspecified Person.

Okay, here's a simple question: how many people look at an illustration of a parent threatening their child with brutal murder if they turn out gay and think, 'This is comedic gold! Now I just need a punchline that incorporates the dead child being wrapped in a carpet and dumped in a river."

And for bonus points: what kind of cartoonist takes the time to draw an extra panel of his characters laughing at the joke they just made? Christ, even Bill Keane didn't do that, and most Family Circus comics were as close as science has managed to achieving anti-comedy.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

As others have said, this doesn't seem homophobic as much as it seems like just a case of bad and tasteless humor.

One could ask the question "why did the cartoonist think that was funny?" I'm going to a step further and ask "who in the newspaper thought that'd be funny?"

And I'm not even saying that it's unfunny cause it's tasteless. It' just not funny, it's literally a comic where the two characters laugh at a joke in the comic.
(Char-Nobyl seems to have ninja'd me and made the same comments)


I can write something funnier right now.

"Son, I don't want you hanging out with Billy, his parent's are....different"
"How so?"
"Well they are both male, it's awfully strange for two men to be that sort of relationship."
"That's what mom says about you and beer bros after you come home at 3AM from the wrestling match."

 

[Char-Nobyl]

I'm not going to lie, that didn't really seem very homophobic to me at all. How blatant the father was about his feelings toward homosexuality made this comic seem more akin to a parody that missed its punchline versus actually trying to express an opinion about how terrible homosexuals are.

...but that's the problem. Beyond a certain point, you can't argue for parody or satire any more because you've completely ignored the absurdity that's necessary for it to work.

There isn't anything humorous or outlandish about this comic. It's a father threatening to kill his young son. With a shotgun. And apparently the cartoonist thought his 'Fruit Roll-Up' pun was so amazing that it warranted an extra panel of the two fictional characters, one of whom had just threatened to brutally and remorselessly murder the other, laughing because the thought of a dead homosexual in a carpet reminded them of a popular snack food.

I don't know about anyone else (since there seem to be some rather stark divisions in this thread) but I think people are confused about which part was offensive.

The fruit rollup pun? Stupid, but not all that offensive.

The father talking about murdering his son for being gay, and then laughing about it - that... that's pretty fucked up. And there are real people out there like that.

I don't know if it was trying to be satirical - some people in this thread seem to think so - but I didn't see any indication of that. The son seems to agree with his father - hence making the bad pun - and thus the comic appears to support the father's POV.

That, more than anything, I believe is why people are getting offending over this comic - it appears to be supporting the father.

Maybe that wasn't the intent. I don't know - the comic doesn't make that clear. Just being extreme doesn't make something a satire and I don't see how this insults homophobes (which would be required if it is a satire of homophobes like the father).

Yeah. Oddly enough, I think it would have been less negatively received if it had only been three panels long. Then it's like a lousy Cyanide and Happiness clone: sure, it's dark, but it's supposed to be.

With this, that fourth panel of them both laughing says one thing: both the son and the father saw the mental image of the former being murdered, bundled into a rug, and then dumped by the latter, and they both thought it was goddamn hilarious. That's the problem with this strip.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

As others have said, this doesn't seem homophobic as much as it seems like just a case of bad and tasteless humor.

One could ask the question "why did the cartoonist think that was funny?" I'm going to a step further and ask "who in the newspaper thought that'd be funny?"

And I'm not even saying that it's unfunny cause it's tasteless. It' just not funny, it's literally a comic where the two characters laugh at a joke in the comic.
(Char-Nobyl seems to have ninja'd me and made the same comments)


I can write something funnier right now.

"Son, I don't want you hanging out with Billy, his parent's are....different"
"How so?"
"Well they are both male, it's awfully strange for two men to be that sort of relationship."
"That's what mom says about you and beer bros after you come home at 3AM from the wrestling match."

Heh. Sorry 'bout that. But it's true, certainly. If nothing else, the cartoonist, editor-in-chief, and copy-editor ought to get canned just on principle. This comic was objectively terrible. You could only improve the newspaper by firing the people who thought it was worth printing.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Speaking of which, is there ANY conclusive evidence that you CANNOT change your sexual orientation?

Another thing about that argument that bugs me(and ties into my question): I never hear about anyone complaining about how child molesters were BORN attracted to children.

As far as I know homosexuality was declared a developmental thing with a possible, slight contribution from a genetic factor.

I could be wrong though. The articles shown to me on the subject were from a year and a half ago, hence why I ask.

Oh my god.

Seriously?

Only right wing "scientists" declared homosexuality to be a "developmental thing" every single legitimate psychologist and geneticist agrees that sexuality is largely genetic, and the influence development has on it is one of degrees.

As a gay person I can genuinely say with all seriousness that I did not and do not choose to be gay.

Trust me with people like you about id rather be straight and "normal" if only to stop having to put up with crap like this, put up with people like you comparing people like me to rapists and peadophiles.

I don't think I have ever a more horribly offensive and ignorant post on these forums on all the time ive been lurking and posting here.

You realize that you totally are comparable to a pedo right? Especially if you insist on the whole "born this way" thing. Pedos are born that way too. Also, a pedo does not equal a child molester.

About your Joke earlier in the Thread, I'd say the Joke sucks but I wouldn't really give a shit. But I can see that you clearly belong to the people that think along the lines of "you can think whatever you want as long as I agree with it."

Things don't work that way, people are allowed to hate you. I don't understand why some people aren't indifferent, but then again, I also don't see what you find so attractive in a dick.

Oh and as a aside, you make a target of yourself by calling yourself "Gaymer", seriously, does your hobby have to be about who you like fucking? Can't you just be a gamer like everyone else? Do you really find it so surprising that you meet resistance when you show such signs of defining yourself over your sexuality? Seriously, I don't care if you are gay, but if you really do define yourself by it, I think something is wrong with you.

__________

The Joke isn't homophobic, it's just a stupid pun. It does portray a homophobe however. That's fine. Please stop trying to tell art what it is allowed to do and what not, doing that makes you a moron and you surely do not want to be a moron Mr./Ms. Unspecified Person.

...except the joke is homophobic.

The butt of the joke isn't on the homophobic parent, it's on queers. If it ended with the child saying, as someone else put it, "Ahahahaha Fruit Roll up... I'm calling CPS..." or the parent going "Ahahahaha.... But no seriously, Jimmy, I will kill you if you're gay." you could argue around it. Also it's not really that funny, and I'm not saying that in the homophobic sense as my humor sketches pretty dark it's just not clever really.

Same rules apply to rape jokes. The butt of the joke can't be on the rape victim, and if it is it better be really really funny.

Also, dude, everyone's sexuality is a huge part of their definition as a person. You may not be aware of it because your sexuality happens to fit within societies norms, but I'm sure it matters to you. If your social circle constantly say, got your gender wrong, it would annoy you right? Same thing.

And you hit the nail on the head with the pedo thing, btw... On a side note, I use to feel tremendous sympathy for pedophiles being born with an attraction that made them basically monsters, until I realized they had a choice weather to fuck a kid. I mean, majority of us like women but don't go out raping them because we can't get laid. So you could argue that yeah, they're choosing to have sex with people of the same gender but the difference there is that in that scenario is two consenting adults. Same way I presume you don't have any choice in your sexual attractions either, just the choice of weather you choose to act on them.... and logically, unless one is attracted to children, why wouldn't one?

There, I have dropped a little science on ya.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. That's all that needs to be said.

Or in other words, people can say whatever they want. Once they've said their piece, they've already exercised said freedom, so whatever comes afterwards has nothing to do with their freedom of speech.

That's... entirely incorrect. By that definition, Stalin's Russia had Freedom of Speech, as they killed you AFTER you said something positive about capitalist pigs, not before.[footnote]Yes, this isn't completely accurate, but it provides a good illustration.[/footnote]

You can't truly believe this is an example of hate speech can you? Sure, it isn't particularly funny, but i think it's a bit far to brand it as hate speech.

Definition (hate speech): Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of color, [snip], sexual orientation, or other characteristic.
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
With that definition in mind, let's look at the comic in question.

Spoiler: the comic in question

Yes, the comic in question is hate speech. This is because the comic say that what is implied to be a child's parent tells the child that if you reveal yourself to be gay, the parent would brutally murder the child. That is the definition of disparaging a group, and it reinforces the culture of discrimination and hatred that surrounds anyone who isn't heterosexual.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I don't know about anyone else (since there seem to be some rather stark divisions in this thread) but I think people are confused about which part was offensive.

The fruit rollup pun? Stupid, but not all that offensive.

The father talking about murdering his son for being gay, and then laughing about it - that... that's pretty fucked up. And there are real people out there like that.

I don't know if it was trying to be satirical - some people in this thread seem to think so - but I didn't see any indication of that. The son seems to agree with his father - hence making the bad pun - and thus the comic appears to support the father's POV.

That, more than anything, I believe is why people are getting offending over this comic - it appears to be supporting the father.

Maybe that wasn't the intent. I don't know - the comic doesn't make that clear. Just being extreme doesn't make something a satire and I don't see how this insults homophobes (which would be required if it is a satire of homophobes like the father).

So yeah.

... I'm posting on page 3, so only like three people will read this anyway. **sigh**

I was just thinking about that.

If it's meant to be a satire or ironic, as in "this joke clearly isn't funny just offensive"... I mean then it kind of works, I suppose, but the cartoonist failed to really get across that was the point.

....and my gut tells me whoever this cartoonist is thought of the fruit roll up punch line and thought "Oh my god! Fruit Rollup! I'VE INVENTED COMEDY!!!!"

 

[DugMachine]

I could see it as satire but it's just an overall shitty joke even if that was their intention (which I doubt).

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. That's all that needs to be said.

Or in other words, people can say whatever they want. Once they've said their piece, they've already exercised said freedom, so whatever comes afterwards has nothing to do with their freedom of speech.

That's... entirely incorrect. By that definition, Stalin's Russia had Freedom of Speech, as they killed you AFTER you said something positive about capitalist pigs, not before.[footnote]Yes, this isn't completely accurate, but it provides a good illustration.[/footnote]

You can't truly believe this is an example of hate speech can you? Sure, it isn't particularly funny, but i think it's a bit far to brand it as hate speech.

Definition (hate speech): Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of color, [snip], sexual orientation, or other characteristic.
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
With that definition in mind, let's look at the comic in question.

Spoiler: the comic in question

Yes, the comic in question is hate speech. This is because the comic say that what is implied to be a child's parent tells the child that if you reveal yourself to be gay, the parent would brutally murder the child. That is the definition of disparaging a group, and it reinforces the culture of discrimination and hatred that surrounds anyone who isn't heterosexual.

Just something... I'm noticing now...

If you cut the last panel of them laughing, the joke kinda works. Father threatens kid, kid essentially comes out to father. He's the fruit roll up in question, he's admitting to being gay in a very clever way.

It's that last panel of both father and son laughing that seems to throw everything off and makes them both seem homophobic.

 

[FitScotGaymer]

Sexualality, race, gender, whatever. It's all fair game for jokes as long as there isn't malicious intent behind it. People are making too big a deal of this. As other posters have said, it's more of a jab at homophobes. It's shock humor and people just need to deal with it.

What I really have a problem with is remarks like this:

I just want to add to the person who said it isn't homophobic. I assume you aren't gay yourself, because as a gay person I can categorically say that it IS homophobic.

I'm gay and I don't need you getting offended on my behalf. You're not endowed with some divine power of judgement to say what is definitively homophobic and what isn't just because you're gay. Again, it's about the intent behind the joke.

I also find it odd that you felt the need to include your sexual orientation in your user name too. That and your vehement response to this joke leads me to believe that you're making being gay into too big a part of your identity.

One = You dont really need to comment on my username. It's uncalled for, and none of ur business.

Two = If you had bothered to read my above post response to AngloDoom you would have seem me reply to him the very same thing that u are upbraiding me for.

As I said to AngloDoom. I wasn't speaking for anyone expect myself, and I did not intend to come off that way. I was speaking for myself, from my own experience.

And as to my username. All you need to know is that its my username everywhere and thats why i use it here.
Anything else isnt your business nor is it your place to comment.


EDIT:
I really don't know why my username has become such a thing. Yikes.

Okay I don't mind people disagreeing with me, as long as they are polite about it. Heck the other day in the fallout thread I had really enjoyable debate with several people about the blatant plot holes in Fallout 3.
They had different positions from me, and I enjoyed speaking to them about it immensely.

AngloDoom posted taking issue with something I typed, where I wasn't entirely clear and obviously came off a little presumptuous. So I clarified what i meant, that i was speaking from my own experiences about me and my viewpoint and I didnt mean to come off otherwise.
I did that because he was polite, and didn't make any personal attacks on me about it.

I think it is entirely reasonable to object to be compared to or rather equated to a peadophile because of my sexual orientation.

While it is true that Peadophiles are unable to "help" being that way as well, and I do not think that all peadophiles are child molesters. There is one critical difference between homosexuality and peadophilia.
That is homosexuality (like bisexuality and heterosexuality) involves fully aware, and (supposedly) mature consenting adults. And the important part is the consenting adults part.

Peadophilia involves the attraction to children, and minors. Children can not consent to a sexual relationship because fundamentally they are unable to understand the implications of engaging in a sexual relationship, or able to cope with the mental, physical, and emotional changes that a sexual relationship can entail.
Engaging in a sexual relationship with a minor is not only psychologically damaging to them, but also can be physically damaging too.

Asexual abstaining peadophiles are not a problem to me, because they recognise that their attraction is to people who are not capable of consenting to sexual relations, and attempting to go ahead with such a relationship would be wrong and damaging. And thus do not do so.
And for that reason the two things are not comparable, and most gay people resent the comparison.

About my username.

I didn't want to go into it because frankly its no ones business what the heck i call myself on any forum.

But I call myself fitscotgaymer because im fit, im scottish, and im a gay gamer. A bit over an overly literaly somewhat amusing play on words as a self identifier for when im on forums and whatnot.
Also as an identifier to others, other gay gamers, that hey im here. Cos where I live there isn't many gay gamers around sadly.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I was just thinking about that.
If it's meant to be a satire or ironic, as in "this joke clearly isn't funny just offensive"... I mean then it kind of works, I suppose, but the cartoonist failed to really get across that was the point.
....and my gut tells me whoever this cartoonist is thought of the fruit roll up punch line and thought "Oh my god! Fruit Rollup! I'VE INVENTED COMEDY!!!!"

Just something... I'm noticing now...
If you cut the last panel of them laughing, the joke kinda works. Father threatens kid, kid essentially comes out to father. He's the fruit roll up in question, he's admitting to being gay in a very clever way.
It's that last panel of both father and son laughing that seems to throw everything off and makes them both seem homophobic.

Yeah, the laughter is what I find really off about the comic. The one panel could be satire, but it is undermined by the laughter at the end. The fruit rollup joke is weak, and obviously the artist thought it was far more clever than it is, but again, any subversion of the subject is ruined by that laughter.

Oh - someone earlier suggested that the kid was gay, and I was like "huh?" - I didn't get it until you explained it. One reading is that the kid is implying that his father will HAVE to make him a "fruit rollup" sometime in the future, and thus the kid is gay. I didn't pick up on that interpretation until JUST now, mostly because of that laughing panel at the end. So, to those of you who think the comic is in offensive because the kid is gay - I'm not sure the kid is gay. The laughter at the end makes me think he's not. But again, it's hard to tell what the author intended.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I was just thinking about that.
If it's meant to be a satire or ironic, as in "this joke clearly isn't funny just offensive"... I mean then it kind of works, I suppose, but the cartoonist failed to really get across that was the point.
....and my gut tells me whoever this cartoonist is thought of the fruit roll up punch line and thought "Oh my god! Fruit Rollup! I'VE INVENTED COMEDY!!!!"

Just something... I'm noticing now...
If you cut the last panel of them laughing, the joke kinda works. Father threatens kid, kid essentially comes out to father. He's the fruit roll up in question, he's admitting to being gay in a very clever way.
It's that last panel of both father and son laughing that seems to throw everything off and makes them both seem homophobic.

Yeah, the laughter is what I find really off about the comic. The one panel could be satire, but it is undermined by the laughter at the end. The fruit rollup joke is weak, and obviously the artist thought it was far more clever than it is, but again, any subversion of the subject is ruined by that laughter.

Oh - someone earlier suggested that the kid was gay, and I was like "huh?" - I didn't get it until you explained it. One reading is that the kid is implying that his father will HAVE to make him a "fruit rollup" sometime in the future, and thus the kid is gay. I didn't pick up on that interpretation until JUST now, mostly because of that laughing panel at the end. So, to those of you who think the comic is in offensive because the kid is gay - I'm not sure the kid is gay. The laughter at the end makes me think he's not. But again, it's hard to tell what the author intended.

I mean, I think we're looking to far into it and the authors intent was just "LOLz Fruit Roll Up! I'm So fucking funny!"

The laughter at the end from both parties could only be assumed that the child is not gay... That it was all just a joke like a sitcom's laugh track.

...Again, I've been screwing with this thing in MSPaint for the last ten minutes. and if you edit the last panel's laughter different ways it does make it hilariously dark.

For example, Kid makes the pun and only he laughs.... Showing that the father was serious and the boys attempt to make it lighthearted was unappreciative.

Conversely, a silent boy and a laughing father would imply the father being oblivious to the fact that his child just came out to him and his son's annoyance that his dad doesn't realize.

Or an entire new panel, which is just the father throwing a rug off the bridge... Which would be just funny in the shocking dark nature of it.

But anyway, I don't think we're dealing with a situation where a cartoonist was actually advocating the murdering of any gay child. This is just the work of a novice cartoonist not carefully crafting his puns.