The Big Picture: Correctitude

Technicka

New member
Jul 7, 2010
93
0
0
Father Time said:
No because they changed him in a cheap way to make him more appealing. It's essentially making him a token black guy.
Answer me this, how many black heroes can you name from the early days of comics?

If there was a Spider-Man movie and he was cast with a black actor, why is it automatically him being made a token black guy? Could it just be that the writer wanted to change it up for the sake of change? Minorities are, from the start, conditioned to see beyond colour and accept a hero on his/her merits - yet whites are rarely, if ever, put into that position. We have to be "colour blind" because we don't have much choice. (And before you argue, well there's Black Panther - how often is he used in comics? And of those times, how often is he the focal character? One on-going series isn't going to do much against the onslaught of other hero titles that focus on white heroes.)
 

Technicka

New member
Jul 7, 2010
93
0
0
Father Time said:
Technicka said:
Father Time said:
No because they changed him in a cheap way to make him more appealing. It's essentially making him a token black guy.
Answer me this, how many black heroes can you name from the early days of comics?

If there was a Spider-Man movie and he was cast with a black actor, why is it automatically him being made a token black guy? Could it just be that the writer wanted to change it up for the sake of change?
So first it was to appeal to blacks now it's for no reason?
No, I was pointing out that the automatic assumption that "It's always to cater to X group when a change is made is assuming much. Sometimes writers just want to do something different, is all. Unless you actually ask the person who makes the change, all your're doing is guessing.

Technicka said:
Minorities are, from the start, conditioned to see beyond colour and accept a hero on his/her merits - yet whites are rarely, if ever, put into that position.
We have to be "colour blind" because we don't have much choice. (And before you argue, well there's Black Panther - how often is he used in comics? And of those times, how often is he the focal character? One on-going series isn't going to do much against the onslaught of other hero titles that focus on white heroes.)
So we should do it because of a lack of black heroes? I don't think converting old characters is the way to do it. I'm not sure what is though (since Hollywood probably isn't willing to risk a lot of money on a superhero they made up).
In a perfect world, it shouldn't have to be done. But the fact that even in such a forward thinking society, Hollywood is still a-ok with the horrid practice of white-washing, then yes, if that is the only available method to get more heroes of colour out in the mainstream, then let them have at it. We can't keep hoping Will Smith is going to be around to make the notion of a non-white lead more palatable.
 

FoolKiller

New member
Feb 8, 2008
2,409
0
0
Personally I think this just sucked. There is no need to bash on people that object to the PC concept all at once.

There is a time and place for it but I don't agree with being PC in general. Am I a jerk? Maybe. But I speak my mind and people tend to not like that.

You brought up a good point about words meaning things, but you seem to have missed the entire point of the argument. There is something called context which you seem to have missed a bit of.
 

MrGalactus

Elite Member
Sep 18, 2010
1,849
0
41
metalmanky306 said:
THEJORRRG said:
Oh, yeah, some words are universally offensive, but that is because of the negative connotation they hold. Words like these are easily avoidable, though. If you say the N word (assuming you are not one) it will always be offensive, even if you're joking. What I'm saying is that if you're saying something offensive, even for comedic effect, you shouldn't if you know someone will be upset by it, because if you do, you're just being nasty, BUT, it's more important to not be offended by things people say. You've got to have a sense of humor about everything.
I'll try and sum this up.
You have the right to say what you want, but with that comes the responsibility to use your words respectfully.
How's that?
see, i agree with your point, don't get me wrong. in fact i think you summed that up pretty perfectly. it's the premise i was disagreeing with. i see no reason the N word SHOULD be universally offensive, nor any other word for that matter. otherwise what's the point in their existence? if you're trying to be offensive, you're being offensive. but i think it's your intention, not your words that should rule over that.
You know what, I think we're in agreement here. It's more the listeners responsibility to have a sense of humor and to not take themselves seriously than it is for the speaker to be careful with their words. If you're not specifically trying to offend, then you shouldn't have to be treated like someone who is.
I still think it's best for us to be respectful of others, though. Some people do take themselves seriously, and society does attach far too much gravity to certain words, but I'm not going to use hurtful words just because they shouldn't be as hurtful as they are.
 

Nonamea12

New member
Jun 8, 2010
11
0
0
I am so tired of this, I originally liked this guy I really did. This could be a great segment, instead it is becoming a platform for someone to spew their hatred of a political view. Its like seeing an actor you liked for along time all of a sudden start spouting on about politics. Yes you may get a lot of bobble heads agreeing with you, but you are alienating other people. I wish he would stick to movies instead of trying to wage his own political crusade.
 

HyenaThePirate

New member
Jan 8, 2009
1,412
0
0
Father Time said:
Technicka said:
Father Time said:
No because they changed him in a cheap way to make him more appealing. It's essentially making him a token black guy.
Answer me this, how many black heroes can you name from the early days of comics?

If there was a Spider-Man movie and he was cast with a black actor, why is it automatically him being made a token black guy? Could it just be that the writer wanted to change it up for the sake of change?
So first it was to appeal to blacks now it's for no reason?
Um... Actually it wasn't for EITHER. If they had cast Donald Glover as Peter Parker, it would have been because he was the best actor for the job. Unless you want to go make the accusation that the casting directors for the film and the producers all conspired to cast a black man as the lead simply to attract "black audiences."

The sad thing is, that always is the excuse when we see a black person suddenly placed into something where we'd traditionally see white characters... that it is ONLY because someone wanted to cash in on it.

But you know the irony? We'll NEVER get away from that until blacks and other minorities are seen as capable of playing ANY role and appearing in all types of films and subject matters.
But in order to DO that, they have to be given a chance and somebody has to take some risks... you know.. like casting a black superman or spiderman.
Your "token" might actually just be a "PIONEER".

Father Time said:
Technicka said:
Minorities are, from the start, conditioned to see beyond colour and accept a hero on his/her merits - yet whites are rarely, if ever, put into that position.
We have to be "colour blind" because we don't have much choice. (And before you argue, well there's Black Panther - how often is he used in comics? And of those times, how often is he the focal character? One on-going series isn't going to do much against the onslaught of other hero titles that focus on white heroes.)

So we should do it because of a lack of black heroes? I don't think converting old characters is the way to do it. I'm not sure what is though (since Hollywood probably isn't willing to risk a lot of money on a superhero they made up).
How else would you do it? And why wouldn't you do it because of a lack of black heroes? To be quite honest, I hate to pull the "card", but what do you know of how blacks feel about it? As the other guy said, blacks have gotten used to EVERYONE in film and media being "white" because that's the way its always been. Our heroes have to be YOUR heroes because less than 20 years ago we didn't really HAVE any black comic book heroes worth noticing.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the screeching and crying that took place when John Stewart became Green Lantern, and that was a NEW character REPLACING an older character (Hal Jordan)... it wasn't like they turned Hal Jordan white! But people ranted on that FOR-EVER, while making any number of excuses for why they didn't LIKE him but carefully declaring at the beginning of any statement for why he shouldn't exist with "I'm not RACIST, BUT..."

The sad thing is, sometimes I think some people are actually so not-racist that they fail to truly understand the black culture or mentality. I have friends like that... they'll be like "Hey let's stop off in that bar off the highway there in the middle of this swamp country and go get a few drinks and revel with the locals!" conveniently forgetting that as a black person I have to exercise caution about where and what establishments I enter, since not EVERYONE is as color-blind as we'd like to believe. Just like a black person would NEVER absent-mindedly take his White buddy into the heart of the old 'hood' without letting him know a laundry list of things to do or watch for. Because we haven't forgotten that skin color can be important to some people, and not always in a good way.
 

RelexCryo

New member
Oct 21, 2008
1,414
0
0
Technicka said:
Marudas said:
This is the first time I've found myself in such disagreement with Moviebob.

In my narrow view, I see Political Correctness as a sort of cover for (Possibly) insensitive, yet true stereotypes. Now I'm not going to be so blind as to say that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are racist, jerks, or just plain ignorant, but its always irritating to me that we're not allowed to mention that certain people habitually act certain ways because its insensitive. And where this line starts and ends seems to be utterly arbitrary. For example, you mentioned its utterly inappropriate to mention the "Fried Chicken" stereotype, but another, more broad cultural stereotype is that Americans are ignorant to the rest of the world. I see this one fly all the time, and perhaps its more inappropriate to apply these as jokes and insults (such as applying the stereotype to a president). As another point, its perfectly okay to drag out White Males and say what you will about them (Yes, there were a lot of jerks that were white males in the past, why does this apply to this generation?). It seems like PC only applies when you're talking about a minority or a touchy subject (African Americans/Africans or, in the sense of Jeff Dunham to who you referred, Muslim.) Its okay to point out Factual (but hurtful) remarks about Americans and White Males, but not when referring to minority groups.

PC was created as a means to level the playing field of language for maligned groups in society. Guess which group doesn't fall under that umbrella? White males. So yes, a lot of the rules will not be very inclusive to your typical WASP-ish male. Because history has been oh-so kind to them.

There's a fallacy at work that a lot of the anti-PC crowd will invoke: That because minorities have legal protections, that everything can start at a level baseline. And that's just not true. Having women in office doesn't change that they're still disproportionately paid in the same jobs, overwhelming forced to endure abuse with little, to no, consequences towards their assailants. A black President doesn't negate the ingrained prejudice that is still at work in society to keep minorities poor and stupid. A popular character on TV being gay doesn't mean thousands of GLBT people are still targeted for violence. We aren't working on a level field - PC was an attempt to give minority groups a boost by not having to put up with degrading words all the time. "Reverse-racism" doesn't exist, it's a nifty term coined to make the group of power feel better about those uppity minorities flexing what few muscles they have.

As for the American thing, that's a global issue. PC is only a practice in the US (other countries might have similar unofficial policies, but PC is our baby). So the idea that some bloke over in New Zealand adhering to it, is silly.


You also have to be aware of your audience, it's amazing that this concept seems so foreign to people. Guess what? If you're the lone non-black in a crowd of black people, you don't get to drop the n-word the second you walk into the room. Boo hoo, right? There's an old saying that when you meet a stranger the 3 topics you shouldn't immediately jump to are sex, politics, and religion. And, of course, it goes both ways. If I'm a female that doesn't enjoy sexist talk/jokes, I'm not going to go and sit through an Andrew Dice Clay routine.

Responsibility, people. That's what PC asks of you. Be aware of your words, and use them wisely. Regardless of your view of the subject. It's just as un-PC of me to point to a conservative and call him/her an inbred cracker.

I am responding to the part in bold. It is illegal for women to be paid less than men. The infamous "women get paid 25% less than men" statistic doesn't take into account the increased tendency of women to be housespouses, or the increased tendency of women to take jobs based on the ability to spend time with their family, as opposed to the highest possible pay. Women and men get paid the exact same amount for a given job. It is illegal to pay women less than men.

Secondly, equality can only be achieved by treating everyone exactly the same. Treating people differently prevents equality.
 

Madara XIII

New member
Sep 23, 2010
3,369
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
Shycte said:
Wouldn't it be eaiser to just stop the hating?
The last guy to say that was nailed to a tree 2 millenia ago. :)
o_O....yeeeeeeeah about that.

At least he was heartfelt about it instead of just another hypocrite.
 

Technicka

New member
Jul 7, 2010
93
0
0
RelexCryo said:
I am responding to the part in bold. It is illegal for women to be paid less than men. The infamous "women get paid 25% less than men" statistic doesn't take into account the increased tendency of women to be housespouses, or the increased tendency of women to take jobs based on the ability to spend time with their family, as opposed to the highest possible pay. Women and men get paid the exact same amount for a given job. It is illegal to pay women less than men.

Secondly, equality can only be achieved by treating everyone exactly the same. Treating people differently prevents equality.
It's illegal, but it still goes on. The excuse of "Oh, well women all have families and whatnot" is a ploy to somehow justify why they're being paid less for the same work. Do women take off for, say, maternity leave? Yes. But men also get the option to do so, as well, if they're wife is pregnant. All of the family-oriented downtime that women get, men also get - so the argument still stands.

It's impossible to claim to want equality, and ignore reality. There isn't any equality going on now. We aren't treating people the same. It's foolish for us to pretend otherwise and start from a clean slate - life isn't an etch-a-sketch, it doesn't work that way. Even if you were to wave a magic wand and give everyone equal rights/pay/opportunities, you'd be ignoring the fact that the groups that were oppressed are still operating at a disadvantage. Minorities are still woefully behind in education - there's no way to have them magically on par with many white students; same for women. We were allowed to take part in the race for the American Dream after white men had already finished a few laps. There's no way to catch up. And hoping that one fine day, those in power are going to realize, or care, that their continuing a sad practice of keeping a large portion of the populace ignorant, is plain silly.

Instead of pining away for this idyllic world where everyone is the same, we should be addressing how to better help those groups catch up.
 

RelexCryo

New member
Oct 21, 2008
1,414
0
0
Technicka said:
RelexCryo said:
I am responding to the part in bold. It is illegal for women to be paid less than men. The infamous "women get paid 25% less than men" statistic doesn't take into account the increased tendency of women to be housespouses, or the increased tendency of women to take jobs based on the ability to spend time with their family, as opposed to the highest possible pay. Women and men get paid the exact same amount for a given job. It is illegal to pay women less than men.

Secondly, equality can only be achieved by treating everyone exactly the same. Treating people differently prevents equality.
It's illegal, but it still goes on. The excuse of "Oh, well women all have families and whatnot" is a ploy to somehow justify why they're being paid less for the same work. Do women take off for, say, maternity leave? Yes. But men also get the option to do so, as well, if they're wife is pregnant. All of the family-oriented downtime that women get, men also get - so the argument still stands.

It's impossible to claim to want equality, and ignore reality. There isn't any equality going on now. We aren't treating people the same. It's foolish for us to pretend otherwise and start from a clean slate - life isn't an etch-a-sketch, it doesn't work that way. Even if you were to wave a magic wand and give everyone equal rights/pay/opportunities, you'd be ignoring the fact that the groups that were oppressed are still operating at a disadvantage. Minorities are still woefully behind in education - there's no way to have them magically on par with many white students; same for women. We were allowed to take part in the race for the American Dream after white men had already finished a few laps. There's no way to catch up. And hoping that one fine day, those in power are going to realize, or care, that their continuing a sad practice of keeping a large portion of the populace ignorant, is plain silly.

Instead of pining away for this idyllic world where everyone is the same, we should be addressing how to better help those groups catch up.
How are women disadvantaged in education? Women go the same schools as men, and there are many scholarships that only women can get. It is not as if women are educated in some female ghetto school. Women and men use the exact same schools, and women get scholarships that men don't. How can you conclude that women have a disadvantage in education?
 

Technicka

New member
Jul 7, 2010
93
0
0
RelexCryo said:
How are women disadvantaged in education? Women go the same schools as men, and there are many scholarships that only women can get. It is not as if women are educated in some female ghetto school. Women and men use the exact same schools, and women get scholarships that men don't. How can you conclude that women have a disadvantage in education?
Because the ability for women to take part in higher education is a fairly new concept. Historically, women weren't permitted to go to college. They had to fight for the right to enroll. It was considered that educational pursuits weren't lady-like, and besides basic math and grammar, women needed little else since they'd be so busy with the child-rearing.
 

RelexCryo

New member
Oct 21, 2008
1,414
0
0
Technicka said:
RelexCryo said:
How are women disadvantaged in education? Women go the same schools as men, and there are many scholarships that only women can get. It is not as if women are educated in some female ghetto school. Women and men use the exact same schools, and women get scholarships that men don't. How can you conclude that women have a disadvantage in education?
Because the ability for women to take part in higher education is a fairly new concept. Historically, women weren't permitted to go to college. They had to fight for the right to enroll. It was considered that educational pursuits weren't lady-like, and besides basic math and grammar, women needed little else since they'd be so busy with the child-rearing.
Let me see if I got this straight: You are saying that an opinion held roughly 60 years ago, is still affecting the ability of women to get an education today? So despite the fact that women actually have more physical ability (exclusive scholarships) to get an education than men, they are less likely to get one, just because of a persisting opinion that is taught to them at a young age?

The evidence contradicts your statement: http://education-portal.com/articles/Census_Data_Shows_that_More_Women_than_Men_Hold_College_Degrees.html

Women, on average, are more likely to have College Degrees. Not Less.

The evidence flatly denies your perspective. You percieve women as being disadvantaged in education...when the opposite is true. So the question is, if the evidence supports the opposite of your perspective, why do you hold the perspective you do in the first place?
 

Technicka

New member
Jul 7, 2010
93
0
0
RelexCryo said:
Let me see if I got this straight: You are saying that an opinion held roughly 60 years ago, is still affecting the ability of women to get an education today? So despite the fact that women actually have more physical ability (exclusive scholarships) to get an education than men, they are less likely to get one, just because of a persisting opinion that is taught to them at a young age?

The evidence contradicts your statement: http://education-portal.com/articles/Census_Data_Shows_that_More_Women_than_Men_Hold_College_Degrees.html

Women, on average, are more likely to have College Degrees. Not Less.

The evidence flatly denies your perspective. You percieve women as being disadvantaged in education...when the opposite is true. So the question is, if the evidence supports the opposite of your perspective, why do you hold the perspective you do in the first place?


Yes, women now hold more Bachelor's than men. I should've elaborated further on how that didn't mean it was a cake walk for a woman to go out and work on her PhD in cosmology. So, my fault. Of course, that's only when you compare the numbers between the men and women who are(were) in school. Now how much of the population of women vs men are actively involved in post-secondary education. And after that, compare the fields that more women are getting those degrees in. I'm willing to bet that most of those Bachelor's are in the "safe" fields like nursing, child care, and the soft sciences. Sexism is still doing it's level best to keep women regulated - hard sciences are still an upward climb for women. Look up the "Leaky Pipeline" in regards to that. The Census only gives you the most bare minimum of info on the stats. Lot's of kids can get a diploma/GED, but that doesn't automatically mean the quality of their learning was equal across the board. And that was the core of my complaint/point (again, my apologies for doing such a piss-poor job of communicating that).

I was in no way saying that men were standing outside with pitchforks chasing women out of schools, but higher education is still letting outdated modes of gender roles dictate how education is treated among the sexes.

And just because a mentality is decades old doesn't mean it doesn't still permeate the modern mindset. That's a dangerous way to think, and does little to help in the way of progress.
 

the clockmaker

New member
Jun 11, 2010
423
0
0
BobDobolina said:
the clockmaker said:
Imagine for a moment that bob was not a contributor to this site, imagine that he had to make his views, specifically the views that he expressed today heard in spite of the background noise of everybody else shoutign their not so special oppinions. Imagine that instead of saying his piece and running off, he was actually acountable for what he said.
I somehow doubt Bob would have much trouble handling the kinds of blowhards who're put out about this article.
I would welcome that, I would welcome the opportunity to see him use something approaching a coherant debate strategy, I would welcome, as should he, the chance to dismiss these claims that he uses an over relaince on simplistic views and strawman tactics.

If you were to look at the rest of my post, you would see that bob says nothing particullary insightful here and that the tone of his post is more offensive than just about anything that would be allowed by a standard post.

The fact is that the tone of this post conveyed a deely offensive false dichotomy, either you are 100% behind the concept of political correctness, or you are a racist meathead who supports sexual harrasment. I don't see how this merits a spot on the front page of the escapist.