The Big Picture: Correctitude

[Odoylerules360]

When I told Bob to get stuffed, this is what I meant:

Spoiler: wall of text incoming

I disagree with almost 100%. I also think you should leave politics of this sort out of your videos.

The problem here is that your disapproval of the "politically correct" arguement is largely that your on the opposite side of the spectrum that uses it, and as such don't like the way it portrays your own personal political biases. Your basically being just as bad, if not worse, as the people you are making a critique of.

Let me get down to one of the biggest parts of why your point of view is a problem. You are portraying bigotry as always being bad. The thing is that nothing can be changed when there is a problem, unless people acknowlege that it exists. Take American black culture for example which is very much anti-societal assimilation, and anti-intellectual at the very least. You make judgements about it, and of course your a bigot, someone who defends this as being okay or "just the way it is" is being politically incorrect. I look at guys like Bill Cosby (who has a PHD in Children's Education) and how he goes on about Black america's attitude of entitlement, and not taking advantage of the oppertunities that have been provided for it. When you have entire major racial subcultures that see education and getting a regular rut-like job as "selling out" you have an issue, and one that needs to be addressed. Of course you start singling out these aspects of black society, defining them, and trying to take action, and your being a bigot. The problem is being a bigot does not mean that you are always wrong. Bill Cosby only gets away with it as much as he has (and he's been criticized heavily for it none the less) because he's Black and the same culture can't go after him politically the way they could a guy from another race who brings up uncomfortable issues.

A better example would be recent situations with immigrants in places like Texas and California. Please not I am not talking about ILLEGAL immigrants which is another issue, but rather people who have become US citizens. We have problems to the point where we have schools banning kids from wearing the American flag, or putting it on a vehicle like a bike that they bring to school, due to fear of violence and retaliation from immigrants, especially during holidays like Cinca De Mayo (I've posted links all over The Escapist, there have been multiple incidents, not one isolated case). Basically a situation where these people have become Americans, but really just want the benefits and otherwise to be Mexicans (or in cases of other incidents around the country, whatever land they came from), these are people getting violent and making threats over the symbol of what is functionally their own country. Yes it is bigoted to single out immigrants for things like this and point out that something needs to be done, and preacing tolerance of such behavior IS political correctness.

Another big issue is things like property rights. In the USA we have tons of laws in place that are used to prevent white people (the majority) from refusing to sell property to minorities, and "whitewash" certain areas so to speak (not that it's anything like the problem it was decades ago when these laws were created). On the other hand we have issue with various minorities like Chinese, Jews, Cubans, and others who refuse to sell property outside of their ethnic group when put on the market. For all intents and purpose your dealing with a major problem of laws with a dual standard, yet there are people who defend this based on the fact that it's minorities and it would be bigoted to single these problems out to be addressed. The very fact that we have "districts" in cities like "China Town", "Little Havana", and similar things represent the problem. A building in Chinatown goes up on the market, and some white guy/company gives the best offer, and they decide to go with a lesser offer because the guys making it are Chinese, that's an issue. Ditto for situations when it's minorities who won't rent apartments or lease space to people who aren't of the appropriate ethnicity.

Finally, I think it's going waaaay off the deepend when it's being argued that taking long-established characters and changing their ethnicity to make it "more diverse" isn't political correctness. That's politically correct boneheadedness at it's absolute worst.

My long standing arguement is that due to the way society has been for a long time there aren't a whole lot of minority characters in things like comics. Of course then again by being "minorities" you don't expect there to be a lot of them in proportion to whites in the US because there are simply a lot more white guys. The problem as it exists is something to be addressed by minorities getting into things like writing and drawing comic books. It's a very competitive business of course, and this entails you having to see genuine interest within minority groups to see it done with hundreds of people dedicating their lives to it and failing for every one that actually succeeds. You need to see a quality product by the same standards, not someone handing off a contract to a black creator beause he's black. Also like anything else they have to deal with appealing to the market as a whole, a black character with a "'tude" that villifies the white majority (even if just through dialogue) like the world is still stuck in the 1930s is of course not going to work for large scale release for example.

To put things into perspective Asians broke into comics in a big way, this happened because of a lot of interest, and massive amounts of persistance. Right now you see both Manga and Western comics in a sort of symbotic relationship and inspiring each other heavily, and a rising number of asian themed super heroes in general. Heck, we've even got The Japanese doing a version of Western super heroes like "The X-men".

The problem is that while it's bigoted, a lot of the minorities that usually get involved in politically correct arguements, are demanding to see instant success and representation in things, without having to put in any real work or effort over the long term. The "get rich or die trying" attitude so to speak.

I'll say flat out bigotry is what society needs more of right now, people who are willing to flat out ignore political correctness and what's nice, focus on problems like a laser, and work to correct them even if it involves being mean. Honestly I think political correctness perpetuates problems and actually does more damage to the people it sets out to protect than it helps them... largely because it tells them that things that aren't okay are just fine.

Oh and Bob (to address you directly again, if you even read the stuff I write) for the record, those of us who take the other side of these arguements are not generally speaking cowards hiding behind the term "politically incorrect". I'm quite up front about what I think even when I use the term, and I generally deal with the crap I get for it. I might be "mean" but I believe it's for the greater good, not out of some sense of superiority, or the sake of meaness for the sake of meaness. To be entirely honest my "problem" is that I think a lot of the groups that I criticize can do a lot better, they can meet the same standards set by the majority, humans are humans. People who think that these groups need to be protected ultimatly have attitudes that come down to those people somehow being unable to do better, which is why the protection is nessicary. On most levels that's actually far more bigoted than I am, and an even worse kind of sugar-coated racism than what the politically correct hope to decry.

Also as far as "Resident Evil 5" goes, the game was fairly accurate, and I see no real reason why a third world hellhole shouldn't be portrayed as a third world hellhole simply to be nice. If people don't like how that imagery is, then strive to change it. It also comes down to the counter-issue of "why is everything set in the USA". Set a game in the third world trying to protect helpless people from bio-terrorism, and oops all of a sudden it's racist because those people are portrayed as victims who need the help.

Also, I for one can't see why the holy heck Sheeva walking around in sexed up tribal garb or a "Jill Of The Jungle" outfit is supposed to be racist or polically incorrect. It's no differant than white guys dressing up like sexed up vikings or Romans (TOGA PARTY!!!). Granted it's impractical for the setting, but that's the way a lot of alternate costumes are (which is why they are alternate costumes), we have games where the protaganist can do things like run around dressed in a chicken suit in an otherwise fairly serious game as an "unlockable". My attitude about "Resident Evi 5" is that it was just the PC crowd trying to grab a headline, and that's not likely to change. The *only* thing that made it differant from what legions of other games has done is the setting. Set the game in eastern Europe and give the female character a sexy jester costume, or a dominatrix outfit and nobody is going to bat an eye.

I really think The Escapist would be a much classier website without Bob.

 

[Timbydude]

I hate to say it, but...no. You're pretty much completely wrong. Creating a society where people hold back negative commentary for fear of being labeled a bigot is just plain scary. Honestly, if people want to say something offensive, then by all means we should let them. People just need to learn how to grow up.

Also, your Resident Evil commentary pretty much invalidated the content of the entire video.

 

[Technicka]

I hate to say it, but...no. You're pretty much completely wrong. Creating a society where people hold back negative commentary for fear of being labeled a bigot is just plain scary. Honestly, if people want to say something offensive, then by all means we should let them. People just need to learn how to grow up.

Also, your Resident Evil commentary pretty much invalidated the content of the entire video.

And this right here is wonderful proof of how people use the "un-PC argument" as a shield against disagreements. At no point did Bob say that people weren't allowed to disagree, or have different opinions. Bob was arguing against the people who behave like /b/-tards, and when called out on it, retort with a "Stop being so PC, maaaan. You're stomping on my freedoms!" There is a middle ground between doormat and aspiring Klan member. Hell, your own post does more to show this than anything else: you're disagreeing with Bob (and any who agree with him) and not once did you use a slur.


As for the RE5 thing, it did no such thing. I'm going to go on ahead and assume that a lot of the people that are going, "What's the big deal with RE5?" are, in fact, not black. As such, many of you aren't familiar with the 'Spear Chucker' trope that is often used to insult blacks. It was (and in some places, still is) a common theory of whites that blacks deserved little, to no, respect because they were little more than savages that hurled spears.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Bob says it himself if you want to be a jerk fine, be a jerk, accept it, but don't hide behind a false label either own up to your conventions or consider that maybe their just not that important to you.

 

[Azrael717]

Just listening to this segment offended me. Hey bob, why not take a good look at the media lately. It's not taking the high road of making everyone equal, it's trying to re-take ground like it's contested enemy territory. Just look at the male figure in any type of commercial, media configuration. They are always portrayed as either A.) a stupid, misguided, over-confident lummox, or B.) a lazy, sports obsessed idiot; who in either case is invariable paired with a woman who is world-weary at best and condescendingly acceptable at worst. The woman's always the one fixing at best, or emasculating at worst. And this type of portrayal has gone on for YEARS. Doing that isn't equaling the playing field, IT'S TRYING TO GET EVEN. Using race as your polarizing factor to making a point of political correctness is misguided at best and down right criminal at worst. Making statements like that only feeds the monster of ignorance and stupidity. It's the medium that gives the ineptitude that is 'political correctness' it's power. It's something that has been separating us as a people since it's inception. This accursed theory divides instead of unites, it breaks apart cultures at their base and then pits us against ourselves. We are all human beings at our core, people that react to instances in our life identically. Race, creed, gender, these are small details that when left to the wrong medium blur the larger picture...you can't miss the forest for the trees. Racial stereotypes are the food that the PC crowd feasts upon. Because they can point their finger and say 'look, look' even if it's as something nonsensical, and non-threatening as a comic or a video game. It's just someone trying to play the 'righteous indignation' card to get some attention. I'll bet money that if RE5 was a short story published in a gaming magazine, it would have garnered much less, if not any publicity. And that should be the Big Picture.

 

[Timbydude]

And this right here is wonderful proof of how people use the "un-PC argument" as a shield against disagreements. At no point did Bob say that people weren't allowed to disagree, or have different opinions. Bob was arguing against the people who behave like /b/-tards, and when called out on it, retort with a "Stop being so PC, maaaan. You're stomping on my freedoms!" There is a middle ground between doormat and aspiring Klan member. Hell, your own post does more to show this than anything else: you're disagreeing with Bob (and any who agree with him) and not once did you use a slur.


As for the RE5 thing, it did no such thing. I'm going to go on ahead and assume that a lot of the people that are going, "What's the big deal with RE5?" are, in fact, not black. As such, many of you aren't familiar with the 'Spear Chucker' trope that is often used to insult blacks. It was (and in some places, still is) a common theory of whites that blacks deserved little, to no, respect because they were little more than savages that hurled spears.

I never mentioned simple disagreements. I meant that if people want to say something racist, bigoted, or offensive, or whatever, let them. They can face the consequences. If someone legitimately thinks that they're superior to another race, it's definitely not something I (or most people) can get behind, but is just having them hold their tongues really going to solve the underlying problems there? Of course not; it exacerbates everything that PC ideals are trying to fight against in the first place.

Morgan Freeman hit the nail on the head when he said on 60 Minutes that there shouldn't be a Black History month. If we have to make concessions and censor ourselves in order to please other people, then we're clearly on the wrong track. Acknowledging the idea that there are certain things that can't be said to black people only exacerbates the issue of racism, for example; as long as you give people a reason to look at a certain group of people differently, they certainly will.

As for RE5, it just defies me how anybody could claim that the game was remotely in the wrong. The game was set in Africa. Specifically, it was set in remote, underdeveloped villages. Who lives in tribal, remote African villages? Successful African-American businessmen? Of course not.

Bob falls victim to his own logic here. Sure, there are some people who wave the "anti-PC" flag around proudly and for no good reason other than self-promotion. But then you have people like Bob who suggest that we blindly follow certain idiotic principles like self-censorship in order to magically eliminate racism by just blocking it from our speech. Unfortunately, it's that type of thinking that actually perpetuates bigotry in our society. In 90% of cases, I find the anti-PC movement to be absolutely in the right.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

And this right here is wonderful proof of how people use the "un-PC argument" as a shield against disagreements. At no point did Bob say that people weren't allowed to disagree, or have different opinions. Bob was arguing against the people who behave like /b/-tards, and when called out on it, retort with a "Stop being so PC, maaaan. You're stomping on my freedoms!" There is a middle ground between doormat and aspiring Klan member. Hell, your own post does more to show this than anything else: you're disagreeing with Bob (and any who agree with him) and not once did you use a slur.


As for the RE5 thing, it did no such thing. I'm going to go on ahead and assume that a lot of the people that are going, "What's the big deal with RE5?" are, in fact, not black. As such, many of you aren't familiar with the 'Spear Chucker' trope that is often used to insult blacks. It was (and in some places, still is) a common theory of whites that blacks deserved little, to no, respect because they were little more than savages that hurled spears.

I never mentioned simple disagreements. I meant that if people want to say something racist, bigoted, or offensive, or whatever, let them. They can face the consequences. If someone legitimately thinks that they're superior to another race, it's definitely not something I (or most people) can get behind, but is just having them hold their tongues really going to solve the underlying problems there? Of course not; it exacerbates everything that PC ideals are trying to fight against in the first place.

Morgan Freeman hit the nail on the head when he said on 60 Minutes that there shouldn't be a Black History month. If we have to make concessions and censor ourselves in order to please other people, then we're clearly on the wrong track. Acknowledging the idea that there are certain things that can't be said to black people only exacerbates the issue of racism, for example; as long as you give people a reason to look at a certain group of people differently, they certainly will.

As for RE5, it just defies me how anybody could claim that the game was remotely in the wrong. The game was set in Africa. Specifically, it was set in remote, underdeveloped villages. Who lives in tribal, remote African villages? Successful African-American businessmen? Of course not.

Bob falls victim to his own logic here. Sure, there are some people who wave the "anti-PC" flag around proudly and for no good reason other than self-promotion. But then you have people like Bob who suggest that we blindly follow certain idiotic principles like self-censorship in order to magically eliminate racism by just blocking it from our speech. Unfortunately, it's that type of thinking that actually perpetuates bigotry in our society. In 90% of cases, I find the anti-PC movement to be absolutely in the right.

If society could really work that way it would be nice, but in reality you cannot get rid of racism and bigotry in humanity all you can do is to cowl them into a semblance of civility.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

So see?
Besides, these characters were made to appeal to a large audience of people. Superman, Spiderman, and the like, they weren't created to make WHITE people feel superior, or exclude blacks from feeling heroic.

Knock off the strawmen.

No strawmen here. Just facts and knowledge.

Don't give me that, you were implying that I said superheros were made to make white people feel superior. That is a straw man.

No I didn't. You fail at comprehension.
All I did was counter your assumption that fictionalized characters (in this case comic book ones) must remain beholden to some sense of "racial consistency", which just happens to favor whites, but the two things are not necessarily married together. In fact, YOU set up the strawman, with your comments about how Allah would then be allowed to be "Asian" or Hindu Gods would be allowed to be "white." But then what do we do with Jesus? He has most commonly been depicted as a blue eyed white man. But that isn't at all his description, and it wouldn't have been likely at ALL considering the time period and geographic region.
Yet, Jesus was RE-IMAGINED as a white MAN.
Of course, now we have black Jesus, woman Jesus and everything else. It makes him more accessible.

If you came out with "black Spiderman" I doubt most people (at least the ones not harboring inexplicable feelings of racism they've tried to ignore deep down inside) would balk at it. Heck, more than a few might actually enjoy it.

 

[Technicka]

I never mentioned simple disagreements. I meant that if people want to say something racist, bigoted, or offensive, or whatever, let them. They can face the consequences. If someone legitimately thinks that they're superior to another race, it's definitely not something I (or most people) can get behind, but is just having them hold their tongues really going to solve the underlying problems there? Of course not; it exacerbates everything that PC ideals are trying to fight against in the first place.

Morgan Freeman hit the nail on the head when he said on 60 Minutes that there shouldn't be a Black History month. If we have to make concessions and censor ourselves in order to please other people, then we're clearly on the wrong track. Acknowledging the idea that there are certain things that can't be said to black people only exacerbates the issue of racism, for example; as long as you give people a reason to look at a certain group of people differently, they certainly will.

As for RE5, it just defies me how anybody could claim that the game was remotely in the wrong. The game was set in Africa. Specifically, it was set in remote, underdeveloped villages. Who lives in tribal, remote African villages? Successful African-American businessmen? Of course not.

Bob falls victim to his own logic here. Sure, there are some people who wave the "anti-PC" flag around proudly and for no good reason other than self-promotion. But then you have people like Bob who suggest that we blindly follow certain idiotic principles like self-censorship in order to magically eliminate racism by just blocking it from our speech. Unfortunately, it's that type of thinking that actually perpetuates bigotry in our society. In 90% of cases, I find the anti-PC movement to be absolutely in the right.

If you can't have a conversation with another person without using black instead of n*gger, then there is something really wrong with your communication skills. The idea that, magically, allowing everyone to just spout off whatever the hell they want will bring understanding to the world, is a fool's dream. If all a person does is go about insulting groups of people they know nothing about, any brilliant point they could have made is lost in a see of shit.


The Morgan Freeman quote is cute. But I'm guessing he hasn't sat in a history class since his own childhood. Minorities are woefully underrepresented in those text books. Those books can go on for hundreds of pages on the significance of the Arms race, but will merely gloss over what went on during the Civil Rights era. There is a disproportionate amount of page time between white history and minority history. In a perfect world notions such as "Every month is White/Black/Native/Asian/Etc. History Month" would be a no-brainer. But we don't live in that world.

Despite what you may see on the Discovery Channel, even the smaller of villages have updated a bit. Sure, you won't be seeing a cyber cafe anytime soon, but they aren't so isolated that the concept of footwear is beyond them. Hell, there's a popular subculture in a lot of the more...rural areas for the men to dress in suits and ties, even if they're only a goat farmer.

Bob wasn't promoting censorship. He was promoting common decency. You can communicate an idea without having to resort to talking like a bigot. Because, what you're arguing is that "I don't like Obama's fiscal policies" should be received in the same light as, "Stupid n*gger doesn't know what he's doing with our money." And I'm going to have to emphatically disagree with you on that one. Because one of those sentences encourages a robust discussion where the other one just shuts down the prospect of having a differing view being respected.

 

[rddj623]

On the whole I agree with you Bob. There will always be exceptions to the rules though. I just don't like exchanging one freedom for another. I'd rather we find a compromise that gives as many parties as much freedom and equality as possible.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Sorry Bob. This is usually a great show, but this is by far it's worst episode. Words only mean as much as we allow them to. A good example is "Fag". Here in the US it's a horrible slur you would never say in public. In Britain, it means "Cigarette". It's not offensive because the British people decided it wasn't.

Resident Evil 5? Really? That wasn't near the scandal you made it sound like.

The point I will agree with is that stupid people DO hide behind Politically Incorrect.

EDIT: Also, Jeff and Carlos are hilarious. I would go further about how you are wrong about them, but it would get me probation.

 

[Saint of M]

Another thing is Political correctness changes over time. Look at the Bond Girls.

In the early bond films, they be over the top about their sexuality. Then over time, with a combination of AIDS and Feminists changing their battle cry, they changed to fit to what they are today: What you consider largely forgettable.

 

[ProjectTrinity]

Owned. Owned. And owned.

I take back all my negativity towards one (or two?) of your movie reviews. Your Big Picture videos resonate with me sooooooooooo much!

 

[ProjectTrinity]

I would. Not because of racism but because it would be screwing with a character that means something to me. And for what? Accessibility? That Spider Man isn't good enough to stand on his own merits? That black people can only be expected to root for so many white superheroes? Isn't that a huge insult to both groups?

(FTR: I'm not a huge spiderman fan but that's how I'd react if they did it to ficitonal characters I do care about).

As an interesting note, I'm Black, and if an originally Black character became White, I would not feel the same way as you do. I'd just say it was a preference thing. ' -'

 

[DefiningReality]

Are there individuals who are tools and use an accusation of "PC" to justify their backward belief structures. Yes.

Are there individuals who say things solely for political gain regardless of whether or not its philosophical underpinnings are rigorous? Equally Yes.

"You're only accusing someone of being PC because you're an 'uncouth loudmouth/jerkwad/bully'" is a much an ad hominem attack on Moviebob's part as is the the group he's railing against.

Imagine if there's a politician in a race where they frankly need conservative/liberal votes if they're going to take the prize but they themselves are not conservative/liberal. We all know how this works, they position themselves as a centrist/moderate then fudge a few of their positions in order to get the votes.

A good example is the President during one of the early debates. When asked a question on when life begins he answered that knowing that was "above his pay grade." It was the answer of someone who wanted to position themselves in such a way so that both sides would nod their heads and say "good answer." Of course he has an operating opinion on when life begins. Everyone knows that Pro C. or Pro L. that he has an opinion.

The worst kind of PC is when a politician, whether you agree with their stance or not, won't stand up for that stance if it costs them power. This kind of PC is very real and quite rampant and must be recognized, not covered up with strawmen and ad hominem attacks.

 

[RelexCryo]

"Not all view points must be treated equally".-Jon Stewart Bob disliking traditional values doesn't make him a bigot, it makes him a logical being who uses his brain for making rational decisions instead of, say, crushing beer cans.

Crushing beer cans on your head is not a traditional value. Part of anti-traditional bigotry is the tendency to associate negative values that aren't traditional at all with traditionalists, as well as the tendency to ignore the positive aspects of traditional society while only focusing on the negatives. To my knowledge he still has not apologized for his remarks on hunters.

 

[Technicka]

Are there individuals who are tools and use an accusation of "PC" to justify their backward belief structures. Yes.

Are there individuals who say things solely for political gain regardless of whether or not its philosophical underpinnings are rigorous? Equally Yes.

"You're only accusing someone of being PC because you're an 'uncouth loudmouth/jerkwad/bully'" is a much an ad hominem attack on Moviebob's part as is the the group he's railing against.

Imagine if there's a politician in a race where they frankly need conservative/liberal votes if they're going to take the prize but they themselves are not conservative/liberal. We all know how this works, they position themselves as a centrist/moderate then fudge a few of their positions in order to get the votes.

A good example is the President during one of the early debates. When asked a question on when life begins he answered that knowing that was "above his pay grade." It was the answer of someone who wanted to position themselves in such a way so that both sides would nod their heads and say "good answer." Of course he has an operating opinion on when life begins. Everyone knows that Pro C. or Pro L. that he has an opinion.

The worst kind of PC is when a politician, whether you agree with their stance or not, won't stand up for that stance if it costs them power. This kind of PC is very real and quite rampant and must be recognized, not covered up with strawmen and ad hominem attacks.

That's a pretty bad example of what PC is.

Obama was asked if he knew something, and he admitted he didn't - using humour as part of his answer.

You're conflating what you think PC is with a politician's job of trying to appease as many people as possible. PC isn't about not having your own opinion, or not expressing them. PC is, at it's core, the idea that words have power and history, and that it's usually a good idea to keep that in mind when using them. Why? Because we live in a world where *gasp* not everyone has the same life experiences, and as such, will not always think the same as you. It's about respecting the person next to you enough to not have to use demeaning terminology.

When a politician (or anyone, really) refuses to voice their opinion on account of losing power, that isn't Political Correctness at work; as Bob pointed out, it's the individual showing just how strongly they truly feel about their opinion. For every word in the spoken language, there is usually a few alternatives that express the same thing. It's a sign of a supreme lack in communication skills, and intelligence, if the only way a person can express their opinion is to use derogatory terms. You can say you don't like women without having to call the whores. You can be angry at a politician without calling their race into account. PC was created to address those instances in public discourse. It was a fancy way of saying, "Let's not forget that when you speak out loud, others can hear you. Show some bloody respect."

 

[0megaZer0]

Fuck you Bob.

Making a a joke "in bad taste" or one that "racially insensitive" does NOT automatically make you a biggot/asshole. Perhaps a person with a twisted or arguably immature sense of humor, but not a balls-to-the-wall racist/bad person as you seem to be.. nono, as you ARE making them out to be. it's people like YOU who like to simply label people that do'nt agree with your "new age" line of thought that go out harassing others, crusading against an offensive joke or two; that are the REASON comedians make themselves out to be warriors of free speech. YOU are who they are speaking out against.

*sigh* I really get sick of all the stupid double standards... Carlin comes up just short of attacking any and all religion, and he's a funny, unorthodox guy (because you agree with him);

FYI Carlin has attacked PC before, and the use of things like African American instead of black. He's attacked environmentalists as well.

Also this


But no do go on and tell us how you can psychically know why Bob likes Carlin.

because I was bit by a radioactive brain bug when I was photographing a local science lab.

I actually agree with Carlin in this clip, and quite enjoy most of his stand up. I mentioned him because bob mentioned him.

your video actually managed to bring up a prudent point that I missed, and that is the double standard we place on race. two people can make the same exact joke upon one-another's race (well, not the same exactly, it has to be adjusted by the specific stereotype, mind you) and one will inevitably be considered either a racist, or an asshole, and one is just an out-of-the-norm, funny guy. simply because of a difference in melanin (well, that's the most readily noticeable difference anyway)
-It's hilarious to me because the one's usually crying racism or demanding for apologies are actually further perpetuating racism themselves.

 

[0megaZer0]

Fuck you Bob.

Making a a joke "in bad taste" or one that "racially insensitive" does NOT automatically make you a biggot/asshole.

Actually, yes. Yes it does.

It most certainly makes you one or the other in the very least.

If you aren't being a bigot, then by default you're just being an asshole, and neither is really something a decent human being should aspire to be.

If your father died and I went to the funeral and started cracking wise about the circumstances of his death, that would certainly make me an asshole. If he was black and I started going on about how he is now in that big Chicken n Waffles in the sky, sure I might not be marching down the street in my KKK Robes, but that doesn't mean that the comment, and therefore I for making the comment, am not being racist. Hell, to even contemplate such a stereotypical joke demonstrates a certain thought process by the thinker wherein in order to come up with the joke, they had to tap into an incredibly insensitive place and hone in on a stereotype that they have already established as being married to the race of the target of their joke.

As for the difference between Jerry Jackass who spouts of dumbass comments on internet forums in a hopeless attempt to be "shocking" or "witty" and say, George Carlin is that in the course of his racy, controversial material, Carlin was always attempting to provide a commentary on something observed in society. Just like Ricky Gervais, sure the guy SEEMS mean and rude in his comedy, but really he's just pointing out and saying the things that we've all THOUGHT but never dared to say as a way of getting his own contemplations across. They use it as a medium to push forward provocative thought.

Making jokes about black people and chicken simply because YOU think its funny regardless of the situation at hand is not an attempt at any sort of commentary, its just plain old being an asshole, which is apparently pretty vogue these days.

However, everyone has the right to say whatever they want... just be intellectually honest enough about it to acknowledge that there is no real attempt being made at relevance, its just people being jackwagons for the sake of being a jackwagon.

I'm not talking about a situation where you're actively going out and TRYING to make asshole comments just for the sake of being an asshole. I'm talking about simple watercooler situations, or of stand-up, or other-wise setting where comedy is warranted/expected. If you do'nt like what the person is saying, that's your deal, but it does'nt necessarily make them wrong, it may simply make you a prick with no sense of humor.

The way I see it, anything is acceptable in a joke. I do'nt condone infanticide, but does that mean I wo'nt laugh at a dead baby joke? Now, if I had lost a child myself, I admit, I may not find that type of joke quite as appealing, but does that mean that they are WRONG for bringing that up in front of me when they had no idea of my personal situation? No. and as a non-prick/ reasonable guy, it is then MY job to not get offended and/or tell him off. perhaps request him/her to hold off on that kind of joke in my presence and explain why (if they were to persist still, THEN I would agree, this person is an asshole). but not to go on judging them as if I were somehow superior, and they terrible people.

In short, I understand your's and Bob's position, but I find it unreasonable, judgmental, arrogant, intolerant, racist, unintelligent, and unethical.

what makes something "right" or "wrong" depends entirely on the context in which it occurs. (with few exceptions). One must gather all the information about it he can, and THEN make a judgment call; do'nt simply act on taboos.

 

[0megaZer0]

for some reason I ca'nt seem to delete this post, and it's a douple-post of my last one...

help from a moderator would be much appreciated here.