Bullshit comes from both sides of the coin

[JamesStone]

It's been a while since I've been this pointlessly frustrated. I've had some complications today, and I decided to read some cracked to ease off. I've came across a photoplasty which sounded interesting enough, "18 Offensive Stereotypes you still see in movies and on tv".

Link's here: http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_982_18-offensive-stereotypes-you-still-see-in-movies-tv_p3/

Wall of text ahead, just warning.


Started off well enough, but then some things started to... yick me. For example, nº14. Where the poster proclaims all small people are misrepresented as horrible people, and it's ok to beat them. Yeah, disregarding the fact the Incredibles example came with severe consequences, his stature was never once brought up, and the said beating was considered a very bad thing.

We then continue with nº11, Fat Bastard from the Austin Powers movies. I hate Austin Powers, and I was surprised at this. Did the poster failed to realize this was satire, and the movies treats just about everyone, from men to women to gays to straights with the same level of excessiveness and exageration, most of it depreciative?

nº10, right next, was the one which made me want to say something. Really. One person. One person in one small part of a movie who happens to be a fucking criminal is a stereotype for a russian gangster? A Russian Gangster looks too long like the typical Russian Gangster? And how's that supposed to be offensive? He's the only person in this movie displaying the characteristics described. I mean, if there were like 8 russians, who had different jobs and status, and they all looked like that, or similar to it, that would have been offensive. But this? How... I just...

And what do you guess, nª9, where they accuse the goddamned Neimoidians (Separatist leaders in Star Wars) of being a depiction of asian people. Really? For real? So, for the poster ornate robes and flat faces are immediate signs of asian people? And they have "slit eyes"? You see slit eyes on those aliens? THEY LOOK LIKE MOTHERFUCKING 60's GREYS, FOR GOODNESS' SAKES, HOW CAN THAT BE CONSIDERED RACIST?

And the Twilight example... I mean, where they fishing for stuff at this point? The werewolves turn feral, savage beasts at the presence of the white man. Not because, you know, THEY ARE GODDAMNED WEREWOLVES AND AREN'T EVEN THAT FUCKING FERAL? I goddamned HATE twilight, but from all the things they could have chose to badmouth it, they complain that the werewolves behave just a little bit like GODDAMNED WEREWOLVES?~

But nº1 takes the shitcrusted cake. They complain that the media mocks rednecks too much. Which is true. Some of the examples given? Sandy Cheeks from Spongebob, the Smurfs, and Anti-Wanda from the Fairly Odd Parents.

To recap, for those who don't know.
Sandy Cheeks is an hyper-inteligent squirrel from TEXAS

The Smurfs range between so many different types that if you manage to find Redneck Smurf or whatever is his name, he'll be statistically coincidental with his real life conterpart and oh god I'm applying math to the FUCKING SMURFS

And Anti-Wanda is literally the opposite of Wanda in every way but gender and sexual orientation. Wanda's smart, Anti-Wanda's dumb. Wanda's kind, Anti-Wanda's mean, and so on so forth. HOW THE FUCK DID SOMEONE LOOK AT THIS AND SAY "How dare you makes rednecks look bad!" AND NOT REALIZE THAT BY THEIR OWN EXAMPLE THEY WERE IMPLYING REDNECKS WERE THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF SMART, KIND AND CIVILIZED PEOPLE?

Then it hit me. Most of this tumblr "Social Justice" and racism accusations aren't meant to protect the victims of actual hate crimes and offensive representations in media. The people who unironically (and even ironically. Pissing on a cake ironically still ends with you pissing on someone's cake) go around and accuse everything they see of being racist aren't doing it for the victims, they're doing it for themselves.

It reminded me of that one-time author who accused the Jungle Book of being racism because King Louey talked all gibberish and sang about wanting to be like Mogli (IE human), because he thought that it was a representation for black people, despite King Louey being played by an italian voice actor and the "gibberish" being a musical addition common to that style.

HE took one look at the dancing ape king and immediatly thought "Black people, amirite?" or something like that. And considering we live in a world where that kind of shit ins't accepted, he felt bad. But of course, instead of admiting he had racist tendencies and dealing with them, he made up some bullshit about the movie-makes being the ones who put the non-existant racist undertones there, in a twisted attempt to convice himself that everyone thought like he did.

Usually, I'm all for letting people kid themselves, but the widespread of this bullcrap can take a serious toll in advancing the elimination of preconcieved notions of value through race. We already see some people dismiss serious and legitimate complaints, calling it "SJW-Bait" or something of the like, exactly because they see so much finger-waving towards inocuous and ultimately innocent things that they start see all acusations of racism and stereotypical depiction as finger-waving nonsense.



People forget that sometimes stereotypes are created because a certain subgroup exists within the group being stereotyped, and its just confused by the whole. The reason most people tend to imagine all Jamaicans with braids is because some Jamaicans did/do wear braids, and it got generalized to being an all-encompasing characteristic of the Jamaican people. However, some people nowadays formed the train of thought that merely representing one Jamaican with braids in a movie with at least 3 other Jamaicans without braids is being offensive. Or having a black guy go to KFC, even though he doesn't demonstrate any particular affinity towards Fried Chicken more than to other foods. Hell, I'm friends with some dudes who outright avoid eating at fried chicken even though they love it (let's be fair, who doesn't love fried chicken?) purely because of the looks of discomfort they get from people around them!

I think the entire point of not being racist is not to judge a person by the colour of his skin and therefore not make assumptions about his/her nature, be it by one extreme or the other. But maybe I'm just wrong.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

I think this contest was a horrible idea and misjudged from the get go. Even some comments down there say many of those movies and tv shows are decades old.[footnote]Remember this is the same site, same contest that didn't vote the "Metroid(specifically an image of Samus fighting Mother Brain in Super Metroid) is Predator, Borg from Star Trek, Iron Man, Mega Man, Boba Fett and Aliens all rolled into one" number 1 in its Video Games in Venn Diagram Form contest. Commentators, including me, were frothing with anger at especially for the fact it was one of the few entries than used a 3 circle Venn Diagram properly when the winner just jammed some circles together and put Tetris stories in them. I haven't trusted Cracked's judgement on any of there contests since.[/footnote] The judges rarely do look closely to see something like the Neimoidians being racist caricatures of Aisans. They just go with it.(They probably didn't have many good ones to chose from in the entry thread. I actually not look in that one for once.) And many of the entries are forcing the stereotypes. It's just a bad idea for a contest that allowed someones' inter racist pop out to look for stereotypes for a bit.

 

[Something Amyss]

What I get from the first post is not so much "bullshit on both sides" as it is "rationalising things I personally don't have a problem with, often to the point of misrepresenting them, then making accusations as to the motives of the people that have just been misrepresented."

Mind-blowingly, I had successfully guessed the werewolves in Twilight were natives before I knew anything beyond the presence of Mormon allegory. But racism has nothing to do with it. Because...Ummmm....Ponies?

Also, why does the "satire" thing work for Austin Powers but not Chuck and Larry?

 

[Thaluikhain]

What I get from the first post is not so much "bullshit on both sides" as it is "rationalising things I personally don't have a problem with, often to the point of misrepresenting them, then making accusations as to the motives of the people that have just been misrepresented."

Yeah, where's the false equivalence the title promised?

Also, the Op has 666 posts. Huh.

 

[GabeZhul]

To be fair, the "Neimoidians are Asian stereotypes" thing is pretty much as old as the Phantom Menace itself, so it's not some kind of modern SJW reinterpretation and... well, while the entry didn't mention it for some reason, they do speak broken English that is very similar to a stereotypical Chinese accent. Even if you ignore everything else but the accent and the intricate robes, the association is hardly a stretch, though calling it an "offensive stereotype" most certainly is.

Let me once again quote the genius of SMBC [http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2164] and leave it at that.

 

[Lieju]

So, what this actually is, is you complaining about one Cracked article.

Then it hit me. Most of this tumblr "Social Justice" and racism accusations

Wait, since when has Cracked been a subsidiary of Tumblr?

But nº1 takes the shitcrusted cake. They complain that the media mocks rednecks too much. Which is true. Some of the examples given? Sandy Cheeks from Spongebob, the Smurfs, and Anti-Wanda from the Fairly Odd Parents.

Wait, I thought SJW's and Tumblr were supposed to hate white people and not care if they are mocked???

And Anti-Wanda is literally the opposite of Wanda in every way but gender and sexual orientation. Wanda's smart, Anti-Wanda's dumb. Wanda's kind, Anti-Wanda's mean, and so on so forth. HOW THE FUCK DID SOMEONE LOOK AT THIS AND SAY "How dare you makes rednecks look bad!" AND NOT REALIZE THAT BY THEIR OWN EXAMPLE THEY WERE IMPLYING REDNECKS WERE THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF SMART, KIND AND CIVILIZED PEOPLE?

Wut?

She had a 'redneck' accent.
So they made a dumb, mean etc character and also changed her accent to hillbilly.

I think the show also gave anti-Cosmo a Britishy accent, (because he was smart and posh, you know)

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah, where's the false equivalence the title promised?

Anita Sarkeesian only has three horns, not six!

To be fair, the "Neimoidians are Asian stereotypes" thing is pretty much as old as the Phantom Menace itself, so it's not some kind of modern SJW reinterpretation and...

But also to be fair, if the term "Social Justice Warrior" had been around at the time, it would have been applied here.

Because SJW is just the new PC bogeyman.

I don't think fairness has anything to do with the topic, though.

 

[Booklover13]

Also, why does the "satire" thing work for Austin Powers but not Chuck and Larry?

I find that the key difference between satire and comedy in general is that satire is trying to make a point. It has a purpose and is using exaggeration to make it. It film this is done with a combination of Premise and Execution. In order to have a good satire both of these things have to be done at least moderately well.

In Austin Powers the core premise is a spoof on 007, and spy films in general. Most concepts from these films are taken to a logical extreme, to the point of purposeful ridiculousness. This is then played completely straight. It is also executed quite well at least for general audiences, the best evidence for this being that the movies had some non-ironic staying power. Overall a good set of movies for their time, the movies were made well and a majority understood the humor. Is it satire? Yes, because it had a point, showing the ridiculousness of the spy movies, though their characters and scenarios.

Now Chuck and Larry, I would say the core premise is two straight men have to pretend they are gay and marry for the sake of Larry's Children. The plot revolves around them not being caught. The problem here is that nothing is excessive in terms of what happens to them. Two gay man could very well have all the problems Chuck and Larry have. Overall the execution is not the best. Well technically okay, the movies script is not able to get it all the way where it needs to be. Is it a satire? No, because it is not trying to make a point. Instead the humor depends on the audience laughing at watching two men try and pretend to be gay. It is showing the perils people in this situation face, but is not using its comedy to show the ridiculousness of it. The message and the presentation don't match well enough for them to have pulled off satire, just to make anther comedy

 

[RoonMian]

Just one reminder: If you are part of the majority, you don't get to decide if stereotypes over a minority are offensive or not. The minority in question does.

 

[Something Amyss]

I find that the key difference between satire and comedy in general is that satire is trying to make a point.

I disagree that Fat Bastard was trying to make a point. It was Mike Meyers doing one of his three routines for laughs. If we're going to set the bar so low as to label everything in Austin Powers satire under the blanket of a Bond spoof, then we might as well indict Chuck and Larry as an indictment of homophobic culture.

And that's horribly absurd for reasons you clearly agree with.

The "satire" argument seems to be the same coin flip as the "homage or plagiarism" deal, and largely comes down to whether or not one likes something. Or, in this case, whether or not one likes what it represents.

The issue of satire here should be a non-starter anyway. Saying something is satire neither makes it not racist/sexist/whatever nor does it demonstrate that these beliefs are not held by the creators. Examples include The Simpsons, Family Guy, and South Park (to further demonstrate my above point, though, allow me to point out that all of these have had their "satire" status questioned). Saying "it's not bigoted because satire" is not particularly convincing. It's at best a half argument.

I'd also note, though this gets even further away from the "Chuck and Larry" thing, that satires is often designed to offend.

Just one reminder: If you are part of the majority, you don't get to decide if stereotypes over a minority are offensive or not. The minority in question does.

There's an easy way around that: find a single individual from that group who isn't bothered and use them as an example for why everyone else should shut up. Because if you can find one person who believes as you do, you win.

 

[RoonMian]

Just one reminder: If you are part of the majority, you don't get to decide if stereotypes over a minority are offensive or not. The minority in question does.

There's an easy way around that: find a single individual from that group who isn't bothered and use them as an example for why everyone else should shut up. Because if you can find one person who believes as you do, you win.

Yes, you're right. That is of course true. Just like "I'm not racist, but..." and "I have friends who are foreigners" make everything you say okay.

Ahem...BULL. FUCKING. SHIT. If that were even REMOTELY the case then black people could do anything they wanted to, regardless of standards, laws, and common sense.. Theres a difference between racism and factually incorrect horsecrap. This article is the latter.

Oh, please elaborate.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Just one reminder: If you are part of the majority, you don't get to decide if stereotypes over a minority are offensive or not. The minority in question does.

Ahem...BULL. FUCKING. SHIT. If that were even REMOTELY the case then black people could do anything they wanted to, regardless of standards, laws, and common sense.. Theres a difference between racism and factually incorrect horsecrap. This article is the latter.

Wait, what?

If you allow someone to decide if the stereotypes about their group are offensive, or anything remotely like that, then they aren't bound by laws anymore?

I think you skipped some important details there.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Just one reminder: If you are part of the majority, you don't get to decide if stereotypes over a minority are offensive or not. The minority in question does.

Ahem...BULL. FUCKING. SHIT. If that were even REMOTELY the case then black people could do anything they wanted to, regardless of standards, laws, and common sense.. Theres a difference between racism and factually incorrect horsecrap. This article is the latter.

Wait, what?

If you allow someone to decide if the stereotypes about their group are offensive, or anything remotely like that, then they aren't bound by laws anymore?

I think you skipped some important details there.

The "You can't decide what's racist/stupid" mentality does not fucking work. It's pure stupidity, trying to suggest that a majority doesn't know what racism is.

It's not a matter of them knowing or not knowing what racism is. It's a matter of them not personally experiencing the racism a particular group faces. Same as every other minority group that doesn't happen to be that particular one.

Secondly, when the majority gets to decide for a minority what is and what isn't racism against that minority...taking that away from them is itself racism.

Thirdly, that's got nothing whatsoever to letting that minority break laws.

 

[andago]

Just one reminder: If you are part of the majority, you don't get to decide if stereotypes over a minority are offensive or not. The minority in question does.

Ahem...BULL. FUCKING. SHIT. If that were even REMOTELY the case then black people could do anything they wanted to, regardless of standards, laws, and common sense.. Theres a difference between racism and factually incorrect horsecrap. This article is the latter.

Wait, what?

If you allow someone to decide if the stereotypes about their group are offensive, or anything remotely like that, then they aren't bound by laws anymore?

I think you skipped some important details there.

The "You can't decide what's racist/stupid" mentality does not fucking work. It's pure stupidity, trying to suggest that a majority doesn't know what racism is.

It's not a matter of them knowing or not knowing what racism is. It's a matter of them not personally experiencing the racism a particular group faces. Same as every other minority group that doesn't happen to be that particular one.

Secondly, when the majority gets to decide for a minority what is and what isn't racism against that minority...taking that away from them is itself racism.

Thirdly, that's got nothing whatsoever to letting that minority break laws.

So who gets to decide what is, for example, descrimination against weight? Is there a specific limit?

Just to clarify, I think you mean that noone gets to decide what is offensive because that is going to be different from person to person, but equally there is no one person that can decide that a stereotype IS universally offensive. Equally, if one something insulted someone I cared about when they weren't around, I would probably be offended in turn, so I don't think it's just the subject of the joke or satire that can get offended by something.

 

[AJ_Lethal]

Now, they never intended to offend transgender people, and thats how South Park does their show. The show isn't trying to be mean, but the message is clear, no matter how nice the gift-wrapping is. Satire shouldn't be excused for being offensive (which is often the point of satire) whether its intentional or not because satire can still suck, like any other form of writing.

South Park is a show that uses controversy as fuel; they hit at EVERYTHING without giving half a fuck as long they can rustle people's jimmies.

 

[AJ_Lethal]

2x post