I honestly am... surprisingly okay with this. I mean it's not funny - the pun falls flat, and so does the actual joke that (i think) was at play here. But i got the impression the joke was supposed to be that the two were both complete morons. Of course the fact that he decided to publish this is dumb and insensitive in the extreme - was he EXPECTING controversy? It doesn't help your comic gain popularity, you just gain notoriety.
Homophobia in a university newspaper, as well as other things!?
- Thread starter Zahri
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I can kinda see where you're coming from, but only kinda. That reading of it would seem to be reaching a bit. If the kid said "I guess that would make me a fruit roll up", then I would see that reading, but the kid says "I guess that's what you call a Fruit Roll Up".SaneAmongInsane said:Just something... I'm noticing now...Zen Toombs said:
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.
oh god now i can't stop laughing. that is way funnier than it should beSaneAmongInsane said:
Actually, after coming back to this, I going to have to agree with you.FluxCapacitor said:
I think the reason I saw it as satirical is because the father's words sounded so ridiculous as to make me instantly think the person is being ironic. Like someone saying "Yeah, I'd totally have sex with that lamp" without making a big deal out of it - at first I'd think they were being intentionally ridiculous.
As you said, since the son basically replies with 'lol' to his father's threats, it certainly comes across as if this attitude isn't something unusual.
I think this is the first time in my life I think I've actually had far too accepting a group of friends. D=
As Vego said, Freedom is speech is not freedom from consequence AND I'll show you why.
If I have a radio show, and I call everyone but me a "Worthless hunk of meat undeserving of any space on the planet", and offend everyone listening, I've exercised my freedom of speech. I have not been suppressed, I have not been prevented from saying this by the government (Which is all Free Speech entitles you to anyway).
BUT-those people listening will use their freedoms in response. They may choose not to listen, and to boycott my show. They might use their freedom of speech and tell my radio station that they're not listening because the radio is giving me platform to offend people. They're free to do that, that's free speech too. They might inform our sponsors via petition that they are boycotting the radio station because they continue to support me. That's also their free speech.
At which point, the sponsors are free to suspend sponsoring of the radio station. The radio station is under NO OBLIGATION TO HIRE ME. Crucial point here. Freedom of speech is not an obligation to others to publish your speech. So the radio station has a choice. Continue to hire me, and lose their sponsors and listeners, and reduce their ratings. Or, refuse to hire me, and kick me out on my ass. It's a sound business decision to kick me out, so they probably will (So long as profit is their aim. Some organisations have alternate motives). At which point, I have no rational reason to complain that my freedom of speech is being infringed upon. I used my free speech, and my position as someone who is published. In response, people used their free speech and complained.
As a result, those who hired me felt it was in their best interests to remove my position as one who is published. I'm still free to say what I like, but people aren't going to pay me to, or try to get others to listen. And they're not obliged to. People are under no obligation to publish you, or listen to you. Freedom of speech is not freedom to force people to listen to you -even in a public space. If I put in my headphones and ignore you, you can't fuck with that, I'm free to do that. We're free to choose who we listen to.
Australians know what I'm talking about. I've exaggerated and modified a story from our media for this example. Alan Jones (Our Bill O'Reilly, a tasteless moronic scourge of filthy misogynistic jingoistic stupidity) decided to make a rather stupid and tasteless insult towards the prime minister, who's father had recently died. (Not on air, at a Liberal Party function) He said that her father died of shame because of all the lies she's been telling. (Of course, being a moronic pundit, he didn't elaborate on "Lies"). There was a massive backlash, and petitions to his sponsors informing them of boycotts. As a result, many publishers suspended their sponsorship. He and his station whinged about "Freedom of speech" and "Cyber bullying". Never mind that he uses his station for that type of thing regularly, but people taking offense at what you say, and refusing to help you say it, and encouraging others not to is not bullying.
EDIT: This is not censorship, or being banned. It's people refusing to listen to me. Most of us refuse to hang around with people who deliberately antagonise us-we're not censoring them or banning them from doing it, we're refusing to enable them. We're choosing to occupy a space which excludes their behaviour. We're free to do that. They have to deal with it, cut the crap, and start acting like civilised people.
If I have a radio show, and I call everyone but me a "Worthless hunk of meat undeserving of any space on the planet", and offend everyone listening, I've exercised my freedom of speech. I have not been suppressed, I have not been prevented from saying this by the government (Which is all Free Speech entitles you to anyway).
BUT-those people listening will use their freedoms in response. They may choose not to listen, and to boycott my show. They might use their freedom of speech and tell my radio station that they're not listening because the radio is giving me platform to offend people. They're free to do that, that's free speech too. They might inform our sponsors via petition that they are boycotting the radio station because they continue to support me. That's also their free speech.
At which point, the sponsors are free to suspend sponsoring of the radio station. The radio station is under NO OBLIGATION TO HIRE ME. Crucial point here. Freedom of speech is not an obligation to others to publish your speech. So the radio station has a choice. Continue to hire me, and lose their sponsors and listeners, and reduce their ratings. Or, refuse to hire me, and kick me out on my ass. It's a sound business decision to kick me out, so they probably will (So long as profit is their aim. Some organisations have alternate motives). At which point, I have no rational reason to complain that my freedom of speech is being infringed upon. I used my free speech, and my position as someone who is published. In response, people used their free speech and complained.
As a result, those who hired me felt it was in their best interests to remove my position as one who is published. I'm still free to say what I like, but people aren't going to pay me to, or try to get others to listen. And they're not obliged to. People are under no obligation to publish you, or listen to you. Freedom of speech is not freedom to force people to listen to you -even in a public space. If I put in my headphones and ignore you, you can't fuck with that, I'm free to do that. We're free to choose who we listen to.
Australians know what I'm talking about. I've exaggerated and modified a story from our media for this example. Alan Jones (Our Bill O'Reilly, a tasteless moronic scourge of filthy misogynistic jingoistic stupidity) decided to make a rather stupid and tasteless insult towards the prime minister, who's father had recently died. (Not on air, at a Liberal Party function) He said that her father died of shame because of all the lies she's been telling. (Of course, being a moronic pundit, he didn't elaborate on "Lies"). There was a massive backlash, and petitions to his sponsors informing them of boycotts. As a result, many publishers suspended their sponsorship. He and his station whinged about "Freedom of speech" and "Cyber bullying". Never mind that he uses his station for that type of thing regularly, but people taking offense at what you say, and refusing to help you say it, and encouraging others not to is not bullying.
EDIT: This is not censorship, or being banned. It's people refusing to listen to me. Most of us refuse to hang around with people who deliberately antagonise us-we're not censoring them or banning them from doing it, we're refusing to enable them. We're choosing to occupy a space which excludes their behaviour. We're free to do that. They have to deal with it, cut the crap, and start acting like civilised people.
Seems to me like the OP and his University are very... dumb. It's a joke. A very lame one at that, but still just a joke. It's fairly obvious that it isn't to be taken seriously.
Ok that one is right on the line and I can see why some people call it offensive and others don?t. It all comes down to interpretation of what the comic is trying to say.
I think the main issue here is that the newspaper forgot one of the big rules of jokes. Know your audience. This would be circulated through the whole school, so assume a large portion of the school will read it or hear about it. If you think your audience might not understand the joke or interpret it the way you meant it find a way to explain it so the people who don?t get it at least understand your point.
Jim Davis had to apologize once because his editor released a comic that was interpreted to be anti-soldier on Veterans Day (at least I think that was the day/topic). I know he put out a short apology and explanation. Would be in UoA?s best interest to do the same if only to get people to calm down.
Could they at least have made it funny? I mean it just felt bland to me.
I think the main issue here is that the newspaper forgot one of the big rules of jokes. Know your audience. This would be circulated through the whole school, so assume a large portion of the school will read it or hear about it. If you think your audience might not understand the joke or interpret it the way you meant it find a way to explain it so the people who don?t get it at least understand your point.
Jim Davis had to apologize once because his editor released a comic that was interpreted to be anti-soldier on Veterans Day (at least I think that was the day/topic). I know he put out a short apology and explanation. Would be in UoA?s best interest to do the same if only to get people to calm down.
Could they at least have made it funny? I mean it just felt bland to me.
It was a bad joke. It wasn't hate speech from what I can tell. I agree that "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences", but I think petitioning someone to get fired for this is going way overboard. The editors made the decision to publish the comic and they'd lose credibility if they back peddled now. It's a catch 22 and I think most journalism outfits would agree that it would be safer to keep the cartoonist on-staff and stand by what they published rather than admitting they were wrong and trying to cover up their mistake.
I think the moral of the story is that you shouldn't publish comic strips in your paper if the punchline is a pun.
I think the moral of the story is that you shouldn't publish comic strips in your paper if the punchline is a pun.
How is that even funny? Not to mention the cartoonist isn't even good. This conversation sounds like Microsoft Sam and C3PO impersonating two frat boys. Key word there is boys.
That.
THAT right there is a perfect example of why I refuse to read my various schools' newspaper.
Comics are supposed to be FUNNY, dangit!
THAT right there is a perfect example of why I refuse to read my various schools' newspaper.
Comics are supposed to be FUNNY, dangit!
I understand that due to the lack of context I can't definitively say that this is a satire/parody, but I do think that the father threatening to shoot his son qualifies as outlandish considering that for one, most fathers would never do that, which qualifies it as abnormal, and two, the fact that he said it right to his son's face and was so explicit his thought out plan of shooting him, rolling him up in carpet and throwing him off a bridge, also makes it even more abnormal, as on the off chance they actually would shoot their son, I doubt they would tell them right to their face and then expect everything to be cool between them, unless he is messed up in the head, i.e., abnormal/outlandish. Also notable, is that they immediately switched from that lethal absurd threat to a silly joke, which kind of makes light of the father's opinion/threat. I don't particularly care for this comic at all, but it doesn't seem like one that reflects a hateful view of homosexuals, but in my opinion, it seems more like they just forgot to add a more definite punchline or something of the sort to solidify it as a joke on how terrible homophobic people are versus an attack on homosexuals. But like I said before, since there's not enough context, I can't really say that this is 100% the case, but I am just giving you my thoughts on the matter so maybe you can understand a bit better why I find this absurd enough to be a satire/parody.Char-Nobyl said:
How would that joke work as a racist joke?A Smooth Criminal said:
Dad: son if you ever tell me you turn Asian i will chop you up and feed you to the dogs
Son : i guess thats what they call " Chow mein"
Dad&Son : hahahahaha
Nope , doesn't work .
My point is , there is a difference between hating gay people , and not wanting your son/daughter to be gay .
No worries I am from Ontario so it is the same way here obviously (assuming you are from another province). To be honest I like the fact that verbal attacks can get you into trouble here just we have to keep in mind this is a world wide forum so the laws that apply to us don't necessarily apply to everyone else.Bhaalspawn said:
On a side note I think it be hilarious to see the Westboro baptists get thrown out of Canada XD. I can just imagine them getting thrown out like in the movies when a person gets thrown out of a bar.
Yes yes, we've been over that with others, and as I told them, I'll tell you, of course my stance is that no speech should be "illegal", as in, the government shouldn't be getting at you from anything you say.Zen Toombs said:
But that does not absolve you from getting punched square in the teeth by a citizen if you said something to warrant that.