The Big Picture: Correctitude
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I have to totally agree with Sargon here, because when it comes to this side of the topic of PC then I'm completely unaware of what is the "correct" thing to say as opposed to what isn't.Sargon of Akkad said:
Is saying stereotypical comments like "All Asians are good at math" really offensive, especially when (personally) in my school the top 5 students at math are Asians? I personally count that as a generalizing observation, because sure, I know that ALL Asian people aren't good at math, but being good at math isn't a bad thing!
Same goes with the Kenyan sprinter idea: Say if someone sees someone running really fast and say some passing comment like "There must be a bit of Kenyan in her/him", is that particularly offensive? Or is that person using positive (because, as I said, things like running fast are good traits) stereotypes to help add positive connatations to a situation.
And, just as a after-thought, saying something like "That person is running faster then a black man to KFC" Yes, I know THAT is racist, so I'm not saying something like that.
To sum it up in a line: Are observational racial stereotypes, if with positive connatations still offensive?
(I'm sure there are better examples then the one's I've given, but hopefully you get the idea.)
This needed to be said so much. I am tempted to so this video to my class. People need to rember saying hatefull, homophobic, racist, sexist, ablist ect. just shows you are just steeped in your own privledge not chalnging elitism.
Ah... People. Man. Men.
Are we not all men?
Yeah, funny thing is, historically Man was a gender-neutral term, (men and women being wepn and wyf. No, seriously.)
So, PC or not, the history of this is that in modern times we consider it sexist to talk about 'men', when historically, that word was co-opted to specifically refer to male humans exclusively around the same time that Europe started treating women as lesser inferior beings.
So yeah. History sucks, and the historical significance of words can be quite odd.
(incedentally, if 'man' didn't mean 'male', you may be wondering where it came from as a word - It actually shares a common origin with 'mind'. Notice human. Meaning, presumably, something like the species of the mind.)
Are we not all men?
Yeah, funny thing is, historically Man was a gender-neutral term, (men and women being wepn and wyf. No, seriously.)
So, PC or not, the history of this is that in modern times we consider it sexist to talk about 'men', when historically, that word was co-opted to specifically refer to male humans exclusively around the same time that Europe started treating women as lesser inferior beings.
So yeah. History sucks, and the historical significance of words can be quite odd.
(incedentally, if 'man' didn't mean 'male', you may be wondering where it came from as a word - It actually shares a common origin with 'mind'. Notice human. Meaning, presumably, something like the species of the mind.)
Seemed a bit overly aggressive to me but eh. Besides there is a difference between not sugar coating things by being blunt and just trying to be a jerk outright.
Jeff Dunham really isn't that funny but I don't really view him as trying to be politically incorrect. And I think it's in poor taste that you brought up Carlos Mencia.. We all know of his long term struggle with syphilis and how it's degraded his mental faculties.
Shame on you Bob, shame.
Jeff Dunham really isn't that funny but I don't really view him as trying to be politically incorrect. And I think it's in poor taste that you brought up Carlos Mencia.. We all know of his long term struggle with syphilis and how it's degraded his mental faculties.
Shame on you Bob, shame.
Can't disagree with any of you points here bob. Good job, i to have never understood people getting riled up about PC. What so wrong with being nice? But on the other hand you would have to be a morron to not get that somthing like Blazing Saddles is a joke.
So yeah, best Big Picture yet
So yeah, best Big Picture yet
I'd say the best way to sum up political correctness in my view is it's a sometimes clumsy manner to try to encourage equality. I'm one of those people who is a strong, and a somewhat fanatical, believer in intent and context. A lot of people, from time to time, make statements that could be seen as racist, sexist or homophobic. Hell, I do so myself. However, because I've made a few jokes about the holocaust or about AIDS doesn't mean I'm anti-Semitism or homophobic. My sometimes offensive sense of humour does not show my views on equality, contrary to some popular belief.
What I'm not saying is all jokes are free from moral judging. The type of laughter at "god damn you're right, that social group is incompetent" or something along those line is something I dub as "gritting teeth laughter". The type of thing some people laugh at out of hatred of that group. An example of what I mean is George Carlin and Roy "Chubby" Brown. George Carlin goes on wild rants about how there is no God a lot, and how religion is false, however this does not mean he dislikes believers. Roy "Chubby" Brown, you can pretty much guarantee that 90% of people in the venue hates foreigners, the 10% are made up of people dragged along, people who don't listen to many comedians and the staff at the venue.
Personally, I believe people should assess the likelihood that the joke was "gritting teeth laughter" before judging. If it was just some stupid "get in the kitchen" joke, then it's meant to be harmless. If it's someone saying something along the lines of "sexual harassment doesn't exist" or something like Jeff Dunham (which involves getting the irrational fear society has of Muslims and uses that to make offensive jokes about the Islam religion), then feel free to rip into them.
Oh, and I'd recommend people to check out Stewart Lee's political correctness stand up. In case people are concerned he's just going to say "political correctness is shit", it's more him ripping into people saying "it's political correctness gone mad".
What I'm not saying is all jokes are free from moral judging. The type of laughter at "god damn you're right, that social group is incompetent" or something along those line is something I dub as "gritting teeth laughter". The type of thing some people laugh at out of hatred of that group. An example of what I mean is George Carlin and Roy "Chubby" Brown. George Carlin goes on wild rants about how there is no God a lot, and how religion is false, however this does not mean he dislikes believers. Roy "Chubby" Brown, you can pretty much guarantee that 90% of people in the venue hates foreigners, the 10% are made up of people dragged along, people who don't listen to many comedians and the staff at the venue.
Personally, I believe people should assess the likelihood that the joke was "gritting teeth laughter" before judging. If it was just some stupid "get in the kitchen" joke, then it's meant to be harmless. If it's someone saying something along the lines of "sexual harassment doesn't exist" or something like Jeff Dunham (which involves getting the irrational fear society has of Muslims and uses that to make offensive jokes about the Islam religion), then feel free to rip into them.
Oh, and I'd recommend people to check out Stewart Lee's political correctness stand up. In case people are concerned he's just going to say "political correctness is shit", it's more him ripping into people saying "it's political correctness gone mad".
Asked my scandinavian wife - it is.pffh said:Why is that offensive and thisMasochisticMuse said:For a long time now I've held the unpopular opinion that RE5 was indeed fucked in terms of depictions of race.
And it's not even about a white dude killing black zombies. You encounter zombies, you're gonna kill them, no matter what race you or they are.
No. It's not about the zombies, but it is about this;
That's not sexy. It's just offensive.
isn't?
If RE5 were still take place in Africa but all the natives replaced with blonde blue eyed Scandinavians, would the "Racism" flag still be flown by the PC crowd?
While the MSNBC myrmidons will use or manufacture extreme cases as an excuse to apply PC restrictions on speech, what it really is is a weapon against all dissenting, unapproved speech. Everyone who does not adhere to the new vocabulary is automatically declared sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.
Not everyone who disagrees with Obama's policies is a racist, MovieBob.
And where was the examples of the Leftists who used offensively racist slurs and imagery referring to Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice? Holy crap! If a non-Democrat Caucasian were to use the same slurs and imagery referring to Obama, they'd be crucified in the town square -- figuratively, if not literally.
While the MSNBC myrmidons will use or manufacture extreme cases as an excuse to apply PC restrictions on speech, what it really is is a weapon against all dissenting, unapproved speech. Everyone who does not adhere to the new vocabulary is automatically declared sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.
Not everyone who disagrees with Obama's policies is a racist, MovieBob.
And where was the examples of the Leftists who used offensively racist slurs and imagery referring to Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice? Holy crap! If a non-Democrat Caucasian were to use the same slurs and imagery referring to Obama, they'd be crucified in the town square -- figuratively, if not literally.
True but that still doesn't explain why every single subsequent interpretation of Nick Fury has been black.jmarquiso said:
Wolverine and the X-men-black
Iron Man: Armored Adventures-black
Super Hero Squad-black
Avengers Earth's Mightiest Heroes-black
I just feel it is disingenuous to the original material to do this. If they really wanted a black character they should have made someone original for that purpose not change the race of an existing character.
Imaginarium of Doctor ParnassusBobDobolina said:
Hey, look at that! A movie in which one character was portrayed by multiple actors IN THE SAME FILM! Didn't I see some scene where he was played by a woman too?
It's not like it can't be done. No one was pandering to different audiences by having these different actors play that character (except maybe the squealing fangirls, but hey, that's what A-list actors are for), that's just what was called for.
I like what Ca3zar416 was getting at before, if the actor can make the character come alive, it doesn't matter what they look like.
O dang I just had another thought. A couple months ago I finally got on itunes and bought several of H.P. Lovecraft stories collected into audio books.(I retain information better if I can hear it). I loved the stories and see why they get the praise they do from geek culture. I also remember thinking and commenting to my friends that some of the language was dated and could be easily misinterpreted as racist. Particularly some of the terminology used to discuss tribes of people in distant lands. This is maybe similar to what you were talking about with the Tom Sawyer book being updated. I hate to think how someone might butcher H.P.s stuff if they tried to make it "PC". The olden time terminology is part of the mystique of the whole thing for me.
Oh, so Bob decides whos funny and not now?
Seriously, if someone is a jerk it was George Carlin, he has absolutly no respect what so ever. Jeff Dunham is joking about terrorism, and that doesn't make him politicly incorrect but it makes him?....
Sorry Bob, I can't really follow you on this one.
Seriously, if someone is a jerk it was George Carlin, he has absolutly no respect what so ever. Jeff Dunham is joking about terrorism, and that doesn't make him politicly incorrect but it makes him?....
Sorry Bob, I can't really follow you on this one.
Because it doesn't make any god-damned sense.BobDobolina said:
Yahweh is perfectly portrayable as any kind of human being, dove or burning bush because of the insubstantial nature of the character in question. He has no form, he has no physical representations (shut it, Christians), and he does not physically exist, but is an entirely mental construct.
Non-Judaeo-Christian Gods are not 'inherently malleable'. For example, Heimdall:
"In Norse mythology, Heimdallr is a god who possesses the resounding horn Gjallarhorn, owns the golden-maned horse Gulltoppr, has gold teeth, and is the son of Nine Mothers. Heimdallr is attested as possessing foreknowledge, keen eyesight and hearing, is described as "the whitest of the gods", and keeps watch for the onset of Ragnarök while drinking fine mead in his dwelling Himinbjörg, located where the burning rainbow bridge Bifröst meets heaven." - Wikipedia.
We know a lot about how Heimdall looks and acts here. While syncretic religion was a common practice in the ancient world, that doesn't mean it operates in a PC vacuum. We know he has gold teeth, we know who his parents were (all ten of them).
If you wanted to be ultra-PC and portray him as a blind, deaf, toothless old black Muslim woman, I repeat, IT WOULD MAKE NO GOD-DAMNED SENSE. It would not be Heimdall, it would be an entirely different character, with different events that made them the character they are. Please see my first post on page 5 for more information on this.