The people who take the time to complain about pictures like that. I dubt they know much more about their own culture than I know about it either.BobDobolina said:
The Big Picture: Correctitude
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
True, however that's not the point.Rabidkitten said:
I should have that 'right' to say n***** or s**** without censoring them on the risk of being ban or labeled a racist.
I don't see folks on my forums or IRL getting warnings or looks using slurs like 'Gringo' or 'cracker' or 'honky'.
Before anyone can claim we're all equal in good we have to be equal in bad.
You want equal pay for equal work?
THAT'S GREAT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN THAT WAY FROM THE START!
However, if you get preggers you don't get any maturity leave - unless the partners get it as well.
(I use the word 'partners' because I think it's just dandy if it's a lesbian couple)
All's fair, right?
Also:
What is the deal with these stupid hyphenated terns for people?
African-American, Chinese-American, Mexican-American, ect...ect...ect
I don't see people referring to whites as Euro-American or British-American or Irish-American or Italian-American or Serbian-American or Russian-American or German-American.
AlsoX2:
Why is it a Mexican/Latino can say s/he has 'brown pride' and talk about how great it is to be brown but if I do the same with white pride the 'Safe-Zone Police' come after me?
Huh...doesn't seem fair and equal to me...unless we're talking Fox News "fair and balanced" then I get it.
;P
I've been trying to avoid this whole argument for a while now... The terrible arguments, the ad hominem attacks, and so on.
Anyway, the basic premise here is that sometimes jerks use anti-political correctness as a defense, and therefore political incorrectness is always a cover for bigotry and is a lame attempt to return to the days of yore when inequality was embraced as a way of life.
Please.
So, the disclaimer I shouldn't need: I absolutely agree that in some cases people use political incorrectness as a defense for being mean or saying things that shouldn't be excusable in the 21st century. Yes, making a fried chicken joke about the current president is bad.
But political correctness does certainly exist as a negative force. It happens when our "inclusive" language creates arbitrary barriers, or when it injects malice where none is intended.
So yes, I agree that making a fried chicken joke about the president is tasteless. But what about comparing the president to a monkey in caricature form? That stirred up a boatload of people claiming that it was "politically incorrect" due to "racial undertones," despite the fact that we just got done with president "Curious George" who was portrayed in monkey form virtually everywhere.
Resident Evil 5 is the perfect example of this, in that it is virtually a shot-for-shot remake of Resident Evil 4. And yet, RE4 was fine while RE5 was heavily criticized as racist.
Of the three screenshots of RE5 you showed while condemning it, I could easily find equivalents to two of them:
Anachronisms: http://projectumbrella.net/files/imagecache/preview/images/3426monks_copy.jpg
Infected face: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fGYWQs2WgM&feature=player_detailpage#t=89s or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAyklNWQVkU&feature=player_detailpage#t=135s
I didn't bother looking for a similar shot to the bikini picture, mostly because I didn't want to go down that road in Google.
For another example, compare reactions (on both sides) to the casting of Heimdall in Thor to the reactions on both sides to the casting of Aang in The Last Windbender.
So, is "politically incorrect" an excuse for any kind of language whatsoever? Certainly not. But it is certainly a destructive force that has the potentially to do more harm than good. At its worst it builds barriers between people, and serves to create resentment and enmity where otherwise there would be none.
Or to put it another way... Political correctness is a useful tool for a polite society, but only when it serves to move us forward.
Anyway, the basic premise here is that sometimes jerks use anti-political correctness as a defense, and therefore political incorrectness is always a cover for bigotry and is a lame attempt to return to the days of yore when inequality was embraced as a way of life.
Please.
So, the disclaimer I shouldn't need: I absolutely agree that in some cases people use political incorrectness as a defense for being mean or saying things that shouldn't be excusable in the 21st century. Yes, making a fried chicken joke about the current president is bad.
But political correctness does certainly exist as a negative force. It happens when our "inclusive" language creates arbitrary barriers, or when it injects malice where none is intended.
So yes, I agree that making a fried chicken joke about the president is tasteless. But what about comparing the president to a monkey in caricature form? That stirred up a boatload of people claiming that it was "politically incorrect" due to "racial undertones," despite the fact that we just got done with president "Curious George" who was portrayed in monkey form virtually everywhere.
Resident Evil 5 is the perfect example of this, in that it is virtually a shot-for-shot remake of Resident Evil 4. And yet, RE4 was fine while RE5 was heavily criticized as racist.
Of the three screenshots of RE5 you showed while condemning it, I could easily find equivalents to two of them:
Anachronisms: http://projectumbrella.net/files/imagecache/preview/images/3426monks_copy.jpg
Infected face: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fGYWQs2WgM&feature=player_detailpage#t=89s or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAyklNWQVkU&feature=player_detailpage#t=135s
I didn't bother looking for a similar shot to the bikini picture, mostly because I didn't want to go down that road in Google.
For another example, compare reactions (on both sides) to the casting of Heimdall in Thor to the reactions on both sides to the casting of Aang in The Last Windbender.
So, is "politically incorrect" an excuse for any kind of language whatsoever? Certainly not. But it is certainly a destructive force that has the potentially to do more harm than good. At its worst it builds barriers between people, and serves to create resentment and enmity where otherwise there would be none.
Or to put it another way... Political correctness is a useful tool for a polite society, but only when it serves to move us forward.
I forgot I wasn't on Facebook and kept trying to look for the "Like" button. You had so much to say and not a word was wasted, bravo. I completely agree and I dare say you presented a much better perspective of the issue than MovieBob did.Therumancer said:
I especially wanted to point out the statement about changing a long-established character's ethnicity out of political correctness. I absolutely despise this act. For the love of God, it's not even a racist thing for me. Look at Nick Fury appearing in the recent Marvel films... it's Samuel L. Jackson. Granted, I really like Samuel L. Jackson a lot, he's one of my favorite actors... but NICK FURY IS NOT BLACK! When they do this it permeates into the fan-base. You get fans that are black playing the "race card" on someone like me (who is Middle-Eastern, mind you) when I make such a statement. They only do this to white characters though, as if they feel they need to balance the ethnicity levels in their cast of characters. Okay fine, what if I played the same game then? What if I want Gambit to be an Arab? They'd never do it in a million years. You want more ethnically diverse characters present in comic books, movies, and TV? Make them up. Don't change those already established.
I would lean more towards the concept that current usage has made it such far more so than its "original usage" does. But the truth of it is this: words have only the meaning that we the listeners attach to them.wildcard9 said:
The whole idea behind changing the way that people talk, by banning or otherwise dis-incentivizing use of words such as fag or darky or whatever is that there's an underlying desire to change the patterns of THOUGHT associated with the usage of those words, not so much the words themselves.
And that my friend is censorship. Period end of story, that's it.
If you must change someone's mind, do so by virtue of being correct through irreproachable reason and unassailable logic, not by attempting to defend something as ephemeral as feelings.
[/quote]
I wouldn't make the broad statement if it didn't apply to ALL religion.
[/quote]
First background so you know where I am coming from. I'm atheist and not the biggest fan of a number of things religious groups have done over the years. So you're saying the bad things of religion apply to things like Shinto, Confucianism, and Buddhism? They aren't even a focus on worshiping in groups the way Christianity and western religions tend to be. They are all about self reflection and not being jerks. It's not about asking to be forgiven for sins or belief in a single god. You have to improve yourself as a person.
I wouldn't make the broad statement if it didn't apply to ALL religion.
[/quote]First background so you know where I am coming from. I'm atheist and not the biggest fan of a number of things religious groups have done over the years. So you're saying the bad things of religion apply to things like Shinto, Confucianism, and Buddhism? They aren't even a focus on worshiping in groups the way Christianity and western religions tend to be. They are all about self reflection and not being jerks. It's not about asking to be forgiven for sins or belief in a single god. You have to improve yourself as a person.
I do agree with some of the points, but not all political correctness is just 'being nice', sometimes it DOES exist to surpress the speech of certain individuals. For example, I mentioned this a long time ago on these forums, but last year Ann Coulter was coming to my university. I was actually looking forward to it, not because I'm a fan of hers, but because I wanted to get in there and tear her a new one in the Q&A period. Anyway, a bunch of students got together and started protesting, declaring her discussions as 'hate speech' and 'politically incorrect' (which my god can be applied too broadly).
They protested outside of the building, and began to do some very questionable things after awhile. Flipping over tables, pulling fire alarms, threatening people collecting tickets and generally just blocking the door. Now, this is a university, and I expect that I should have the ability to challenge beliefs in Coulter's in a forum. But no, these students wanted to completely eliminate her event, despite not knowing what she would even talk about. 'Being nice' is not threatening ticket collectors because they are working for an event you dislike. Eventually the event was cancelled.
What's the true, mature response to people like Coulter? To challenge them in a debate and delegitimize their position. Now Coulter looks like the victim and gained sympathy, further helping her along. I'd rather have my racists/sexists/etc. screaming their opinions loud and proud, so we can look at them and realize they're idiots. Political correctness does nothing to solve the underlying problem, it just covers it up. These people still have 'politically incorrect' views, they're just not vocal about it. And it terrifies me that they could end up in positions of political power without people knowing.
But maybe I'm just some horrible, sexist, racist, xenophobic jerk like Bob notes.
They protested outside of the building, and began to do some very questionable things after awhile. Flipping over tables, pulling fire alarms, threatening people collecting tickets and generally just blocking the door. Now, this is a university, and I expect that I should have the ability to challenge beliefs in Coulter's in a forum. But no, these students wanted to completely eliminate her event, despite not knowing what she would even talk about. 'Being nice' is not threatening ticket collectors because they are working for an event you dislike. Eventually the event was cancelled.
What's the true, mature response to people like Coulter? To challenge them in a debate and delegitimize their position. Now Coulter looks like the victim and gained sympathy, further helping her along. I'd rather have my racists/sexists/etc. screaming their opinions loud and proud, so we can look at them and realize they're idiots. Political correctness does nothing to solve the underlying problem, it just covers it up. These people still have 'politically incorrect' views, they're just not vocal about it. And it terrifies me that they could end up in positions of political power without people knowing.
But maybe I'm just some horrible, sexist, racist, xenophobic jerk like Bob notes.
If I was to rape a woman does that mean that it is right that I be raped? People are allowe dcall for whatever Batshit insane thing they want however taking away that right, which is what you seem to be suggesting, is completely wrong. Free Speech is a very important cornerstone of western societies and it should not be destroyed.BobDobolina said:
Finally, finally, finally, someone puts to words what I've been saying for eons.
IIRC, Bob leapt in to defend the game before it came out, and when he saw the tribal zombies after the game was released, THEN he made a second video raking Capcom over the coals for it, so he kind of agrees.green_dude said:
The "N" Word is potent do to the history of its use. A slang of the word Negro, it was applied to African Americans. I am not sure if it was always meant to be belittling, but it is certainly used almost exclusively by people who think they are inferior, particularly Southerners (but not exclusively). Blacks where called that when they where slaves, when they where lynched, when they told to go to the back of the bus, when the police dogs where sicked on them, and when they tried to go to unsegregated schools. It is the language used by people who oppressed them, thus it is a word of oppression. When invoked, the history of the use of that word is invoked too. It is the approval of all those year of slavery and oppression.
You're missing the point. Making a distinction over gender is as ridiculous as making a distinction over race. They do their job in the same way, to the same standard. By giving them different terms you're saying there's a difference, is wrong.tkioz said:
'Lady Doctor' is a term that older people tend to use, and for the same reasons I just said, it's wrong. It implies there's something abnormal about a woman being a doctor, like it's the 1950's or something.
My first post was getting so Long I needed to start another. A subject I often have trouble with is the definition of words. Words will often have several meanings depending on who is listening. Especially in the age of the internet where slang and Memes change almost constantly. So many times I have what a word or phrase means as the litteral deffinition locked in my head. Then I get people upset or confused when I make a coment about a topic using the correct/text book deffinition, but everyone reading it is thinking about some other thing the word relates to in popular culture that I am unaware of. Or I may be aware of it which is why the comment was suppose to be witty but no one else knows what I am talking about.
Example: I saw a video post from the Distressed Watcher talking about movies he considered to be overated and reffered to them as "sacred cows". In the popular culture this is reffering to the fact that many religions and cultures such as Hinduism consider cows to be holy. However in the Judeo-Christian terminology the word sacred is closley tied to the word sacrifice. As in somethig becomes sacred because you sacrifice for it. Reffering litteraly to herd animals primarly sheep but often Oxen being sacrificed. This was done as part of the old Jewish Mosaic law as a ritual of purification to expunge sins. There have been similar practices in other cultures such as the scape goat.
So in that context the term sacred cow as it exists in pop culture has the opposite meaning of what the literal words could be taken to mean. Short story long I posted that "as a Judeo-Christian I thought the term was funny". I gave this comment without any context because I incorrectly assumed a certain level of knowledge on the part of the readers. This was a mistake as I got thumbs downed pretty hard. I now realize that without proper understanding of the words I was using my comment could have been taken as purposefully offensive to Hindus. This was not my intention and I tried to appologise but the damage was already done.
So yes words have meaning but sometimes I feel like I am playing a guessing game about what people will think of when I say certain words.
Example: I saw a video post from the Distressed Watcher talking about movies he considered to be overated and reffered to them as "sacred cows". In the popular culture this is reffering to the fact that many religions and cultures such as Hinduism consider cows to be holy. However in the Judeo-Christian terminology the word sacred is closley tied to the word sacrifice. As in somethig becomes sacred because you sacrifice for it. Reffering litteraly to herd animals primarly sheep but often Oxen being sacrificed. This was done as part of the old Jewish Mosaic law as a ritual of purification to expunge sins. There have been similar practices in other cultures such as the scape goat.
So in that context the term sacred cow as it exists in pop culture has the opposite meaning of what the literal words could be taken to mean. Short story long I posted that "as a Judeo-Christian I thought the term was funny". I gave this comment without any context because I incorrectly assumed a certain level of knowledge on the part of the readers. This was a mistake as I got thumbs downed pretty hard. I now realize that without proper understanding of the words I was using my comment could have been taken as purposefully offensive to Hindus. This was not my intention and I tried to appologise but the damage was already done.
So yes words have meaning but sometimes I feel like I am playing a guessing game about what people will think of when I say certain words.
FUCK Dunham and Mencia; Mencia regularly plagiarizes jokes from other comedians and doesn't deliver them even half as good as they do. Dunham relies on bigoted, shallow stereotypes to tell a joke. Maybe if he cut that crap out with Achmed he'd be better, but then he'd still have an idiot hill-billy and a terribly insensitive black guy. So far the only guy I've seen who can make fun of anyone because he make of everyone (including himself) is Louis CK who might as well be channeling Richard Pryor