The Big Picture: Correctitude

[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.

 

[lokiduck]

You make an extremely valid point, bob. I mean most people who claim, "oh that's just because it's politically correcting bullshit" are jerks... but I still think the mass media and public is going way too far... such as the Huck Fin thing.

Yes it's offensive to African American's but it wasn't written to be Offensive, it was written as a period piece that shows how things were back in the day. When they PC our history books to "save the poor wittle children's minds" from the world, that is what I hate.

But when a guy says "Oh they made it that way because they are trying to be politically correct" and is just being a douche, he is one.

But do we really need to call some that is considered offensive a happier and longer term that is friendly and not what it really is.

 

[The Mapper]

Hm. It´s hard to express my feelings on this.

(This has nothing to do with the rest of the post, but i feel i should bring this up. Sexual harassment is one of the most stupid laws ever, since it´s the VICTIM who defines the crime, and not a third-person/book. For example, whistling may be for some women completly acceptable and maybe even flattering, but for other, IT`S SEXUAL HARASSMENT. Laws need to be clearly defined, not be defined by the victim.)

i agree with you in part but i think the point is that SEXUAL HARASSMENT is when some one finds it offensive so really there is no way to define it but that doesn?t mean that it?s not happening all the time. I also think that that whistling thing is a bit of the mark as it?s all in context if i went 2 one of my friends there looking fine today they take it as a compiment but if i did it to some one i had never met that coming on a bit strong especially in an non casual setting i.e. a work place

Would "finally, someone says what we're all thinking" be too cliché?

yes it is XD
but your still right i though

 

[The Mapper]

"Let's not forget that when you speak out loud, others can hear you. Show some bloody respect."

well said man. using a term that you know can be taken offensively your trying to be offensive of no reason (there for a asshole) or if your not and you use it anyway your just a bit unintelligent really in not being able to think of another word