Bill Maher on the "woke" always looking to be offended generation

Mr. Grumpy

Grumpy see, Grumpy do.
#51
Calling people anything along the lines of "joke of a person" or a "sjw" is equally inane and dismissive of other people's opinions. If you're not able to discuss things properly then it's best not to post if you're merely going to call people names. It also weakens the validity of opinions that you post with the name calling.

I trust that this intervention will get help people back on topic before we the team has to deal with people directly.

Thanks.
 
#52
Calling people anything along the lines of "joke of a person" or a "sjw" is equally inane and dismissive of other people's opinions. If you're not able to discuss things properly then it's best not to post if you're merely going to call people names. It also weakens the validity of opinions that you post with the name calling.

I trust that this intervention will get help people back on topic before we the team has to deal with people directly.

Thanks.
I agree completely. It’s frankly crazy to see so many posters on this site regularly using the term sjw as a pejorative to dismiss those who report they have been harrassed their whole life because of their race using a character that was clearly created to make fun of their race. That is the reason that person made the apu video, because he felt that character should be retired on the simpsons. Thats the kind of crap I see on shitholes like storm front, freer and teh Donald, I would expect better from gaf, old or new.

I don’t disagree that the left goes too far, but when it does, is it really that hard to argue why a particular stance is illogical?
 
Last edited:
#53
Calling people anything along the lines of "joke of a person" or a "sjw" is equally inane and dismissive of other people's opinions.
I personally tend to avoid terms like 'sjw', since I prefer, for the most part, to keep my language clean of trendy buzzwords. But I'd like to point out that 'sjw' is a perfectly valid dictionary term, that accurately describes the discussion at hand:



Yes, it is oftentimes used in a dismissive manner, but being dismissive of an argument isn't inherently wrong. It is certainly not my intention to take any sides in this particular exchange or to tell moderators how they should do their work. But it is worth to reflect on that notion. So with respect, I find it a bit weird that the use of a dictionary term in the context that it applies necessitates such an intervention (especially in a topic about 'wokeness').
 
Last edited:
#54
Then do you concede that calling posters a lazy acronyms like sjw instead of arguing the points doesn’t promote discussion either? I’m not focusing on your post, any post in general that use that term as a perjorative.
I don't agree that using 'sjw' is a problem, because it's a unique word/phrase that describes a unique group of people. Making an outrage whenever someone uses a word you personally dislike is not everybody else's problem, so you can either be rational and continue the discussion, accepting that other people use other words, or be irrational and cancel an entire discussion because of a single word usage you dislike. That's my opinion on that matter, which is why I found your 'joke of a person' sentence to be anything but constructive.

Edit: didn't see the mod posting on the next page. Understood.
 
Last edited:
#55
An easy mistake to make. He wasn't aware that this and "Uncle Tom" are terms only the Woke are allowed to use for the express purpose of shaming minorities into toeing the line
what does this even mean lol. He wasn't aware he couldn't say "house nigga" lol what? He's a old white man in America, come on man. I live across the pond and even I know I can't say something like that.
 
#56
I’m not saying that using the term SJW should be banned or anything of that sort. All I am saying is that use of that term to disparage a valid criticism is stupid.

The person who made the Apu video felt...

A. He felt that Apu as a character derives humor by making fun of Indian people and the Indian accent, just as Willie’s character derives humor from making fun of Irish people using stereotypes about them.

B. Shared that he was made fun of, harrassed and bullied his whole life using Apu’s character and accent and Indian kids and Indians that work in stores continue to be made harrassed using apus accent.

C. While it may have been seen acceptable 30 years ago, episodes made in 2018 and on should not continue to use characters that make fun of an entire race. The simpsons retired the bumblebee man because it was clearly making fun of Mexicans, there’s no reason that the Simpson can’t likewise also retire Apu and Willie’s accents.

Now, reasonable people can disagree with A-C but nothing he said makes him a worthy target of derision.
 
Last edited:
#57
I don't agree that using 'sjw' is a problem, because it's a unique word/phrase that describes a unique group of people. Making an outrage whenever someone uses a word you personally dislike is not everybody else's problem, so you can either be rational and continue the discussion, accepting that other people use other words, or be irrational and cancel an entire discussion because of a single word usage you dislike. That's my opinion on that matter, which is why I found your 'joke of a person' sentence to be anything but constructive.

Edit: didn't see the mod posting on the next page. Understood.
You don't see the problem with using it because you use it like water. You went from "too bad, so sad" to retracting under the treat of consequences. Gotta watch your own behavior.
 
#59
You don't see the problem with using it because you use it like water. You went from "too bad, so sad" to retracting under the treat of consequences. Gotta watch your own behavior.
The problem is that the word or title means what it says and folks do do that. and yes being told you can't do something on this forum and retracting your statement if you find out the rules have changed is normal. and seriously "gotta watch your own behavior"?
 
#61
I’m not saying that using the term SJW should be banned or anything of that sort. All I am saying is that use of that term to disparage a valid criticism is stupid.

The person who made the Apu video felt...

A. He felt that Apu as a character derives humor by making fun of Indian people and the Indian accent, just as Willie’s character derives humor from making fun of Irish people using stereotypes about them.

B. Shared that he was made fun of, harrassed and bullied his whole life using Apu’s character and accent and Indian kids and Indians that work in stores continue to be made harrassed using apus accent.

C. While it may have been seen acceptable 30 years ago, episodes made in 2018 and on should not continue to use characters that make fun of an entire race. The simpsons retired the bumblebee man because it was clearly making fun of Mexicans, there’s no reason that the Simpson can’t likewise also retire Apu and Willie’s accents.

Now, reasonable people can disagree with A-C but nothing he said makes him a worthy target of derision.
That person is free to criticize Apu, but I'm free to say Apu is fine. I enjoy humor based on stereotypes when it's funny.

Moreover, beyond humor, Apu's and Willy's accents are long since part of their character. You cannot just remove that on a whim. I'm also against silly demands like 'black Peter Parker' or 'female Link'. Make new characters if you want some different. But existing beloved characters shouldn't be changed because of some critics. I bet you there are more Simpsons-fans who like Apu the way he is than there are criticizing his accent. That's not because most fans hate Indian people. It's because they like the specific character that is Apu.
 
Last edited:
#62
I’m not saying that using the term SJW should be banned or anything of that sort. All I am saying is that use of that term to disparage a valid criticism is stupid.
It is neither stupid, nor intelligent, but merely descriptive of the rhetoric that's being applied, which is a perfectly apt approach. If the term 'sjw' has become such a pejorative notion in the eye of the majority, you have only those to blame who rallied under that banner.

The person who made the Apu video felt...
I "feel" a lot of things, but that doesn't make it automatically true.

A. Apu was a character clearly created to make fun of Indian people, just as Willie’s character derives humor from making fun of Irish people using stereotypes about them.
Nothing wrong with making fun of people, especially in the context of a show that makes fun of everybody alike. For example, you do it every time you talk about Trump or his supporters.

B. Shared that he was made fun of, harrassed and bullied his whole life using Apu’s character and accent and Indian kids continue to be made fun of using apus accent.
Correlation is not causation. Idiots, who've got their mind set to bully someone, will find anything to bully them, with or without The Simpsons. It's not like the show specifically targeted that guy and told people to go make fun of him either. He's taking something personal that cannot be taken personally in the first place, because as far as I'm aware he is not his "entire race" nor can he be reduced to merely a stereotype. He does that to himself and he's got nobody else to blame, which is why is entire argument is self-defeating.

C. While it may have been seen acceptable 30 years ago, episodes made in 2018 and on should not continue to use characters that make fun of an entire race.
That guy is certainly free to express his criticism, but people and the creators of The Simpsons are also allowed to dismiss these criticisms for equally valid reasons. You don't get do decide what's "acceptable" and what is not.

People should be free to make fun about everything and anything. The vast majority of jokes are construed around stereotypes, it's what makes them funny in the first place because people know that they aren't generally true. Also, the [current year] argument is equally as lazy as anything else you've railed against in this particular topic. But hey, feel free to 'dismiss' my arguments ;)
 
Last edited:
#63
Anyone that seriously uses the term sjw to dismiss valid criticisms is a joke of a person and isn’t worth taking seriously. That applies to many people in this thread. If you have a point make it using facts and logic, not mockery.

Yes children get mocked, bullied and harassed with Apus accent all the time and so did the person who made the original video. Why is it okay for a modern show to continue to perpetuate a blatantly racist character in episodes that continue to get made?

Answer me that instead of resorting to tired and lazy acronyms.

No One is asking to change the old episodes, the point of the original video was that racist portrayals should not be continued to be used in media created into modern times. And that is an absolutely fair point. The complaint isn’t about Simpson’s 30 years ago. The complaint is about the simpsons episodes that are made in 2018 and in forth.

This applies to Willie and bumblebee man as well.
If children are getting mocked and bullied with a fictional character's accent, that is the fault of the bullies and their parents for the crappy job they did of raising their kids. It is not the fault of a TV show. Nearly every character on The Simpsons has a catchphrase. If some shitty kid is going to reduce a person into a catchphrase, there's nothing Simpsons writers could do about it. Any catchphrase would be applicable.

Why is it okay for a modern show to continue to perpetuate a blatantly racist character in episodes that continue to get made?
Because it's a perfectly natural condition for people who weren't born in America to speak with an accent from the country of their birth. There's nothing racist or offensive about it, unless you're a racist asshole who uses that trait to mock someone for being different. Black skin is also a human trait that racists use to mock and generalize people for being different, but I doubt you would argue that having black skin itself is racist. Why then do you argue that having an accent is racist?

If you view characters on television as racist because they are living in America but have a heavy accent from the country where they were born, what does that say of actual people in that same situation?
Shouldn't there be a concern of unintentionally justifying and validating that particular stigma? If you suggest "this is bad, this is offensive, this shouldn't be on TV" how does that make people feel who were not born in this country and have heavy accents as a result?
 
#64
Anyone that seriously uses the term sjw to dismiss valid criticisms is a joke of a person and isn’t worth taking seriously. That applies to many people in this thread. If you have a point make it using facts and logic, not mockery.

Yes children get mocked, bullied and harassed with Apus accent all the time and so did the person who made the original video. Why is it okay for a modern show to continue to perpetuate a blatantly racist character in episodes that continue to get made?

Answer me that instead of resorting to tired and lazy acronyms.

No One is asking to change the old episodes, the point of the original video was that racist portrayals should not be continued to be used in media created into modern times. And that is an absolutely fair point. The complaint isn’t about Simpson’s 30 years ago. The complaint is about the simpsons episodes that are made in 2018 and in forth.

This applies to Willie and bumblebee mhan as well.
I showed before that the Accent he uses for APU is a real one. It is no mockery. So instead changing APU maybe parents need to teach their children not to be assholes?+

Also To me SJW is as lazy and tired as feminist femnazi, alt right, Gamergater or MRA. People use them also to silence the other side. SJW is an reaction to all the namecalling on the left side. And honestly people who believe they fight a war and that they are standing on the right side of history are extremists to me an a SJW is an extremist who fight some war.
 
#65
It is neither stupid, nor intelligent, but merely descriptive of the rhetoric that's being applied, which is a perfectly apt approach. If the term 'sjw' has become such a pejorative notion in the eye of the majority, you have only those to blame who rallied under that banner.



I "feel" a lot of things, but that doesn't make it automatically true.



Nothing wrong with making fun of people, especially in the context of a show that makes fun of everybody alike. For example, you do it every time you talk about Trump or his supporters.



Correlation is not causation. Idiots, who've got their mind set to bully someone, will find anything to bully them, with or without The Simpsons. It's not like the show specifically targeted that guy and told people to go make fun of him either. He's taking something personal that cannot be taken personally in the first place, because as far as I'm aware he is not his "entire race" nor can he be reduced to merely a stereotype. He does that to himself and he's got nobody else to blame, which is why is entire argument is self-defeating.



That guy is certainly free to express his criticism, but people and the creators of The Simpsons are also allowed to dismiss these criticisms for equally valid reasons. You don't get do decide what's "acceptable" and what is not.

People should be free to make fun about everything and anything. The vast majority of jokes are construed around stereotypes, it's what makes them funny in the first place because people know that they aren't generally true. The [current years] argument is equally as lazy as anything else you've railed against in this particular topic. But hey, feel free to 'dismiss' my arguments ;)
People are easily influenced. The same way that new words and ideas can rapidly perpetuate and become common knowledge, Negative stereotypes about a race of people portrayed in the media to the masses just as easily take hold in the masses.

This is why people were fine with slavery for so long, because black people were illustrated in the books, newspapers and all other forms of information dissemation back then as savage brutish animals. Their portrayals robbed them of their humanity and so did everyone else.

It doesn’t take long, post World War I Germany very quickly perpetuated the idea that Jewish people were killing and drinking the blood of Christian babies and otherwise normal people quickly became okay with massacring an entire race of people.

I’m not comparing apu to that by any stretch. The only point of those examples is to illustrate that how a particular race or group is portrayed matters a great deal.

You are free to find racist stereotypes funny, but people that find those sterotypes hurtful or offensive are just as free to speak out against those sterotypes and to boycott those that perpetuate them.

For most kids in the US, their first exposure to an Indian person in the media is Apu on the simpsons. So of course kids that are even more easily influenced than adults are going to think of all Indian people that way and often use that accent to make fun of other Indian kids in their school.

It would be entirely against the interests of Indian people to sit back and let sterotypes that are used to make fun of them fester and continue unchallenged. So if anything, I applaud the guy for making that Apu video.
 
Last edited:
#67
People are easily influenced.
You give people way too less credit. They certainly don't need you to babysit their taste in humor.

I’m not comparing apu to that by any stretch.
Then why bring that hyperbolic comparison up in the first place? You're just 'godwinning' out of desperation to make a point.

You are free to find racist stereotypes funny...
Yo, stop right there! I find jokes about stereotypes funny, because I know they aren't true. That's a big difference.

It would be entirely against the interests of Indian people to sit back and let negative sterotypes that are used to make fun of them fester and continue unchallenged.
Feel free to vicariously be offended on behalf of the more than 1.5 billion Indians in the world. That doesn't make your arguments any more valid though. You're just proving Maher's point. Also, we've had this discussion before and it went absolutely nowhere. So let's just agree to disagree, because I'm not particularly keen on being involved in another pointless discussion with you.
 
Last edited:
#68
Yes children get mocked, bullied and harassed with Apus accent all the time and so did the person who made the original video. Why is it okay for a modern show to continue to perpetuate a blatantly racist character in episodes that continue to get made?

Do childrean really get mocked and bullied because Apu existed?

Does Raja Koduri, the former head of Radeon T. Group and now top level manager at Intel perpetuate a blatantly racist character, since he speaks with an accent?

This is why people were fine with slavery for so long, because black people were illustrated in the books
Slavery was not exclusive to black people for "so long", democracy in Ancient Greece coexisted with slavery, and slaves weren't black.



Abolishing slavery and its form, serfdom, had become a think about 200 years go.
 
Last edited:
#69
The problem is that the word or title means what it says and folks do do that. and yes being told you can't do something on this forum and retracting your statement if you find out the rules have changed is normal. and seriously "gotta watch your own behavior"?
At some point he has to know that he's just stagnating.

Do childrean really get mocked and bullied because Apu existed?

Does Raja Koduri, the former head of Radeon T. Group and now top level manager at Intel perpetuate a blatantly racist character, since he speaks with an accent?
It's more like a drunk person will call him Apu just because he has one or looks a certain way regardless of whom he is or exemplifies.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Grumpy

Grumpy see, Grumpy do.
#70
@strange headache
The issue isn't really whether it's a real term or not, the reason that the team has decided that we are wanting to move away from tabloid style generalisations of that kind is because it's almost too easy, it can be lazy and it can often move the discussion away from the actual topic in question.

If somebody believes that somebody else is wrong because they're a "SJW", or any of the other terms of that kind, it's just not as effective as explaining that you disagree with them and explaining the specifics of why you disagree with them. With topics that usually raise terms like this, the topics are often pretty complex and these sorts of terms oversimplify the matter in question and also oversimplify the people those names have been applied too and once somebody has been labelled something like this, it almost gives people permission to dismiss them without consideration.

As somebody who has actually attended political discussions as part of a paid role, it's been really interesting to study how discussions progress and how sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. That doesn't mean in any way that there aren't people on here that know far more about the dynamics of discussion than I do, or that I never get it wrong.

When everything changed over on here this was one of many things that the team discussed and was one of the things that we felt it best to try try and move away from. If you look at some of the really old threads you'll notice that things often start to fall apart when these sorts of terms start being introduced.

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be people who possibly do fit into the dictionary definition of the term but it's always going to be more constructive for the discussion to deal with things that you actually agree or disagree with in terms of their opinions rather than using names of that kind. Nobody ever uses the term SJW as compliment, it is only used as an insult and nobody is ever really just a SJW as people's opinions are far complex that that. It's always going to draw a line in the sand and when you draw a line in the sand, you're inevitably going to push some people over to the other side of that line and turn it into an "us" and "them" thread.

We want people to disagree about things, that's the whole point of having a discussion forum. If everybody had the same opinions, it would be awful, it would be pointless, there would be no value at all.

As I'm sure everybody is aware, Off-Topic was closed for a while in part because it is most volatile place on NeoGAF. We're talking about real world issues in here and are people are right to be passionate about a lot of the things that are discussed in this section even though very little of what we talk about in here is going to be solved in Off-Topic thread. It's perhaps always going to be a more volatile place than the Gaming side of things and things do tend to go off topic a lot more quickly on this side of the forum.

I'm sure that everybody hates when I write in this manner but I hope that at least explains why it's something that we discussed wanted to do what we could to move away from?
 
#73
@strange headache
The issue isn't really whether it's a real term or not, the reason that the team has decided that we are wanting to move away from tabloid style generalisations of that kind is because it's almost too easy, it can be lazy and it can often move the discussion away from the actual topic in question.

If somebody believes that somebody else is wrong because they're a "SJW", or any of the other terms of that kind, it's just not as effective as explaining that you disagree with them and explaining the specifics of why you disagree with them. With topics that usually raise terms like this, the topics are often pretty complex and these sorts of terms oversimplify the matter in question and also oversimplify the people those names have been applied too and once somebody has been labelled something like this, it almost gives people permission to dismiss them without consideration.

As somebody who has actually attended political discussions as part of a paid role, it's been really interesting to study how discussions progress and how sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. That doesn't mean in any way that there aren't people on here that know far more about the dynamics of discussion than I do, or that I never get it wrong.

When everything changed over on here this was one of many things that the team discussed and was one of the things that we felt it best to try try and move away from. If you look at some of the really old threads you'll notice that things often start to fall apart when these sorts of terms start being introduced.

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be people who possibly do fit into the dictionary definition of the term but it's always going to be more constructive for the discussion to deal with things that you actually agree or disagree with in terms of their opinions rather than using names of that kind. Nobody ever uses the term SJW as compliment, it is only used as an insult and nobody is ever really just a SJW as people's opinions are far complex that that. It's always going to draw a line in the sand and when you draw a line in the sand, you're inevitably going to push some people over to the other side of that line and turn it into an "us" and "them" thread.

We want people to disagree about things, that's the whole point of having a discussion forum. If everybody had the same opinions, it would be awful, it would be pointless, there would be no value at all.

As I'm sure everybody is aware, Off-Topic was closed for a while in part because it is most volatile place on NeoGAF. We're talking about real world issues in here and are people are right to be passionate about a lot of the things that are discussed in this section even though very little of what we talk about in here is going to be solved in Off-Topic thread. It's perhaps always going to be a more volatile place than the Gaming side of things and things do tend to go off topic a lot more quickly on this side of the forum.

I'm sure that everybody hates when I write in this manner but I hope that at least explains why it's something that we discussed wanted to do what we could to move away from?
I think it is only used in a negative way because it is negative. SJ is not SJW is an extremist who thinks he/she is fighting a war. At least thats how I normally use this. But I also get you. When I for example see the word CIS I think the same.

These labels are not really helping a discussion and in general we should stop using labels all around. Each person should have different views on different topics and to label them like SJW or CIS is only a tool to stop and derail the conversation IMO.
 
#74
If somebody believes that somebody else is wrong because they're a "SJW", or any of the other terms of that kind, it's just not as effective as explaining that you disagree with them and explaining the specifics of why you disagree with them.
Just to make this clear: the opposite had happened un this thread: I replied in detail and used 'sjw' within a multi-paragraph reply. Another user then dismissed my entire posting only because of his reaction to 'sjw' being used. You make it sound as if people here use 'sjw' to dismiss others.

Nobody ever uses the term SJW as compliment, it is only used as an insult
I use 'sjw' as a neutral word that describes something. Ofc a sjw is not something positive in my opinion, but the word itself isn't an insult. People don't use 'alt-right' in a positive way, but we don't forbid the usage of the word 'alt-right' because of that. It simply describes a group of people of certain behavior/ideology/affiliation. That's all.

When someone demands Apu to be changed NOW, I'll call that person a sjw. Because it fits.
 
Last edited:
#75
I'm also against silly demands like 'black Peter Parker' or 'female Link'. Make new characters if you want some different. But existing beloved characters shouldn't be changed because of some critics.
I highly doubt anyone says "black Peter Parker" anymore since Miles exists and if you're referring to him then that's insulting to refer to him as such as he's his own personality, just like the countless Green Lanterns, Flashes, Robins, Batgirls, etc. are all unique characters as people who follow their books can attest to. As for female Link, come on. Link was specifically created to be a representation of the player, it's why he's named Link. Since virtually all of today's avatar-style characters let you choose your gender, it's really not that revolutionary to ask Nintendo (which plenty of us do, ASK, not demand. And let's not act like nobody else makes unreasonable demands all the time, lord knows all the entitled people who felt Retro Studios OWED THEM a Metroid Prime 4 and were outraged that they DARED to make a Donkey Kong Country TF) to have a gender option. Besides, each Link isn't even the same person aside from a few specific sequels so why is having the option to change the gender that big an issue when it won't even affect the Link of past games? If you're that adamant about not wanting a female Link (kinda weird to me to defend so much a character who barely has a personality anyway, you're primarily changing the appearance which again Link has had tons of variations in appearance across the series) then you don't have to play as her same way you don't have to play Female Shephard in Mass Effect if you don't want to.

It doesn't help that practically every time a video game developer tries to explain the lack of female playable options their explanations are baffling, hilarious, or stupid. We of course have the infamous Assassin's Creed Unity one where "female characters cost money and time" (I love that a Sunset Overdrive made a subtle jab at it in this video):
but there's also Assassin's Creed 3 where they said a female assassin wouldn't be realistic in the time period (of course, but a male assassin in that time period is TOTALLY how the Revolutionary War went down. Didn't you guys know, the AC series are historical documentaries and totally not fictional narratives!). And then there was Zelda Tri-Force Heroes where they said none of the Links could be female because the prophecy in Tri-Force Heroes said the Links were female. Oh, fair enough, your hands are tied by the fictional prophecy THAT YOU WROTE, seems legit. And they even had a good counter argument, that you can wear dresses in the game so you can at least make Link seem more feminine but nope, a dumb answer is what we got.
 
#76
There's also a culture of people looking to get offended about people getting offended. How many people criticising what the documentary says about Apu have even seen it? People want to instantly react to a reaction and it all spirals out from there.
 
#77
If you want to get rid of Apu you need to revise the cultural attitude towards comedy, because most of the great comics and comedy writers will and have offended people - even I have been offended.

You can't say "oh it's alright if South Park offends but The Simpsons need to adapt". I don't like South Park, but guess what, I don't watch it because I find it because I find it offensive. Comedy is subjectiveand South Park is just not for me.

I don't understand who are all these South Asians are that wants to change a single stereotypical character out of dozens in the show? Do they watch the show, do they enjoy the show's comedy? Are they laughing at all the other stereotypes too?

As has been mentioned by a poster or two, if bullying is the problem that's not the show's issue, that's a societal/governmental issue. This a show for adults not children. If we start censoring things for the sake of the idiots that don't know how to behave our entertainment landscape will be very vanilla.
 
#78
As usual, Bill is a jerk. I'd like to know who these: "always offended' people are. The internet is a big place that allows people to post their thoughts freely, just like I'm doing. It's not that there's a generation of people looking to be offended all the time, but rather that the internet makes it easy for people to rant about being offended. That's it.

LOL, You. Its literally you.....
Jesus Christ this forum has gone downhill.
 
#79
but nope, a dumb answer is what we got.
A dumb answer is what you get when you ask a dumb question. Was Aonuma's answer dumb? Yes, very much so. But he knew he couldn't just be honest and say 'because I prefer it that way'. Would have given OldGAF, Kotaku and Polygon a field day. I won't discuss the topic of female Link, though. It's an entirely stupid topic, entirely conjured out of nowhere, that doesn't deserve any further attention. When Zelda one day features a character editor, I certainly won't be against a female option.

And no, I don't mean Miles when I write "black Peter Parker". I love Miles. He's great. But there are stupid, very stupid people that keep demanding a black Peter Parker. I deny that.
 
#80
But there are stupid, very stupid people that keep demanding a black Peter Parker. I deny that.
Yeah, I don't mind certain characters being played by actors of a different race but it's not necessary in Peter's case when we have Miles. It would be like a black guy playing Hal Jordan, like what, John Stewart exists last time I checked. Also, I love Donald Glover (favorite character in Community and I need to check out Atlanta sometime) but was baffled by the idea of him playing Peter regardless of Glover's race because if they wanted to have Peter start off in high school again then Glover would not be a good pick as he looks college age or older. Granted, Hollywood is infamous for not having a clue what most high school kids look like but still....
 
#81
I'm not singling out any one person in this thread, just wanted to share some thoughts.

1. We shouldn't be using SJW to simply and easily dismiss someones post. I agree with that. But if you do feel like that's happening, just please make sure you aren't using Alt Right in other threads to dismiss posts. Don't be that hypocrite.

2. You are not "woke" if you figured out that certain characters in the Simpsons (most are actually) are built on stereotypes. You are decades late on that discovery. And you are not "woke" if you are only talking about Apu.






If you have an issue with Apu's depiction in the show and stereotypes... why only certain ones? Can the same reasons for Apu insensitiveness be applied to the others? Why do we only care about Apu?

Why do we fight bullies with bullies? Why do pick certain groups to defend and let other groups go defenseless? It's never made sense to me.

3. If you think the elimination of Apu would have saved anyone from harassment, you don't live in reality. In school right now you will be made fun of for...
being fat
being skinny
being tall
being short
your face
your ass
big boobs
little boobs
smoking
not smoking
being dumb
being smart

The issue is bullies. How we handle the problem as a community. Not the ammunition bullies use.
 
#82
Calling other users a 'joke of a person' for using sjw doesn't make for a good discussion. i didn't dismiss anything. I described your posting.
But he’s right though. My eyes immediately roll when I hear the term, it’s right up there with cuck, snowflake and beta. It’s clear when people use that type of language they aren’t actually listening or engaging. It’s YouTube comment level discourse.
 
#83
But he’s right though. My eyes immediately roll when I hear the term, it’s right up there with cuck, snowflake and beta. It’s clear when people use that type of language they aren’t actually listening or engaging. It’s YouTube comment level discourse.
Here I'm telling you that I'm listening and engaging. And I use those words when they're the most fitting words. I won't call a tree a 'big plant', just because someone dislikes the word 'tree'.
 
#84
It is neither stupid, nor intelligent, but merely descriptive of the rhetoric that's being applied, which is a perfectly apt approach. If the term 'sjw' has become such a pejorative notion in the eye of the majority, you have only those to blame who rallied under that banner.



I "feel" a lot of things, but that doesn't make it automatically true.



Nothing wrong with making fun of people, especially in the context of a show that makes fun of everybody alike. For example, you do it every time you talk about Trump or his supporters.



Correlation is not causation. Idiots, who've got their mind set to bully someone, will find anything to bully them, with or without The Simpsons. It's not like the show specifically targeted that guy and told people to go make fun of him either. He's taking something personal that cannot be taken personally in the first place, because as far as I'm aware he is not his "entire race" nor can he be reduced to merely a stereotype. He does that to himself and he's got nobody else to blame, which is why is entire argument is self-defeating.



That guy is certainly free to express his criticism, but people and the creators of The Simpsons are also allowed to dismiss these criticisms for equally valid reasons. You don't get do decide what's "acceptable" and what is not.

People should be free to make fun about everything and anything. The vast majority of jokes are construed around stereotypes, it's what makes them funny in the first place because people know that they aren't generally true. Also, the [current year] argument is equally as lazy as anything else you've railed against in this particular topic. But hey, feel free to 'dismiss' my arguments ;)
"You don't get do decide what's "acceptable" and what is not."

This everyone, is the absolute truth.

Humour covers a wide range of topics and most humour is insensitive and crass to get people to laugh not just at others, but often at themselves. If you dont like the joke, its not up to you to decide that the joke shouldn't be told and that anyone who laughs at it is a horrible person.

I honestly just laugh at people who try and explain to me why I shouldn't feel a certain way, or laugh, or hell even cry.

Quite frankly its none of your business.
 
#85
I'm not singling out any one person in this thread, just wanted to share some thoughts.

1. We shouldn't be using SJW to simply and easily dismiss someones post. I agree with that. But if you do feel like that's happening, just please make sure you aren't using Alt Right in other threads to dismiss posts. Don't be that hypocrite.

2. You are not "woke" if you figured out that certain characters in the Simpsons (most are actually) are built on stereotypes. You are decades late on that discovery. And you are not "woke" if you are only talking about Apu.






If you have an issue with Apu's depiction in the show and stereotypes... why only certain ones? Can the same reasons for Apu insensitiveness be applied to the others? Why do we only care about Apu?

Why do we fight bullies with bullies? Why do pick certain groups to defend and let other groups go defenseless? It's never made sense to me.

3. If you think the elimination of Apu would have saved anyone from harassment, you don't live in reality. In school right now you will be made fun of for...
being fat
being skinny
being tall
being short
your face
your ass
big boobs
little boobs
smoking
not smoking
being dumb
being smart

The issue is bullies. How we handle the problem as a community. Not the ammunition bullies use.
Amazing post. And it highlights, perhaps, the biggest problem with the woke situation - arbitrary administration of ire. Apu is one small name on a list of grievances. I mean, among your excellent examples, we've omitted Chief Wiggum, who's literally drawn as a human pig.

Maybe we could just prioritize the list a bit? I'll campaign against Apu's stereotypical portrayal the second we've ended genital mutilation in the Middle East.
 
#86
Why is it when a liberal finally says the same stuff an conservative has been saying for years is it all of the sudden insightful and cool?! Too little too late even if he is spot on.
 
#87
If you think The Simpsons was a bit harsh with this reply, they've said much more on the social justice topic in the past.


Too bad they're not funny anymore, and weren't when they made this video.
 
#88
I agree with Bo Burnham’s view

That's it, laughter, it's the key to everything
It's the way to solve all the sadness in the world
I mean, not for the people that are actually sad, but for the people like us who've gotta fucking deal with 'em all the time
 
#89
Yes because kids in the real world regularly get harrassed and bullied for being british.
Only because most British people take it in good humour and are not looking to get offended. I've heard hundreds of British jokes in my life - if I was minded to I could certainly feel that was being bullied. Except I'm not a moron.

Can't be bothered to quote the bit but you seriously think Groundskeeper Willie is Irish? He is a Scottish stereotype. I don't think you can classify him as seriously damaging if you cannot even identify which stereotype it is.
 
#90
Amazing post. And it highlights, perhaps, the biggest problem with the woke situation - arbitrary administration of ire. Apu is one small name on a list of grievances. I mean, among your excellent examples, we've omitted Chief Wiggum, who's literally drawn as a human pig.

Maybe we could just prioritize the list a bit? I'll campaign against Apu's stereotypical portrayal the second we've ended genital mutilation in the Middle East.
Yeah the list is long for The Simpsons. In fact most comedy is done the same way.

I honestly feel with the creation of the idea of safe spaces, theres been a misunderstanding of what it is and how it works.

Your safe space isn't a mobile bubble shield. You can create a safe space in your home for the most part. Seeing/hearing or not seeing/hearing what you choose. When you leave that, you will most likely see/hear things that you have no choice in. I know some are reading this and going "well ya duh". Just understand that many feel like this shouldn't be the case.

That safe space bubble can't be mobile. If everyone had one, they would inevitably collide with someone else. If Apu or any character from The Simpsons or other shows bother you... turn it off. The solution for you is that simple and easy. If you feel like every time you see something offensive or damaging and needs to be deleted... we will have nothing. You can find someone who is offended by almost anything.

Now I'm not saying that everything should be allowed. I shouldn't have to see someones bush, dick, and ball sack when I get on the subway or while watching a TV show without a warning of possible nudity. There are standards. And for the most part those rules do work. But you will be offended in life. And you will offend others unintentionally.

As to the idea that some are woke, then consider me asleep. The woke group seems to be incredibly narrow viewed, short sighted, and deaf.
 
#91
Yeah the list is long for The Simpsons. In fact most comedy is done the same way.

I honestly feel with the creation of the idea of safe spaces, theres been a misunderstanding of what it is and how it works.

Your safe space isn't a mobile bubble shield. You can create a safe space in your home for the most part. Seeing/hearing or not seeing/hearing what you choose. When you leave that, you will most likely see/hear things that you have no choice in. I know some are reading this and going "well ya duh". Just understand that many feel like this shouldn't be the case.

That safe space bubble can't be mobile. If everyone had one, they would inevitably collide with someone else. If Apu or any character from The Simpsons or other shows bother you... turn it off. The solution for you is that simple and easy. If you feel like every time you see something offensive or damaging and needs to be deleted... we will have nothing. You can find someone who is offended by almost anything.

Now I'm not saying that everything should be allowed. I shouldn't have to see someones bush, dick, and ball sack when I get on the subway or while watching a TV show without a warning of possible nudity. There are standards. And for the most part those rules do work. But you will be offended in life. And you will offend others unintentionally.

As to the idea that some are woke, then consider me asleep. The woke group seems to be incredibly narrow viewed, short sighted, and deaf.
All this, and growth requires challenge. You have to push your boundaries, like exercise. Injury from lifting too heavy weight is a danger, yes, but the inverse is complacency. At worst, it's atrophy.

Many things I'd considered offensive, art or film, I grew from the experience. Offense, on a personal level, changed with every new experience. I should deprive a young person the chance to grow? This is "woke?"
 
#92
Ya'll know that woke is just paying attention to social issues right? For example redlining is not yet dead and still exists here and there. To be woke on that issue is understanding that. Thinking it fully died way back when it became illegal is being asleep.

There is such a thing as being too woke though. I don't mind being groggy about Apu tbh.
 
Last edited:
#93
Why is it when a liberal finally says the same stuff an conservative has been saying for years is it all of the sudden insightful and cool?! Too little too late even if he is spot on.
I see you have some great political hot takes in this thread..
Most liberals have said the same thing for years, too it’s just been aimed at the alt-right for the opposite reasons.. thankfully us liberals are not afraid to challenge our extremists;)
 
#94
Ya'll know that woke is just paying attention to social issues right? For example redlining is not yet dead and still exists here and there. To be woke on that issue is understanding that. Thinking it fully died way back when it became illegal is being asleep.

There is such a thing as being too woke though. I don't mind being groggy about Apu tbh.
That's a very simplistic definition of it.

No body has a problem with "wokeness" but rather the preachiness after the wokening (lol yes).

The idea that you can become informed is sort of incorrect. Becoming informed on (majority) of issues is a long term process. So many people, so many opinion and thoughts. Most are complex. Being knowledgeable about a topic can be a long term process. A dedication to acquiring information. You can't become informed on major topics in 15 minutes.

Slavery is wrong. I don't think a very high majority would disagree. It's just plain wrong. Most issues aren't so black and white. There are lots of gray with many issues.

So the idea (of course imo) that someone can google an issue, read a blog, and become woke or informed is silly. That's just repeating the first thing you heard/read.
 
#95
Another internet “word-of-the-week” which I laugh at is “y’all” or the misspelled “ya’ll”. Yes, I am aware the abbreviation has existed for a long, long time, but It’s getting thrashed to fuck everywhere at the moment, especially by a certain demographic.

Does starting every post with “y’all” mean you are extra “woke”? Lol.
 
Last edited:
#96
Another internet “word-of-the-week” which I laugh at is “y’all” or the misspelled “ya’ll”. Yes, I am aware the abbreviation has existed for a long, long time, but It’s getting thrashed to fuck everywhere at the moment, especially by a certain demographic.

Does starting every post with “y’all” mean you are extra “woke”? Lol.
Huh? I grew up on the West Coast but lived in the South for a few years, and definitely picked up using "y'all". It just fits in a lot of conversations. I don't understand what you're getting at, or what demographic you're referring to.
 
#97
Another internet “word-of-the-week” which I laugh at is “y’all” or the misspelled “ya’ll”. Yes, I am aware the abbreviation has existed for a long, long time, but It’s getting thrashed to fuck everywhere at the moment, especially by a certain demographic.

Does starting every post with “y’all” mean you are extra “woke”? Lol.
It depends. I'm 1/8th rapper on my mother's side, so I get to use it.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
#99
The “woke” are the Evangelical Christians of the 90’s and 00’s with a different political leaning. They still are authoritarians looking for nothing more than power and control.
 
That's a very simplistic definition of it.

No body has a problem with "wokeness" but rather the preachiness after the wokening (lol yes).
Yeah, but this is a factor with anything in politics, see Cybrwzrd. It's slang describing stances and behaviors, and is honestly meant to entertain. But like with anything people ruin it.

The idea that you can become informed is sort of incorrect. Becoming informed on (majority) of issues is a long term process. So many people, so many opinion and thoughts. Most are complex. Being knowledgeable about a topic can be a long term process. A dedication to acquiring information. You can't become informed on major topics in 15 minutes.

Slavery is wrong. I don't think a very high majority would disagree. It's just plain wrong. Most issues aren't so black and white. There are lots of gray with many issues.

So the idea (of course imo) that someone can google an issue, read a blog, and become woke or informed is silly. That's just repeating the first thing you heard/read.
Aware and open, not necessarily informed.