The Big Picture: Correctitude

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 22 NEXT
 

Dastardly:
To pose some challenging questions, I guess I'd have to ask why updating Huck Finn is a small deal to you, while something like the Thor change gets the green light. I don't have strong feelings either way, but glancing at these two highlights one of the problems with knowing the difference.

I'd say because changing Huck Finn would be altering the author's original intent (satire of prevailing attitudes), whereas the changes to Thor's secondary characters are not.

As an example, Thor's manner of speaking "ye olde english" was written to typecast him with a distinctive "style". That much isn't being altered in the movie (afaik). The skin colour of a minor god is being changed. It would be difficult to argue that this changes the behavior, mannerisms, or character of Haemdall.

Huck Finn's manner of speaking was written to parody period attitudes towards blacks. Changing the language uses completely changes the character's attitudes and world-view.

Put it in another context. Compare making the skin colour of a minor character a different colour, to changing him to be an arabian princess. One is a change of look that doesn't really impact the character at all. The other is a fundamental shift in behavior and mannerisms.

Casual Shinji:

The stupid tribal zombies were ridicules, but it was the imagined scenario of white vs. black that people went all apeshit over. It just went to show that we hadn't left any of that sordid business of the past behind us. Had it been Chris Redfield killing zombies in Japan nobody would've made a peep.

Speaking as an Asian-American (or whatever) I would :)

The more I learn about Bob the more I hate him. He paints this topic so broadly, essentially calling out anyone that has made any "hurtful" comment ever. Apparently if you've ever made a non-pc statement ever you are a dick. Sorry. There's a lot more ambiguity to this issue. Sure, some people are dicks, and they have a right to be. But sometimes it's the dicks that are right, and should be listened to, and their dickiness is what makes them so effective.

I guess I'll keep watching, only to better understand the opposition.

So...

Politically incorrect = Objectionable, but with a measure of objective truth?

Haha, I agree mostly. There are cases where the political correctness argument is very valid. I wouldn't go as far as saying PC doesn't exist and your just a loudmouth as being a completely valid arguments. I like how you touched on the Black Heimdall thing. I am a comic book purist, and I would have liked nothing more than a completely faithful translation. I have known for a long time now that things like this will never happen. But, people should be able to disagree with a movie casting, period. I don't care for how all arguments against it are made invalid because of the color of his skin. I am fine with him being in the movie, it's not like it's a major part really. I hate the accusation of racism as a counter to the political correctness argument even more than the the political correctness argument. This has given me much to think about.

I think we all know the difference between political correctness and people just being asses though.

Fr]anc[is:
Carlos and Jeff are really funny :'(

please don't quote me just to tell me they're not, waste of everyones time

Haha, no worries, Carlos Mencia is HILARIOUS!!!

jabrwock:

Dastardly:
To pose some challenging questions, I guess I'd have to ask why updating Huck Finn is a small deal to you, while something like the Thor change gets the green light. I don't have strong feelings either way, but glancing at these two highlights one of the problems with knowing the difference.

I'd say because changing Huck Finn would be altering the author's original intent (satire of prevailing attitudes), whereas the changes to Thor's secondary characters are not.

As an example, Thor's manner of speaking "ye olde english" was written to typecast him with a distinctive "style". That much isn't being altered in the movie (afaik). The skin colour of a minor god is being changed. It would be difficult to argue that this changes the behavior, mannerisms, or character of Haemdall.

Huck Finn's manner of speaking was written to parody period attitudes towards blacks. Changing the language uses completely changes the character's attitudes and world-view.

Put it in another context. Compare making the skin colour of a minor character a different colour, to changing him to be an arabian princess. One is a change of look that doesn't really impact the character at all. The other is a fundamental shift in behavior and mannerisms.

The thing about the Huck Finn change, it's not the first time it has been done. It won't be the last one either. Another aspect of this was that Mark Twain himself despised anyone who tried to change his original prose. It's like a big fuck off to him.

The story loses impact with the changes. The most important part of the story is the impact, and the harsh reality of the time it painted. Erasing the word doesn't change the fact that it existed, it still exists, and trivializing the moments where the harsh language is purposefully put in so the reader knows the gravity of the situation and the gravity of the time detracts from the story.

It's not just a small deal, it's nearly completely trivial. This changed edition exists along side the edition with the original text. People have a choice to read the one they want. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together most likely would come to the conclusion that the original one is the best one to read. The ONLY problem I see with black Heimdall is that the movies always seem to have a way of overflowing into the comics. Most comic people are sticklers for continuity, and such a thing completely breaks it. So, to an extent, the fans have a reason to complain if this is going to be the case.

Ca3zar416:

HankMan:
Seemed a little more aggravated than usual this week Bob.
I'm pretty sure changing stories and characters to reflect times that the stories aren't set in or adding races that simply weren't there IS political correctness. But otherwise spot on.

I kind of see it more as recognizing great talent over a minor detail. Sure they're supposed to be Norse gods and I can see that point of view as well but, if someone who does not meet the ethnicity but in inarguably better for the plot in the minds of the casting people then that's just rewarding talent.

They're supposed to be a movie re-imagining of marvel's re-imagining of Jack Kirby's re-imagining of Norse Gods - they stopped being Norse Gods generation ago. The movie even implies that they're alien altogether.

Sargon of Akkad:
I'm afraid I do feel that when an established character is played by an ethnically incompatible character, it is entirely pandering to the PC division, and not 'hey, we're living in the 21st century'. This is a pathetic piece of rhetoric that will not change my mind in any way.

If we really are as forward and enlightened as we believe ourselves to be, then we should have no shame portraying characters as they are, and not feel the need to cast a non-appropriate actor in the part.

One great thing about human beings is that they are all different. We are not all completely interchangeable at any given moment. I cannot run like a Kenyan sprinter, but conversely, I doubt many Kenyan sprinters can lift the kind of loads as an Icelandic powerlifter. Its a hard fact of life, but we are not the same, and so pretending to be 'colour blind' for the sheer fucking sake of it to show everyone how 'modern' and 'progressive' we are is just childish and smacks of societal insecurity.

I have to totally agree with Sargon here, because when it comes to this side of the topic of PC then I'm completely unaware of what is the "correct" thing to say as opposed to what isn't.
Is saying stereotypical comments like "All Asians are good at math" really offensive, especially when (personally) in my school the top 5 students at math are Asians? I personally count that as a generalizing observation, because sure, I know that ALL Asian people aren't good at math, but being good at math isn't a bad thing!

Same goes with the Kenyan sprinter idea: Say if someone sees someone running really fast and say some passing comment like "There must be a bit of Kenyan in her/him", is that particularly offensive? Or is that person using positive (because, as I said, things like running fast are good traits) stereotypes to help add positive connatations to a situation.
And, just as a after-thought, saying something like "That person is running faster then a black man to KFC" Yes, I know THAT is racist, so I'm not saying something like that.
To sum it up in a line: Are observational racial stereotypes, if with positive connatations still offensive?
(I'm sure there are better examples then the one's I've given, but hopefully you get the idea.)

Sargon of Akkad:
I don't recall talking about 'real guy's in my post - I was talking about fictional characters. And the mythical (fictional) character of Heimdall was indeed portrayed as a white Scandinavian. Perhaps we should make a movie adaptation of his life where he's played by a Japanese woman, eh?

Why the hell not? He's a deity, they're inherently malleable entitites that can be reinvented to suit the era; it was routine to translate them to suit new locales in the ancient world, why wouldn't it be in the modern one? The Judaeo-Christian God has been played by everyone from Morgan Freeman to Leslie Nielsen to Tim Curry to Alanis Morrissette.

spectrenihlus:
You don't have the right to not be offended.

Also I'm still upset they made Nick Fury Black. Not because I'm rascist but because in every subsequent adaption of Nick Fury he will now be black. I just feel that it is disingenuous to the past Nick Fury and when a new generation of comic book readers that came out of watching the cartoons look on old nick fury they will go: "WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?"

Just take a look at what happened with people who only watched the Justice League cartoon watched the new Green Lantern trailer. All i heard from them is "why isn't he black?"

Although they could have been trolls.

616 Nick Fury is still good ol' white Howling Commando's Nick Fury. The Ultimate Universe, which the movies draw heavily from, created a different sort of war vet for their Nick Fury. Different universes and easily separable.

This needed to be said so much. I am tempted to so this video to my class. People need to rember saying hatefull, homophobic, racist, sexist, ablist ect. just shows you are just steeped in your own privledge not chalnging elitism.

Ah... People. Man. Men.

Are we not all men?

Yeah, funny thing is, historically Man was a gender-neutral term, (men and women being wepn and wyf. No, seriously.)

So, PC or not, the history of this is that in modern times we consider it sexist to talk about 'men', when historically, that word was co-opted to specifically refer to male humans exclusively around the same time that Europe started treating women as lesser inferior beings.

So yeah. History sucks, and the historical significance of words can be quite odd.

(incedentally, if 'man' didn't mean 'male', you may be wondering where it came from as a word - It actually shares a common origin with 'mind'. Notice human. Meaning, presumably, something like the species of the mind.)

Seemed a bit overly aggressive to me but eh. Besides there is a difference between not sugar coating things by being blunt and just trying to be a jerk outright.

Jeff Dunham really isn't that funny but I don't really view him as trying to be politically incorrect. And I think it's in poor taste that you brought up Carlos Mencia.. We all know of his long term struggle with syphilis and how it's degraded his mental faculties.
Shame on you Bob, shame.

Can't disagree with any of you points here bob. Good job, i to have never understood people getting riled up about PC. What so wrong with being nice? But on the other hand you would have to be a morron to not get that somthing like Blazing Saddles is a joke.

So yeah, best Big Picture yet :)

I'd say the best way to sum up political correctness in my view is it's a sometimes clumsy manner to try to encourage equality. I'm one of those people who is a strong, and a somewhat fanatical, believer in intent and context. A lot of people, from time to time, make statements that could be seen as racist, sexist or homophobic. Hell, I do so myself. However, because I've made a few jokes about the holocaust or about AIDS doesn't mean I'm anti-Semitism or homophobic. My sometimes offensive sense of humour does not show my views on equality, contrary to some popular belief.

What I'm not saying is all jokes are free from moral judging. The type of laughter at "god damn you're right, that social group is incompetent" or something along those line is something I dub as "gritting teeth laughter". The type of thing some people laugh at out of hatred of that group. An example of what I mean is George Carlin and Roy "Chubby" Brown. George Carlin goes on wild rants about how there is no God a lot, and how religion is false, however this does not mean he dislikes believers. Roy "Chubby" Brown, you can pretty much guarantee that 90% of people in the venue hates foreigners, the 10% are made up of people dragged along, people who don't listen to many comedians and the staff at the venue.

Personally, I believe people should assess the likelihood that the joke was "gritting teeth laughter" before judging. If it was just some stupid "get in the kitchen" joke, then it's meant to be harmless. If it's someone saying something along the lines of "sexual harassment doesn't exist" or something like Jeff Dunham (which involves getting the irrational fear society has of Muslims and uses that to make offensive jokes about the Islam religion), then feel free to rip into them.

Oh, and I'd recommend people to check out Stewart Lee's political correctness stand up. In case people are concerned he's just going to say "political correctness is shit", it's more him ripping into people saying "it's political correctness gone mad".

I think I prefer it when Bob sticks to geek culture commentary. This was a bit more "watch ads, listen to a man rant about the kids not being nice anymore" than usual.

Delete my account.

pffh:

MasochisticMuse:
For a long time now I've held the unpopular opinion that RE5 was indeed fucked in terms of depictions of race.

And it's not even about a white dude killing black zombies. You encounter zombies, you're gonna kill them, no matter what race you or they are.

No. It's not about the zombies, but it is about this;

That's not sexy. It's just offensive.

Why is that offensive and this

isn't?

Asked my scandinavian wife - it is.

ldgoodpobad:
This needed to be said so much.

Touched more than a few nerves, too! Look at 'em go!

If RE5 were still take place in Africa but all the natives replaced with blonde blue eyed Scandinavians, would the "Racism" flag still be flown by the PC crowd?

While the MSNBC myrmidons will use or manufacture extreme cases as an excuse to apply PC restrictions on speech, what it really is is a weapon against all dissenting, unapproved speech. Everyone who does not adhere to the new vocabulary is automatically declared sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

Not everyone who disagrees with Obama's policies is a racist, MovieBob.

And where was the examples of the Leftists who used offensively racist slurs and imagery referring to Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice? Holy crap! If a non-Democrat Caucasian were to use the same slurs and imagery referring to Obama, they'd be crucified in the town square -- figuratively, if not literally.

jmarquiso:

spectrenihlus:
You don't have the right to not be offended.

Also I'm still upset they made Nick Fury Black. Not because I'm rascist but because in every subsequent adaption of Nick Fury he will now be black. I just feel that it is disingenuous to the past Nick Fury and when a new generation of comic book readers that came out of watching the cartoons look on old nick fury they will go: "WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?"

Just take a look at what happened with people who only watched the Justice League cartoon watched the new Green Lantern trailer. All i heard from them is "why isn't he black?"

Although they could have been trolls.

616 Nick Fury is still good ol' white Howling Commando's Nick Fury. The Ultimate Universe, which the movies draw heavily from, created a different sort of war vet for their Nick Fury. Different universes and easily separable.

True but that still doesn't explain why every single subsequent interpretation of Nick Fury has been black.

Wolverine and the X-men-black

Iron Man: Armored Adventures-black

Super Hero Squad-black

Avengers Earth's Mightiest Heroes-black

I just feel it is disingenuous to the original material to do this. If they really wanted a black character they should have made someone original for that purpose not change the race of an existing character.

BobDobolina:

Sargon of Akkad:
I don't recall talking about 'real guy's in my post - I was talking about fictional characters. And the mythical (fictional) character of Heimdall was indeed portrayed as a white Scandinavian. Perhaps we should make a movie adaptation of his life where he's played by a Japanese woman, eh?

Why the hell not? He's a deity, they're inherently malleable entitites that can be reinvented to suit the era; it was routine to translate them to suit new locales in the ancient world, why wouldn't it be in the modern one? The Judaeo-Christian God has been played by everyone from Morgan Freeman to Leslie Nielsen to Tim Curry to Alanis Morrissette.

Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Hey, look at that! A movie in which one character was portrayed by multiple actors IN THE SAME FILM! Didn't I see some scene where he was played by a woman too?

It's not like it can't be done. No one was pandering to different audiences by having these different actors play that character (except maybe the squealing fangirls, but hey, that's what A-list actors are for), that's just what was called for.

I like what Ca3zar416 was getting at before, if the actor can make the character come alive, it doesn't matter what they look like.

O dang I just had another thought. A couple months ago I finally got on itunes and bought several of H.P. Lovecraft stories collected into audio books.(I retain information better if I can hear it). I loved the stories and see why they get the praise they do from geek culture. I also remember thinking and commenting to my friends that some of the language was dated and could be easily misinterpreted as racist. Particularly some of the terminology used to discuss tribes of people in distant lands. This is maybe similar to what you were talking about with the Tom Sawyer book being updated. I hate to think how someone might butcher H.P.s stuff if they tried to make it "PC". The olden time terminology is part of the mystique of the whole thing for me.

Oh, so Bob decides whos funny and not now?

Seriously, if someone is a jerk it was George Carlin, he has absolutly no respect what so ever. Jeff Dunham is joking about terrorism, and that doesn't make him politicly incorrect but it makes him?....

Sorry Bob, I can't really follow you on this one.

You're absolutely correct, thank you for speaking with the logic that I wish the rest of the world (America in particular) had.

BobDobolina:

Why the hell not? He's a deity, they're inherently malleable entitites that can be reinvented to suit the era; it was routine to translate them to suit new locales in the ancient world, why wouldn't it be in the modern one? The Judaeo-Christian God has been played by everyone from Morgan Freeman to Leslie Nielsen to Tim Curry to Alanis Morrissette.

Because it doesn't make any god-damned sense.

Yahweh is perfectly portrayable as any kind of human being, dove or burning bush because of the insubstantial nature of the character in question. He has no form, he has no physical representations (shut it, Christians), and he does not physically exist, but is an entirely mental construct.

Non-Judaeo-Christian Gods are not 'inherently malleable'. For example, Heimdall:

"In Norse mythology, Heimdallr is a god who possesses the resounding horn Gjallarhorn, owns the golden-maned horse Gulltoppr, has gold teeth, and is the son of Nine Mothers. Heimdallr is attested as possessing foreknowledge, keen eyesight and hearing, is described as "the whitest of the gods", and keeps watch for the onset of Ragnarök while drinking fine mead in his dwelling Himinbjörg, located where the burning rainbow bridge Bifröst meets heaven." - Wikipedia.

We know a lot about how Heimdall looks and acts here. While syncretic religion was a common practice in the ancient world, that doesn't mean it operates in a PC vacuum. We know he has gold teeth, we know who his parents were (all ten of them).

If you wanted to be ultra-PC and portray him as a blind, deaf, toothless old black Muslim woman, I repeat, IT WOULD MAKE NO GOD-DAMNED SENSE. It would not be Heimdall, it would be an entirely different character, with different events that made them the character they are. Please see my first post on page 5 for more information on this.

Currently in the UK, political correctness is targeted for different reasons mentioned in this video (good ones on your part by the way). No, in the UK being PC to some has become trying not to offend minorities at the cost of others regardless over whether said minority was even offended.

Example, the children's book Three Little Pigs was changed to Three Little "Puppies" to not offend Muslims... the problem however is that no Muslim in the UK ever made a complaint and the UK Muslim council themselves called the move out as ridiculous. It was swiftly changed back to pigs. The point being is that when the "PC brigade" say something MIGHT offend a group despite not being apart of it will cause resentment towards said group they're trying to help. Just think of how many BNP (a racist UK political party) jumped on the story above against Muslims?

As for Resident Evil 5 however, tribes still do exist there, if there was an outbreak it would infect them to.

spectrenihlus:

jmarquiso:

spectrenihlus:
You don't have the right to not be offended.

Also I'm still upset they made Nick Fury Black. Not because I'm rascist but because in every subsequent adaption of Nick Fury he will now be black. I just feel that it is disingenuous to the past Nick Fury and when a new generation of comic book readers that came out of watching the cartoons look on old nick fury they will go: "WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?"

Just take a look at what happened with people who only watched the Justice League cartoon watched the new Green Lantern trailer. All i heard from them is "why isn't he black?"

Although they could have been trolls.

616 Nick Fury is still good ol' white Howling Commando's Nick Fury. The Ultimate Universe, which the movies draw heavily from, created a different sort of war vet for their Nick Fury. Different universes and easily separable.

True but that still doesn't explain why every single subsequent interpretation of Nick Fury has been black.

Wolverine and the X-men-black

Iron Man: Armored Adventures-black

Super Hero Squad-black

Avengers Earth's Mightiest Heroes-black

I just feel it is disingenuous to the original material to do this. If they really wanted a black character they should have made someone original for that purpose not change the race of an existing character.

Seems to me like it might have been an easy route to travel to get some diversity in the cast. How many other black people were in them? How easy would it have been to add a token black character and not make it seem like racism/pandering?

BobDobolina:
Mmmmm, the last sentence applies to lots of PA's would-be "supporters" or the dicks from 4chan who jumped in, not really to PA themselves. They were tone-deaf and naive at some points but were actually not that unreasonable.

Good point about non-PA defenders/agitators, they were certainly the most grievous offenders. However, I'm fairly certain that a quicker and more sensitive response from PA themselves - and a stronger signal to those rogue elements to reign in their excesses - would have made the situation better. My point is that their misguided stand against "political correctness" helped prevent that from happening.

jmarquiso:

Ca3zar416:

HankMan:
Seemed a little more aggravated than usual this week Bob.
I'm pretty sure changing stories and characters to reflect times that the stories aren't set in or adding races that simply weren't there IS political correctness. But otherwise spot on.

I kind of see it more as recognizing great talent over a minor detail. Sure they're supposed to be Norse gods and I can see that point of view as well but, if someone who does not meet the ethnicity but in inarguably better for the plot in the minds of the casting people then that's just rewarding talent.

They're supposed to be a movie re-imagining of marvel's re-imagining of Jack Kirby's re-imagining of Norse Gods - they stopped being Norse Gods generation ago. The movie even implies that they're alien altogether.

Haha, the comic implied a long time ago they were aliens.

Blind Sight:
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.

No, no it isn't and I agree with you here.

Universities should be open forums for free speech and free thought - and SOME of that is accepting the consequences of what you say. If you say something that a lot of people don't like, expect backlash. Don't blame the PC Police if you get it.

OR

You can learn from it. Listen to what is said honestly, and react. Like what you planned to do in the Q & A session. It was a great response.

Baresark:
Haha, I agree mostly. There are cases where the political correctness argument is very valid. I wouldn't go as far as saying PC doesn't exist and your just a loudmouth as being a completely valid arguments. I like how you touched on the Black Heimdall thing. I am a comic book purist, and I would have liked nothing more than a completely faithful translation. I have known for a long time now that things like this will never happen. But, people should be able to disagree with a movie casting, period. I don't care for how all arguments against it are made invalid because of the color of his skin. I am fine with him being in the movie, it's not like it's a major part really. I hate the accusation of racism as a counter to the political correctness argument even more than the the political correctness argument. This has given me much to think about.

I think we all know the difference between political correctness and people just being asses though.

Thank you, I know it's only a minor part but having a black man play a norse god just never felt right to me. I hate agreeing with the people arguing against the casting due entirely to racism but this time, they actually have a point now that I think about it. When your argument against it is "This is the 21st century, be more progressive" that is when I start to see more political correctness (let's face it, it's definition has changed) and accusations of racism from the other side of the argument. Imagine if a role typically done by a black actress was instead done by a white actress? You'd hear the outrage from space.

I will still be seeing Thor because let's face it, I'm not as much of a comic nerd as I'd like to be.

So it's not being too PC when you ask people not to be bigoted, but what IS too PC? Since he said there is such a thing I'd like to know what he has in mind besides censoring Huck Finn (or at least why he gave us that example).

SamElliot'sMustache:

Therumancer:

I'll say flat out bigotry is what society needs more of right now, people who are willing to flat out ignore political correctness and what's nice, focus on problems like a laser, and work to correct them even if it involves being mean. Honestly I think political correctness perpetuates problems and actually does more damage to the people it sets out to protect than it helps them... largely because it tells them that things that aren't okay are just fine.

Up until this point, I disagreed with some of the things you said, but could find common ground with your arguments, but this...this is indefensible.

First of all, bigotry and "ignoring political correctness" does not "focus on problems like a laser." In fact, if anything, it clouds the real issues. Take the so-called "War on Terror," for instance, which has really been America's bloodlust against Muslims. People in this country have played into Osama bin Laden's hands by turning it into a religious war. In our haste to fight back at these "Arabs" that killed our citizens, despite our complicity in the creation of their mindset (government support of dictators, propping up Afghani rebels during the Soviet invasion, only to abandon them after the war ravaged most of their country, etc.), and proceed to persecute people who "look" like they are Muslim, act angry or fearful when we see actual Muslims do benign things like pray towards Mecca, or even claim that we should just "nuke the entire Middle East," a quote I've heard several times from people of various social backgrounds. It's not helpful, it offer no insight, and in fact makes we, the people easier to manipulate by the powers that be by having us fight each other rather than the corrupt systems that want power and money. I have problems with certain elements of Islam (mostly how it's practiced in certain regions of the Middle East), but I'm not going to hate every single Muslim that I see and claim that "they are all the same" just because of those problems (why, if I were to do that to a white Christian without having heard a word they said or seen their actions, everyone would be pointing out all the numerous ways they could be different).

Despite the protestations of a lot of people, "political correctness" is not this pervasive, all-threatening entity that's driving us to ignore the problem (anyone who thinks it is hasn't been watching the news, since we let a lot of incorrect statements like "All terrorists are Muslims" go unchallenged). Is it sometimes really stupid? Yes, but the "anti-PC" movement is a lot dumber (Larry the Cable Guy titled a chapter in his hack book "David Cross and the PC Police," despite Cross being about as un-PC as modern comedians get) and way more destructive to society, as what they are really doing is goading the dumb into hating minorities so that they can be sold their own racism back to them.

Well, no point is going to have everyone agreeing with it. Like a lot of things I post, some people wind up agreeing with me, but given the political leanings of most here the majority don't. This really is Bob's crowd so to speak.

To me, you seen to illustrate a big part of the problem with political correctness, and of course you believe what your saying. If there weren't a lot of people like you, there wouldn't be arguements like this taking place.

When you get down to it, our disagreement is largely going to come down to the specifics of incidents. For example I do not believe there is any real "American Bloodlust against Muslims", though truthfully I think it would be a good thing if there was as you might gather from a lot of my other posts on the subject.

In the end as I see things the problem is the muslim culture throughout the Middle Eastern geographic region. These problems have existed for a very long time, going back to when I was a little kid, and probably beforehand. A lot of the things the politically correct use to claim our actions in the region are unjust, were actually attempts at a measured response. Rather than invading we tried to work with the various leaders in the region, including dictators to stop the violence that way. Backing guys like Saddam Hussein was done to back one of the more progressive factions in the region, in hopes that they could balance out countries like Iran without us having to invade, and perhaps even plant the seens of a renaissance of sorts in the region. The ultimate failure of these kinds of actions in the region, along with general diplomacy, is exactly why I think bigotry against the region is not a bad thing. Right now people want to try and convince themselves that we're dealing with a radical fringe within the culture, and that most of the people want change and progress, when that really isn't true. One of our big difficulties is that progressive leaders that want to reform these societies, or even just work with us, usually wind up facing rebellions. Pakistan is a good recent example, where the goverment was on our side, but the people themselves were not and turned on their own leadership because the people themselves support the terrorists and what they stand for. We also see it in Iraq or Afghanistan where after toppling the goverments and giving the people a chance to set new laws and policies, they don't even try for the seeds of progress, declare their nations "Islamic", and ultimatly kill every ambition of progress we had through the region. We wanted women's sufferage throughout Iraq and Afghanistan, but the people themselves refused to even plant the seeds of it, and right now in meetings our women who hold positions of authority are forced to wear the traditional heavy robes and pretend to defer to men.

As I see thing it's the tolerance of the region and it's behaviors, that has lead to problems getting this far, and the continued threat. Of course a lot of it is also that changing anything in the region is going to involve actions defined by the UN as Genocide (since by their own very PC logic, we should preserve things that want to kill us). Nobody wants to go to war, or put that much blood on their hands (even I don't exactly revel in the thought despite the points I make), and political correctness and messages of tolerance provide a conveinent way of avoiding reality while claiming to be involved in some kind of maligned moral crusade.

See, it's easy to say "we deserve this for supporting the dictators", but who is going to wind up in charge of these countries if they are gone? Chances are for all pretensions of freedom, it will be another dictator, another group of theocrats, or whomever which is liable to have a very anti-western agenda since in many cases it's support of us that has caused a lot of discontent to begin with. It's like how in Egypt there really isn't any clear replacement for the leader they are removing, all you see are people who just want that guy gone. The biggest faction (which are not the overall majority there at least) being hard core Islamics who want to turn it into an Islamic nation run under Islamic law. None of the groups there seem to really want any kind of truely progressive goverment, and really all the options that seem viable are worse than the dictator they got rid of, or constant civil war. The tradgedy of the situation being that there is no real solution.

I'll also say that a big part of political correctness in situations like this is the attitude that for whatever reason it's wrong for the US to pursue it's own interests, but not for other nations to pursue theirs even when they conflict with us. In a lot of conflicts, as I frequently say, the issue is "us or them" right and wrong isn't a part of it. They pursue their agenda with what they have, we pursue ours, just because we're a big country and liable to win (easily) doesn't mean that I feel it's somehow wrong. Of course then again a lot of the opposition typically comes down to people not wanting to actually have to do anything, given that they are fat, happy, and content. Nobody wants to head out to war, or see their loved ones do so, and whether or not it's right in the big picture nobody wants to look at burning cities and millions of dead civilians and think "we did that" (unless they are a total sociopath).

I doubt we're going to agree here, but the point is that I say bigotry is good because you need to single out problems and address them. In most cases political correctness amounts to a problem being too big, or too morally ambigious, for people to want to deal with. They would rather not do anything, take what they see as a moral high ground (even if it's not), and hope for a magical solution than take any kind of action. To be honest a lot of those failed attempts in situations like the ongoing Middle East crisis, are the result of political correctness. We backed dictators like Saddam hoping that with our help the region would progress, and our assistance would convince them we weren't the enemy. With the majority of people being anti-western (not a fringe minority) we wanted to avoid going into places like Iran directly because of this, and instead were trying to help Muslims sort it all out themselves. Failed attempts like this made things worse, and honestly, the situations I propose are extreme (even if they would help with global overpopulation) but truthfuly I think if we had acted more directly decades ago the situation wouldn't currently be so
messed up.

In the end though we are going to have to agree to disagree. I actually do believe in trying tolerance, and diplomacy first, but there is a point where you have to admit that it's not working, and start singling groups of people out and take action, even drastic action if you want anything to change.

GO BOB GO!!! Fuck yeah man, bout time someone on The Escapist Payroll finally said something about this. Main reason i have such a low post score isn't because have nothing to say, it's because i know words mean things!! So i keep my risk of being this monster who was in the military but still believes that gays should serve openly![/sarcasm]. I love it how you mention the progressive agenda as being a monster then in the scene right after you show Glenn Beck, man i wish someone would just shut him up permanently either by coercion or otherwise....

Great clip all around i couldn't agree more!

spectrenihlus:

jmarquiso:

spectrenihlus:
You don't have the right to not be offended.

Also I'm still upset they made Nick Fury Black. Not because I'm rascist but because in every subsequent adaption of Nick Fury he will now be black. I just feel that it is disingenuous to the past Nick Fury and when a new generation of comic book readers that came out of watching the cartoons look on old nick fury they will go: "WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?"

Just take a look at what happened with people who only watched the Justice League cartoon watched the new Green Lantern trailer. All i heard from them is "why isn't he black?"

Although they could have been trolls.

616 Nick Fury is still good ol' white Howling Commando's Nick Fury. The Ultimate Universe, which the movies draw heavily from, created a different sort of war vet for their Nick Fury. Different universes and easily separable.

True but that still doesn't explain why every single subsequent interpretation of Nick Fury has been black.

Wolverine and the X-men-black

Iron Man: Armored Adventures-black

Super Hero Squad-black

Avengers Earth's Mightiest Heroes-black

I just feel it is disingenuous to the original material to do this. If they really wanted a black character they should have made someone original for that purpose not change the race of an existing character.

Why? How does Nick Fury function as a character in these universes? SHIELD leader, superspy, etc? Why does it matter if he is or isn't black in this case? Does he function as Super-spy WWII vet?

Because if he did, and we were being pure about it, he's extremely f-cking old.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here