The Big Picture: Correctitude

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 22 NEXT
 

spectrenihlus:

jmarquiso:

spectrenihlus:
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.

If it is in his origin then yes he should. And since his origin is that of a ww2 super spy that should be included. Unfortunately the soldiers of ww2 were segregated so Nick Fury could not have been black.

Truthfully, it isn't his origin in those universes. Largely due to the roving timeline and the fact that WWII is too far to be believable.

Somethings that Bob said I agree with, some I don't.
The only one that I have the really big problem with is that Bob was defending the change of the charcter in the Thor movie. I'm not a big fan of Thor and I don't know much about it, but we see this a lot in movies now where they change the character's race to be more PC and I think that is stupid and wrong. I think it's wrong because you are taking someone elses idea and creation(one you stand to make a lot of money on if you're a Hollywood producer) and shitting on it by changing their work of art. Would you paint over Da Vinci "Last Supper" portrait to make the painting more "diverse"? Would you add some black, hispanic, asain, or middle eastern people to the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel despite them not being part of Michelangelo's vision? No. So why should movies or story telling be any different? So if an author of a book has a race of pure white elves and you are black, don't complain that it is racist that you didn't get picked for that movie role or if a comic book character is white then make the actor that plays him white if for no other reason then to respect the original creator's vision. On top of all that, it's not really realistic for a Nordic diety to be black.

Random berk:

samus17:
Not bad, but I don't remember the resident evil 5 racism scandal being quite like how you portray it. I'm pretty sure the complaints were "whitey killing blacks" and not "misuse of tribal imagery" But hey, I could be wrong.

Edit: Before the MovieBob defense force comes to crucify me, here's a quote from a group of the complainer's since the original article has been taken down.
http://gamepolitics.com/2007/08/01/african-womens-blog-critical-of-resident-evil-5-trailer

In all fairness, thats a valid point even without the link. At least you were civil about it rather than storming in saying "You're a load of shit Bob, and I know better than you because etc, etc..."

Quite vindictive towards the end this week Bob. Presumably you had a run in with a particularly pig headed pc-user?

That, or he read the comments page of Extra Credits' diversity episode. I saw a bunch of comments there about them just trying to be politically correct.

"Politically Correct" is a pair of words. :p

InterAirplay:

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.

...what?

...just... what?

I don't think any of those words mean what you think they mean.

Let me translate from the Conservispeak (I come from a household where that's the only language spoken, so I'm fluent)
"I suggest that honest, and heartfelt evaluations of people or groups is what society needs right now, in order to cut away needless "beating around the bush" (If you'll excuse a colloquialism) and focus on issues which need to be resolved (this is combined with an implication that the resolution of these issues are more important than manners). In truth, I feel that the avoidance of heartfelt evaluations of people or groups perpetuates some issues by restricting the availability of information about the problems (Which would have been pointed out by said heartfelt evaluations) of the aforementioned people or groups."

Blind Sight:

jmarquiso:

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.

I should've also mentioned that I have no problem with protesting Coulter, that's completely fine, but making sure that no one can get into the building by blocking the door (I was violently pushed back when I tried to enter) as well as their other chaotic actions are completely irresponsible and very morally questionable. Responding to someone speaking with acts and threats of violence, no matter how minor, makes you the bad person, not them. Morality ends where the barrel of a gun begins.

Also, my comment on politically correctness being applied too broadly was more in response to the fact that the protesters had no idea what she was going to speak about but still wanted to surpress her. Their basic logic was that because she's said questionable things in the past, it's therefore fine to assume that her discussion will be 'hate speech'. I'm not a fan of assumptions, and thus I don't think that 'hate speech' logic can be applied to her statements until she actually says them. Figured I should clear that up.

Yeah, I got that, and it's a shame. But it happens. The fact is that that person had much less of an understanding of free speech than he should.

jmarquiso:

spectrenihlus:

jmarquiso:

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.

If it is in his origin then yes he should. And since his origin is that of a ww2 super spy that should be included. Unfortunately the soldiers of ww2 were segregated so Nick Fury could not have been black.

Truthfully, it isn't his origin in those universes. Largely due to the roving timeline and the fact that WWII is too far to be believable.

It is believable when you know he took the serum that basically makes immortal.

Isn't a pretty big part of being a dick... not thinking/realizing that you're being a dick?

It's all well and good to say "if you wanna be a jerk, then be a jerk," but part of said jerk's effectiveness is parading about like he has legitimate things to say.

Kinda like this post, for instance. O:)

The_root_of_all_evil:
Uhhh....for 3/4's of the way, I was right behind you. I don't know when I stopped walking beside you, but I guess it was when we got into blame-throwing.

Gay doesn't mean homosexual. It originally meant happy. ("We'll have a gay old time"- The Flintstones)
Man doesn't refer to guys, it refers to Homo, as in Homo Sapiens. There's isn't a Hetero Sapiens or a Wohomo/Feminae Sapiens.
African people were sold as slaves, referred to by the N word, and it was often by other Africans. Not by Whitey. Which isn't racist(?). Cracker or Coon are equally racist but only in their relative countries.
Spastic is horribly offensive over here (Not so in America), while we still all use the cross-eyed "Derp" epithet to refer to someone with mental shortcomings - making fun of those that actually have them in ailments like Downes Syndrome.

See, here's the problem with the PC movement: Big White Corporate-land (Which doesn't include you or me, and never will unless we've got family in there) has decided that words like Golliwog and Faggot are offensive - not because they have a deep meaning of antagonism, but that they've been used to antagonise in the past.
(OED: a soft doll with bright clothes, a black face, and fuzzy hair / a ball or roll of seasoned chopped liver, baked or fried. )

We've been utter assholes in the past, and there's some of us that are still assholes in the present; but it's hugely dangerous to start limiting speech purely from when "Haters are gonna Hate".

It's one of the main reasons I like the Escapist. I can say fuck when I need to. I can write 455 without the swear-checker jumping on it. I understand that there are people out there who just want to potty-mouth the whole day long, but like DRM, there's always a way around it. And also like DRM, innocent consumers are caught up in the fight between Corporateland and Anarchyland.

Would I ever use the N word to a black guy? No. That would be rude.
Would I describe him as an African-American? No. FOR THE SAME REASON. I don't know where his family came from.

Political Correctness is a toxic point because it subtly slips in new words into the vernacular, which just become as racist as the old ones; slips some out which are actually useful and descriptive (purely because they've been used in hate speech); and heralds in the wonders of Newspeak where reporting on sexcrime is doubleplusgood.

TL;DR: Stop the hatewords, not the hatelanguage.

(Oh, Achmed the Dead Terrorist? Lots of Arabians laugh their dishdasha's off at it)

Wouldn't it be eaiser to just stop the hating?

The idea of appealing to everyone with fair language has only helped to open the floodgates to a world where people have delusional understandings of race. It is a subject where simply trying to discuss it lands the label of bigot and jerk upon you. If people using the shield of "political correctness" are bad, then people who use the spear of "racist" to silence someone's argument is equally reprehensible. For this bob, I have to say you missed the mark. You're really level headed normally, but I have to disagree with you here. The real political correctness you talk about has been taken to bizarre lengths, and is used to silence intellectual discussion and censor people.

The road to hell is paved by good intentions.

OK here's an interesting perspective on the concept of a "racist joke" I've found.

In order for a racist joke to not be "mean" or "unfair" the joke must only be applicable to one race. So if you make a joke about the Irish being stupid, that's racist, as you can revolve the Irish with any race and have the joke work. However if you make a joke about the irish and potatoes, that is less racist as the only way the joke can work is if the irish person is involved. Ultimately, in the first scenario you have actively picked on a race and attributed them characteristics. In the second, you've had to resort to their race because otherwise the punchline doesn't work.

You see, my issue with the whole "Heimdal is now black" thing is that, when they are making this film This:

Isn't actually what they're adapting.

What they're really adapting is this:

You see Bob, visual representations mean something, just like words do, and when you show Heimdal as a black man, that means he has black parentage, and That. Is. Impossible.

It doesn't make any sense, and doing it was totally needless and only serves to completely fuck up the theology of the movie.

themyrmidon:
Of course someone using a politically incorrect term in a mean, insulting way is just trolling. Context is what matters when it comes to being PIC, and a lot of the PC backlash isn't necessarily being PIC, but simply hating it when things are made PC that don't need to be.

THANK YOU! listen, i do agree with you to an extent, bob but i really gotta say i feel PC has just started to go too far. not to say the stuff you were talking about is okay but there are other sides.

in school we were studying a poem in english once that was, more or less, just a guy bitching that people call him half caste. we were asked our opinions on the subject and i said "well, it's a bit stupid to complain about just the words people use, they're just words. if someone says it with obvious malicious intent, that's a different story. but if you're just gonna get offended by words, you're not gonna get far without having something to bitch about." the teacher then said to the class "is anyone here actually half caste, let's see if they feel the same way." i then put my hand up.

i know black people who have close friends that use the "n word" with them. and they don't mind 'cause they're friends and they understand that. i love the idea of political correctness. but the fact is there IS a difference between PC and just politeness and i think it's a slippery slope when, for example, filmmakers change a character's race incongruously just to try and please everyone.

Shycte:

Wouldn't it be eaiser to just stop the hating?

The last guy to say that was nailed to a tree 2 millenia ago. :)

spectrenihlus:

jmarquiso:

spectrenihlus:
If it is in his origin then yes he should. And since his origin is that of a ww2 super spy that should be included. Unfortunately the soldiers of ww2 were segregated so Nick Fury could not have been black.

Truthfully, it isn't his origin in those universes. Largely due to the roving timeline and the fact that WWII is too far to be believable.

It is believable when you know he took the serum that basically makes immortal.

IF you know that. That's a big If. That was WRITTEN in so they could explain his continued existence in the 616 universe. The movies, cartoons, and the Ultimate universe were meant to be unburdened with continuity (of course creating continuity of its own) and thus in their own little worlds. This also helped with licensing issues with Fox.

jabrwock:
snip

It could be argued that you can convey just as much of the author's intent with a different word selection. If, in fact, the purpose was to satirize the treatment of black men of the time, that is still demonstrated through how the character is treated, rather than simply what he is called.

See, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Thor's is a change of color. Huck's is a change of name. Everything else remains the same. It's just a cosmetic change to reflect a different current reality. Again, I have no particular stance on the issues myself, but that simply removes any bias I have toward one side or the other. Without any personal opinionated stake in it, these issues are the same.

Moral of the story:
Don't say you're being politically incorrect if all you're doing is being a jerk.

Therumancer:
I disagree with almost 100%. I also think you should leave politics of this sort out of your videos.

The problem here is that your disapproval of the "politically correct" arguement is largely that your on the opposite side of the spectrum that uses it, and as such don't like the way it portrays your own personal political biases. Your basically being just as bad, if not worse, as the people you are making a critique of.

Let me get down to one of the biggest parts of why your point of view is a problem. You are portraying bigotry as always being bad. The thing is that nothing can be changed when there is a problem, unless people acknowlege that it exists. Take American black culture for example which is very much anti-societal assimilation, and anti-intellectual at the very least. You make judgements about it, and of course your a bigot, someone who defends this as being okay or "just the way it is" is being politically incorrect. I look at guys like Bill Cosby (who has a PHD in Children's Education) and how he goes on about Black america's attitude of entitlement, and not taking advantage of the oppertunities that have been provided for it. When you have entire major racial subcultures that see education and getting a regular rut-like job as "selling out" you have an issue, and one that needs to be addressed. Of course you start singling out these aspects of black society, defining them, and trying to take action, and your being a bigot. The problem is being a bigot does not mean that you are always wrong. Bill Cosby only gets away with it as much as he has (and he's been criticized heavily for it none the less) because he's Black and the same culture can't go after him politically the way they could a guy from another race who brings up uncomfortable issues.

A better example would be recent situations with immigrants in places like Texas and California. Please not I am not talking about ILLEGAL immigrants which is another issue, but rather people who have become US citizens. We have problems to the point where we have schools banning kids from wearing the American flag, or putting it on a vehicle like a bike that they bring to school, due to fear of violence and retaliation from immigrants, especially during holidays like Cinca De Mayo (I've posted links all over The Escapist, there have been multiple incidents, not one isolated case). Basically a situation where these people have become Americans, but really just want the benefits and otherwise to be Mexicans (or in cases of other incidents around the country, whatever land they came from), these are people getting violent and making threats over the symbol of what is functionally their own country. Yes it is bigoted to single out immigrants for things like this and point out that something needs to be done, and preacing tolerance of such behavior IS political correctness.

Another big issue is things like property rights. In the USA we have tons of laws in place that are used to prevent white people (the majority) from refusing to sell property to minorities, and "whitewash" certain areas so to speak (not that it's anything like the problem it was decades ago when these laws were created). On the other hand we have issue with various minorities like Chinese, Jews, Cubans, and others who refuse to sell property outside of their ethnic group when put on the market. For all intents and purpose your dealing with a major problem of laws with a dual standard, yet there are people who defend this based on the fact that it's minorities and it would be bigoted to single these problems out to be addressed. The very fact that we have "districts" in cities like "China Town", "Little Havana", and similar things represent the problem. A building in Chinatown goes up on the market, and some white guy/company gives the best offer, and they decide to go with a lesser offer because the guys making it are Chinese, that's an issue. Ditto for situations when it's minorities who won't rent apartments or lease space to people who aren't of the appropriate ethnicity.

Finally, I think it's going waaaay off the deepend when it's being argued that taking long-established characters and changing their ethnicity to make it "more diverse" isn't political correctness. That's politically correct boneheadedness at it's absolute worst.

My long standing arguement is that due to the way society has been for a long time there aren't a whole lot of minority characters in things like comics. Of course then again by being "minorities" you don't expect there to be a lot of them in proportion to whites in the US because there are simply a lot more white guys. The problem as it exists is something to be addressed by minorities getting into things like writing and drawing comic books. It's a very competitive business of course, and this entails you having to see genuine interest within minority groups to see it done with hundreds of people dedicating their lives to it and failing for every one that actually succeeds. You need to see a quality product by the same standards, not someone handing off a contract to a black creator beause he's black. Also like anything else they have to deal with appealing to the market as a whole, a black character with a "'tude" that villifies the white majority (even if just through dialogue) like the world is still stuck in the 1930s is of course not going to work for large scale release for example.

To put things into perspective Asians broke into comics in a big way, this happened because of a lot of interest, and massive amounts of persistance. Right now you see both Manga and Western comics in a sort of symbotic relationship and inspiring each other heavily, and a rising number of asian themed super heroes in general. Heck, we've even got The Japanese doing a version of Western super heroes like "The X-men".

The problem is that while it's bigoted, a lot of the minorities that usually get involved in politically correct arguements, are demanding to see instant success and representation in things, without having to put in any real work or effort over the long term. The "get rich or die trying" attitude so to speak.

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.

Oh and Bob (to address you directly again, if you even read the stuff I write) for the record, those of us who take the other side of these arguements are not generally speaking cowards hiding behind the term "politically incorrect". I'm quite up front about what I think even when I use the term, and I generally deal with the crap I get for it. I might be "mean" but I believe it's for the greater good, not out of some sense of superiority, or the sake of meaness for the sake of meaness. To be entirely honest my "problem" is that I think a lot of the groups that I criticize can do a lot better, they can meet the same standards set by the majority, humans are humans. People who think that these groups need to be protected ultimatly have attitudes that come down to those people somehow being unable to do better, which is why the protection is nessicary. On most levels that's actually far more bigoted than I am, and an even worse kind of sugar-coated racism than what the politically correct hope to decry.

Also as far as "Resident Evil 5" goes, the game was fairly accurate, and I see no real reason why a third world hellhole shouldn't be portrayed as a third world hellhole simply to be nice. If people don't like how that imagery is, then strive to change it. It also comes down to the counter-issue of "why is everything set in the USA". Set a game in the third world trying to protect helpless people from bio-terrorism, and oops all of a sudden it's racist because those people are portrayed as victims who need the help.

Also, I for one can't see why the holy heck Sheeva walking around in sexed up tribal garb or a "Jill Of The Jungle" outfit is supposed to be racist or polically incorrect. It's no differant than white guys dressing up like sexed up vikings or Romans (TOGA PARTY!!!). Granted it's impractical for the setting, but that's the way a lot of alternate costumes are (which is why they are alternate costumes), we have games where the protaganist can do things like run around dressed in a chicken suit in an otherwise fairly serious game as an "unlockable". My attitude about "Resident Evi 5" is that it was just the PC crowd trying to grab a headline, and that's not likely to change. The *only* thing that made it differant from what legions of other games has done is the setting. Set the game in eastern Europe and give the female character a sexy jester costume, or a dominatrix outfit and nobody is going to bat an eye.

Wow. I tip my hat to you, sir. Very well spoken and defended.

I got the same feeling you did when I was watching this video: That this seems to be told and defined by someone with a slant in their perspective on the matter.

The word Bias I can't use to speak down about this video since everyone has biases of some kind, which is how our tastes in things from comics to music are defined. However, this had a more leftward slant on the topic of Political Correctness instead of a centrist one, and I felt that was wrong to have given how this topic is such a big issue.

Yeah, people being jerks isn't a pretty thing, but does that mean the government should regulate what people say in the name of "being nice" or "political correctness"? Really, there's people who think that political correctness should be mandated by law, which is of course a violation of freedom of speech. Like it or not, people being jerks is a form of speech. And sometimes, it's best to just put up and shut up, and quit being a wuss. Everyone at some point in your life is going to say something that can bother or offend you, only thing you can do is ignore them.

The_root_of_all_evil:

Shycte:

Wouldn't it be eaiser to just stop the hating?

The last guy to say that was nailed to a tree 2 millenia ago. :)

Hehe yeah. I think they say something like that in A Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy. Good book.

conflictofinterests:
[Whoa, whoa, whoa. The problems didn't start when you were a kid. The problems started when the Middle East was being colonized by countries not from the Middle east. This is oooooooooold shit here. Democracy is a bad word in a lot of people's minds there because democracies typically screwed them over. The truth of the matter is, long, long ago our ancestors didn't try diplomacy first, and we're stuck holding the bag of "They're going to hate us and perhaps try to screw us over while we try to earn back their trust or we could continue along the undiplomatic route for a while longer, keeping us safe in the short term but building up more hatred in the long run"

That being the case, the West is shaping up to come in behind a few key places in terms of power sometime soon, and if the rules of engagement end up being more like our ancestors' we stand a good chance of being screwed, and HARD. Options to avoid this stand, in my mind, as a) Get a lot better at war, STAT, and b) Get a lot better at diplomacy, STAT. I'd go with diplomacy, because brute force has a way of failing at the least opportune moments.

Well if you want to go that far back the problems started when the people of the region decided that they wanted to keep holy sites shared with Jews and Christians for themselves, and then started slaughtering pilgrims, which slotted off Europeans and lead to The Crusades.

In simple terms though the basic problem with the region is that the way the cultures present practice Islam, they want to destroy or conquer everyone else on the planet, anything put their way is seen as a challenge from god in the path of their destiny, and outside ideas are seen as a challenge to their faith. This is very simplistic, but it's at the root of why diplomacy has failed in the region.

Now yes, you can point at that and say "well western cultures have been just as bad" and it would be true. The differance is that we've largely progressed while they have stayed where they are, and with the advancement of technology the situation is becoming increasingly problematic for a lot of reasons. In the end it's difficult to say one group of people is "good" and another is "evil" in any absolute sense, which is why I myself frequently
point out that it's a matter of "us or them" rather than some great battle of light and darkness. The bottom line is that political correctness is used as an excuse to not deal
with problems like this at all when they conflict with our interests.

Right now diplomacy has failed, we've been going down that road for a long time. It's not a matter of "getting better at it" when the situation is simply one that cannot be resolved that way as the two cultures are entirely out of context to one another. Even if you argue that ambitions of global democracy or a world unity (as I present) are no differant than their desire for an islamic goverment, it still comes down to diametrically opposed goals and an "us or them" situation. We're not going to be convinced to install an Islamic goverment and live under Islamic law, and they aren't going to be convinced not to, and as long as they are ruled by it they are under an obligation to destroy us (to put it simply).

We don't need to get better at war really, all we need to do is actually choose to fight a war. We wouldn't even need to nuke the region, if we just decided to walk in and take all those countries down we could do it within a year tops. We've developed bombs and missles that can wipe out entire towns, or penetrate under cities and collapse them down into their underworks (sewers, etc...). We simply choose not to do these things for moral reasons, because of political correctness and the simple fact that it's wrong to do such things in
the pursuit of our own interests, even when threatened. That is the problem with political correctness, and why it prevents needed action. Those who are afraid of putting that much blood on their hands use political correctness as an excuse.

"It's bigoted to judge an entire culture, and as the UN currently defines things if you wiped it out no matter what the reasoning it would be genocide and genocide is wrong!". So in the end we pretty much occupy the nations, which we have failed to even see progressive constitutions set in, let our people get bushwhacked by enemies they aren't allowed to effectively engage due to fears of collateral damage, and in the end we'll leave and be right back where we started with more fuel put on the fire, and people screaming about how we can't do anything again because "we tried and failed" even though we really never did try anything except a reactive occupation, combined with a failed campaign of diplomacy that lead to the people putting the same kinds of goverment into power that we got rid of.

In general political correctness is not so much about being nice to people, as it is about avoiding taking any kind of signifigant action that people are uncomfortable with. It's a matter of ignoring problems, pretending they do not exist, under the guise of advanced morality.

Fantastic episode. WORDS MEAN THINGS should be remembered.

Oh wow--the Beavis & Butt-Head point-and-click. A whole wave of nostalgia just washed over me from a 1/2-second minigame clip.

conflictofinterests:

InterAirplay:

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.

...what?

...just... what?

I don't think any of those words mean what you think they mean.

Let me translate from the Conservispeak (I come from a household where that's the only language spoken, so I'm fluent)
"I suggest that honest, and heartfelt evaluations of people or groups is what society needs right now, in order to cut away needless "beating around the bush" (If you'll excuse a colloquialism) and focus on issues which need to be resolved (this is combined with an implication that the resolution of these issues are more important than manners). In truth, I feel that the avoidance of heartfelt evaluations of people or groups perpetuates some issues by restricting the availability of information about the problems (Which would have been pointed out by said heartfelt evaluations) of the aforementioned people or groups."

So I guess I was right the first time.

Therumancer:
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.

If we were trying to create progress in the Middle East by backing 'progressive' leaders, then why did our government stage a coup that overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh, the progressive, democratically elected leader of Iran, in the 1950s to install the repressive Shah? This was a man that Westernized Iran, and brought social reforms to the country (and was successful where other reformers failed), but our government helped stage this coup because (gasp) he didn't want the British to control his country's oil supply. This coup, and the subsequent installation of the Shah, was the primary reason for the Iranian Revolution in the 1970s, and it's decidedly anti-American bent (which in turn led to our backing Hussein in Iraq, and the rest is history). Our bigotry against the region led (both directly and indirectly) to the quagmire we've found ourselves in.

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.

People like me who see the Middle East as a clusterfuck of repressive, misogynistic assholes on one end and bullying, hypocritical assholes playing cowboy on the other end? Who think that it's weird that our government decided to let Osama bin Laden escape into Pakistan back in 2001 so that we could blow up Iraq's infrastructure? And what exactly do I illustrate as being "politically correct?" Hell, I even said that I have problems with Islam as it's practiced in certain parts of the world. The difference is I don't apply that to people over here who give me every reason to believe that they do not behave the same way (unlike a large portion of Americans who actually have a lot more in common with the terrorists than they ever will admit to themselves).

Let me rephrase something I said earlier so that you can understand me better: political correctness is stupid. It's well-meaning, sugar-coated, and tries to be nice, but it is still stupid, to the point it comes back around to being bigoted. However (key word here), people who go out of their way to be "anti-PC" are worse. It's like being one of those hipster douchebags who hates everything only because it's popular. It's a way to pretend that you have original thoughts. That mindset is also a way that the powerful can scapegoat another group to distract people from the real problems: you lost your job? It's not because the CEO of your company only looks out for the bottom line and his paycheck, and managed to find someone who will work harder for less money, but it's because those damn Mexicans keep coming over to "take your job." That's right, the big scary brown people are coming for your job specifically, so tune in for our news to find out how to fight them off! That right there is the definition of bigotry, and if you can't see how that is a problem, and not the solution, then you (and people like you) are not only part of the problem, but you are willful participants in making things worse.

Or, maybe you're right, and perhaps I should go trying bigotry against all the Christians in my community, since Christianity is clearly an autocratic movement out to convert everyone to their dogma, subvert women into a pseudo-slave status whose only function is to breed until they are dry and used up, and stamp out scientific progress. And it's only that. Nope, not one bit of difference in the whole of the religion, they are all like that.

You know what, maybe you're onto something...

EDIT for P.S.: Given a little extra time, I wanted to go over a few other points that you made that are debatable, if not flat out untrue:

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.

Again, agreed about the problems with women's rights in those countries, but a lot of what's going wrong in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is that after we invaded the first two (and started making strikes into the third since we let bin Laden escape to that country in 2001), not only did we fail to improve conditions, we actually let them get worse (especially in Iraq, which had a functional infrastructure until we started dropping bombs willy-nilly). Because of this, it was easy for terrorists/insurgents/whatever to get a grip on people through intimidation or offers of protection. We keep interfering, making things worse, and the people resent us for it. If someone were to come into your town, blow up your house, cut the power, and practically leave you to fend for yourself, I bet you'd get pissed, too, and anyone who offered an alternative would seem like a friend.

Speaking of interference:

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.

You need to follow the real news for a change, because not only is Egypt working out it's elections, several potential nominees had been named, even during the protests, including Mohamed ElBaredei (a Nobel Prize winning diplomat) and Ayman Nour (a previous challenger to the Egyptian Presidency, and a progressive). Most of the people seeking election are secularists, and most of the opposition consisted of non-religious political parties (the Muslim Brotherhood was not the biggest faction in the opposition by any criteria). There's still concerns about the whole process (ElBaredei said he would only run if there was a guarantee that the elections would be free and fair; the Brotherhood, while having no candidates of their own, has voiced displeasure at certain candidates running), but it's a far cry from the "no real solution" you claim.

I'm still opposed to political correctness. Sure, you should be polite and generally not throw around insults at everything, but it also stops people from rightfully criticising things, too (religion, for example).

Oh, look. Yet another diatribe on how evil the right is. Keith Olberman, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, & Paul Krugman are all "HEROES" while Rush, Beck, Hannity, & O'Reilly, wow they must all be consigned to the 10th level of hell!

I am so sick of this tripe.

Look, I like some of the topics explored here. BUT, I refuse to be labelled a 'troll' for defending my side of the argument. When I see topics like this I hope for a fair and balanced (yeah, like that description WON'T piss people off) debate but it always turns into the 'I am so much smarter than you for pointing out how your side is wrong while we are so right' drek.

There are many topics I disagree with conservatives on. Religion and abortion are just two of the major ones. I'm for fiscal responsibility and energy independance. That doesn't make me a racist or a bigot, and I steadfastly refuse to accept the label.

Yeah, I know. The 'chicken joke' parable was solely directed at strictly the idea that anyone who says such a thing while talking about Obama is a racist. I get that. I hate PC myself, but I get it. I also agree that many of the comedians mentioned were as well (not to mention ahead of their time). But when I see a CLEARLY under the table inference at all conservatives that disagree with Obama AT ALL being racist as well, it just makes my blood boil.

I would have so much more respect for Moviebob if he tackled all sides of the issue rather than just use his platform to malign his political enemies. This just makes him look like the type of hater he professes to impugn.

THANK. GOD.
SOMEONE FINALLY SAID THIS.

And concisely, too.

I am now going to post this everywhere I can think to post it.

Just because someone tells an off-color joke that you didn't find funny that doesn't make them a jerk.

I can't say I ever agree with you 100%, Bob.

So... if it's funny it's politically incorrect, if it's dumb and not funny it's being a racist ass...

Don't get me wrong, the line between racism and "pushing the envelope" is a fine one that many people in comedy and media have to walk and that it's never ever OK to be racist, sexist, theist, or any other form of bigoted. But dissing some people for pushing the envelope while others tell the same jokes or make the same comments in a different context and saying it's OK isn't acceptable. My thought is that if Bill Hicks and George Carlin were allowed to mock hard core Christians, then if Jeff Dunham makes a puppet about a crazed terrorist to make fun of hard core Muslims, why not allow it? I'm not meaning to be racist here, just equitable toward possible offenses.

I just think that your New England is coming out a bit strong here, Bob.

I enjoyed this.
This was good.

The_root_of_all_evil:

Shycte:

Wouldn't it be eaiser to just stop the hating?

The last guy to say that was nailed to a tree 2 millenia ago. :)

QFT

How can you not find Jeff Dunham funny? Are you seriously lacking in humor, or did you just see one of his "The dead terrorist" sketch and decided that "this guy is not funny!", like little kids decide that peas aren't good, without having ever eaten one.

I kinda agree with most things you said, but that part really bugged me. Yeah, I get that people have different kinds of humor. But just saying "this guy isn't funny", just seems to me like you haven't even bothered to try.

Whats kinda funny tho, is that you said a couple shows ago that "You where honored to be on the same site as Zero Punctuation", which is pretty much the meanest series ever made...and he's hilarious. But I'm going off topic now. Good show man, keep it up.

To a certain extent i really liked this.. it nicely flagged up the issue of intention in language, and how disguising negative intentions as righteousness is just a stupid thing to do. I have a very similar opinion of people who make negative and direspectful comments; and then attempt to vindicate them by calling them "honest opinions" - as if that is all a statement needs to be acceptable.

However, as has been mentioned here in this thread; labelling a statement as "not-PC" can be a means to essentially remove any context from behind it, and generalise its use as being universally malign, even when the intention behind it might not be at all malign.

It's like the idea of "respecting" other cultures. If you are well intentioned, but commit some cultural faux pas, youre labeled as "disrespectful".. whereas someone who isn't well intentioned can be let off scot free because his choice of words or actions managed to jump through the requisite hoops.

So yea, generalising about words, and in so doing removing any space for analysing the context in which theyre used when deciding if theyre acceptable; i think is an equally stupid and hamfisted way of approaching the problem.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 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