The Big Picture: Boy's Own Adventure

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

omicron1:
Because this site is liberal, and hostile to conservative views.

.

interesting definition of hostility.
you can state you views here, you just cant expect us to agree or to approve and shut up- you have the right to state your views, we have the right to critice them.

hopstility -bullshit. hostile is if i harras you and call you some mean names because of our opinion, if i silence you and take away the space you have here to state your opinion-

boy, the excapist is not democratic-you cant possibly believe that you have the right to state stuff 1. without critique or-depending and how you state stuff-2.whether to state or not. sits which dont like sexim or racism or such wont let you state that-but inr eal life and enough parts of the internet you have and will have every possibility to say what you want.

but please, dont act like you are one little bad dicriminated minority because someone calls the bullshit some republicans and fauxnews say out.
if your views were somewhat minorish,. fox wouldnt exist and so guys like santorum wouldn´t state their homphobioc shit (which really discriminates minorities which cant live everywhere without the fear of being killed by people who get their ideas by guys like some republican lunatics. you on the other hand get criticized-you dont have to fear for your life or your job or you dont have to fear not getting a flat because you have the wrong partner..so, please quit whining, you are part of a rather powerful mayority, even if you as individual dont have all of the privileges per se
-totally different thins.

Mid Boss:

maximara:

Mid Boss:
Oh this is where we get into this huge thing where the forum posters bombard you with many many examples of Fox News and conservatism as a whole being all about straight, white, christian, and preferably rich, men while throwing all others under the bus. Well, throw is such a strong word. More like shove. We might need their votes some day. And you defend them because they're conservatives and everything they do and say is right and thinking otherwise is blatantly Un-American. And then, when that fails, resort to personal attacks.

Hold on. Let me get some popcorn.

Sadly this is the result of the FCC getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine (1949-1987; it was on the books after 1987 but not enforced and the FTC finally got it off the books in 2011) It required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced.

There has been some talk about restoring the Fairness Doctrine form 2003 on but give the nature of media now it is doubtful it would go anywhere as it only applied to those who had a broadcast license...something that doesn't really apply to Internet based radio or TV as any Tom, Dick and Harry with a camera and a mike can broadcast.

Now you seem like a pretty informed person. Our country is becoming increasingly politically charged. Personally, I blame the advent of 24 hour news networks who make huge issues over every imaginable thing just... to fill time.

What do you think the root of this problem is and will it ever end? Or is this just how our country is always going to be from now on.

IMHO the "problem" is the one it has always been: fear. Fear of change because with change come that biggest of fears The Unknown. The Unknown covers the fear of The Other, the person that is not part of "your" group...what ever that may be.

Look at these quotes and see how familiar they are:

There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland.

Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth

Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years.

Now look who said-wrote those words: Adolf Hitler.

Being a fan of cartoons in general, I tracked down a few episodes of this show to watch after people started talking about it. It's actually not bad... it makes the same mistake that countless other childrens' cartoons makes--confusing either "gross" or "annoying" with "funny," but it's certainly not the most egregious offender. And yes, the conservatives are basically making things up about this show. The main character doesn't turn into a girl, he doesn't self-identify as a girl, and he doesn't want to BE a girl. In actuality, the most revolutionary thing about this show is how quickly the gender-bending becomes a non-issue. Initially, the main character has the expected freakout--"ZOMG, I'm a guy, but now I'm dressed like a girl, halp." But he quickly comes to realize that the outfit and the oddly gender-specific superpowers are a small price to pay in order to inherit the mantle of a powerful and beloved superhero. So while he doesn't necessarily want to be/act like/dress like a girl, he DOES want to be a superhero... and if that requires wearing a skirt and pink tights, then so be it. Which is a surprisingly mature and progressive attitude. Even his best friend and sister stop giving him crap about it pretty quickly, so from then on it starts to feel like a standard kids' superhero show... which is perhaps the most shocking thing about Shezow.

Lightknight:

Nurb:
Yea, like teaching kids an invisible sky wizard that killed children by the hundreds of thousands will torture them forever if they step out of line is good values.

Actually, the cultural belief in an unseen observer has been linked to stronger societies by reinforcing the individual's actions to do "good or selfless actions" even when no one is looking. You are essentially mocking the notion of there being ramifications for anti-social behavior. So, integrity, basically. It's a fantastic value, but the method of instilling it is what you're questioning. Big difference between the two. But much like this small component of your overall comment, I guess that's besides the point at hand.

Carry on, good sir or madame, or the sky wizard will get you.

As a person who grew up in a religious school for 6 years, I can tell you the notion of eternal punishment far outweighs any teaching of selfless acts in an average believer. That's why a majority use it as an "insurance policy" without actually following the teachings of that faith in the west... and why homosexuality is the only sexual sin that counts in the US (hence the outrage).

And like I said... when a deity has no qualms about killing children personally and enslaving them, you really shouldn't want to know what "good" things they have to say.

Besides, a "strong society" doesn't mean a just society, you just have to take a look at history to know theocracies have oppressive and even today, its dogma destroys lives of people and children.

Templar_Gamer:

Mid Boss:

Well the FCC is clearly a liberal ran organization! They didn't get the memo that having all male panels discussing women's reproductive rights (how they shouldn't have them) and how evil it is that women are gaining economic ground on men qualifies as unbiased, fair and balanced news!

I can't get over what great lengths conservatives will go to to defend Fox News. I was arguing with one once about this audio clip Fox had edited. Took me several posts just to get the guy to listen to the original clip unaltered. Then I asked him if that pissed him off that his news source BLATANTLY lied to him. And his defense was that it was ok. They're conservatives so it's all ok.

And no "liberal" news outfit has ever done the exact same thing twic-

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/business/media/tv-news-corrects-itself-just-not-on-the-air.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

oh.....

Nice try but, unlike conservatives, I actually read the articles other people offer up as evidence. I'm not afraid of being "indoctrinated" by dissenting opinions.

Ok, now, first of all I don't watch NBC. If I did I'd be pissed over this. I wouldn't stand there and say "No it's alright. They're a liberal news outlet so they can say what the want." I don't stand up for the people lying to me just because they're members of my party.

Secondly.

"NBC News management took serious action: it fired the producer in charge and issued a statement apologizing for making it appear as if Mr. Zimmerman had made overtly racist statements."

Can you show me an article about a Fox News producer getting fired for doctoring audio? Or misrepresenting facts in general? Because I would love to read that.

This is where you say Fox News never does that so there is no article to show. That's if you REALLY buy into them. If not, this is where you begin launching personal attacks. Can you tell I've argued with a lot of conservatives? lol I know the play book like the back of my hand.

Late to the game but I so sincerely hope someone mentioned that cross-dressing (Transvestite) is not Transgender/sexual.

theApoc:
It's always nice to see uninformed hypocritical children rant against other groups uninformed hypocritical children on the other side of the aisle. The self-righteous stupidity in the comments thus far is astounding.

When I first heard about this, quite honestly I was annoyed. There is nothing wrong with the idea of boys being boys and girls being girls. It is not bigotry to subscribe to "traditional" gender roles, nor is it idiocy to feel that the "politically correct" of the world are trying very hard to dictate what is and isn't acceptable. Do you, as a person, like everything and everyone? Do you have a completely open mind when it comes to everything you encounter? No? Then what gives you, or anyone like you the right to tell someone else what is and isn't acceptable?

SOCIETY reinforces gender stereotypes. SOCIETY determines what is and isn't allowed. Not the left, not the right, SOCIETY as a whole. Some people think that presenting these types of concepts to children is confusing. Some people have beliefs that find this type of pandering(and make no mistake, this is pandering), offensive. And regardless of the validity of those beliefs, they have just as much right to them as you do to yours.

Social change should come because of a change in how SOCIETY thinks, feels, behaves. It should not be attained via force or coercion. When a religious radical speaks out, he is quickly labeled as a bigot or fool(well if that person is from the west, other cultures seem to get a free pass no matter what nonsense they spout), yet when someone steps up in the name of "insert this weeks hippy agenda item" they are immediately praised by both the media and the vocal minority as standing up for what they believe.

I personally do not agree with either point of view due to the fact that I do not believe it is my place to DICTATE what others think. But maybe that is just me.

Two things: One, no traditional gender roles are not evil, as long as they are not forced. It should be "a guy wants to hunt, fix cars, wear manly clothes, read war-stories ect ect, fine. A guy wants to wear girly clothes, shop, read fashion mags and romance novels thats fine too. Do what you want" and saying that cross-dressing/ acting in traditionally opposite gender ways is acceptable isn't a attack on more traditional styles. Just a call for tolerance.
two, society is a collection of individuals. The "political correctness" side? They are part of society. And social change happens more easily when you push it. (see civil rights and feminism.)

Amgeo:

DarklordKyo:

Amgeo:
I haven't watched the show (yet) but I agree with Bob that representations of gender in the superhero genre are very problematic. One thing that's very cool is how the character of Batwoman has evolved from a bad joke about being a female Batman to one of the coolest characters in DC.

Yet I'm not sure that She-Zow! is quite as helpful to LGBTQA acceptance as Bob made it sound, even with all the qualifiers he put on there. The joke still relies on a strict gender binary, and I can't imagine that it strains itself to teach the kids about the nuances of recognizing your own identity. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

Yeah, I think that ponies and Batman are really the only things currently keeping the Hub humming.

Speaking of, I'd like to thank Bob for taking what I feel is the best stance on the pony fandom, that since he doesn't care too much about the show the fans' existence does not affect him and therefore he doesn't talk about it except where it becomes relevant, and then only in passing. No lectures about how some fans take it too far, no discussions of how it affects the larger culture, he is just aware of it as a thing.

To be fair, there's also Animaniacs.

There is? Pardon me while I go relive my childhood.

You're welcome

NightowlM:

punipunipyo:
I personally think Homosexual is nu-natural; mental sickness that is related to uncontrollable sexual desires, who ever have it needs love, acceptance, and LOTS OF PRAYERS/HEALINGS! No matter how tempting yuri anime looks, and how yaoi is hot to all girls on earth... I think sending kids the messages that Homosexual-ness is OK, is wrong... I know over population is a GREAT EXCUSE for such behavior... but I also think NORMAL marriage with no/adoption kids is better way...

(MAIN TOPIC:)

HOW EVER, this animation in particular... is more like "Mrs.Doubfire", "I MY ME strawberry egg", or "RAMA1/2", where sex-change/Cross dress is meant to be the gag, and it's not like the dud in the cartoon "likes" to be a girl... he wants to be super hero... that's all... I think it's funny, and fun cartoon... not super smart... but funny for a laugh or two... but NOT OFFENSIVE AT ALL....

Media needs to chill the F#*^% off... and start worrying about our economy...

Hahahaha. You can't be serious can you? We don't need your prayers buddy. It looks to me that people on your "side" of the issue might be the ones that have the "mental sickness."

Nope... last time I check, the ONLY WAY to pass down my gene to the next generation, and to secure my kind's existence, in another words... NATURAL SELECTION SAYS: male + female = survival of our kind, sorry to break it to you, but no "mental sickness" here, which brings me to a good question... assuming you are on "the other side"... how do you intend to "pass your gene"? think about it...

again... front part of my reply is purely "MY POV" to the whole "homosexual" opinion, and how I'd be offended IF a cartoon would teach our kids that "HOMOSEXUAL IS NORMAL", but (TOPIC OF THIS THREAD!! STAY FOCUS!!) I didn't think this is the case with the "Shezow" show.. because it's just forced cross dressing as the main gag.. which I think it's ok, and who ever think otherwise should chill out.

Nurb:

As a person who grew up in a religious school for 6 years, I can tell you the notion of eternal punishment far outweighs any teaching of selfless acts in an average believer. That's why a majority use it as an "insurance policy" without actually following the teachings of that faith in the west... and why homosexuality is the only sexual sin that counts in the US (hence the outrage).

And like I said... when a deity has no qualms about killing children personally and enslaving them, you really shouldn't want to know what "good" things they have to say.

Besides, a "strong society" doesn't mean a just society, you just have to take a look at history to know theocracies have oppressive and even today, its dogma destroys lives of people and children.

Eternal punishment for WHAT? But that is the issue isn't. People cherry pick passages from their holy works to support views they already have.

maximara:

Eternal punishment for WHAT? But that is the issue isn't. People cherry pick passages from their holy works to support views they already have.

Pick a thing. Any thing.

punipunipyo:

Nope... last time I check, the ONLY WAY to pass down my gene to the next generation, and to secure my kind's existence, in another words... NATURAL SELECTION SAYS: male + female = survival of our kind, sorry to break it to you, but no "mental sickness" here, which brings me to a good question... assuming you are on "the other side"... how do you intend to "pass your gene"? think about it...

Firstly, it's not really "your gene," is it? Your genetics are a combination of everything that went before you.

Secondly, why does it matter if you pass "your gene" to others? The only reason seems to be egotism. There's no need for more humans to exist in the world, there are more than enough already, probably too many for the available resources to be be sustainable. I'm curious as to why you think it's such necessity to reproduce.

Then there's the issue that plenty of heterosexuals don't have children either. Are they as invalid in your eyes as gay people, because they choose to have sex for pleasure rather than procreation? Is producing babies the only reason people exist?

The show is okay, but the puns hurt sometimes.

Lonewolfm16:

theApoc:
It's always nice to see uninformed hypocritical children rant against other groups uninformed hypocritical children on the other side of the aisle. The self-righteous stupidity in the comments thus far is astounding.

When I first heard about this, quite honestly I was annoyed. There is nothing wrong with the idea of boys being boys and girls being girls. It is not bigotry to subscribe to "traditional" gender roles, nor is it idiocy to feel that the "politically correct" of the world are trying very hard to dictate what is and isn't acceptable. Do you, as a person, like everything and everyone? Do you have a completely open mind when it comes to everything you encounter? No? Then what gives you, or anyone like you the right to tell someone else what is and isn't acceptable?

SOCIETY reinforces gender stereotypes. SOCIETY determines what is and isn't allowed. Not the left, not the right, SOCIETY as a whole. Some people think that presenting these types of concepts to children is confusing. Some people have beliefs that find this type of pandering(and make no mistake, this is pandering), offensive. And regardless of the validity of those beliefs, they have just as much right to them as you do to yours.

Social change should come because of a change in how SOCIETY thinks, feels, behaves. It should not be attained via force or coercion. When a religious radical speaks out, he is quickly labeled as a bigot or fool(well if that person is from the west, other cultures seem to get a free pass no matter what nonsense they spout), yet when someone steps up in the name of "insert this weeks hippy agenda item" they are immediately praised by both the media and the vocal minority as standing up for what they believe.

I personally do not agree with either point of view due to the fact that I do not believe it is my place to DICTATE what others think. But maybe that is just me.

Two things: One, no traditional gender roles are not evil, as long as they are not forced. It should be "a guy wants to hunt, fix cars, wear manly clothes, read war-stories ect ect, fine. A guy wants to wear girly clothes, shop, read fashion mags and romance novels thats fine too. Do what you want" and saying that cross-dressing/ acting in traditionally opposite gender ways is acceptable isn't a attack on more traditional styles. Just a call for tolerance.
two, society is a collection of individuals. The "political correctness" side? They are part of society. And social change happens more easily when you push it. (see civil rights and feminism.)

Name ONE instance where societal change came more easily by "pushing it"? Calling for tolerance is just another form of coercion. EVERYONE, racist, bigot, hippy, communist, socialist, republican, democrat, elitist, etc. Everyone has just as much right to their opinion as anyone else. Telling someone who hates minorities to be "tolerant" is hypocritical and ultimately has little effect on their actual beliefs. You can not force people to change how they think. You can place limits on how they express those thoughts, you can ensure the differing points of view are presented peacefully. But you can not make someone believe something they don't want to.

What you can do, and this is where my initial comment stems from, is inundate people with propaganda. You can manipulate the SOCIAL consciousness and create a false sense of "tolerance". The only problem is that "change" built on a foundation of manipulation lasts only as long as you are the one doing the manipulating.

True societal change ONLY comes with time. It comes from the debate, it comes from the differing points of view. Those who claim their enemies fools tend to be fools themselves.

Ukomba:

GamemasterAnthony:

Ukomba:

Interesting questions. Would conservative groups be able to criminally charge CNN/ABC/MSN and liberal groups in return? Or would this only be for specifically approved ideologies?

It would be for ANYONE, liberal or conservative, who believe their ideologies give them any right whatsoever to either slander, mirepresent, or violate the rights of any group on the basis of their beliefs.

Trust me. CNN, Fox, MSN, WBC, One Million Moms, ABC...they would all be fair game if they go too far. Right now though...it seems the conservative side is more blatant in their behavior.

Ah. I would foresee a lot of lawsuits coming over unsubstantiated claims of racism, uses of 'tea bagger', and the IRS is screwed. While it's nice to be even handed, and the lawyers would orgasm over that development, it's probably best that that doesn't happen, lest dissenting speech be completely quashed.

Perceived offensive behavior is far more noticeable when it's against your side. If you avoid conservative opinion and news sources, I doubt you'd even see a lot of it.

It reminds me of when the Nostalgia Critic did a video where he laughs about how Bronies feel there are subjected to mockery or anger. It was right around the time Mass Effect posted a pinkie pie in N7 armor on it's facebook page and they got so much hateful comments that they actually had to do a second post to address it. It really is the case that if you aren't part of it or looking for it, you can miss it entirely. NC didn't dislike Bronies, he just didn't know.

It's a problem with conservatives and liberals too. Ideologies really have to get past the knee jerk reactions, navel gazing, and name calling. 99% of the time, the offense isn't caused because of hate, it's a perspective issue.

All the more reason why the lines have to be established. Right now, it seems certain groups (WBC, MSNBC, Fox News) regularly go over the line in the name of their opinions so...like you said...any lawyer would chomp at the bit to bring these guys down if given the chance. In fact, any good lawyer worth his/her salt could in my opinion very easily win a libel/slander/civil rights suit with what has been said by these groups already.

Thing is, if the lines are established, litigation wouldn't be necessary as the groups in question would now understand the difference between excersing of one's beliefs and persecution of another's. Mainly because the real problem isn't so much what people's beliefs aree or why they believe it...it's how they choose to treat others whose beliefs differ from their own. I have no problem with Westboro Baptist believing homosexuality is a sin, for example. HOWEVER...when they use derogatory terms like "fag" to speak out against anyone who supports homosexuality, then it becomes harassment based on another's beliefs because it is more or less a directed attack on those beliefs. In this case, in terms of the freedom of religion, they are not expressing their own beliefs but violating another's.

Okay, I want to see this, but we don't have the hub over here...

It also kind of reminds me of Kore wa zombie desu ka.

GamemasterAnthony:

Ukomba:

GamemasterAnthony:

All the more reason why the lines have to be established. Right now, it seems certain groups (WBC, MSNBC, Fox News) regularly go over the line in the name of their opinions so...like you said...any lawyer would chomp at the bit to bring these guys down if given the chance. In fact, any good lawyer worth his/her salt could in my opinion very easily win a libel/slander/civil rights suit with what has been said by these groups already.

Thing is, if the lines are established, litigation wouldn't be necessary as the groups in question would now understand the difference between excersing of one's beliefs and persecution of another's. Mainly because the real problem isn't so much what people's beliefs aree or why they believe it...it's how they choose to treat others whose beliefs differ from their own. I have no problem with Westboro Baptist believing homosexuality is a sin, for example. HOWEVER...when they use derogatory terms like "fag" to speak out against anyone who supports homosexuality, then it becomes harassment based on another's beliefs because it is more or less a directed attack on those beliefs. In this case, in terms of the freedom of religion, they are not expressing their own beliefs but violating another's.

That's still opening up an enormous can of worms and is pretty much impossible to enforce one way or the other. For starters, people can easily skirt the slander thing by ending their sentence with "I'm not saying ___________ is a Nazi/Communist/Sith Lord, but..." and then just say what they're thinking, and they've now escaped any sort of legal action because they've given themselves an easy out.

Likewise, whether you agree or disagree, the Westboro Baptist Church is not "violating" anyone's rights. At the end of the day, them referring to people as 'fags' does not prevent those insulted people from assembling or speaking their minds or responding, no matter how badly it might personally affect them. No one has the right to not be offended or not have their feelings hurt.

How long do I have to wait for the dark, grim and gritty reboot? :P

theApoc:

Lonewolfm16:

theApoc:
It's always nice to see uninformed hypocritical children rant against other groups uninformed hypocritical children on the other side of the aisle. The self-righteous stupidity in the comments thus far is astounding.

When I first heard about this, quite honestly I was annoyed. There is nothing wrong with the idea of boys being boys and girls being girls. It is not bigotry to subscribe to "traditional" gender roles, nor is it idiocy to feel that the "politically correct" of the world are trying very hard to dictate what is and isn't acceptable. Do you, as a person, like everything and everyone? Do you have a completely open mind when it comes to everything you encounter? No? Then what gives you, or anyone like you the right to tell someone else what is and isn't acceptable?

SOCIETY reinforces gender stereotypes. SOCIETY determines what is and isn't allowed. Not the left, not the right, SOCIETY as a whole. Some people think that presenting these types of concepts to children is confusing. Some people have beliefs that find this type of pandering(and make no mistake, this is pandering), offensive. And regardless of the validity of those beliefs, they have just as much right to them as you do to yours.

Social change should come because of a change in how SOCIETY thinks, feels, behaves. It should not be attained via force or coercion. When a religious radical speaks out, he is quickly labeled as a bigot or fool(well if that person is from the west, other cultures seem to get a free pass no matter what nonsense they spout), yet when someone steps up in the name of "insert this weeks hippy agenda item" they are immediately praised by both the media and the vocal minority as standing up for what they believe.

I personally do not agree with either point of view due to the fact that I do not believe it is my place to DICTATE what others think. But maybe that is just me.

Two things: One, no traditional gender roles are not evil, as long as they are not forced. It should be "a guy wants to hunt, fix cars, wear manly clothes, read war-stories ect ect, fine. A guy wants to wear girly clothes, shop, read fashion mags and romance novels thats fine too. Do what you want" and saying that cross-dressing/ acting in traditionally opposite gender ways is acceptable isn't a attack on more traditional styles. Just a call for tolerance.
two, society is a collection of individuals. The "political correctness" side? They are part of society. And social change happens more easily when you push it. (see civil rights and feminism.)

Name ONE instance where societal change came more easily by "pushing it"? Calling for tolerance is just another form of coercion. EVERYONE, racist, bigot, hippy, communist, socialist, republican, democrat, elitist, etc. Everyone has just as much right to their opinion as anyone else. Telling someone who hates minorities to be "tolerant" is hypocritical and ultimately has little effect on their actual beliefs. You can not force people to change how they think. You can place limits on how they express those thoughts, you can ensure the differing points of view are presented peacefully. But you can not make someone believe something they don't want to.

What you can do, and this is where my initial comment stems from, is inundate people with propaganda. You can manipulate the SOCIAL consciousness and create a false sense of "tolerance". The only problem is that "change" built on a foundation of manipulation lasts only as long as you are the one doing the manipulating.

True societal change ONLY comes with time. It comes from the debate, it comes from the differing points of view. Those who claim their enemies fools tend to be fools themselves.

One example? Did you not read the parenthetical statement after my last sentence? Civil rights, feminism in the 20s and later the 60s, the abolitionist movement in the north, ect ect. And your view seems to be that since some people don't like cross-dressing, cross-dressing shouldn't be allowed on television. How is that a view in favor of freedom? People don't like it? Fine, they retain the right to freedom of thought and speech, they can not like it all you want. And I have the right to call them a idiot and a bigot. Thats how freedoms works. And the Hub has the right to show as many shows in support of cross-dressing as they want.

Am I missing something? Does said ring actually change his gender or just slap a dress on him?

Would he really be a tranny or a cross-dresser?

And with kids watching this show are they really gonna care?

Lonewolfm16:

theApoc:

Lonewolfm16:

Two things: One, no traditional gender roles are not evil, as long as they are not forced. It should be "a guy wants to hunt, fix cars, wear manly clothes, read war-stories ect ect, fine. A guy wants to wear girly clothes, shop, read fashion mags and romance novels thats fine too. Do what you want" and saying that cross-dressing/ acting in traditionally opposite gender ways is acceptable isn't a attack on more traditional styles. Just a call for tolerance.
two, society is a collection of individuals. The "political correctness" side? They are part of society. And social change happens more easily when you push it. (see civil rights and feminism.)

Name ONE instance where societal change came more easily by "pushing it"? Calling for tolerance is just another form of coercion. EVERYONE, racist, bigot, hippy, communist, socialist, republican, democrat, elitist, etc. Everyone has just as much right to their opinion as anyone else. Telling someone who hates minorities to be "tolerant" is hypocritical and ultimately has little effect on their actual beliefs. You can not force people to change how they think. You can place limits on how they express those thoughts, you can ensure the differing points of view are presented peacefully. But you can not make someone believe something they don't want to.

What you can do, and this is where my initial comment stems from, is inundate people with propaganda. You can manipulate the SOCIAL consciousness and create a false sense of "tolerance". The only problem is that "change" built on a foundation of manipulation lasts only as long as you are the one doing the manipulating.

True societal change ONLY comes with time. It comes from the debate, it comes from the differing points of view. Those who claim their enemies fools tend to be fools themselves.

One example? Did you not read the parenthetical statement after my last sentence? Civil rights, feminism in the 20s and later the 60s, the abolitionist movement in the north, ect ect. And your view seems to be that since some people don't like cross-dressing, cross-dressing shouldn't be allowed on television. How is that a view in favor of freedom? People don't like it? Fine, they retain the right to freedom of thought and speech, they can not like it all you want. And I have the right to call them a idiot and a bigot. Thats how freedoms works. And the Hub has the right to show as many shows in support of cross-dressing as they want.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Civil rights and women's suffrage wasn't about changing people's beliefs, it was about extending constitutionally protected rights to groups who had been deprived of them. When segregation ended, it was "blacks now have the same legal rights as whites", not "blacks now have the same legal rights as whites, and you are banned from thinking they shouldn't".

People's attitudes are changed more easily by taking a non-combative approach, this was why MLK advocated non-violent protest for civil rights, or with Gandhi for expelling the British from India, to show people who was on the moral high-ground. When you have one person being the bully and the other being the victim, it's clear who is morally in the right in the situation.

On the other hand, when you have two sides screaming at one another, in this case one claiming that Shezow is a big conspiracy to turn kids into crossdressers and the other side screaming that anyone who has any issue with the show is a bigoted fascist, no one makes progress, as attacking and insulting people causes them to go into defense mode and makes the idea of them changing their beliefs even more remote.

Also, I haven't heard of anyone saying this show should be banned. Actually, now that I think about it, the article from Ben Shapiro is the only thing I've heard anyone say about this show. I haven't seen a single fox-news pundit talk about it or seen a weekly standard article about it. This whole thing sounds like making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Ihateregistering1:

Lonewolfm16:

theApoc:

Name ONE instance where societal change came more easily by "pushing it"? Calling for tolerance is just another form of coercion. EVERYONE, racist, bigot, hippy, communist, socialist, republican, democrat, elitist, etc. Everyone has just as much right to their opinion as anyone else. Telling someone who hates minorities to be "tolerant" is hypocritical and ultimately has little effect on their actual beliefs. You can not force people to change how they think. You can place limits on how they express those thoughts, you can ensure the differing points of view are presented peacefully. But you can not make someone believe something they don't want to.

What you can do, and this is where my initial comment stems from, is inundate people with propaganda. You can manipulate the SOCIAL consciousness and create a false sense of "tolerance". The only problem is that "change" built on a foundation of manipulation lasts only as long as you are the one doing the manipulating.

True societal change ONLY comes with time. It comes from the debate, it comes from the differing points of view. Those who claim their enemies fools tend to be fools themselves.

One example? Did you not read the parenthetical statement after my last sentence? Civil rights, feminism in the 20s and later the 60s, the abolitionist movement in the north, ect ect. And your view seems to be that since some people don't like cross-dressing, cross-dressing shouldn't be allowed on television. How is that a view in favor of freedom? People don't like it? Fine, they retain the right to freedom of thought and speech, they can not like it all you want. And I have the right to call them a idiot and a bigot. Thats how freedoms works. And the Hub has the right to show as many shows in support of cross-dressing as they want.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Civil rights and women's suffrage wasn't about changing people's beliefs, it was about extending constitutionally protected rights to groups who had been deprived of them. When segregation ended, it was "blacks now have the same legal rights as whites", not "blacks now have the same legal rights as whites, and you are banned from thinking they shouldn't".

People's attitudes are changed more easily by taking a non-combative approach, this was why MLK advocated non-violent protest for civil rights, or with Gandhi for expelling the British from India, to show people who was on the moral high-ground. When you have one person being the bully and the other being the victim, it's clear who is morally in the right in the situation.

On the other hand, when you have two sides screaming at one another, in this case one claiming that Shezow is a big conspiracy to turn kids into crossdressers and the other side screaming that anyone who has any issue with the show is a bigoted fascist, no one makes progress, as attacking and insulting people causes them to go into defense mode and makes the idea of them changing their beliefs even more remote.

Also, I haven't heard of anyone saying this show should be banned. Actually, now that I think about it, the article from Ben Shapiro is the only thing I've heard anyone say about this show. I haven't seen a single fox-news pundit talk about it or seen a weekly standard article about it. This whole thing sounds like making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Civil rights was about so much more than just legal rights, that's why King had lines like "judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character", the goals were legal rights, as well as unity and a end to racism. And feminism in the 20s was more focused on legal battles, but in the 60s it became much more of a movement to affect social change. Besides that King described his movement as being spiritually aggressive yet non-violent, so it wasn't about complete pacivity, just a lack of physical violence. And you shouldn't be basing your beliefs on who seems nicer, you should be basing them on whose points make the most sense.

Aardvaarkman:

punipunipyo:

Nope... last time I check, the ONLY WAY to pass down my gene to the next generation, and to secure my kind's existence, in another words... NATURAL SELECTION SAYS: male + female = survival of our kind, sorry to break it to you, but no "mental sickness" here, which brings me to a good question... assuming you are on "the other side"... how do you intend to "pass your gene"? think about it...

Firstly, it's not really "your gene," is it? Your genetics are a combination of everything that went before you.

Secondly, why does it matter if you pass "your gene" to others? The only reason seems to be egotism. There's no need for more humans to exist in the world, there are more than enough already, probably too many for the available resources to be be sustainable. I'm curious as to why you think it's such necessity to reproduce.

Then there's the issue that plenty of heterosexuals don't have children either. Are they as invalid in your eyes as gay people, because they choose to have sex for pleasure rather than procreation? Is producing babies the only reason people exist?

WOA!? wait... "invalid"? I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth... second... nope... it IS my gene... I am the combination of my father and mother(as I was born, taking bio-material based off of their blueprints), and all my experiences/personalities/bio-mass I had accumulated over my life time are of my own, which WILL BE PASSED ON TO THE NEXT GEN. yes, I play a significant part in this...

from the way you answered me... I had few questions for you... as a friend...

1. Are you anti-social? as in... do you hate human? "..There's no need for more humans to exist in the world.."

2. Are you detached from your family members? "it's not really 'your gene,' is it? Your genetics are a combination of everything that went before you.Secondly, why does it matter if you pass 'your gene' to others?"

3. Did you REALLY think B4 you say things? "plenty of heterosexuals don't have children either. Are they as invalid in your eyes as gay people, because they choose to have sex for pleasure rather than procreation?" (there... you just proven my point of my first post...BTW, yes, sex for sake of pleasure "ONLY", is wrong...)

again... this is going off topic... I think we can REALLY have good discussion OUTSIDE this thread... please, I AM interested to chat about this whole philosophical/social/religious/scientific issue, I would like to know why you think the way you do... PM me or something... I'll try my best to let you know why I think the way I do... just not in this thread...

(TOPIC) again... YES, I am a strong (didn't use the word ANTI- this time)non-homosexual believer, and I'd be offended if a cartoon says "Homosexual is normal" to my kids... but again, "Shezow" isn't that, people who does think so need to chill out.. that's all... (first statement is there to make the second sound)

punipunipyo:
WOA!? wait... "invalid"? I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth

You said that you believe homosexuality is wrong. That is a synonym for saying that it is invalid.

... second... nope... it IS my gene... I am the combination of my father and mother(as I was born, taking bio-material based off of their blueprints), and all my experiences/personalities/bio-mass I had accumulated over my life time are of my own, which WILL BE PASSED ON TO THE NEXT GEN. yes, I play a significant part in this...

But why is it so important to you that those traits be passed on?

1. Are you anti-social? as in... do you hate human? "..There's no need for more humans to exist in the world.."

No, I think humans are great. But there is no shortage of them. In fact, making too many more humans could actually endanger the human species. Look into history and how over-population has doomed species and populations in the past.

3. Did you REALLY think B4 you say things?

Yes. That's kind of a weird thing to write for somebody who uses "B4" instead of actual words.

... you just proven my point of my first post...BTW, yes, sex for sake of pleasure "ONLY", is wrong...)

What makes it wrong? Is the only time you have sex when you want to conceive a child?

Whoa Whoa Whoa. The Hub isn't JUST for My Little Pony. They're slowly gathering all the classic WB cartoons as well. Superman, Batman, Batman Beyond, and even the Animaniacs! If you don't watch The Hub because of a single show which doesn't even air after 1:00 pm, you're missing out.

Another thing is that bob mentioned the international viewers. I don't know about most of Europe, but having watched a lot of Israeli television, it's almost impossible to see a show WITHOUT people cross-dressing every episode. And those are real people, not just cartoon characters (whose voice actor is most likely female anyway, don't forget). This seems to be an American-exclusive problem.

Jamane:
a transvetite superhero...

Does wearing female clothing even make a man a transvestite? I genuinely don't know, in my own mind its just clothes but its probably more complicated than that.

J Tyran:

Jamane:
a transvetite superhero...

Does wearing female clothing even make a man a transvestite? I genuinely don't know, in my own mind its just clothes but its probably more complicated than that.

"transvestite" is literally the word for a person who dresses in clothes associated with the other gender so... yes, yes it does.
This does not mean you are transgender that is different.

Lonewolfm16:

One example? Did you not read the parenthetical statement after my last sentence? Civil rights, feminism in the 20s and later the 60s, the abolitionist movement in the north, ect ect. And your view seems to be that since some people don't like cross-dressing, cross-dressing shouldn't be allowed on television. How is that a view in favor of freedom? People don't like it? Fine, they retain the right to freedom of thought and speech, they can not like it all you want. And I have the right to call them a idiot and a bigot. Thats how freedoms works. And the Hub has the right to show as many shows in support of cross-dressing as they want.

Um, none of those things came more easily because of "pushing" anything. Historically, "pushing" things of that nature creates DEEP divides in society and is not really the catalyst for ANY type of actual change. When there is injustice people should be made aware, hence the right of our citizenry to speak out and express their points of view. However, in all instances where ideology is "pushed" onto society there have been both divisive and often violent conflicts as a result.

And no I am not saying cross dressing should be banned from TV. What I am saying is that if people are allowed to put cross dressing on TV, or promote gay marriage, or any other random social issue, then the alternative points of view should have the same freedom REGARDLESS of what the vocal minority thinks is "right" or "fair". My initial post was not in reference to what should or shouldn't be on TV, but rather in response to the uninformed masses who were passing judgement on people who just happen to have a different point of view. No one is suggesting people have to agree, but to say that someone else does not have the right to speak their mind is ridiculous.

The comments before mine were filled with inaccuracies and exaggeration. They have a perfectly legitimate right to speak their minds, just as I do. I commented on the FACT that most of the com-mentors were basing their posts on either mis-information or pure speculation. Bob's videos are OP-ED pieces, nothing more and should be treated as such IMO.

theApoc:
And no I am not saying cross dressing should be banned from TV. What I am saying is that if people are allowed to put cross dressing on TV, or promote gay marriage, or any other random social issue, then the alternative points of view should have the same freedom REGARDLESS of what the vocal minority thinks is "right" or "fair".

They are allowed to. The vast majority of TV content contains "traditional" or "normative" depictions of gender roles. Also, what makes you think supporters of gender equality are a "vocal minority"?

This is a very strange angle to approach it from - because the story here is that a show that dares depict a male character in "female" clothes is being attacked, and people are saying it shouldn't be shown. Nobody has said anything about banning shows that show males in traditionally male clothes.

No one is suggesting people have to agree, but to say that someone else does not have the right to speak their mind is ridiculous.

When did anybody say that others don't have the right to speak their mind?

Bob's videos are OP-ED pieces, nothing more and should be treated as such IMO.

I don't think anybody ever thought otherwise. Perhaps you can point out who was claiming that Bob is a hard news reporter? He's obviously an entertainment reviewer.

What's wrong with op-ed pieces, anyway? Some of the best journalism ever written has been in the editorial/opinion format.

Ranma 1/2 laughs at this pathetic weakling who doesnt even have the "balls" to fully become a girl, merely dress as one.

Otherwise surprised this is an issue at all.

you know, it's funny that I saw this video JUST as I started watching Cyber 6 on youtube. Cyber 6 is about a transgendered hero as well, except that she's a female hero whose secret identity is a man. Of course that show is a drama along the lines of Batman the Animated Series while Shezow is a comedy with the gender swap reversed but the similarity IS there.

I couldn't find any articles or videos about this show from fox news. In fact the I can't find any Main-stream Conservative sites making any comments on this show. I feel like the only people making a big deal out of the show are people wanting to be outraged by some pretend controversy. Just to hate on the right wing for something they didn't even say or do.

I have no problem with the show and I don't think anyone does, besides apparently conspiracy theorist from my Internet searchings.

The constant mentioning of "conservatives" shows how partisanship is ruining good discussion. Its crazy to see anything harmful with this show, and the whole idea of a "gay agenda" is ridiculous as well, so why don't we specifically bash people who hold those beliefs rather than attacking an entire political philosophy that holds stances on a multitude of social and economic issues?

I have to wonder how some here would treat a moderate or liberal who thinks this show is a somehow a threat to our children. Would they get a free pass since much of this thread is about bashing conservatives rather than than bashing people who are anti-LGBT?

I'm not disagreeing with the general sentiment of the thread. Just pointing out that people should be focusing on the relevant belief rather than bringing up an entire ideology, comprised of many beliefs, 99% of which have nothing to do with this issue.

cthulhuspawn82:
The constant mentioning of "conservatives" shows how partisanship is ruining good discussion. Its crazy to see anything harmful with this show, and the whole idea of a "gay agenda" is ridiculous as well, so why don't we specifically bash people who hold those beliefs rather than attacking an entire political philosophy that holds stances on a multitude of social and economic issues?

I have to wonder how some here would treat a moderate or liberal who thinks this show is a somehow a threat to our children. Would they get a free pass since much of this thread is about bashing conservatives rather than than bashing people who are anti-LGBT?

I'm not disagreeing with the general sentiment of the thread. Just pointing out that people should be focusing on the relevant belief rather than bringing up an entire ideology, comprised of many beliefs, 99% of which have nothing to do with this issue.

My problem is that I can't find these conservatives that are supposedly bashing this show. I searched for an hour and every article about this show is about the "backlash" it has received however I've yet to find a single website or hell even post that even gives a fart.

If anyone can prove me wrong, but I think the hub is making this shit up in order to draw ratings to the show. The only nay-sayer was apparently someone at the hub who's whole reaction was basically "I'm not sure this is a good idea scooby!"

Capcha: peter out

Saw something like this before. I read a webcomic called Spinnerette (http://www.spinnyverse.com/) One of the Heroes in it is Green Gabe a male descendant of Anne of Green Gables. The traditional uniform being a dress and pigtails, just because he's male the family saw no reason to break with tradition. I thought it was a cool idea.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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
Registered for a free account here