General Current Events/Political Discussion

[fcgamer | 4,723]

3 minutes ago, Gloves said:

Getting a bit personal, dial it back.

I'm just listening to music and playing guitar while browsing, I'm relaxed and not going for any juglars personally

[Gloves | 11,779]

Just now, fcgamer said:

I'm just listening to music and playing guitar while browsing, I'm relaxed and not going for any juglars personally

Just too many "you"s going around. Trying to nip that in the bud.

[Link | 2,712]

20 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

an Englishman using a German accent 

Who is hurt by this? 

[fcgamer | 4,723]

Just now, Link said:

Who is hurt by this? 

If an American using an exaggerated indian accent is offensive, why wouldn't an American (or in my previous example, an Englishman) using an exaggerated German accent be offensive? In both situations we would be making generalisations, reinforcing stereotypes, and potentially poking fun at minority groups.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

Just now, fcgamer said:

If an American using an exaggerated indian accent is offensive, why wouldn't an American (or in my previous example, an Englishman) using an exaggerated German accent be offensive? In both situations we would be making generalisations, reinforcing stereotypes, and potentially poking fun at minority groups.

Germans are a minority group?

[Link | 2,712]

Find me a German person who is hurt by this. We know the case for offense to Indian people. Where is the offended German?

[fcgamer | 4,723]

3 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Germans are a minority group?

Indians are a minority group?

[fcgamer | 4,723]

4 minutes ago, Link said:

Find me a German person who is hurt by this. We know the case for offense to Indian people. Where is the offended German?

Offense to Indians, or to an Indian-American? Let's please clarify

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

14 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

The same mate, the same.

Nah, you like to talk about yourself and you've provided tons of color about yourself and your living situations in this thread. I know a LOT more about you than you do about me. So for you to say that my viewpoint is simply based on an agenda I've chosen to back with my friends is extremely ignorant. 

[Link | 2,712]

That’s what I thought.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

2 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Offense to Indians, or to an Indian-American? Let's please clarify

Continue using semantics to justify racism. 

[fcgamer | 4,723]

1 minute ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Nah, you like to talk about yourself and you've provided tons of color about yourself and your living situations in this thread. I know a LOT more about you than you do about me. So for you to say that my viewpoint is simply based on an agenda I've chosen to back with my friends is extremely ignorant. 

Nah, you don't have any idea about me bro, you only know the front that I present to this forum and online. If you only knew more than the painted iceberg.

[fcgamer | 4,723]

2 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Continue using semantics to justify racism. 

Hahaha, totally different groups Cody, you try to say they are one and the same and you're bound to ruffle a lot of feathers ...

[OptOut | 8,884]

ibtl

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

Trump is the worst president I have seen in my lifetime by a long shot. Not even close. W screwed up Iraq hard and cost hundreds of thousands of lives, but that was a much more complex answer since we were literally under attack. You can at least make the argument that he did his best with the Intel and info that he had. Covid should have been a layup for Trump and he screwed it up royally! Tough situation, but the solution to get us through is startlingly obvious. If he didn't wait 4 months to endorse wearing masks in an effort to shore up his "fans."...

I can't with him. He has 30% of the republican voters totally duped and eating out of his hand by acting like an asshat in public. He is just being a reality show character and so many people cannot tell the difference. Because to most people, perception>reality.

 

[fcgamer | 4,723]

2 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

Trump is the worst president I have seen in my lifetime by a long shot. Not even close. W screwed up Iraq hard and cost hundreds of thousands of lives, but that was a much more complex answer since we were literally under attack. You can at least make the argument that he did his best with the Intel and info that he had. Covid should have been a layup for Trump and he screwed it up royally! Tough situation, but the solution to get us through is startlingly obvious. If he didn't wait 4 months to endorse wearing masks in an effort to shore up his "fans."...

I can't with him. He has 30% of the republican voters totally duped and eating out of his hand by acting like an asshat in public. He is just being a reality show character and so many people cannot tell the difference. Because to most people, perception>reality.

 

Right, because as we all know, it's all Trump's fault that half the country doesn't want to wear masks.

Look at the stark reality of it, the global world health organisation said that masks were valueless, how should a non expert like Trump be expected to know otherwise, when the information provided was bogus and was heavily preached?! Same for others living in the country, and essentially everywhere outside of Asia.

I'm sorry you've been digesting too much of the China juice bro, I'm sorry. 

[fcgamer | 4,723]

I have no idea where this is from in the USA, one of the guys I know asked a local doctor I know about the circled part, it's from a friend's test:

 

[fcgamer | 4,723]

Maybe this sort of shit + love for Tedros, chairman pooh, and hate against Trump is why there is such a situation now about masks, conspiracy theories, etc.

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

People are to wear masks to protect others, not themselves. I thought that this was common knowledge?

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

9 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Right, because as we all know, it's all Trump's fault that half the country doesn't want to wear masks.

Trump says he'd wear mask in small crowd but questions need for mandatory use

His follower base will believe anything he says. So yes, he is to blame. This article is from YESTERDAY. Regardless of initial briefing, he should have all the facts by now, JULY OF 2020. 

Trump influences the US citizens far more than the WHO could ever dream to. 

[Tulpa | 3,501]

2 hours ago, cartman said:

I wasn't talking about their identity there i was talking about who should be catered to and have artistic work altered for them.

There identity is what is at stake. One tiny (but important) aspect was altered out of consideration. So that an entire culture wasn't insulted every week on network TV. It was a reflection of who they were.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

You've decided arbitrarily that these should and other moralists shouldn't when you don't have any case other than subjective sympathies to go on

I didn't decide squat. The creators themselves decided to correct a cultural insult. You did read kgullimette's post, right?

"There is a difference. Hank Azaria was instructed to make Apu sound offensive from the get go. He was never trying to sound authentic. There's a quote in here from a 2007 interview with Azaria that supports this. Apu was never meant to be an accurate representation. He was always meant to be offensive."

https://www.insider.com/apu-the-simpsons-racism-controversy-2018-4

That article was from two years ago.

The creators then decided they were wrong and changed it. Changed it themselves!

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/02/hank-azaria-exits-apu-the-simpsons

"Speaking to the New York Times, Azaria expanded on his epiphany about how Apu was received in pop culture, noting that if there was a similar character which played up Jewish stereotypes, he would be offended. (Azaria is Jewish.) “I started thinking, if that character were the only representation of Jewish people in American culture for 20 years, which was the case with Apu, I might not love that,” he said.""

So the creators you're supporting are the ones making their own change.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

Everyone has feelings. No you haven't said "don't show violence because it encourages bad behaviour" but that is exactly my point. You're already saying NO to moralist with a different flavor but here all of a sudden you say YES when others are at the recieving end of getting the content they enjoy altered.

People who enjoy the Simpsons aren't a cultural group or identity. No one goes around making fun of Simpsons fans, or mocks their accent, or makes assumptions about them.

There's no moral equivalent to Indian culture and people in Simpsons fans.

Which includes those same Indian people, BTW.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

Like i said everyone has feelings so how should you make anything out of it? Yes it does matter. When someone uses his feelings to override other peoples rights it becomes oppression.

Who overrode any rights?

The creators could have ignored the requests by the Indian people, but they chose not to do so. They chose to make their art more inclusive.

They saw their creation was offensive and agreed with the assessment and changed it.

They can change their own art, you know?

And you don't suddenly get to decide that they were "pressured" to do it. No one held a gun to their head.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

How can it not matter that one group of Indians get to speak for all Indians and all Simpson fans in general?

So Simpsons fans can override what people of the culture feel?

Again, some Indians simply spoke up that they were uncomfortable,  and the CREATORS OF THE SHOW MADE THE DECISION TO CHANGE.

The absolute arbiters of the show, the creators, made the decision.

So clearly they weighed whatever the pros and cons were and decided to change the aspect.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

I saw the so-called problem of Apu on youtube and the overwhelming response was negative towards his sentiment.

Any jerkoff can post on a Youtube comment. That is not definitive proof. I can post right now "I'm Indian and I'm perfectly okay with this," and you'd never know.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

Who says something is proper based on who gets the voice rather than what is being said or done?

The creators of the show, obviously. And the culture being represented gets a voice.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

If someone put up an offensive thing then it should be offensive regardless or you're making a racist argument.

It was offensive and racist. Azaria itself said:

"I've since learned that a lot of Southern Asian people, a lot of Indian people, found that Peter Sellers* portrayal offensive," he said. "Sometimes over the years, I've gotten some flack for Apu. Which I understand."

*where Peter Sellers is playing an Indian person in a 1968 movie.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

Either Apu shouldn't look and talk like he does regardless or he should but if you say he shouldn't because the creator is white then it is racism

The white guy can't pull it off. He's making the accent obviously offensive. He even admitted to it. So instead, they're choosing to reassign the white guy.

We're not even sure who Apu's next voice actor will be, but they're considering Indian actors to do it in a way closer to their revised vision.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

So even if i conceded that Apu was offensive you're still making a racist argument by excluding a white guy specifically from playing him. It isn't "cut and dry" not even close. 

Except were talking now about cultural identity and giving a person from that identity a chance. That wasn't even given consideration before. The default was always "let the white guy do it."

BTW, Dr. Hibbert isn't played by a black guy, but no one complains about him, because he's not a stereotype. Apu is a stereotype. That's the difference.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

They were proven to be what? The conservatives didn't care about how family life etc. was being portrayed they just faked that they did?

There's no one monolith of family life and the Simpsons family is clearly not conservative.

We're talking cultural identity here. The Simpsons are not like Apu, being held up as a representative of a singular culture in one character.

Conservatives just didn't like the show and tried to shut the whole thing down (something the Indians didn't try to do, BTW.)

This isn't equivalent.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

Even then you'd have no case. The sentiment isn't dependant on them specifically to be valid as an argument. The point is that such a sentiment exists and could be made. You think nobody who would make a sentiment against "immoral depictions in movies" is sincere?

They can be sincere if their argument is that it is directed at them. Conservatives weren't the depiction in the Simpsons. Indians were the depiction in Apu.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

I mean you're literally defending some of them yourself. Ofcourse the sentiment exists even without the focus on race, by focusing on violence or sex. Profanity, whatever. So no you can't dismisse those causes as fake and the few Indians complaining about race as legitimate.

The conservative movement that went after the Simpsons (not conservatives in general, BTW) doesn't even hold up to the standards they try to hold others up to. They don't adhere to "Christian" principles, principles of family, etc. So yeah, I can say they're fake. I've seen it time and again.

Indians asked for one thing. One thing important to them, but would not affect the overall show, to be changed.

Conservatives against the Simpsons wanted the entire show burned to the ground.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

A few might've come out and said "this might give viewers a false impression of us" but i don't think the majority would've had that mindset. The majority even if they didn't like Apu i think would recognize that he isn't a collective representation and if they don't well that's on them.

The majority you're alluding to didn't rally around Apu and said "Don't change him." The creators were going off of the feedback they were getting, and they themselves changed it.

AGAIN, THE CREATORS THEMSELVES CHANGED IT.

If this majority you say exists wanted Apu to remain the same, they sure stayed quiet about it.

Or they didn't care.

Either way, the Apu purists seems to be either small or non-vocal.

But again, the creators of the show made the assessment to make their own creation more inclusive. Apu's voice actor wasn't given the heave-ho, he just moved on.

They can create another character for him to voice.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

You can't fault a show for what you think others might feel when watching it when you don't know that.

The creators of the show faulted their own show.

The people you want to defend made the decision to change!

 

2 hours ago, cartman said:

I never thought Apu was anything but an individual.

Apu is an individual. I never denied that. I agree.

But that one accent, designed from the get-go to be a stereotype, admitted by Azaria, was considered offensive.

APU IS STILL ON THE SHOW!

He'll just be voiced by someone else who won't be doing a stereotype.

He'll still have his individuality.

 

2 hours ago, cartman said:

So Apu's character is not the problem it's the white dude speaking for him. Wich like i said is the literal definition of racism.

The stereotypical accent was racism that was put out in public. It was directed at an entire culture.

Again, we don't know Apu's next voice actor, but someone whose natural accent is Indian might be the best from purely creative standpoint.

That's the creator's call.

They clearly felt the white guy doing it can now do something else, and that they want to make Apu's accent more representative.

Azaria isn't being fired. He still does Moe and whoever else. And Azaria is fine with it.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

If the problem isn't how he looks or how he sounds but whether a white person is involved you've put all the focus on race and none of the focus on behaviour so how can that not be racism?

The problem is how he sounds. Again, Hibbert is voiced by a white guy, but not done in a stereotype way. Azaria was doing a deliberate offensive accent. He and the creators decided to change it.

That's the difference. There's no racism, just correcting of racism.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

How can it possibly be more blatant thant straight up delcaring "you're not welcome because your color/background is X"?

He's not unwelcome, Azaria himself doesn't want to do the role anymore. The creators themselves decided.

You're acting like society as a whole decided this.

No, that's not how it went down.

Indians used their voice to ask for change. The creators listened, decided it had merit, and changed it. I just happened to agree with it. I didn't write letters to the creators, I merely agree.

2 hours ago, cartman said:

You can't racialize and then pick and choose whether it's gonna count as racism, it automatically is.

You're really trying to argue semantics here.

We all know what the issue is. The stereotype accent of Apu. It made certain people uncomfortable. Azaria from the start made the accent offensive.

People spoke up. The creators looked at it. They themselves decided it was offensive and finally changed it.

People ask for things to be changed all the time.

Sometimes it gets changed, sometimes it doesn't.

This time it did.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Tulpa

[captmorgandrinker | 1,649]

13 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

People are to wear masks to protect others, not themselves. I thought that this was common knowledge?

It should be common knowledge, but that's not getting shouted from the rooftops like the "don't infringe on my rights" narrative.

Seriously, how much does it put one out to wear a mask for a few hours?   I understand some with legit health reasons can't wear them, but not all these fuckers I see without them.  

 

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

1 minute ago, captmorgandrinker said:

It should be common knowledge, but that's not getting shouted from the rooftops like the "don't infringe on my rights" narrative.

Seriously, how much does it put one out to wear a mask for a few hours?   I understand some with legit health reasons can't wear them, but not all these fuckers I see without them.  

 

Things like the circled item @fcgamer showed is misleading. It is very easy to interpret this as "if you are healthy, there is no need to wear a mask". It ignores the fact that you can be an asymptomatic spreader without a mask. This has been well known for months.

[Tulpa | 3,501]

Authorities, I think it was the CDC, did say months ago that no mask was necessary, but then reversed that decision shortly after.

Probably because New York exploded in sick people in like two weeks.

It's been "wear a mask, please for the love of god wear a mask!" since then.

[Estil | 1,265]

Just like with condoms, masks only provide some protection and reduces the risk...but it cannot eliminate completely.  The very best and more important means of protection by far is as much "abstinence" (social distancing) as you realistically and reasonably can.