General Current Events/Political Discussion

[avatar! | 1,811]

8 minutes ago, Hammerfestus said:

Buying American is a cute but ultimately pointless exercise.  Does buying American increase the wages of the workers producing it?  Or does it much like the tax cuts that were supposed to go to American workers and instead went into stock buybacks provide our society no actual benefit?

It's 100% not pointless.

It increases the manufacturing capabilities of the USA, which in turn means more jobs. This is econ 101 basics.

Secondly, I don't like to support repressive regimes. I will be the first to admit that the USA is far from perfect - although that is of course a different non-sequitur debate. By supporting the USA, or Canada, Germany, etc. you are NOT helping China which is a direct threat to democracy. 

[Tabonga | 2,318]

2 minutes ago, avatar! said:

It's 100% not pointless.

It increases the manufacturing capabilities of the USA, which in turn means more jobs. This is econ 101 basics.

It also keeps more money*  circulating within the US economy - and satellite/peripheral business will also benefit - be it something as mundane as paper supplies,  food trucks for the lunch hour, or local businesses that the workers will be able to use. Also the more demand for even unskilled/low skilled workers will create competition for good workers so wages will likely rise (maybe not immensely) -and most manufacturing plants will need higher skilled/specialized workers also.

*Depending on the business some money may have to go for outside raw materials for whatever widgets the company is making.

[Tulpa | 3,500]

3 hours ago, ThePhleo said:

As an added benefit, if people can no longer afford cheap goods then maybe they might hold onto their iPhone for an extra year, or not need a new TV every three to four years.

 

1 hour ago, avatar! said:

Sometimes it can't be helped - only one country makes the Switch for example.

It's a nice ideal, and some areas may come back, but electronics are a lost cause.

Just no way to compete with the China Industrial Machine in that area. They have all the materials, they crank it out so fast and so cheap, and can start up new projects in days, rather than months or years like we would.

Even imposing tariffs wouldn't work. They'd just outlast us until people rioted that they can't get the newest iPhone.

[avatar! | 1,811]

51 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

 

It's a nice ideal, and some areas may come back, but electronics are a lost cause.

Just no way to compete with the China Industrial Machine in that area. They have all the materials, they crank it out so fast and so cheap, and can start up new projects in days, rather than months or years like we would.

Even imposing tariffs wouldn't work. They'd just outlast us until people rioted that they can't get the newest iPhone.

I disagree. Also, you're wrong on the notion that everything in China now is "so cheap". This has NOT been true for years, here's an article from 2016 'Made in China' labor is not actually that cheap

https://money.cnn.com/2016/03/17/news/economy/china-cheap-labor-productivity/index.html

Another misconception is that China "has all the materials". That's not true either. The materials are globally distributed. It is true China has amassed many of them as they violently push to try and keep a monopoly and quash anything in their path. However, you simply can't hold all the resources. 

A third misconception you noted is that China would simply "outlast us". While China does of course have an authoritarian government and can therefore more easily control the populace, nonetheless it's not simple to control over a billion people. As China's economy shrinks 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52319936

many people are shitting bricks. Even with all their currency manipulation, you can't circumnavigate economics and China relies on the USA more than any other country to keep its economy strong. 

In short, the USA can have electronics manufacturing return. It's not simple by any means, but certainly doable. 

 

[Californication | 1,477]

1 hour ago, avatar! said:

It's 100% not pointless.

It increases the manufacturing capabilities of the USA, which in turn means more jobs. This is econ 101 basics.

Secondly, I don't like to support repressive regimes. I will be the first to admit that the USA is far from perfect - although that is of course a different non-sequitur debate. By supporting the USA, or Canada, Germany, etc. you are NOT helping China which is a direct threat to democracy. 

You do realize the U.S. is one of the biggest sources of violence and death in the world.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

1 hour ago, Tulpa said:

 

 

Even imposing tariffs wouldn't work. They'd just outlast us until people rioted that they can't get the newest iPhone.

If we REALLY wanted to, we could probably economically destabilize China faster than they could hurt us in return. 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

1 minute ago, Californication said:

You do realize the U.S. is one of the biggest sources of violence and death in the world.

The question is would you rather:

(a) support the USA 

or

(b) support China

Practically speaking, you have to do one or the other.

[Californication | 1,477]

41 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

The question is would you rather:

(a) support the USA 

or

(b) support China

Practically speaking, you have to do one or the other.

I am responding to Avatar!'s reasoning, I didn't give my opinion on manufacturing. 

I support manufacturing in the U.S. I just don't understand how it is possible with globalization. As we all know a company producing in the U.S. has higher input costs because our atandard of living is higher and thus workers are more expensive, so I think it would be hard for many company's to compete globally. 

I heard the Green New Deal has ideas on how to bring manufacturing back, but I haven't read it.

Edited July 4, 2020 by Californication

[cartman | 195]

On 7/2/2020 at 5:42 PM, Tulpa said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The creators of the show faulted their own show.

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

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

No their identity is not at stake. But their ego's or other issues might be because if a fictional comedic character (that is totally benign) pushes them off track then there is something underlaying there that should be worked on and not what happens or doesn't in the Simspsons. No you didn't decide what decision the Simpsons creators should make but you're defending/sympathising with these Indians cause. Like i said it's completely arbitrary on your end that there is a value here in particular while not in the cause of other moralists that complaing about profanity, violence or whatever else. You wouldn't want those to have a run at the show and get some of it's content altered but with these few Indians you agree with it.

So what if it was offensive? It's still the lowest level of offensive possible

[Californication | 1,477]

Also, I like the Hill, but China is not squarely to blame for this catastrophe. The U.S. response to the Novel Carona virus is nearly thr worst in the world. The Trump administration had information since November and did dick with it. 

I would agree that the manufacturing of things like PPE and pharmaceuticals need to be moved to the U.S., but that is differenct from believing it is possible for the U.S. to be a manufacturing center despite globalization. You would be moving pharma and PPE because of domestic security not for market based reasons. A company manufacturing PPE and pharma has elastic demand in the U.S. government; where as market based goods which are purchased based on their value proposition, have a harder time competing on.

Edited July 4, 2020 by Californication

[Tulpa | 3,500]

12 minutes ago, cartman said:

No their identity is not at stake.

Sure it is. It's how people perceive them. If they perceive them as a stereotype by what they saw on TV, it hurts them. People treat them differently based on what they saw.

When it gets reinforced for thirty years, it becomes ingrained in the culture.

It's time that stopped.

12 minutes ago, cartman said:

But their ego's or other issues might be because if a fictional comedic character (that is totally benign) pushes them off track then there is something underlaying there that should be worked on and not what happens or doesn't in the Simspsons.

It's not totally benign. And the Simpsons contributes to it. The creators even came out and said so.

So the creators of the Simpsons did their part and corrected it.

Good on them.

14 minutes ago, cartman said:

. No you didn't decide what decision the Simpsons creators should make but you're defending/sympathising with these Indians cause.

Because it's the right thing to do. They have a concern with how they're portrayed. Every culture should get a fair protrayal.

How you'd be against that, I have no idea.

15 minutes ago, cartman said:

Like i said it's completely arbitrary on your end that there is a value here in particular while not in the cause of other moralists that complaing about profanity, violence or whatever else.

It's not arbitrary. Cultural portrayal is specific to those cultures. When you make fun of those, it hurts the people targeted, and they did nothing to warrant it. They're just being themselves and living their lives, and poking fun at them for that isn't fair.

18 minutes ago, cartman said:

You wouldn't want those to have a run at the show and get some of it's content altered but with these few Indians you agree with it.

There are plenty of other things out there that can be addressed, but in this particular instance, I agree with both the Indians and the creators when they finally came around to seeing that their depiction of Apu, in regards to that aspect, is offensive.

And again, it's the only thing they changed about Apu. He's still on the show. Just another person will voice him other than the white guy WHO ADMITTED HIS PORTRAYAL WAS OFFENSIVE FROM THE GET GO!

20 minutes ago, cartman said:

So what if it was offensive? It's still the lowest level of offensive possible

I would disagree that it's the lowest level, but even if it were, it's still offensive.

And what did they do?

Did they cancel the show? No.

Did they fire Azaria? No.

Did the get rid of the character? No.

Did they simply change who would voice him? Yes.

Adequate response.

But you're up in arms over it. Is it because you like deliberately offensive stereotypes of culture? Well, that's on you and your humor.

[cartman | 195]

On 7/2/2020 at 5:42 PM, Tulpa said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The creators of the show faulted their own show.

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

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

No their identity wasn't at stake. A big ego and self-righteousness in not being able to take a joke and thinking everything should revolve around oneself and ones feelings is what was at stake but that should suffer a loss not be allowed to prevail like it did now. They're the one showing disrespect to others not the other way around. No you didn't influence the Simpson creators choice but you are agreeing with it and these Indians sentiment. You wouldn't have wanted violence or profanity moralisers for example to get their way or the moralisers about other aspects of the Simspsons (wich were there way about this non-issue with Apu) but here you support it. Like i said you're running on arbitrary grounds in the support of self-censorship.

So if it was supposed to sound offensive? It's still the most benign example of offensiveness possible to the point that it isn't even worth mentioning. A ton of characters and behaviours were already much more offensive and they got to continue but now with the SJW hysteria going on and their monopoly of narrative on racial issues the whole society must bend over accordingly and draw the line on every-increasing levels of bullshit. No he shouldn't be offended if it was a Jewish character either. 

The rights of Simpsons fans and creators who have been having this character since forever. The rights of other Indians who might've disagreed with blowing this non-issue. But this guy who made a documentary and a select few of complainers, all of sudden they be the ones who should get to alter the show. Yes they were pressured and they bitched out. Simpson fans can override others feelings yes just like others override theirs. Because there are shows that the individual Simpson fan will dislike but he won't be catered to.

Any jerk-off can make a documentary aswell or write on facebook/twitter. So on what basis do you denounce those downvotes and negative comments on youtube while elevating those of the Indians that complained?

No we are not talking about cultural identity we are talking about comedy and who should have the right to do it. If you're barring a white person from certain types of comedy then you're making a racist stance. About Dr. Hibbert, they actually do intend to remove all white voice actors of minority character so now it isn't merely how Apu sounded. But we all knew this already and that the issue is a white guy doing a dark guy voice period, those arguments that it's rather about how it's done aren't really true. They'll cut the white guy out just on being white and ofcourse they'll never cut out a minority voice actor doing another race regardless. 

The majority didn't rally no but who says you should get your way just because you complain? The creators knew they've only heard a few voices but they caved in anyway. The default mode is that Apu should stay it's the objectionists that should show that they speak for anyone but the few of themselves not the other way around. Should there be a pro-active poll for everything to counter the outliers? It's the outliers that need to validate their cause.  These few Indians didn't validate shit but rather got the advantage due to an innate bias to side with those who are getting offended and especially on a racial issue. The voice of the offended gets valued higher especially on racial issues.

Like i said Hibbert will be canned. Carl and Cleveland too. The main contention is a white guy doing a non-white voice they don't really care whether it's offensive or not content wise they'll automatically think it is. It's most definitely a racist sentiment but because it's a white guy on the recieving end it won't count for anything. If a white guy said a black guy shouldn't do his voice HE would be the one called out on being racist it would be a hypocritical 360-flip from those people who argued that races should do their own voices.

There are minorities doing other minority characters by the way too:

 

[avatar! | 1,811]

1 hour ago, Californication said:

You do realize the U.S. is one of the biggest sources of violence and death in the world.

Heh. 

Let me ask you, about how many people die each year in the world due to homicide? Any idea? 

It's about 400,000  in 2017, so let's say it might be as high as 500,000 today. 

Terrorism? around 30,000

Suicide and HIV - close to a million each.

Cancer - around 10 million.

Cardiovascular disease - around 20 million. 

So, I'm guessing you're saying that the USA spreads cardiovascular disease around the world? McDonald's and such the like? Yeah, you might be right about that.

 

[Californication | 1,477]

26 minutes ago, avatar! said:

Heh. 

Let me ask you, about how many people die each year in the world due to homicide? Any idea? 

It's about 400,000  in 2017, so let's say it might be as high as 500,000 today. 

Terrorism? around 30,000

Suicide and HIV - close to a million each.

Cancer - around 10 million.

Cardiovascular disease - around 20 million. 

So, I'm guessing you're saying that the USA spreads cardiovascular disease around the world? McDonald's and such the like? Yeah, you might be right about that.

 

You said you have a problem with China because they have human rights abuses. 

I said the U.S. causes violence and death around the world. I was referring to the endless wars we are a part of as well as the weapons we sell around the world.

You brought up how much people die from cardio vascular disease, suicide, cancer. What does that have to do with the conversation?

Edited July 4, 2020 by Californication

[avatar! | 1,811]

4 minutes ago, Californication said:

You said you have a problem with China because they have human rights abuses. 

I said the U.S. causes violence and death around the world. I was referring to the endless wars we are a part of as well as the weapons we sell around the world.

You brought up how much people die from cardio vascular disease, suicide, cancer. What does that have to do with the conversation?

While undoubtedly the USA, like China, Russia, and numerous countries, "meddles" in the affairs of other countries (sometimes very unfortunately), you have not shown any evidence for your claim! You said "he U.S. is one of the biggest sources of violence and death in the world" and I pointed out what are the leading causes of violence and death in the world. I think it's pretty clear how that relates to the conversation you started. By the way, just to be clear, simply stating "the U.S. causes violence and death around the world" without any facts and evidence is asinine. I know that China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and some other authoritarian countries would agree with you, but many countries would very much disagree with you as well. 

[Tulpa | 3,500]

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

No their identity wasn't at stake. A big ego and self-righteousness in not being able to take a joke and thinking everything should revolve around oneself and ones feelings is what was at stake but that should suffer a loss not be allowed to prevail like it did now.

Yes, it was, because it's what they live with every day.

It's not "taking a joke" because they get assailed every day. You may not see it, but they sure do.

They don't want everything to revolve around themselves. They want this one aspect to be addressed.

You're the one who seems to think that what you like to laugh at shouldn't be touched.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

No you didn't influence the Simpson creators choice but you are agreeing with it and these Indians sentiment. You wouldn't have wanted violence or profanity moralisers for example to get their way or the moralisers about other aspects of the Simspsons (wich were there way about this non-issue with Apu) but here you support it. Like i said you're running on arbitrary grounds in the support of self-censorship.

I agree with it because I agree that people within a culture have a right to their culture. They have a right to be portrayed in a fair way.

It is not arbitrary. It's part of being a decent human being.

That is in no way arbitrary. It's called treating people with respect.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

So if it was supposed to sound offensive? It's still the most benign example of offensiveness possible to the point that it isn't even worth mentioning.

It is worth mentioning because people have been affected. They tell stories about how they're treated because of stereotypes. That has been a grievance of minorities since they got a voice.

 

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

A ton of characters and behaviours were already much more offensive and they got to continue but now with the SJW hysteria going on and their monopoly of narrative on racial issues the whole society must bend over accordingly and draw the line on every-increasing levels of bullshit.

Or, society must reassess its horrible treatment of minorities in this day and age.

You call it bullshit, I call it treating people with respect.

Maybe if you saw what they saw you'd change your tune.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

No he shouldn't be offended if it was a Jewish character either. 

But he would be offended. He said he would be offended. Who are you to decide what someone else is offended by?

Should blacks not be offended by the things they're assailed with every day? They should just suck it up and take it?

If you got that level of treatment, I find it hard to believe you wouldn't speak up. Heck, you're speaking up right now. Very vocally. You want that taken away? Maybe you should "suck it up."

Doesn't feel good, does it? Maybe you can see where they're coming from.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

The rights of Simpsons fans and creators who have been having this character since forever.

The fans don't have a "right" to Apu. The creators do, and they exercised that right. They changed Apu. They decided that old Apu voiced by Azaria was wrong. That's their right to do so.

The Indians have rights to their culture and how it is portrayed. The creators decided to exercise their right to do something in response.

That's how the world works.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

But this guy who made a documentary and a select few of complainers, all of sudden they be the ones who should get to alter the show.

They voiced their complaint and the creators responded. The complainers did not alter the show, the creators did.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

Yes they were pressured and they bitched out.

Or they made a reasonable decision based on where they want their show to go. Maybe they decided to make it less offensive.

And how did a small minority pressure them? Because the majority of society was also behind them. Majority rules.

I guess you want them to be more offensive. Like I said, that's on you.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

Simpson fans can override others feelings yes just like others override theirs. Because there are shows that the individual Simpson fan will dislike but he won't be catered to

My guess is the majority didn't give a shit. Or recognized it was time for a change.

At any rate, society didn't give this small minority unlimited power unless the majority also agreed with them. That's how it works. There's no mystical power in this minority.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

Any jerk-off can make a documentary aswell or write on facebook/twitter. So on what basis do you denounce those downvotes and negative comments on youtube while elevating those of the Indians that complained?

On the basis that the guy who made the documentary was from the culture. He lays out his grievances. The creators listened to that and others and made their own decision.

You can make a documentary, too, if you want. But good luck getting people to listen when your culture stake in this consists of "I think Apu's offensive stereotype voice is funny!"

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

No we are not talking about cultural identity we are talking about comedy and who should have the right to do it.

The cultural identity is what the comedy is poking fun at.

The creators have the right to do it. And they have the right to change it. They decided to change it.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

If you're barring a white person from certain types of comedy then you're making a racist stance.

Or the creators decided to reevaluate the way they do the voices and make them culturally authentic.

That's their call, and what they're doing.

Again, no tiny vocal minority is pressuring them if they did it themselves, or if they decide that's the way it will be in society at large.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

About Dr. Hibbert, they actually do intend to remove all white voice actors of minority character so now it isn't merely how Apu sounded. But we all knew this already and that the issue is a white guy doing a dark guy voice period, those arguments that it's rather about how it's done aren't really true. They'll cut the white guy out just on being white and ofcourse they'll never cut out a minority voice actor doing another race regardless. 

Or they're deciding to nip in the bud before it becomes controversial. Why not? There are plenty of voice actors out there of all races and identities. Why not give them a chance? The current voice actors seem willing to do so.

Again, there's no way a small minority is pressuring people to do things, unless society itself is also behind them. In which case trying to stick to old, stereotypical tropes its on its way out.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

The majority didn't rally no but who says you should get your way just because you complain?

You have the right to complain. I have the right to complain. The Indians have the right to complain. And then the creators have the right to look at the context of the complaints and see where it fits.

In 2020, they decided offensive, stereotypical voices have no place. So they're changing it.

If you complain and you're not being heard, then you need to look at what you're complaining about, or get your voice heard better.

There's nothing that decided that small groups have all the say.

 

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

The creators knew they've only heard a few voices but they caved in anyway.

Or they looked at what they were doing and decided they agreed.

A small minority who complained isn't all the Simpsons watchers. They made a decision based on what would keep their viewers in today's society, which has no place for stereotypes of this nature.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

The default mode is that Apu should stay it's the objectionists that should show that they speak for anyone but the few of themselves not the other way around.

Again, though, the creators agreed with the people who objected and decided to make a change that would not fundamentally change Apu. Apu is not just that voice. He's a complete character. The creators decided that stereotypes were not part of Apu anymore.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

Should there be a pro-active poll for everything to counter the outliers? It's the outliers that need to validate their cause.

And they did. By saying this was offensive to their identity.

And the creators, again, agreed.

Because society is moving away from stereotypes. Again, the outliers would have no power if the majority wasn't behind them.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

These few Indians didn't validate shit but rather got the advantage due to an innate bias to side with those who are getting offended and especially on a racial issue. The voice of the offended gets valued higher especially on racial issues.

The bias would not be there if the majority of society agreed. Society says that people in a culture have the right to their identity.

The few Indians do not have power just because they are few and vocal. There are a lot of loudmouths out there, but the ones who actually have a grievance that society in general supports get heard.

Again, they had one issue with one aspect of Apu.

They got it addressed.

Is Apu gone? No.

Is the show canceled? No.

Is Azaria gone? No.

This one issue was important to them. And the creators agreed.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

Like i said Hibbert will be canned. Carl and Cleveland too.

No, they'll just have a voice the creators believe to be more authentic.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

The main contention is a white guy doing a non-white voice they don't really care whether it's offensive or not content wise they'll automatically think it is.

Or the creators just want to try a new voice out that has a dude actually from that culture. There are distinctions.

Again, it's up to the creators. They decide to follow where society is going.

Stereotypes of this nature have no place in 2020 or beyond.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

It's most definitely a racist sentiment but because it's a white guy on the recieving end it won't count for anything. If a white guy said a black guy shouldn't do his voice HE would be the one called out on being racist it would be a hypocritical 360-flip from those people who argued that races should do their own voices.

That's the dominance of white culture. The majority of actors out there are white dudes, and the majority of roles are identifiable as white. I don't see a shortage of roles for white voice actors. People of color have traditionally struggled.

White dudes are rarely portrayed in a stereotypical manner, and when it is usually as a critique on the utter dominance of white culture. White people are in on the joke. They're not going to be in the minority, they're not going to fall out of power, and they're not going to be oppressed or suffer the detriment the people of color do by stereotypical portrayals. Society as a whole recognizes this distinction. Jim Crow will not be applied to white people.

There's nothing jokey about stereotypes of people of color. That comedy is dead.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

There are minorities doing other minority characters by the way too:

And Key and Peele can decide for themselves when that time comes.

Edited July 4, 2020 by Tulpa

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

7 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

Quick and dirty poll:

Us citizens- would you pay more for consumer items, to reduce our reliance on China? Ex.- Would you pay 15% more for electronics, to bring 8% of manufacturing back to the US?
 

like this post With a heart if yes,
 

Like it with a trophy if no.

 

(if my numbers are way off or dont make sense, vote for a generic increase in cost of consumer items, to bring back a generic amount of manufacturing)

 

Honest to God corona virus was the last straw. I buy anything local whenever I can and buy from local shops instead of target/walmart/home depot whenever possible since they are the big Chinese goods purveyors around here. Toys are mostly unavoidable though. Food, clothes, and tools I buy american when I can.

[Rhino | 105]

11 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

Honest to God corona virus was the last straw. I buy anything local whenever I can and buy from local shops instead of target/walmart/home depot whenever possible since they are the big Chinese goods purveyors around here. Toys are mostly unavoidable though. Food, clothes, and tools I buy american when I can.

Almost everything you buy is not made entirely in America. It's virtually impossible for every part and every resource of a product to only be made in the U.S. Most people buy whatever is cheapest, so until U.S products can compete price wise with stuff made in China, people will keep buying products made in China. 

[Hammerfestus | 3,846]

So yeah I understand the folks whose comments amounted to buy stuff = money.  Point being you are not going to even begin to move the needle on manufacturing.  Nike goes American made only?  Nike goes out of business. Not that I don’t think that they shouldn’t.
Thanks to all knowing capitalism our economy has become based on usury.

[Rhino | 105]

38 minutes ago, Californication said:

You said you have a problem with China because they have human rights abuses. 

I said the U.S. causes violence and death around the world. I was referring to the endless wars we are a part of as well as the weapons we sell around the world.

You brought up how much people die from cardio vascular disease, suicide, cancer. What does that have to do with the conversation?

You should look up what Russia does regarding wars and weapons. You'll have a good read. 

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

Just now, Rhino said:

Almost everything you buy is not made entirely in America. It's virtually impossible for every part and every resource of a product to only be made in the U.S. Most people buy whatever is cheapest, so until U.S products can compete price wise with stuff made in China, people will keep buying products made in China. 

Well, yes. That much I hope is obvious. It's why I say "when I can". It's a global economy, after all and impossible to go cold turkey against Chinese made goods.

[Hammerfestus | 3,846]

Also do we really need more 30 page take downs of cartman?   He’s already shown his debate capabilities to be inferior and his opinions to be high edgelord.  Got it.  He thinks Varg is on to a major breakthrough.  In fact I’m not sure he’s not Varg.

[Tulpa | 3,500]

3 minutes ago, Hammerfestus said:

Also do we really need more 30 page take downs of cartman?   He’s already shown his debate capabilities to be inferior and his opinions to be high edgelord.  Got it.  He thinks Varg is on to a major breakthrough.  In fact I’m not sure he’s not Varg.

I'm wiling to agree to disagree if he is.

[Kguillemette | 1,544]

5 minutes ago, Hammerfestus said:

Also do we really need more 30 page take downs of cartman?   He’s already shown his debate capabilities to be inferior and his opinions to be high edgelord.  Got it.  He thinks Varg is on to a major breakthrough.  In fact I’m not sure he’s not Varg.

The only Varg I am aware of was the the black metal dude who murdered his bandmate and burned down churches. Not exactly someone I'd want to be compared to!

[Link | 2,712]

1 hour ago, cartman said:

A big ego and self-righteousness in not being able to take a joke and thinking everything should revolve around oneself

And your ego says you should be allowed to dictate that nothing is allowed to change, no matter who is involved. 

1 hour ago, cartman said:

You wouldn't have wanted violence or profanity moralisers for example to get their way or the moralisers about other aspects of the Simspsons

Why can’t you understand that there’s a difference between “family values” and racial stereotypes? 

1 hour ago, cartman said:

Simpson fans can override others feelings yes just like others override theirs. Because there are shows that the individual Simpson fan will dislike but he won't be catered to.

 

Where are all of the poor, downtrodden Simpsons fans who did not want this change to happen? Has anyone but you said boo about this and written it down?