General Current Events/Political Discussion

[cartman | 195]

11 hours ago, Link said:

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

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

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? 

If it changes it should change organically not through a select few who feel they have the moral authority enforcing themselves onto others. I think it's pretty easy to see wich stance is the infringing one and wich is the reaction to the infringement. Why should i "understand" that a subjective moral cause is the one to trump all the others? Ofcourse i won't do that. Your talking from feelings nothing else.

Simpsons being the way it is was the default so those poor offended people should've validated their push for change not the other way around. But also those who liked it the way it was weren't even taken into account regardless it was these victimhood proponents that got to dictate change by the very nature of their cause. The vast majority probably didn't want this enforced change i'm pretty sure of that.

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,105]

Just now, Doctornick said:

Your life is about to change man, let us know what you think when you try them on!

I'll make sure to report back as soon as I try them!

[OptOut | 8,889]

Hey, @cartman, hey buddy, hey look:

This is you:

We're talking about shoes now. Do that instead.

[Doctornick | 419]

16 minutes ago, OptOut said:

Hey, @cartman, hey buddy, hey look:

This is you:

We're talking about shoes now. Do that instead.

Shoes that give you the power to impregnate your political opponents mind with legendary speeches.

[OptOut | 8,889]

Shoes that won't quit, even when you do.

Shoes that tie their own laces, even if they're velcro.

Shoes that hold down a steady job, to contribute to the family income.

Shoes made by magical elves, who were nonetheless paid a living wage.

Shoes that aren't afraid of no ghosts.

Shoes, made with care, made with love, made for you. By New Balance.

[cartman | 195]

13 hours ago, Tulpa said:

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

No, they would've continued living just fine with whatever cultural aspects they practise still remaining. But you want them to be untouchable and protected from comedy too wich is a right that generally speaking nobody is afforded. You're trying to equate ones own subjective feelings with what others should be watching or creating and at that point it stops being a right. A persons right stops when he starts to infringe upon anothers and this is what they've done to Simpsons. They've done it on a moral/philosophical plane if not an actual one because they didn't actively censor but the sentiment is the same: using ones own feelings to shut others down. It's shameful what they've done. Yes they want everything to revolve around themselves when a character should adhere to them there's no "just" involved. And i'm not the one touching other peoples shows they are the ones doing that.

Then you should also agree that people who don't want to see violence or profanity being portrayed on TV have a right for it not to exist. They have a right having shows and movies being portrayed "with decent human behavior" wich means that you won't be seeing what you like either. Oh what's that? "They can not watch what they dislike but they shouldn't enforce their views on others" oh well it's too late for that buddy because your upcoming movie or show is being altered to adapt to them. Culture or other issue, what you agree to is the right for peoples subjective morals and feelings to be enforced upon others.

Is Simpson at fault for how someone has been affected? Is Simpson at fault if some dumbass starts strangling his son when he gets ticked off? Should Scarface not exist because wannabe gangsters see him as an inspiration? You can apply the same view to anything and censor everything. Art can have unintended consequences but if you want to argue against it you'll have to face the whole spectrum of the counter-argument not have it stop at a convenient place.

Before the argument was "Apu sounds offensive and done by a white" as a reason but now it's "ok let's not have a white guy voicing a minority period"? Then why have you made a point Apu's voice in the first place? So the core of the argument is racial after all and the white guy should rightly be ousted from a potential minority role because he's white. Not because the character looks offensive, not because he sounds offensive - he is offensive because a white guy is doing him. Like i said before this is the very definition of racism one of it's core tenants: judging someone by how he looks rather than how he acts. But since it's "in the name of good" it doesn't count right? Racial discrimination against a white person doesn't count that's what we see here. That's also why black-on-white voice acting will not be challenged, the blacks doing white characters will get to keep doing them. And you justify it by whites being the majority so therefor it's ok to have double standards.

Should Key and Peele have been excluded from portraying other minorities or does it only apply to whites?

[cartman | 195]

14 hours 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.

There has been no such take down much less one coming from you. 

[OptOut | 8,889]

No one is even mentioning the most racist thing of all.

Bart Sampson is a ten year old boy, voiced by an old white lady.

Also, Apu is literally called a poo. That's racist.

[Hammerfestus | 3,860]

18 minutes ago, cartman said:

There has been no such take down much less one coming from you. 

Never said I did.  Why was no one else confused by what I meant?  

[cartman | 195]

1 minute ago, Hammerfestus said:

Never said I did.  Why was no one else confused by what I meant?  

I don't know ask them

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

I like to think of cartman as “high edgelord” now lol

 

Bet Cartman is anti new balance too 

[Gloves | 11,794]

Just now, MrWunderful said:

I like to think of cartman as “high edgelord” now lol

 

Bet Cartman is anti new balance too 

[cartman | 195]

1 hour ago, OptOut said:

Hey, @cartman, hey buddy, hey look:

This is you:

We're talking about shoes now. Do that instead.

I like Nike the other one i've never even heard about

[Tabonga | 2,324]

 

[Tulpa | 3,516]

28 minutes ago, cartman said:

No, they would've continued living just fine with whatever cultural aspects they practise still remaining.

They're not always living just fine. People have been making fun of them in real life. When it crosses into their real life, shit gets real. That needs to stop.

 

29 minutes ago, cartman said:

But you want them to be untouchable and protected from comedy too wich is a right that generally speaking nobody is afforded.

They have the right to go through life without being harassed. The Simpsons corrected that aspect. Why you'd be against it is beyond me.

30 minutes ago, cartman said:

You're trying to equate ones own subjective feelings with what others should be watching or creating and at that point it stops being a right.

It's not subjective. It's been happening to them in the real world.

The Simpsons creators adjusted their own creation to help stop part of it. Does it solve all of it? No, but the Simpsons creators did their part in their small way.

And it doesn't affect you one iota, unless your form of comedy is stereotypes. Again, on you.

31 minutes ago, cartman said:

A persons right stops when he starts to infringe upon anothers and this is what they've done to Simpsons.

And the same can be said for the Simpsons.

But the Indians haven't done anything except voice a complaint.

Again, THE FINAL CALL WAS THE PEOPLE WHO CREATED THE SIMPSONS.

32 minutes ago, cartman said:

They've done it on a moral/philosophical plane if not an actual one because they didn't actively censor but the sentiment is the same: using ones own feelings to shut others down.

All they did was voice a complaint.

All they did was say they didn't like it.

They did not exercise mystical powers.

They did not call upon some huge authority to smack the creators down.

They made a complaint and the Simpsons creators listened.

THAT IS ALL THAT HAPPENED.

34 minutes ago, cartman said:

It's shameful what they've done.

And giving Apu a shameful voice wasn't?

Come on, dude.

34 minutes ago, cartman said:

Yes they want everything to revolve around themselves when a character should adhere to them there's no "just" involved.

They had a stake in someone who portrayed them, and asked for

ONE

THING

to be changed.

35 minutes ago, cartman said:

And i'm not the one touching other peoples shows they are the ones doing that.

You could. If they portrayed your culture offensively, you could change.

You won't, because you feel anything goes, and that's fine, but you could.

Again, they didn't "touch" a show. They just made one complaint.

I feel you get frustrated by this because your complaints go unaddressed. Git gud. There's a way to make it happen, you just need to figure it out.

37 minutes ago, cartman said:

Then you should also agree that people who don't want to see violence or profanity being portrayed on TV have a right for it not to exist.

Violence and profanity aren't cultural aspects.

Even if they are, the Simpsons deals with it constantly. People offended aren't likely to watch them anyway. And again, THEY WANT IT COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN.

Indians just said, "Can you have someone do our voice respectfully? We like the show and the character otherwise."

39 minutes ago, cartman said:

They have a right having shows and movies being portrayed "with decent human behavior" wich means that you won't be seeing what you like either.

They have the Hallmark Channel.

Again, it is not comparable, as Link said up there.

41 minutes ago, cartman said:

They can not watch what they dislike but they shouldn't enforce their views on others" oh well it's too late for that buddy because your upcoming movie or show is being altered to adapt to them. Culture or other issue, what you agree to is the right for peoples subjective morals and feelings to be enforced upon others.

Again, a cultural identity resulted in one change, versus a group that wants to see the entire show taken off the air.

No Indian said the Simpsons shouldn't continue.

They didn't even say get rid of Apu.

42 minutes ago, cartman said:

Is Simpson at fault for how someone has been affected? Is Simpson at fault if some dumbass starts strangling his son when he gets ticked off?

You can't really tie those in to the Simpsons.

It's pretty clear that Apu was an offensive stereotype accent, on an otherwise good character.

And again, they asked for one change, not take the entire show off the air.

43 minutes ago, cartman said:

Should Scarface not exist because wannabe gangsters see him as an inspiration? You can apply the same view to anything and censor everything.

When did the Indians want to censor everything?

Where is this mass censoring that you're saying will happen?

It isn't.

It was one change. That hasn't snowballed.

One stereotype, in an era where stereotypes are already on their way out. No one finds them funny, except a few whose humor can go find something else to laugh at.

45 minutes ago, cartman said:

Art can have unintended consequences but if you want to argue against it you'll have to face the whole spectrum of the counter-argument not have it stop at a convenient place.

No, we don't.

We can look at this objectively.

Racial stereotypes are no longer funny in 2020, and they cause harm.

That aspect was excised from the Simpsons.

No other part of the character was eliminated.

South Park is still chugging along.

Subversive comedy is still present.

One aspect changed. One.

And life goes on.

47 minutes ago, cartman said:

Before the argument was "Apu sounds offensive and done by a white" as a reason but now it's "ok let's not have a white guy voicing a minority period"? Then why have you made a point Apu's voice in the first place? So the core of the argument is racial after all and the white guy should rightly be ousted from a potential minority role because he's white. Not because the character looks offensive, not because he sounds offensive - he is offensive because a white guy is doing him.

It was a conscious decision by the creators.

Apu was a definite problem. They corrected it.

The other characters, in the spirit of of inclusiveness, decided to allow more actors, ones of color, into the fold.

The white guys still voice characters.

They still have their jobs. Many more characters will be added they can voice.

They're just adding more actors of color to voice characters of color. Who can probably voice the character to the creators' new vision for the show.

51 minutes ago, cartman said:

. Like i said before this is the very definition of racism one of it's core tenants: judging someone by how he looks rather than how he acts.

How they act was the issue. Azaria's portrayal was offensive and it started the whole mess.

52 minutes ago, cartman said:

But since it's "in the name of good" it doesn't count right? Racial discrimination against a white person doesn't count that's what we see here. That's also why black-on-white voice acting will not be challenged, the blacks doing white characters will get to keep doing them. And you justify it by whites being the majority so therefor it's ok to have double standards.

The white people involved agreed with the change. And they have more voice roles than the people of color. Hell, for all we know they could have been the ones to suggest this.

When the white people have the lion's share of, well, everything, and they themselves decide to make it more equitable, that's a good thing.

The black voice actors didn't enforce this on them, they made their own decision.

55 minutes ago, cartman said:

Should Key and Peele have been excluded from portraying other minorities or does it only apply to whites?

That's up to them to decide.

[fcgamer | 4,729]

@Tulpa : Actually, an Indian-American made a documentary and voiced his personal complaints. You must not forget that last bit. Why not? Well because it changes a lot.

I currently reside in a country where a large portion of the population holds dual citizenship. Trust me , the "true" Taiwanense wouldn't want the Taiwanense-Americans to be representive of them and their culture, it's honestly sort of like comparing ferel cats to house cats, by 98% DNA they are the same, but the 2% experience makes a huge difference in their thoughts and actions.

I don't know, but if I'd venture a guess, there's a similar situation with Indians versus Indian-Americans.

[Tulpa | 3,516]

Apu is Indian-American. At least he's described as such. His "biography" says he's born in India and became a naturalized American citizen, and the documentary maker was born in New York City, but clearly both the fictional character and the real documentary person are of the same Indian culture and both identify as such.

At any rate, more people than just the documentary maker had an issue.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Tulpa

[OptOut | 8,889]

35 minutes ago, cartman said:

I don't know ask them

Because either one of two things.

Either people care about Apu and are glad that it changed, or they don't care.

The only people who care about it but are NOT glad it has changed are people who want to use it to hammer home a political point. Like you. Let's face it, you don't care about Apu, you just want something to whine about.

I personally, don't care. I think Apu was funny as it was, and I don't think it was SUPER racist or anything, but I can understand how some people would be hurt or offended by it over the course of three whole decades. I honestly don't care if they keep it or change it. 

But, you are just way too blatant in how you're using it as a talking point to try and bolster your political attacks against the dreaded SJWs. So what? You're fine, I'm fine, we're all fine. You can watch the old episodes, the new ones are shit anyway. 

It's a bit tryhard dude. You REALLY enjoy arguing and fighting, I get it. It's fun. But YAWN. Get over it and move on. Boring. Let's start a new argument, please? Apu is done. 

[Link | 2,714]

3 hours ago, Rhino said:

The riots were actually most likely a bunch of criminals trying to take advantage of the situation. Destroy and loot under the guise of a protestor when in fact they didn't believe anything of the BLM movement. 

I’m sorry, you read “riots” and focused on that one word. 

3 hours ago, Rhino said:

There is no double standard for shootings. Every single one of them is terrible and are covered for a while. No one shrugs when people die from a shooting.

We send our thoughts and prayers. That, absent further action, is no more meaningful than a shrug. 

3 hours ago, Rhino said:

The left is just as bad as the right. Both have their brand and define the other side. You're racist, you support all.

Horrors, indeed.

3 hours ago, Rhino said:

Diversity comes in many forms. Its ignorant when people only refer to different races or genders as being diverse. You can have different levels of education, age, gender, race, job experience, sexual orientation, religion, hobbies, favorite food, really anything.

Well, I agree with that. Although hobbies and food are pretty inconsequential and more of a preference or choice relative to that other stuff. And your point is that...

3 hours ago, Rhino said:

You should NEVER hire someone solely because of one characteristic. You should always hire the best candidate. Don't just check a box. 

? OK. I don’t know who brought up affirmative action. But the idea was that, non-white/male/straight/xian prospects are/were overwhelmingly passed over, summarily without consideration that they might in fact be the best candidate. Did some managers also miss the point, and “just hire the black guy”? Maybe. Probably, when affirmative action was a hot topic. I don’t know. Tell me though: what negative consequence resulted from that?

3 hours ago, Rhino said:

Oh I'll hire the person who didn't graduate high school. Now I can check a box and say we're diverse because we have everyone with every level of education.

Does this really happen?

3 hours ago, Rhino said:

I'd argue both the left and right use intimidation for a control agenda. The left just does it in a different way. They make you feel like sh!t if you are pro life, religious, or now support the police.

I’m sorry somebody made you feel like shit. I agree that everyone should carefully consider their opinions and the reasoning behind them, not merely adhere to “one side”. 

[Doctornick | 419]

44 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

I like to think of cartman as “high edgelord” now lol

 

Bet Cartman is anti new balance too 

100% he's anti new balance.  It's a shame too, people living levels below those of us who have seen the new balance light.

[Link | 2,714]

I bet Al Jaffee wears New Balance.

Spoiler

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Link

[OptOut | 8,889]

New Balance helped deliver my first born, and has been taking him to baseball practice every single Saturday for nine years.

New Balance taught deaf Alice how to read and write, and this year she just got a full scholarship to Princeton.

New Balance worked nights in a community centre in Brooklyn in the late 70's, and listened on as early Rap artists developed a sound that would go on to define a generation.

New Balance held their breath and dived over 18 thousand feet in a single dive to help plug the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the gulf of Mexico.

New Balance showed me the light, forgave my sins, and ushered me unto the promised land, and with your acceptance they can do the same for you!

[Doctornick | 419]

We often use new balance in medicine to treat erectile dysfunction, infertility, anger issues, paralysis, and many other countless diseases.  It is working on stamping out Covid as we speak.

[cartman | 195]

Just now, Tulpa said:

They're not always living just fine. People have been making fun of them in real life. When it crosses into their real life, shit gets real. That needs to stop.

 

They have the right to go through life without being harassed. The Simpsons corrected that aspect. Why you'd be against it is beyond me.

It's not subjective. It's been happening to them in the real world.

The Simpsons creators adjusted their own creation to help stop part of it. Does it solve all of it? No, but the Simpsons creators did their part in their small way.

And it doesn't affect you one iota, unless your form of comedy is stereotypes. Again, on you.

And the same can be said for the Simpsons.

But the Indians haven't done anything except voice a complaint.

Again, THE FINAL CALL WAS THE PEOPLE WHO CREATED THE SIMPSONS.

All they did was voice a complaint.

All they did was say they didn't like it.

They did not exercise mystical powers.

They did not call upon some huge authority to smack the creators down.

They made a complaint and the Simpsons creators listened.

THAT IS ALL THAT HAPPENED.

And giving Apu a shameful voice wasn't?

Come on, dude.

They had a stake in someone who portrayed them, and asked for

ONE

THING

to be changed.

You could. If they portrayed your culture offensively, you could change.

You won't, because you feel anything goes, and that's fine, but you could.

Again, they didn't "touch" a show. They just made one complaint.

I feel you get frustrated by this because your complaints go unaddressed. Git gud. There's a way to make it happen, you just need to figure it out.

Violence and profanity aren't cultural aspects.

Even if they are, the Simpsons deals with it constantly. People offended aren't likely to watch them anyway. And again, THEY WANT IT COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN.

Indians just said, "Can you have someone do our voice respectfully? We like the show and the character otherwise."

They have the Hallmark Channel.

Again, it is not comparable, as Link said up there.

Again, a cultural identity resulted in one change, versus a group that wants to see the entire show taken off the air.

No Indian said the Simpsons shouldn't continue.

They didn't even say get rid of Apu.

You can't really tie those in to the Simpsons.

It's pretty clear that Apu was an offensive stereotype accent, on an otherwise good character.

And again, they asked for one change, not take the entire show off the air.

When did the Indians want to censor everything?

Where is this mass censoring that you're saying will happen?

It isn't.

It was one change. That hasn't snowballed.

One stereotype, in an era where stereotypes are already on their way out. No one finds them funny, except a few whose humor can go find something else to laugh at.

No, we don't.

We can look at this objectively.

Racial stereotypes are no longer funny in 2020, and they cause harm.

That aspect was excised from the Simpsons.

No other part of the character was eliminated.

South Park is still chugging along.

Subversive comedy is still present.

One aspect changed. One.

And life goes on.

It was a conscious decision by the creators.

Apu was a definite problem. They corrected it.

The other characters, in the spirit of of inclusiveness, decided to allow more actors, ones of color, into the fold.

The white guys still voice characters.

They still have their jobs. Many more characters will be added they can voice.

They're just adding more actors of color to voice characters of color. Who can probably voice the character to the creators' new vision for the show.

How they act was the issue. Azaria's portrayal was offensive and it started the whole mess.

The white people involved agreed with the change. And they have more voice roles than the people of color. Hell, for all we know they could have been the ones to suggest this.

When the white people have the lion's share of, well, everything, and they themselves decide to make it more equitable, that's a good thing.

The black voice actors didn't enforce this on them, they made their own decision.

That's up to them to decide.

Wich is the fault of the people making fun of them not the Simpsons. People make fun of others anyway you know that's just how some people are bullying and harassment has always been around. There is a difference between harassment and comedy just as with real life violence and depicted that's why the law differentiates between the two aswell. Harassment should be adressed not comedy. In a perfect world everyone should go through life without getting abused but abuse happens not because it's encouraged but because the person doesn't care. Kinda like crime in general... it's not that it isn't outlawed already. It is subjective that Simpsons should change based on what a few people think about it the fact that they had some bad experience doesn't change that.

No the same doesn't apply to the Simpsons. There is no right saying that nothing can offend you - others have artistic freedom and freedom of speech trumping your rights not to get offended. Otherwise nothing would get said or done only the agreeable shit would exist. That's how regressive regimes behave they adhere to culture and morals to stifle dissent.

Violence and profanity are absolutely cultural aspects. They touch on how people act and behave = culture. So to those who oppose violence and profanity being shown you say "go watch something else, Hallmark Channel" instead of their sentiments getting to alter entertainment but to the Indians who got offended you change the tune and agree that they should be catered to. Moralism turned on itself isn't so fun anymore.

When did i say Indians want to censor everything? But everyone else who wants to alter something, they can champion their own cause too and then everything would be censored. It's your stance being extrapolated because like i said you can't just draw the line where you find it convenient ut that's exactly what you've done. No, you can't look at it objectively when you're drawing subjective conclusions about wich cause should get catered to and wich shouldn't. You can't decide what's funny and if you want to claim that art causes harm,  you have to apply that across the board and object to violence, profanity, guns, drugs... whatever being shown. But you don't argue that in those cases you tell them to go watch Hallmark.

Yes it was the conscious decision of the creators to not have whites voice minorities but i'm not talking about the choice now but what the actual content of the stance is and that is racism towards whites. Yes they agreed to step down from the roles but that doesn't mean that it isn't based on discrimination. They have more roles than ppl of color? So that makes it ok then? "You have it good already, just take it when you're getting misstreated and don't complain". And white voice actors are individuals too by the way "they" don't have everything just because someone else who is white might have more roles.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,548]

Nike shoes and Nike cleats.  Come at me.