General Current Events/Political Discussion

[Estil | 1,264]

13 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

If we accept these things, what will we complain on the internet about?

How about we complain that there's nothing to complain about!  

[Tulpa | 3,488]

1 minute ago, Estil said:

How about we complain that there's nothing to complain about!  

I don't like the way you said that.

[Estil | 1,264]

9 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

So because I want less racism in the world, it's going to result in pop culture becoming bland?

You do know when there was more racism, there was bland stuff like Leave it to Beaver utterly dominating pop culture, right?

I'm not against controversial subjects or edgy humor, but there are certain things that we no longer need. You can still have Apu, just voice him by an Indian guy. 

You can't "just" replace anyone of any line of work who's given 25+ years of loyal dedicated experience with "just" some new guy.  Just ask Coy and Vance who, despite their very best efforts bless their hearts (if anyone from the South says that anymore) inevitably ended up being the "New Coke" version of the Duke boys.

Okay I do stand corrected on Apu's voice actor also doing a bunch of other voices on the show and he still gets to stay on.  I just don't like the idea of innocent people losing their jobs or getting shamed over fake racism claims.  Whatever happened to the days of better that 99 guilty men go free than one innocent man gets imprisoned/executed/whatever?

[Estil | 1,264]

4 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

I don't like the way you said that.

Okay how about I complain about you not telling us where the clip came from!  Like one of the posters in my HS English class read (this was regarding using proper citations in research/term papers though), if you're going to get something straight from the horse's mouth, be sure to give him proper credit.  

[Tulpa | 3,488]

26 minutes ago, Estil said:

You can't "just" replace anyone of any line of work who's given 25+ years of loyal dedicated experience with "just" some new guy.  Just ask Coy and Vance who, despite their very best efforts bless their hearts (if anyone from the South says that anymore) inevitably ended up being the "New Coke" version of the Duke boys.

Dukes of Hazzard, another bland TV show from a more racist time. (The show wasn't racist, but the early 80s were.) 

26 minutes ago, Estil said:

Okay I do stand corrected on Apu's voice actor also doing a bunch of other voices on the show and he still gets to stay on.  I just don't like the idea of innocent people losing their jobs or getting shamed over fake racism claims. 

I don't remember Azaria himself getting shamed. The show itself got criticism, but he and the creators made the conscious decision to change it. You are allowed to make a change if what you're doing is making people uncomfortable. It was trickling into the real lives of actual Indians, them getting called "Apu" and worse. Nothing fake about that racism.

26 minutes ago, Estil said:

Whatever happened to the days of better that 99 guilty men go free than one innocent man gets imprisoned/executed/whatever?

Azaria himself admitted that they were doing the wrong thing. He owned up to it and changed it for the better.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Tulpa

[Tulpa | 3,488]

22 minutes ago, Estil said:

Okay how about I complain about you not telling us where the clip came from!  Like one of the posters in my HS English class read (this was regarding using proper citations in research/term papers though), if you're going to get something straight from the horse's mouth, be sure to give him proper credit.  

I credit Google.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

24 minutes ago, Estil said:

I just don't like the idea of innocent people losing their jobs or getting shamed over fake racism claims.

Yea, that sounds like it would be shitty. Can you give some examples of that? Because I'm not aware of literally any. I feel like if someone told my boss I said something racist, they would investigate, and if I did, I would be dealt with accordingly, and if I didn't, I'd still have my job.

So, for those of you all so worried about "Fake racism claims", can you please provide some real world examples that have occurred and resulted in an innocent person losing their job?

[cartman | 195]

34 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

So because I want less racism in the world, it's going to result in pop culture becoming bland?

You do know when there was more racism, there was bland stuff like Leave it to Beaver utterly dominating pop culture, right?

I'm not against controversial subjects or edgy humor, but there are certain things that we no longer need. You can still have Apu, just voice him by an Indian guy. There are funny Indian voice actors. Boo-hoo, the creators will have to search a little bit harder. Maybe take a few more dollars off the mountain of money they bang supermodels on to fly someone from Mumbai over.

Jesus, you literally act like being nicer is going to result in some 1984 scenario.

 

Yes it will. It will the way it is being used now wich is the unwillingness to take context into account wich is the differentiation between a joke and an advocated stance. If you aren't even allowed to make an honest attempt at a rounded character like Cleveland imagine how you'll fare with more raunchy characters. It really is bad.

Will wanting less violence in society result in games becoming bad? They already did become in Germany and Australia. Who is to draw the line where to stop? The SJW's obviously aren't drawing any fucking line what so ever but only becoming more and more emboldened to keep getting offended and use popculture to rum their racial agendas.

Why should they have to voice an Indian character with someone specific when they can just do it with whoever they choose themselves? Again they're expected to adhere to others sensibilities as if they had the moral authority. 

[Tulpa | 3,488]

13 minutes ago, cartman said:

Yes it will. It will the way it is being used now wich is the unwillingness to take context into account wich is the differentiation between a joke and an advocated stance. If you aren't even allowed to make an honest attempt at a rounded character like Cleveland imagine how you'll fare with more raunchy characters. It really is bad.

 

What context is there for giving Apu a bad Indian accent by a white guy? It's not funny, it never was. Apu wasn't Boomhauer from King of the Hill. Because the core comedy in Apu was never his bad accent, it was him being a convenience store clerk. If you think his bad accent was any way the context of the comedy, again, your comedy standards are garbage.

You're not going to lose your raunchy characters. In fact, they're becoming MORE raunchier as we move forward. It wasn't like the 90s were some high point in comedy. If you think it was, you have some serious nostalgia goggles.

13 minutes ago, cartman said:

Will wanting less violence in society result in games becoming bad? They already did become in Germany and Australia. Who is to draw the line where to stop? The SJW's obviously aren't drawing any fucking line what so ever but only becoming more and more emboldened to keep getting offended and use popculture to rum their racial agendas

Germany has always had strict video game rules. Always. They didn't have some SJWs push it on them, they themselves put those rules in place.

As others pointed out, Joe Lieberman tried to put restrictions on video game violence in the US. He failed, because no one else saw it as an issue. The industry put a ratings system to please the parents and everyone was happy. And now you can get your head eaten by a space monster in 4k detail. No one blinks an eye.

13 minutes ago, cartman said:

Why should they have to voice an Indian character with someone specific when they can just do it with whoever they choose themselves? Again they're expected to adhere to others sensibilities as if they had the moral authority. 

Because society itself moves forward, and society is the moral authority.

It's always been that way through human history. Always.

We're just seeing a few more people who aren't old white dudes who are tired of being treated like shit being given a few more things to say in this word. The only ones who don't like it are some of the old white dudes (or people who want to be old white dudes) who want to keep all the power. Well, tough shit, things change.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Tulpa

[ICrappedMyPants | 302]

I read the rest of that former cop’s letter. I think he brought up some good points. As someone said earlier, his tone might be a little over the top and distract from his message. 
 

I agree that it’s bad policing to give tickets that don’t really serve the best interests of the public. That recycling issue was bureaucracy. To me, it also probably makes sense for counselors to be present at some situations, but I would think that victims who fear of being harmed again would feel safer if a cop was maybe an escort for the counselor, only there to protect the victim if an attacker returned.

I also think this cop has a certain bias. He is very anti-capitalism, but he fails to provide a real solution. I do agree that  capitalism needs to be more in check from the standpoint of the elites having too much influence and the focus on economic efficiencies without regard to the human side. I just don’t see a better alternative that can survive at the massive scale of the US.

IMO, he’s right, the police system is broken and that mandatory training for better police behavior won’t be taken seriously. I also agree that police unions are part of the problem. I also think that the militarization, even tactics and train of thought, are a problem. However, it’s much easier for me in my ivory tower to say that. I’ve never had to face some of the horrific things the military or police have seen. I liked most that the article gave more tangible systematic issues that need to be addressed.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,510]

 

[cartman | 195]

58 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Keep fighting the Good fight cartman, stick it to those SJWs! Just Dont be surprised when you get left behind, seething about who voices a cartoon character lol. 
 

Mississippi is changing its flag, this country is starting to get on track for some big racial changes. 
 

Cant wait to watch all the 18-38 year old white males (which I am one of ) turn into snowflakes and rage against the tide of cultural change. 
 

BUT BLM

BUT HER EMAILS

BUT GAY MARRIAGE

BUT SOCIALISM

Who is it that makes voice acted characters, changing company logos, hounding cartoon/video game characters their social cause? There's a pretty big difference between wanting to dismantle everything and infringe upon freedoms vs. reacting to it. You're argument is an autogoal.

So what if Mississippi is changing their flag? Just because that might make sense it doesn't give the so-called progressives the moral authority to dismantle every atom they see in general but that's exactly what's taking place.

Like i said before the reason there are any games, movies, songs that get to be released without censorship or bans is because there are people further away from your views rather than being close to them. Your views are always on the balancing act of tipping over towards censorship and people proposing them just end up undoing themselves when/if they succeed. 

Those pesky white men that are evil... and everyone else on the opposite side that does good. I'm sure they'll feel very included by the social justice ideal of being the singular group that can be singled out and demonized as guilty for everything bad. Yeah i'm sure those cultural changes with increased group thinking will be very harmonious, no doubt.

[Tulpa | 3,488]

4 minutes ago, cartman said:

Just because that might make sense it doesn't give the so-called progressives the moral authority to dismantle every atom they see in general but that's exactly what's taking place.

 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

17 minutes ago, cartman said:

. Your views are always on the balancing act of tipping over towards censorship

Wrong. I am against censorship. However, I am for being held accountable for the things you say. I suppose that includes art that you create. Any person is free to create any art they want to. If that art is offensive to some, they must accept the consequences of that.

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom of consequences. 

Man, WHAT a hill to die on. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by CodysGameRoom

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

Iran issues arrest warrant for Trump, asks Interpol to help

Tehran prosecutor Ali Alqasimehr said on Monday that Trump, along with more than 30 others Iran accuses of involvement in the January 3 attack that killed General Qassem Soleimani, face "murder and terrorism charges", the semi-official ISNA news agency reported.

[cartman | 195]

26 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

What context is there for giving Apu a bad Indian accent by a white guy? It's not funny, it never was. Apu wasn't Boomhauer from King of the Hill. Because the core comedy in Apu was never his bad accent, it was him being a convenience store clerk. If you think his bad accent was any way the context of the comedy, again, your comedy standards are garbage.

You're not going to lose your raunchy characters. In fact, they're becoming MORE raunchier as we move forward. It wasn't like the 90s were some high point in comedy. If you think it was, you have some serious nostalgia goggles.

Germany has always had strict video game rules. Always. They didn't have some SJWs push it on them, they themselves put those rules in place.

As others pointed out, Joe Lieberman tried to put restrictions on video game violence in the US. He failed, because no one else saw it as an issue. The industry put a ratings system to please the parents and everyone was happy. And now you can get your head eaten by a space monster in 4k detail. No one blinks an eye.

Because society itself moves forward, and society is the moral authority.

It's always been that way through human history. Always.

We're just seeing a few more people who aren't old white dudes who are tired of being treated like shit being given a few more things to say in this word. The only ones who don't like it are some of the old white dudes (or people who want to be old white dudes) who want to keep all the power. Well, tough shit, things change.

The general context of racializing every issue. In the name of curbing racism - lets segregate people racially on what job they should take and make sure that they stay in their lane. That makes a lot of sense.

I meant ignoring the context of why he doesn't have an Indian actor. The idea that the issue has to be racialized, on such a benign example, so you can only imagine how much harder it will be to make a more stereotypically negative character like fat Abbott that i posted. So yes there is a good case to be made that culture becomes bland when everyone who gets offended has to be catered too.

No they are not becoming more raunchier. The big ones like South Park are surviving only because they have so much already established popcultural capital that they can run on but an up-and-comer will have it much harder to stick to their game. Established comedians are already getting morally condemned in this new era over material that they could use before etc.

The Germans got an SJW outcome as did the Australians. I'm talking about the mentality behind moral crusades in general not wich specific group they're fighting for. Yes Lieberman failed but it was not thanks to people of your mindset (=offended morality, swap racism with violence for his case) but despite of them.

If people with your mindset + his anti-violence stance got their way they would've cashed in their morality based leverage for actual laws and the gaming culture would be much lesser than it is today. That's how it goes.

[cartman | 195]

12 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Wrong. I am against censorship. However, I am for being held accountable for the things you say. I suppose that includes art that you create. Any person is free to create any art they want to. If that art is offensive to some, they must accept the consequences of that.

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom of consequences. 

Man, WHAT a hill to die on. 

That's what it leads to. When people have to condemn every fucking thing and feel the need for it to be shut down based on them getting offended the leap isn't huge for a political alternative that says "it's a problem we want to regulate". And the people who enforced their morals will also likely be susceptible to the idea of having them elevated to law, they won't mind it. 

[OptOut | 8,881]

Root causes of systemic racism in the USA? THIS guy gets it! 

Edited June 29, 2020 by OptOut

[Tulpa | 3,488]

1 minute ago, cartman said:

The general context of racializing every issue. In the name of curbing racism - lets segregate people racially on what job they should take and make sure that they stay in their lane. That makes a lot of sense.

 

Well, when white dudes usually did it, it became a racially insensitive stereotype. Azaria's Apu wasn't a good portrayal. He himself admitted it.

When you're portraying someone of another culture, you either have to get it right or let them do it. Since we're woefully incapable of getting it right, you have to step aside.

2 minutes ago, cartman said:

I meant ignoring the context of why he doesn't have an Indian actor. The idea that the issue has to be racialized, on such a benign example, so you can only imagine how much harder it will be to make a more stereotypically negative character like fat Abbott that i posted. So yes there is a good case to be made that culture becomes bland when everyone who gets offended has to be catered too.

How was it radicalized? The show got some criticism and they willingly changed it. Again, the show changed it.

You act like any criticism of something insensitive is the big bad government crashing down.

Stereotypically negative characters are the ones we need to get rid of. They're not funny.

4 minutes ago, cartman said:

No they are not becoming more raunchier. The big ones like South Park are surviving only because they have so much already established popcultural capital that they can run on but an up-and-comer will have it much harder to stick to their game. Established comedians are already getting morally condemned in this new era over material that they could use before etc.

Then you're not looking hard enough. Or you just want to stick to the shows you liked when you were younger and aren't willing to get out of your narrow little niche.

There's tons of edgy humor out there.

And South Park succeeds because they send up and satirize the racially insensitive stuff. They do it right, and everyone sees what they're doing. Your namesake, Cartman, acts like a racist, misogynist little prick, and he gets his ass kicked when he does.

People do understand the difference.

Like I said, this is you.

8 minutes ago, cartman said:

The Germans got an SJW outcome as did the Australians. I'm talking about the mentality behind moral crusades in general not wich specific group they're fighting for. Yes Lieberman failed but it was not thanks to people of your mindset (=offended morality, swap racism with violence for his case) but despite of them.

Lieberman failed because he wanted a govermental body overseeing it. That's NOT my mindset. Everyone else wanted the industry to self regulate. And they did.

And video games haven't lost their edge. In fact, with the rating, you know exactly what you're getting in terms of people shooting other people's head off.

But I guess you think criticism of any kind is SJW driven, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

10 minutes ago, cartman said:

If people with your mindset + his anti-violence stance got their way they would've cashed in their morality based leverage for actual laws and the gaming culture would be much lesser than it is today. That's how it goes.

And people with your mindset would take us back to the caveman days where everyone did whatever they want. Hope you like being made into stew.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

15 minutes ago, cartman said:

When people have to condemn every fucking thing and feel the need for it to be shut down based on them getting offended

Who's condemning everything? I see people condemning racial issues. As they should. What else is being condemned?

And another question for you. Why are you so offended when other people get offended? You don't get to choose what is offensive to another human being. 

[cartman | 195]

1 minute ago, Tulpa said:

Well, when white dudes usually did it, it became a racially insensitive stereotype. Azaria's Apu wasn't a good portrayal. He himself admitted it.

When you're portraying someone of another culture, you either have to get it right or let them do it. Since we're woefully incapable of getting it right, you have to step aside.

How was it radicalized? The show got some criticism and they willingly changed it. Again, the show changed it.

You act like any criticism of something insensitive is the big bad government crashing down.

Stereotypically negative characters are the ones we need to get rid of. They're not funny.

Then you're not looking hard enough. Or you just want to stick to the shows you liked when you were younger and aren't willing to get out of your narrow little niche.

There's tons of edgy humor out there.

And South Park succeeds because they send up and satirize the racially insensitive stuff. They do it right, and everyone sees what they're doing. Your namesake, Cartman, acts like a racist, misogynist little prick, and he gets his ass kicked when he does.

People do understand the difference.

Like I said, this is you.

Lieberman failed because he wanted a govermental body overseeing it. That's NOT my mindset. Everyone else wanted the industry to self regulate. And they did.

And video games haven't lost their edge. In fact, with the rating, you know exactly what you're getting in terms of people shooting other people's head off.

But I guess you think criticism of any kind is SJW driven, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

And people with your mindset would take us back to the caveman days where everyone did whatever they want. Hope you like being made into stew.

Wich is racism. If work should be deemed acceptable or not for you based on your ethnic background and segregated accordingly, it's effictively racism. "Get it right"  in this case only means appease someones personal morality because if the character was good it was right already. You're injecting all these other qualifiers of how it must be this or that way wich in reality is not the objective of a comedy cartoon. It's not a documentary or a history book so claiming his not authentically Indian is beside the point. 

Do we need to get rid of things just because someone else finds them unfunny? Stereotypically negative characters obviously are funny to a lot of people wich is why it is a part of comedy. 

There are many comedians that have lamented how political correctness is stifling the industry:

Gilbert Gottfried

Following backlash over jokes he made in 2011 about a tsunami that killed thousands of people in Japan, Gottfried complained about the ills of political correctness in a 2014 essay in Playboy titled “The Apology Epidemic.”

“Imagine if the most brilliant comedians in history were working today. They’d never stop apologizing. Charlie Chaplin would have to apologize to all the homeless people he belittled with his Little Tramp character,” Gottfried wrote.

Dennis Miller

Echoing Gottfried, Miller penned an opinion piece for the Independent Journal Review in 2015 that railed against the “Me-Me-Mea Culpa Generation,” as he called it.

“The main problem with the present day inquisition squad is that many of our ‘open-minded’ watch guards are among our most close-minded citizens,” Miller wrote.

Chris Rock

In an interview with Vulture magazine, Rock said he stopped doing shows at colleges because they were “too conservative.”

“Not in their political views,” Rock clarified. “But in their social views and their willingness not to offend anybody. You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive.”

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-mel-brooks-comedians-say-political-correctness-killing-comedy-20170922-htmlstory.html

I never said it's impossible to be raunchy but i think it's pretty easy to conclude that the culture is stifling it.

As for South Park they don't merely satirize the insensitive stuff. Atleast not in the way i assume you're seeing it wich is merely making fools out of bigoted people. When Cartman fails in everything in the special olympics he obviously is part of the gag in being so fat and incompetent but a big part of the fun is also how literally studies and trains in making himself become retarded. Or the "cripple fight" between wheelchaired Timmy and cruches Jimmy. The countless little quirks in a how Jimmy looks and stutters. Cartman laughing how a midget in a suit looks etc.

You can make the claim that part of it sometimes ridicules the deliverer of the offensive behaviour rather than the reciever but taking it from there to falt-out exclude the insensitive part as intrinsically important to the joke and funny in and of themselves no that's just reaching. They definitely make offensive aspects funny even without some "moral come-uppance" that you seem to imply.

Lieberman wanted to dictate change based on his moral views wich is the common denominator. And the "self regulation" as you call it went AGAINST his views wich is the exact opposite of what you're supporting in regards to sensitivity around stereotypical characters/non-ethnic voice actors in cartoons, you're advocating that those sensitivites should be catered to.

You just made an argument against yourself and in favor of my position. 

That's the case i'm making all along that people with your stance in the end enable the undoing of themselves. 

[cartman | 195]

53 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Who's condemning everything? I see people condemning racial issues. As they should. What else is being condemned?

And another question for you. Why are you so offended when other people get offended? You don't get to choose what is offensive to another human being. 

Everything. Cartoons, jokes, logos, opinions - everything.

I'm not offended by them being offended but how they want everything catered to them. If they got offended and turned the fucking computer OFF there would be no issue. But they have to crusade their shit onto the whole world and enforce concessions from others.

 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

[Tulpa | 3,488]

37 minutes ago, cartman said:

Wich is racism. If work should be deemed acceptable or not for you based on your ethnic background and segregated accordingly, it's effictively racism. "Get it right"  in this case only means appease someones personal morality because if the character was good it was right already.

The character wasn't good in terms of the accent. HANK AZARIA ADMITTED IT.

They corrected it by him choosing to not do it anymore.

And they didn't get rid of the character! They just had the white guy doing it work on something else.

37 minutes ago, cartman said:

You're injecting all these other qualifiers of how it must be this or that way wich in reality is not the objective of a comedy cartoon. It's not a documentary or a history book so claiming his not authentically Indian is beside the point. 

So basically you're saying because it's a cartoon, then it can be offensive.

There's a reason cartoons like Coal Black and the Sebben Dwarfs aren't made anymore. Google it if you want to see it (but be warned, it's extremely racist.)

There's nothing funny about that cartoon's racist attributes, and there's no need to have Apu have an exaggerated Indian accent. A real Indian guy can still make it a funny character, and we don't have to have a white dude trying (and failing) to sound Indian.

37 minutes ago, cartman said:

Do we need to get rid of things just because someone else finds them unfunny?

No, just the unfunny offensive parts that have no place in 2020.

 

37 minutes ago, cartman said:

I never said it's impossible to be raunchy but i think it's pretty easy to conclude that the culture is stifling it.

And again, you're not moving out of your little niche.

There's tons of great comedy out there, raunchy or otherwise.

37 minutes ago, cartman said:

Stereotypically negative characters obviously are funny to a lot of people wich is why it is a part of comedy. 

Racist comedy in this case. They aren't funny in 2020 to the majority now.

Times change. People who were marginalized have a voice now. They were picked on throughout history, and we need to stop picking on them.

There's still a place for Apu, just not an Apu that is voiced by a white guy affecting a bad accent.

37 minutes ago, cartman said:

There are many comedians that have lamented how political correctness is stifling the industry:

And plenty of comedians work fine in the industry. Those who are good find a way.

You can have funny, edgy humor. What's on the way out is the stereotypes that hurt people. It's about time.

37 minutes ago, cartman said:

I never said it's impossible to be raunchy but i think it's pretty easy to conclude that the culture is stifling it.

The only part that's stifled is the offensive "easy" humor. The part that never punches up.

If the humor you like is being stifled, then you need to reexamine what you find funny.

37 minutes ago, cartman said:

As for South Park they don't merely satirize the insensitive stuff. Atleast not in the way i assume you're seeing it wich is merely making fools out of bigoted people. When Cartman fails in everything in the special olympics he obviously is part of the gag in being so fat and incompetent but a big part of the fun is also how literally studies and trains in making himself become retarded. Or the "cripple fight" between wheelchaired Timmy and cruches Jimmy. The countless little quirks in a how Jimmy looks and stutters. Cartman laughing how a midget in a suit looks etc.

And in each one of those there's a deeper meaning that you're missing.

Cartman training himself to be retarded is making fun of Cartman. It's not making fun of Down's Syndrome people.

That's the difference. And people recognize the difference.

If Cartman just started acting retarded and had no comeuppance, it would be offensive.

37 minutes ago, cartman said:

You can make the claim that part of it sometimes ridicules the deliverer of the offensive behaviour rather than the reciever but taking it from there to falt-out exclude the insensitive part as intrinsically important to the joke and funny in and of themselves no that's just reaching. They definitely make offensive aspects funny even without some "moral come-uppance" that you seem to imply.

Or you're just laughing at the offensive bits and missing the deeper meaning. I've never seen South Park be offensive just to be offensive.

There's ALWAYS a deeper meaning. You're just not seeing how it works.

37 minutes ago, cartman said:

Lieberman wanted to dictate change based on his moral views wich is the common denominator. And the "self regulation" as you call it went AGAINST his views wich is the exact opposite of what you're supporting in regards to sensitivity around stereotypical characters/non-ethnic voice actors in cartoons, you're advocating that those sensitivites should be catered to.

No, I'm supporting the self-regulation. Which is exactly what is happening in the world. Society is regulating itself.

There's no government dictating morality, and there's no cabal of people deciding what is good and bad.

It's society itself deciding.

And you're just mad because stuff you find funny isn't found funny by the majority anymore.

37 minutes ago, cartman said:

You just made an argument against yourself and in favor of my position. 

 

No, I didn't. You're construing it to say something I didn't say.

37 minutes ago, cartman said:

That's the case i'm making all along that people with your stance in the end enable the undoing of themselves. 

No, I'm on the side the progress.

My side got rid of slavery.

My side is in favor of equality.

I  have no idea what your side is.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Tulpa

[cartman | 195]

10 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

The character wasn't good in terms of the accent. HANK AZARIA ADMITTED IT.

They corrected it by him choosing to not do it anymore.

And they didn't get rid of the character! They just had the white guy doing it work on something else.

So basically you're saying because it's a cartoon, then it can be offensive.

There's a reason cartoons like Coal Black and the Sebben Dwarfs aren't made anymore. Google it if you want to see it (but be warned, it's extremely racist.)

There's nothing funny about that cartoon's racist attributes, and there's no need to have Apu have an exaggerated Indian accent. A real Indian guy can still make it a funny character, and we don't have to have a white dude trying (and failing) to sound Indian.

No, just the unfunny offensive parts that have no place in 2020.

 

And again, you're not moving out of your little niche.

There's tons of great comedy out there, raunchy or otherwise.

Racist comedy in this case. They aren't funny in 2020 to the majority now.

Times change. People who were marginalized have a voice now. They were picked on throughout history, and we need to stop picking on them.

There's still a place for Apu, just not an Apu that is voiced by a white guy affecting a bad accent.

And plenty of comedians work fine in the industry. Those who are good find a way.

You can have funny, edgy humor. What's on the way out is the stereotypes that hurt people. It's about time.

The only part that's stifled is the offensive "easy" humor. The part that never punches up.

If the humor you like is being stifled, then you need to reexamine what you find funny.

And in each one of those there's a deeper meaning that you're missing.

Cartman training himself to be retarded is making fun of Cartman. It's not making fun of Down's Syndrome people.

That's the difference. And people recognize the difference.

If Cartman just started acting retarded and had no comeuppance, it would be offensive.

Or you're just laughing at the offensive bits and missing the deeper meaning. I've never seen South Park be offensive just to be offensive.

There's ALWAYS a deeper meaning. You're just not seeing how it works.

No, I'm supporting the self-regulation. Which is exactly what is happening in the world. Society is regulating itself.

There's no government dictating morality, and there's no cabal of people deciding what is good and bad.

It's society itself deciding.

And you're just mad because stuff you find funny isn't found funny by the majority anymore.

No, I didn't. You're construing it to say something I didn't say.

No, I'm on the side the progresses.

My side got rid of slavery.

My side is in favor of equality.

I  have no idea what your side is.

It was good in the sense that it made for a good character with a funny voice wich is the main objective of a cartoon comedy show. Realism isn't the main objective so like i said it's beside the point how close he was to an "authentic" Indian accent. They didn't correct the character on that basis they caved in on social pressures. They started segregating racially on who can do what work wich is a pretty big part of a what a racist system is but i guess since they consider themselves to do good it's all fine.

You can say it's unfunny to you personally but you can't say it's unfunny period and shouldn't have a place in 2020. But that is exactly what you're doing.

What "little niche" are you talking about? Those are pretty big names in comedy and they feel they're getting stifled. It's not really a fringe thing that there will be moral condemnation of jokes it's a pretty safe bet. But your solution is that they can "find a way" by not telling offensive jokes so basically they could just stifle themselves. It still is funny to many people and yet again you're using your personal definitions and tastes to speak generally and justify others being stifled. 

Yes it is making fun of down syndrome people. And of Cartman too. But the way he trains and transforms into a retarded guy by cutting the hair, making goofy facial expressions and talking in a retarded voice is most definitely a gag too. Are you really saying that the absurdity of a wheelchair and cruches guy getting into a fight is NOT supposed to be used for comedic effect but it's merely this deeper social criticism of the crowd watching it? What is fat Abbott if not funny for his ghetto attitude, is that too merely some kind of deeper social criticism in the fact that little kids are watching it? I think you're reaching to have it all make sense. I mean you're taking blatant examples of someones race or disability incorporated into comedic situations and they're satire on biggotry but a character like Apu who is a 1000x more beningn stereotype is pushing over the limit just because the actor is white. Is fat Abbott really less offensive than Apu if we determine that the former was voiced by a black guy while the latter isn't (i don't who voices fat Abbott irl)?

Like i said the video game companies self-regulated AGAINST Lieberman and moral sensitivities wich is the exact opposite of what the Simpsons have done in regards to Apu. They took a stand opposite yours wich is why we do have violent video games and why Simpson doesn't have Apu's old voice actor. I'm not talking about government regulation specifically (altough it can certainly lead to that) but rather the outcome of different mindsets and the more people that hold your views the bigger risk games would face of not getting to be violent, be it by regulation or otherwise. Hence why i said that your stance enables the undoing of the very people that hold them because their own interests might one day be up for the cancellation.

No being against slavery is not something "your side" got rid of. The difference between forcing someone to work for you is that it actively takes someone elses rights and forces your will upon them while getting to create something that others find offensive doesn't require anyone who is unwilling to be part of it. You don't have to be a voice actor and you don't have to watch a show but when your enslaving someone that person HAS to work without pay or risk getting punished. And you're not in favor of equality either by racialising every issue, that only entrenches inequality and division. My side is that people should be allowed to and encouraged to create entertainment or have opinions without caving in to others getting offended. There are actually black voice actors that do white character voices by the way but that would NEVER be allowed to be problematised. Then the roles would be reversed immediately and the white guy criticising it would be portrayed as biggoted, racist etc.