General Current Events/Political Discussion

[Tulpa | 3,492]

3 minutes ago, Californication said:

I haven't watched, "The Problem with Apu,, but the comedian who made the doc. is Indian. I heard there is a scene were he introduced his parents to the character to get their reaction and they think the character is voiced by an Indian person.

Certainly some are okay with it, but some clearly aren't. And it came down to the creators, who made the conscious decision to change the character.

I personally think the accent is horrible, but that's just me.

[Californication | 1,477]

8 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Certainly some are okay with it, but some clearly aren't. And it came down to the creators, who made the conscious decision to change the character.

I personally think the accent is horrible, but that's just me.

You think that accent is horrible, and some Indians can't tell its not an Indian person. I have got to see that scene, it sounds so ironic I am surprised they didn't edit it out.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Californication

[Tulpa | 3,492]

5 minutes ago, Californication said:

You think that accent is horrible, and some Indians can't tell its not an Indian person. I have got to see that scene, it sounds so ironic I am surprised they didn't edit it out.

The guy who made the doc said he thought it was funny as a kid, but not so funny as an adult. So it's definitely not cut and dry, but he cared enough to make a whole film about it.

Let's not forget that it wasn't like there was mass demonstrations or anything. The creators saw that some Indians were uncomfortable with a white dude voicing an Indian character and the creators decided to change it.

[Link | 2,709]

5 hours ago, cartman said:

Realism isn't the main objective so like i said it's beside the point

It’s beside the point to you. The point to me actually is realism. I love the first season of The Simpsons specifically because it portrayed a family that had worries and problems and sniped at each other, but at the end of the day they were stuck loving each other. Sure, the interactions were exaggerated, and the characters were funny looking, but there was serious character development and heartfelt plots. The interactions they had were, indeed, realistic. We can say the same about any number of successful Lear shows (All in the Family, The Jeffersons, Sanford and Son, Married With Children) even though they were crass and controversial. When The Simpsons became nothing but jokes and gags is when it started going downhill. (side note, I blame Conan O’Brien for beginning the decline) 

So, first who the fuck are you to say what the point of the show is and that’s what the producers should do? And second, now who is claiming to speak for everybody’s opinion?

 

2 hours ago, cartman said:

They didn't know it was wrong they hired talented and dedicated people to try making a serious attempt in creating a good show wich is what they did.

Thirty years ago! Look I’m all for the classics, be it TV, video games, music movies comics whatever. That doesn’t mean we do things the same way now. If you want every thing to be how it was thirty years ago, by all means, get on a Compaq desktop with a 14” CRT and post on a BBS for $2.95 per hour over dialup.

[Link | 2,709]

3 hours ago, Tulpa said:

I'm kind of the opinion I've always had, that Trump never wanted to be president.

...

he might be able to cite some health issue and just fucking bail.

I’ve heard that before. Heck, it was even going on before the election. And it’s a compelling theory, and it’s possible. But I don’t think it’s true. 

Actually I could buy that it was true in the moment four years ago. And that he was simply too dumb to stop driving the runaway train by modifying his behavior. But now, I don’t believe he has any designs to lose or give up. And if he does I think he will again fail to fail.

The case can certainly be made that he tried to lose by being horrendous, but how to we reconcile knowing it’s bad and wrong, with using that to be popular by inciting rage, and also with wanting or not wanting the power of the seat? 

Whether I’m right or not, I doubt he will bail. He has campaigned nonstop. I think he announced his 2020 campaign the day after inauguration. He could have cited a health issue long ago, but no, he trotted out that crackpot hippie looking doctor to says he’s all good. He never, ever, admits to a problem or backs down and that’s why we are here. He definitely has no clue what he’s doing, and he might even be aware of that (I have my doubts), but I don’t think that means he doesn’t want it. He’s too venal and mad and selfish to have even that minimal drop of introspection. 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,520]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/politics/trump-phone-calls-national-security-concerns/index.html

I'll just leave this here.  Trump's white knights will write it off because CNN.  Everyone else can only shake their head at our continued decline.

[fcgamer | 4,722]

7 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

Masks save peoples lives, and slow the spread. There are tons of examples about it, scientific proof, videos etc but what do you tell the people that all just say its fake news?

Well, we'd been saying for weeks or at least a month that masks were critical and saved lives, but the World F'ing Health Organisation denied this fact during the early stages of the virus, subsequently increasing the spread. 

When a big , prominent organisation initially says they are not useful or beneficial, of course a country of folks that aren't culturally used to wearing masks are going to question the validity of masks, even as the organisation silently changes their stance.

If the real story got out originally, I think there'd be less people questioning the importance of masks 

[cartman | 195]

6 hours ago, Tulpa said:

The problem was that the voice was offensive to a culture of human beings. You expect them to just sit there and take it. Not watch the show? Indians find the Simpsons funny, but that one part made them uncomfortable. They spoke up.

The show responded. They kept the character, and Azaria is still working. It's just that the accent was a misstep, and they owned up to it.

And you equate that as some big regressive thing?

That's fucked up.

No one is going to miss Azaria's voice of Apu, I guarantee it. We'll all move on, and he'll still do characters on the show.

And there's more ways of being counterculture without resorting to cheap gags like offensive accents.

The humor of the Simpsons doesn't hinge on it. The show is still going. Other funny shows are still on the air.

If you're putting all the chips on Apu's accent is what made the Simpsons successful, you're really cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Yeah, they took one stand, to treat human beings as human beings, and suddenly that's the collapse of western civilization?

No. They corrected an offensive aspect, that wasn't even the core of their humor, and moved on.

No, it doesn't highlight the core of the show. The show has morals. It often hits the same satirical spots that South Park does. In a different way, but they are kissing cousins.

They changed one thing. Apu's accent. And you think that changes the core of the show?

Then it wasn't much of a show.

 

And yet it's still on the air, with most of the gags still going.

I think comedy will do just fine.

It is regressive yes. They should've dealt with their feelings just like others who found Simpsons controverial had to do but instead they got catered to. And they're not the collective voice either or representatives of a whole people yet they feel very entitled to shove their feelings down everyones throat as if they are objective.

And yes ofcourse there's other ways in wich to be counterculture but none of them include never offending anyone and appealing to PC culture wich is exactly what they did. If you fail on a bar set this low it's pretty safe to say that you're not counterculture. Apu isn't even behaving antisocially ffs he's just a funny minority storeowner. He neither ditches school nor does he abuse his son, he's not a drunkard or a sleazy bar owner etc. He's literally one of the cleanest acts on the show and yet you wanna stretch it to him "not being treated like a person" and all this other nonsense just because he talks funny. It's like he has to be this prescious snowflake or something and not have any quirk to him or else he might break when someone smiles to how he looks or speaks.

No what they've done now is definitely not the core of what the show stood for in relation to being controversial, not even close. You can make the claim about how it can still be counterculture or edgy but no... it kinda doesn't go together. You'd have to stretch the definition to the point that it loses it's meaning.

They sold out.

 

 

[cartman | 195]

7 hours ago, Link said:

It’s beside the point to you. The point to me actually is realism. I love the first season of The Simpsons specifically because it portrayed a family that had worries and problems and sniped at each other, but at the end of the day they were stuck loving each other. Sure, the interactions were exaggerated, and the characters were funny looking, but there was serious character development and heartfelt plots. The interactions they had were, indeed, realistic. We can say the same about any number of successful Lear shows (All in the Family, The Jeffersons, Sanford and Son, Married With Children) even though they were crass and controversial. When The Simpsons became nothing but jokes and gags is when it started going downhill. (side note, I blame Conan O’Brien for beginning the decline) 

So, first who the fuck are you to say what the point of the show is and that’s what the producers should do? And second, now who is claiming to speak for everybody’s opinion?

 

Thirty years ago! Look I’m all for the classics, be it TV, video games, music movies comics whatever. That doesn’t mean we do things the same way now. If you want every thing to be how it was thirty years ago, by all means, get on a Compaq desktop with a 14” CRT and post on a BBS for $2.95 per hour over dialup.

The objective isn't pinpoint-accuracy realism to the point that a minority voice sounds 100% believable. Ofcourse there's a sense of realism in the stories told but it's not the same as every aspect of a sound or animation having to adhere to reality. I mean they are colored fucking yellow you know?

I've never spoken against character development so i don't know what you're trying to refute. The show was showing non-rolemodels in a time where the established strain of TV was happy wholesome families, people with bad habits or behaviours but still with a good heart at their core. It dared to be controversial to the social establishment while now it kisses it's ass.

 

Edited June 30, 2020 by cartman

[fcgamer | 4,722]

Regarding Apu and other things:

I'm genuinely curious about this, so please don't mind me asking. At what point do we draw the line?

For example: As everyone here surely knows, accents are not genetic. I've seen Hispanic and Asian Americans whose accent sounds 100% "American", people who were born and spent their whole lives in the USA. If I had children and raised them in Taiwan, and only Taiwanense people spoke to them, they could sound 100% native when speaking Chinese, even if my wife and I were both white. Same with any accent and language. So if an Indian-American were hired to play Apu's part, and he did not sound specifically "Indian", I guess that would be fine. Would it be fine if the guy then tried to speak with an "Indian" accent, even though it wouldn't be a genuine Indian accent? The only difference is that the speaker would be Indian-American, so I guess ethnic minorities are allowed to take a swipe at their own group?

But I'd like to extend it further, to movies. Is it okay for an American actor to portray a German in a movie, with a stereotypical German accent? What about with a Russian accent? Would a Polish guy attempting to pull off a Russian accent be okay, since both are speakers of Slavic languages, but an Irish guy doing it would not be okay? Or is it all okay, since at the end of the day, these are all white majority groups, even though ethnically they are different, which people are often quick to point out (I.e Polish immigrants getting treated like shit in Norway).

I remember hearing there was a situation where people got up in arms when a genetic woman played the role of a transsexual woman in a film or a show. If a transsexual woman were to be cast in the role of a genetic woman, would it be okay? What about actors being cast in roles of straight / gay, even if they personally identify as the opposite? How about a guy from Ghana being chosen to voice a black African American character?

Where do we draw the line, which are valid complaints, and the ones that aren't, why not?

[fcgamer | 4,722]

On another note, if it's important to cast someone of a certain ethnicity to voice a cartoon character (despite as being mentioned above, accent is not purely genetic via ethnicity / race), what about chefs and cooks producing food?

I remember someone (Gordon Ramsay perhaps) was called out for trying to produce some ethnic food "better" than the locals did. In this case I can somewhat relate and find it upsetting that the "American " pizza at one of the largest pizza chains in Taiwan (ran by a white French Canadian) has mushrooms on it, as although I like shrooms, that doesn't seem very American to me. 

What about other foods? Should Italians be the only ones allowed to make pasta (probably, there's so much locally made, substandard pasta here I could cringe), should white people be denied the right to cook and sell curry or wonton soup at a restaurant, etc? 

[Tabonga | 2,317]

1 hour ago, fcgamer said:

What about other foods? Should Italians be the only ones allowed to make pasta (probably, there's so much locally made, substandard pasta here I could cringe), should white people be denied the right to cook and sell curry or wonton soup at a restaurant, etc? 

Foods are probably the least respecting of cultural (and physical) boundaries of anything.  Various foodstuffs are always getting modified to fit in with  local cultures whether the foods come to someone or the someones come to the source of the food:

Pasta likely originated in China and moved westward where the Italians took to it with gusto (as it were).  There is some thought that Marco Polo brought pasta back but it likely made its way westward before then.

(Another example - Lefse is a traditional tortilla like food made from potatoes* in Scandanavian cuisine that serves much the same function as tortillas (they generally don't go the hardened taco/tostada route though)).  I like them a bit better than tortillas - but I confess to being partisan on the matter.  ^___^. )

*Lefse of course couldn't exist until the introduction of the potato from the new world.

 

[Tabonga | 2,317]

2 hours ago, fcgamer said:

 I can somewhat relate and find it upsetting that the "American " pizza at one of the largest pizza chains in Taiwan (ran by a white French Canadian) has mushrooms on it, as although I like shrooms, that doesn't seem very American to me. 

Mushrooms on American pizza has always been an option as far back as I can remember (mid to late fifties).  

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

32 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

Mushrooms on American pizza has always been an option as far back as I can remember (mid to late fifties).  

Every pizza I have ordered for 20 years has mushrooms on it. 

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

4 hours ago, fcgamer said:

Well, we'd been saying for weeks or at least a month that masks were critical and saved lives, but the World F'ing Health Organisation denied this fact during the early stages of the virus, subsequently increasing the spread. 

When a big , prominent organisation initially says they are not useful or beneficial, of course a country of folks that aren't culturally used to wearing masks are going to question the validity of masks, even as the organisation silently changes their stance.

If the real story got out originally, I think there'd be less people questioning the importance of masks 

Yeah and Trump could have been the bigger man and wore a mask and recommended that his sheeple wear them too. 
 

But No, Trump was tweeting Pics of Biden wearing a mask as an insult. 
 

I bet most of his followers dont even know what the WHO is. But in the USA, they have been saying to wear masks since March. Trump made it a pure political game. 

[fcgamer | 4,722]

59 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

Mushrooms on American pizza has always been an option as far back as I can remember (mid to late fifties).  

It's an available option, yes, but the pizza this Canadian guy says is the "American" pizza is a combination of pepperoni (not peppers, the red, round meat thingies) and mushrooms. I personally like my pizza with anchovies.

But if ordering for a large group of people, at least in my area, the preferred choices were always either plain cheese, or pepperoni, not pepperoni and mushrooms. 

[fcgamer | 4,722]

29 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Yeah and Trump could have been the bigger man and wore a mask and recommended that his sheeple wear them too. 
 

But No, Trump was tweeting Pics of Biden wearing a mask as an insult. 
 

I bet most of his followers dont even know what the WHO is. But in the USA, they have been saying to wear masks since March. Trump made it a pure political game. 

It's hard to make it purely political when it was already made purely political before it even got to him.

Yeah, I know it's hard to accept, but the virus was already purely political before it even arrived in the USA, and it was because of Tedros, China, and the WHO. 

[OptOut | 8,883]

4 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

It's an available option, yes, but the pizza this Canadian guy says is the "American" pizza is a combination of pepperoni (not peppers, the red, round meat thingies) and mushrooms. I personally like my pizza with anchovies.

But if ordering for a large group of people, at least in my area, the preferred choices were always either plain cheese, or pepperoni, not pepperoni and mushrooms. 

I'm pretty sure THIS is the most controversial statement you've made in this whole thread dude, lol!

[fcgamer | 4,722]

33 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Every pizza I have ordered for 20 years has mushrooms on it. 

Yeah, and every pizza I've ordered for the past 22 years has had anchovies on it, though by in large, I'd never attempt to claim it was the "American" pizza.

Either way, it's really not a French Canadian's place to be deciding what a USA American style pizza is, mushrooms or not, which circles back to my previous point:

Should foods be off limits for people to produce , tweak, and sell, if it's not from their ethnic group?

[fcgamer | 4,722]

2 minutes ago, OptOut said:

I'm pretty sure THIS is the most controversial statement you've made in this whole thread dude, lol!

Well half anchovie, half chicken feet, anyone with me?

[cartman | 195]

1 minute ago, fcgamer said:

Yeah, and every pizza I've ordered for the past 22 years has had anchovies on it, though by in large, I'd never attempt to claim it was the "American" pizza.

Either way, it's really not a French Canadian's place to be deciding what a USA American style pizza is, mushrooms or not, which circles back to my previous point:

Should foods be off limits for people to produce , tweak, and sell, if it's not from their ethnic group?

no

[fcgamer | 4,722]

4 minutes ago, cartman said:

no

Well the question wasn't particularly meant for you, seeing your other viewpoints across this thread

 

[cartman | 195]

4 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Well the question wasn't particularly meant for you, seeing your other viewpoints across this thread

 

Yeah i know

[fcgamer | 4,722]

On another note, I watched the film "The Problem with Apu" tonight, after work, in part due to this thread.

From the film I watched, one of the common points was that during the initial time of The Simpsons, there weren't really any other shows featuring Indian individuals, therefore any idea about India was seen by the stereotypical Apu character, contrast that with the stereotypical Italian in the show, etc. 

Now with more Indians in the media, it does feel a bit SJW-ish to me, since one of the key points as to why this is so offensive, compared to the other offensive stereotypes, doesn't even hold true anymore. Then pair it with the fact that accents are not passed on ethnically, accents are not passed on ethnically. 

 

[Tulpa | 3,492]

5 hours ago, cartman said:

It is regressive yes. They should've dealt with their feelings just like others who found Simpsons controverial had to do but instead they got catered to.

 

So basically you're saying anyone can make any offensive, racist statement and whoever is offended should just shut up about it.

No.

Come on, if you yourself are offended by something (and you clearly cane be), you're going to spout off. You're clearly not "dealing with your feelings" the way you expect them to, you're making your statement known to the world. You're not logging off and shutting up.

They have the same right you do.

 

5 hours ago, cartman said:

 And they're not the collective voice either or representatives of a whole people yet they feel very entitled to shove their feelings down everyones throat as if they are objective.

 

They're the ones being singled out with an offensive representation of their culture. They have a stake in this.

5 hours ago, cartman said:

And yes ofcourse there's other ways in wich to be counterculture but none of them include never offending anyone and appealing to PC culture wich is exactly what they did. If you fail on a bar set this low it's pretty safe to say that you're not counterculture.

There's a point where you have to be a fucking human being and consider other people. There's a point where you take into consideration what you are doing. There's a point where you decide what comedy you want to do and what line you won't cross.

The Simpsons creators found that line.

They decided to do something about it.

You don't like it.

That's fine.

And I disagree with you.

That's fine, too.

But it's not the end of counterculture. They'll find new things to poke fun at.

You'll have to go find other sources for your offensive humor.

5 hours ago, cartman said:

Apu isn't even behaving antisocially ffs he's just a funny minority storeowner. He neither ditches school nor does he abuse his son, he's not a drunkard or a sleazy bar owner etc. He's literally one of the cleanest acts on the show and yet you wanna stretch it to him "not being treated like a person" and all this other nonsense just because he talks funny.

One aspect of him was offensive to a group of people and they corrected it. It wasn't him not being treated like a person, it was the group he represented, with is aspect being part of many microagressions that add up. The creators of the Simpsons took one microagression away.

AGAIN, HIS CHARACTER IS STILL AROUND.

And I'm fine with it.

You're acting like they shut the Simpsons, South Park, and all other shows you like.

5 hours ago, cartman said:

It's like he has to be this prescious snowflake or something and not have any quirk to him or else he might break when someone smiles to how he looks or speaks.

Quirks are fine. Offensive accents, on the other hand, have been used to dehumanize people for centuries.

Again, they corrected one thing. Everything else he does can still be there.

5 hours ago, cartman said:

No what they've done now is definitely not the core of what the show stood for in relation to being controversial, not even close. You can make the claim about how it can still be counterculture or edgy but no... it kinda doesn't go together. You'd have to stretch the definition to the point that it loses it's meaning.

The core of the show was quirky, unexpected humor.

We can debate if it still has that, but losing Apu's voice actor is NOT what may have changed the humor.

Again, the creators themselves made a conscious decision to correct an aspect, and they probably do not identify with "WE'RE GOING TO INSULT PEOPLE WITH RACIST CARICATURES!" That's never been a part of the show. Ever.

5 hours ago, cartman said:

They sold out.

You're so wrapped up in this crusade against PC culture and wanting to preserve really offensive stereotypes that you really going down this path.

Selling out? It's not like SJWs are some cabal or monolithic block. You probably think they are because all your precious shows and their offensive humor are going away.

Well maybe not base your humor on that and find other things that are funny. Surely you do.

We're regulating racist stereotypes to the ashcan of history. It's not going to happen overnight, but it will progress this way. We're not regressing anything.

But you keep fighting your good fight, where racist stereotypes are free to be flung upon the masses and no one can speak up against them.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Tulpa