Offensive Media and You

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So this is coming up specifically because I made a post in the Star Wars thread about media that's aged poorly. It's not 100% relevant to the topic, but it's part of it. It got me thinking about shows I watch anyway, from the old Looney Toons with "Injun Joe" or big-lipped black stereotypes to...well....

I'm watching Seven Deadly Sins right now, and anyone who's watched it probably knows Meliodas is incredibly grabby. And frequently so. Pervs in anime aren't exactly uncommon. I find Meliodas' actions to be uncomfortable, but...I've made it into the second season.

While I'd like to see women as things other than objects to be groped, I don't think I've ever stopped watching something specifically because a woman's been groped or grabbed or framed as a nookie delivery system or whatever.

So I'm trying to think of any programming I've stopped watching because I had any problem other than "I'm not entertained." Like, I had some friends get surprised I liked Kate McKinnon in Ghostbusters because she said some transphobic things or whatever, but I don't really care. Holtzman was the best part of the movie. The rest of it's what let me down. At the same time, it doesn't matter whether...I dunno, Larry the Cable Guy comes out on stage and does a Nazi salute, because I was never going to watch him in the first place. And while I don't particularly go out of my way to follow conservative comedians, I have enjoyed a fair amount of Tim Allen's stuff, for example. Not enough to follow him religiously, but I can't think of any comedian I actually follow religiously since the death of Carlin. Even Tim Minchin I follow more agnostically (I'm not sure if he exists, but I will follow him just to be safe).

I see people boycotting because of "SJWs" and "feminists" or "homophobia" and "racism", but like...I'm still watching Mel Brooks movies, and while intended as comedy, some of those jokes are incredibly freaking tacky. At the same time, I can't boycott Will & Grace or Roseanne (not that it's on anymore), because that would imply i was going to watch them in the first place.

This isn't supposed to be about how my way is better, though. I get curious about how people tick, and why they do what they do. And, specific to this thread I'm curious as to whether people have lines they don't cross and what the standards are. I'm curious if the reverse is also true, and people will go out of their way to support a property just because it appeals to their virtues, rather than based on any standards of quality or entertainment.

Hard to say. I don't think I've ever dropped something I otherwise liked because I found it in bad taste. I mean, I can acknowledge sexist or racist or homophobic elements in things I like and criticize them for it but I don't think I've ever boycotted anything on that reason alone.

I guess the closest I've come to this was refusing to pay for things made by people I don't want to support. There are multiple movies directed by Roman Polanski I like a lot but the man's a rapist and I won't risk ever giving him any of my money. Same for practically anything that features James Woods. He's a talented enough actor for sure but he's also pretty much a Nazi. And I could go on like that.

I don't think anything ever offended me much.

Personally speaking, there isn't that much that I'd buy/watch/read/whatever on principle, and very little that I'd boycott on principle. I mean, I did buy BF5 on principle, but solely because of the way the conversation turned, being framed in a manner that basically stated "you can only have an opinion if you're buying it," said opinion being the presence of playable female soldiers was a non-issue. Having since played singleplayer and multiplayer, I can soundly say that it IS a non-issue...and that the game has a plenthora of other problems instead.

Still, that aside, most of the time I can let it pass. For instance, your example with Kate McKinnon, my own would probably be Orson Scott Card. While I disagree with his views on homosexuality, I still really enjoy (most of) the Enderverse series. And while that series does represent his views in some ways (e.g. 'Speaker for the Dead' has an intro where he details his idea of using 'speakers' at funerals), I can hardly call the books themselves homophobic. Or, Mel Brooks - thinking back a few years, I think I acknowledged that Mel Brooks has a bit of a shady history, but I can't/couldn't deny that Hacksaw Ridge was an excellent film. I think one can separate the art from the artist, at least when it comes to enjoying the work, though if you're carrying out analysis of the work, you should be aware of the author's views (e.g. if you were writing an essay on 1984, you should probably acknowledge Orwell's own personal beliefs, and consider how they feed into the work itself).

As for stuff that I find objectionable within the work itself...well, really depends what I'm objecting to, and how pervasive it becomes. This isn't too much an issue for me nowadays, because once I start reading/watching/playing something, I resolve to take it through to the end regardless of my feelings. For instance, after watching the first two seasons of Adventure Time, I can safely say that I have no desire to watch any more of it...but that's because I find AT loud, crude, obnoxious, and absolutely vapid, not out of any stance of moral principle, because really, there's nothing to be principled about. I mean, if you were put off by the pervy aspects of Deadly Sins (and having watched the first episode...bleh, they're really offputting), I wouldn't call you a snowflake, but would that be enough to stop me from watching? Dunno. Caught the first episode on Netflix by chance, but haven't gone back to it because other things to watch/play/whatever.

Basically, TL, DR, I rarely boycott/consume things out of principle, and I can usually separate the art from the artist. But people are free to do these things. I may disagree with those reasons (I can only roll my eyes at anyone saying "I'm gonna boycott BF5 because it's got girls in it), but they can choose to consume what they want.

PsychedelicDiamond:

I guess the closest I've come to this was refusing to pay for things made by people I don't want to support.

But that's the whole capitalist economic system! Raise up, comrades!

OT: All in good fun. I enjoy really mean, you could even say foul stuff. Like, if somebody on impulse says something sexist, racist, immature, or insensitive that's just funny to me. I often complain that media that I think is utter garbage has its fans and demographics, but I wouldn't say I'm offended by that. It just sucks that it ended up that way.

The only show I ever stopped watching because I didn't enjoy it was Drag Race. Its just not for me. A GF tried to get me to watch it, and I just can't.
Doesn't offend me, but its just not something I'm interested in. Good for them for being on the show and having passion, its just not something I enjoy watching.

For media, unless someone is deliberately trying to offend me(or you) its really hard to get offended. Like if Drag Race was actually 'Ru Paul's Drag Race set to the tune of Fuck you SilentPony, here's his address, go kill his puppy' yeah I'll take issue with it. But outside of that, there's no media out there worth getting worked up over. Just close the window or change the channel.

If it has offensive content, I usually cringe, sigh and if by the end it doesn't have any redeeming value, I put it away, look for something different and forget about it. I try to actively avoid those situations though (there is better stuff to watch/read/play than stuff that's offensive just for the sake of being offensive/edgy).

About the artists side, the line is when paying them will cause or perpetuate harm to others (although in the social side, I have traced the line only with Doug TenNapel for donating part of his game's revenue to anti-trans organizations).

Usually I'm more on tracing the line on art that exploits their consumers.

I stopped ordering Papa John's pizza about nine or ten years ago when the Affordable Care act went into effect and the owner publicly announced that he was cutting employee hours (thus denying them health care) to avoid being "forced" to raise the cost of each individual pizza by twenty-five cents. At the same time Papa John's pizza boxes were emblazoned with a story/note of how he spent $275,000 hunting down and buying his old car back. That just pissed me off enough that I vowed to never buy Papa John's pizza ever again.

Most left-wingers are not the ultra-sensitive 'snowflakes' the right-wing ultra-sensitive snowflakes claim we are. They say shit like 'The Office could never be made today' while ignoring that characters like Michael Scott are MOCKING 'the good intentioned bigot'. I also laugh a lot at jokes 'at my expense'.

I don't watch shit like Roseanne cause Roseanne betrayed the entire concept of the show. I've watched and can still watch shows like Home Improvement, even though Tim Allen is a shitty person, cause Home Improvement was never about feminism to begin with.

The Wrastling does tend to hit the offensive mark more often then not, but in more recent times it generally adjusts to a usually bad reaction well enough. Its also usually the heel(bad guy) doing that sort of schtick, so it comes more or as a cheap/tacky way to get their heat, which can derail the character but isn't wholly detrimental to the product.

In the "Creator does bad thing but art does not reflect" music is certainly chock full of those. I'd probably be disposed to cut my consumption of artists where they're still actively doing things, non-remorseful, and such situations where I'd be directly funding their ambitions (such as Lostprophets, don't google that if you don't have a strong stomach).

Hawki:
Personally speaking, there isn't that much that I'd buy/watch/read/whatever on principle, and very little that I'd boycott on principle. I mean, I did buy BF5 on principle, but solely because of the way the conversation turned, being framed in a manner that basically stated "you can only have an opinion if you're buying it," said opinion being the presence of playable female soldiers was a non-issue. Having since played singleplayer and multiplayer, I can soundly say that it IS a non-issue...and that the game has a plenthora of other problems instead.

Still, that aside, most of the time I can let it pass. For instance, your example with Kate McKinnon, my own would probably be Orson Scott Card. While I disagree with his views on homosexuality, I still really enjoy (most of) the Enderverse series. And while that series does represent his views in some ways (e.g. 'Speaker for the Dead' has an intro where he details his idea of using 'speakers' at funerals), I can hardly call the books themselves homophobic. Or, Mel Brooks - thinking back a few years, I think I acknowledged that Mel Brooks has a bit of a shady history, but I can't/couldn't deny that Hacksaw Ridge was an excellent film. I think one can separate the art from the artist, at least when it comes to enjoying the work, though if you're carrying out analysis of the work, you should be aware of the author's views (e.g. if you were writing an essay on 1984, you should probably acknowledge Orwell's own personal beliefs, and consider how they feed into the work itself).

As for stuff that I find objectionable within the work itself...well, really depends what I'm objecting to, and how pervasive it becomes. This isn't too much an issue for me nowadays, because once I start reading/watching/playing something, I resolve to take it through to the end regardless of my feelings. For instance, after watching the first two seasons of Adventure Time, I can safely say that I have no desire to watch any more of it...but that's because I find AT loud, crude, obnoxious, and absolutely vapid, not out of any stance of moral principle, because really, there's nothing to be principled about. I mean, if you were put off by the pervy aspects of Deadly Sins (and having watched the first episode...bleh, they're really offputting), I wouldn't call you a snowflake, but would that be enough to stop me from watching? Dunno. Caught the first episode on Netflix by chance, but haven't gone back to it because other things to watch/play/whatever.

Basically, TL, DR, I rarely boycott/consume things out of principle, and I can usually separate the art from the artist. But people are free to do these things. I may disagree with those reasons (I can only roll my eyes at anyone saying "I'm gonna boycott BF5 because it's got girls in it), but they can choose to consume what they want.

You have Mel Brooks (of Blazing Saddles, Space Balls etc fame) confused with Mel Gibson (Braveheart, Lethal Weapon etc fame).

Gordon_4:

You have Mel Brooks (of Blazing Saddles, Space Balls etc fame) confused with Mel Gibson (Braveheart, Lethal Weapon etc fame).

...fuck! :(

So... I love the Tintin books, and I tracked down the very first volumes (Tintin in the land of the Soviets and Tintin in the Congo) for completionism. And unlike the latter books... hoo boy are these two problematic, especially Congo. In that one, all black people are big lipped stereotypes that support the narrow minded colonial way of thinking Belgium had at the time, Tintin goes out big game hunting and inadvertently massacres a whole herd of antelope, drills a hole in the hide of a Rhino and dynamites it, and all sort of things that would not fly to day at all.

And you know what? I know full well that it was borne of the collective opinions of everyday Belgians at the time. I know that Belgium, and the creator Herge in particular moved on from that perspective not long after, and so I can enjoy these books as a time capsule of a way of thinking during a particular point of history. Do I agree with their sentiment? Not even slightly. But I also don't allow myself to be 'triggered' by something made in a very, very different time, by very different mindsets.

It's also why I think it's a bit pathetic changing the kids names in The Magic Faraway Tree. If people can't handle kids with names like Dick and Fanny just because they blush at the sound of it, then they shouldn't be reading fiction in the first place.

Saelune:
Most left-wingers are not the ultra-sensitive 'snowflakes' the right-wing ultra-sensitive snowflakes claim we are. They say shit like 'The Office could never be made today' while ignoring that characters like Michael Scott are MOCKING 'the good intentioned bigot'. I also laugh a lot at jokes 'at my expense'.

I usually hear it with All in the Family or Blazing Saddles. It's like....you do understand pretty much everyone was laughing at Archie, and that the racists were the bad guys in both instances, right? These are...you know, kind of big deals.

Kind of a difference between Kramer calling someone the n-word and it being used in a movie in the first place.

Seth Carter:
The Wrastling does tend to hit the offensive mark more often then not, but in more recent times it generally adjusts to a usually bad reaction well enough. Its also usually the heel(bad guy) doing that sort of schtick, so it comes more or as a cheap/tacky way to get their heat, which can derail the character but isn't wholly detrimental to the product.

I watched pro wrestling for years and it surprised like almost everyone I knew. I don't so much anymore because I tried and couldn't get into the new roster, not so much anything political.

They do tacky and sometimes even outright tasteless stuff, but it never really stopped me.

In the "Creator does bad thing but art does not reflect" music is certainly chock full of those. I'd probably be disposed to cut my consumption of artists where they're still actively doing things, non-remorseful, and such situations where I'd be directly funding their ambitions (such as Lostprophets, don't google that if you don't have a strong stomach).

This one made me think of Moxy Fr?vous, because I was a fan in high school and into college and still have a couple of songs on my playlist. Specially, I really like their cover of "Psycho Killer." After the allegations of sexual assault and some testimonials from people who had known him for years, the presence of Jian Ghomeshi in the group left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't think I'd spend any money supporting a project he was in, but I'm not going to delete the MP3s or destroy the CDs I paid for years ago, either. Probably does't hurt that other members denounced him. I don't know if I'd be able to keep a positive association with an act that hadn't.

To be clear, since sexual assault has been a touchy issue in other subforums here, I'm not saying "lock him up." I'm just pretty sure I wouldn't be comfortable supporting him financially.

And I guess when it comes down to it, a lot of it would come down to the severity. I'm probably not going to support a child molester even if I really like their music/TV/comedy, but as far as I know, this is only a hypothetical. I hope it's a hypothetical. I don't know.

I was thinking more "says stupid things", but since your post brought Jian Ghomeshi to mind, it gave me something to chew on.

This got dark.

twistedmic:
I stopped ordering Papa John's pizza about nine or ten years ago when the Affordable Care act went into effect and the owner publicly announced that he was cutting employee hours (thus denying them health care) to avoid being "forced" to raise the cost of each individual pizza by twenty-five cents. At the same time Papa John's pizza boxes were emblazoned with a story/note of how he spent $275,000 hunting down and buying his old car back. That just pissed me off enough that I vowed to never buy Papa John's pizza ever again.

These are usually hypotheticals for me. I mean, we have a Starbucks, but I'm fine with their seasonal holiday cups and wouldn't protest even if I did drink coffee. There was a Papa John's about an hour from here that I never went to, but mostly because it was an hour from here. There's no Chick Fil-a within an hour of me, and when I just looked, the locales that are remotely close are in places I'd have no real reason to be, so I'd pretty much have to go out of my way to find a reason to not eat there. Them I might make a point of not showing up to.

Something Amyss:

Saelune:
Most left-wingers are not the ultra-sensitive 'snowflakes' the right-wing ultra-sensitive snowflakes claim we are. They say shit like 'The Office could never be made today' while ignoring that characters like Michael Scott are MOCKING 'the good intentioned bigot'. I also laugh a lot at jokes 'at my expense'.

I usually hear it with All in the Family or Blazing Saddles. It's like....you do understand pretty much everyone was laughing at Archie, and that the racists were the bad guys in both instances, right? These are...you know, kind of big deals.

Kind of a difference between Kramer calling someone the n-word and it being used in a movie in the first place.

While also ignoring that the 'more wholesome' shows really would appeal more to right-wing Christians. And also ignoring that most pro-censorship watchdog groups are right-wing Christian groups complaining about gays corrupting children.

I can be offended by media in many ways, and most will just result in a sigh. Even when I really like something I'll still get "offended", because there's always something I'll take a little bit of an issue with, like 'I wish they'd changed that line just a little', or 'If only that delivery was a bit more on-point'. I generally get more offended by (what I perceive to be) bad quality than bad taste. I felt worse sitting through John Wick 2 than I did watching the first episode of Goblin Slayer. (But Goblin Slayer is still shit.)

When it comes to people though, I do feel uncomfortable watching things I used to like knowing what they were or are up to. The first such instance being with O.J. Simpson and the Naked Gun movies. I still love the first one, but yeah.. Jeffery Jones is a recent one. Ferris Bueler's Day off, Beetlejuice, Ed Wood; all of them now are accompanied with 'that guy who was arrested for owning kiddie porn was in this'. Same with Roman Polanski. And not to compare him to these guys, but I find it slightly harder to enjoy Galaxy Quest now that Tim Allen has revealed himself to be kind of shit.

Casual Shinji:
I can be offended by media in many ways, and most will just result in a sigh. Even when I really like something I'll still get "offended", because there's always something I'll take a little bit of an issue with, like 'I wish they'd changed that line just a little', or 'If only that delivery was a bit more on-point'. I generally get more offended by (what I perceive to be) bad quality than bad taste. I felt worse sitting through John Wick 2 than I did watching the first episode of Goblin Slayer. (But Goblin Slayer is still shit.)

When it comes to people though, I do feel uncomfortable watching things I used to like knowing what they were or are up to. The first such instance being with O.J. Simpson and the Naked Gun movies. I still love the first one, but yeah.. Jeffery Jones is a recent one. Ferris Bueler's Day off, Beetlejuice, Ed Wood; all of them now are accompanied with 'that guy who was arrested for owning kiddie porn was in this'. Same with Roman Polanski. And not to compare him to these guys, but I find it slightly harder to enjoy Galaxy Quest now that Tim Allen has revealed himself to be kind of shit.

I'd find it harder to watch Galaxy Quest because Alan Rickman is no longer with us.

Not really an easy thing to answer. Where the line is in terms of offence I could not tell you, and more covert things in terms of messaging making my eyes-roll or sucking me out of the experience are very personal and probably not at all rational.

My attention span is so shot to pieces that I've not exactly been consuming much media for a while, so examples are hard to conjure up.

I'm a big fan of stand-up comedy, all stripes. A lot of acts are a mixture of the same ingredients: self-deprecation, sardonic takes on depression, relationships/marriage, politics, etc., and I like that stuff, but the stuff I don't like are shock comics, those that spend an hour intending to be crude and offend/divide the audience. When sensitive and/or divisive subjects are addressed and made light of with an overt self-awareness, called out for their absurdity, it's fine, but "I'm just an all-around asshole" isn't funny and isn't something to build a comedic identity upon, so I avoid those types.

Something Amyss:
I'm watching Seven Deadly Sins right now, and anyone who's watched it probably knows Meliodas is incredibly grabby. And frequently so. Pervs in anime aren't exactly uncommon. I find Meliodas' actions to be uncomfortable, but...I've made it into the second season.

Does the show itself present this as a bad thing though? If it presents his handsy approach in a negative light I imagine it would feel more tolerable, since the show is agreeing with you that the bad thing is a bad thing, than if he were glorified for it.

Don't think I've ever stopped watching something because I found it personally offensive. Closest I think I've gotten is watching a few of Frankie Boyle's skits but even then it was less "I find this offensive" and more "I don't find this funny" which is a bit of a failing for a comedy

It's difficult to take offense from people who are trying so hard to give it, try-hards just test the extent of one's pity for twats. But then media that doesn't realise it might be offending some due to old fashioned sensibilities tends to come off more as quaint and out-of-touch. There's not anything I can think of so far, perhaps the closest to ever feeling offense would be those that 'insult the intelligence.' However 'insult' is not the right word; more of a habitual phrasing, as the creative intentions are mass assuming non-critical thought of their audience and nothing personal in any way. That breeds depressive frustration instead as there's always the underlying knowledge that there are plenty of people who do non-critically consume the same media and that goes on to shape their world view and sometimes/often actions within the world towards other human.

There have been moments of quitting media if it does that, one particular example was a Christian propaganda film disguised as an apocalyptic disaster movie. But that's because I imagined the rest of whole 2 hours out in my head, realised there is literally nothing to learn or gain there except bitter disappointment, and decided time was far too precious to waste on predictable bullshit trying to convince me of eternal imaginary friend hugs. Not that anything with Christian theming is inherently bad, it's just that one was cheap, terrible, subtle as a sledgehammer and wholly unconvincing within the first 5 mins. If I'm gonna be preached at, it had better be damn well entertaining like black gospel! It was called 'The Remaining' I believe, if anyone's actually curious.

Used to really be into shock value humour for a bit a long whiles ago, but the key part of that is 'shock' and once you've plundered each taboo, that's it...it's done. A very shallow pool with a very short shelf life that. You can mix it up but it still comes off as stale and second-hand. Humour in general relies on surprise, I think, and when people expect something, it lessens the impact considerably. It's why Frankie Boyle focuses far more on political commentary now than previously, and is all the better for it. Though am mighty curious of his Rex Royd comic book take on a superhero recently released.
The problem with certain comedians thinking being offensive without affording empathy is somehow 'shocking' is that it's far from shocking at all. It's old-fashioned, conservative, tired, weak, self-aggrandising, repetitive shit we've seen a thousand times before, from our own grandparents even. Bring something to light that society represses, is ashamed of, likes to ignore with the help of a conglomerate media empire that desires them to be positive, faithful little productive worker bees happy in pride and ignorance. Pull that dark shit out from the shadows so they have to look at it, have to face down the demons, and whether they retreat from it or not, they can't ignore it so easily. They can't claim ignorance without it presenting a visible facade.

Neurotic Void Melody:
It's difficult to take offense from people who are trying so hard to give it, try-hards just test the extent of one's pity for twats.

What was that game about an angry white boy shooting things up on Steam that was so controversial? The Hatred or some such? I remember looking at the ad and thinking "oh dear...tjhey're plahying this straight, aren't they?"

[quote] But then media that doesn't realise it might be offending some due to old fashioned sensibilities tends to come off more as quaint and out-of-touch.

Tis is more what I originally had in mind for the topic. Less the "I'm so edgy, are you triggered?" sort of crap, because that just...bores me. More stuff that happens to come up. Even the Kate McKinnon example strikes more more as someone doing a dumb than being intentionally hateful or whatever.

To go with the above example of Meliodas, I doubt that Seven Deadly Sins is trying to be offensive, and I'm not even sure from Japan's perspective this is considered "date", given how bad the groping problem in Japan still is overall...it's still creepy from where I'm sitting. Just, apparently, not a dealbreaker for me.

[quote]There have been moments of quitting media if it does that, one particular example was a Christian propaganda film disguised as an apocalyptic disaster movie.

There are a lot of those, but was it by chance Left Behind? I picked up the first book in a used bookstore because the premise sounded interesting. Too bad the writing wasn't. I didn't hear the hype about the series, so i didn't know any better. Idon't even mind the Christian preachiness, it was just...dull.

One of the things that's always amused me is a certain set of Christians who seem to think all atheists will recoil like a vampire if you do something like say "Merry Christmas" or "God bless." Tis is lkess about propaganda and more that first example about trying hard, but I only thought about it because you referenced a Christian propaganda movie, which made me think of the horrible strawman movies like "God's Not Dead" where pretty much everyone else in the world is villainised, and I went on from there.

My first band was mistaken for a Christian group. While our guitarist was a Christian, I was the principle songwriter. It seems to blow some folks' minds that that's a thing, specifically because of the rhetoric out there. I like Christmas music. Well, some of it. I have a nice long Christmas playlist I run between Thanksgiving and Christmas. People say "God bless" I say "thank you" because I assume it comes from a place of kindness. Etc.

And while that's not the media I had in mind, I bring all this up because...I'm not offended by the God's Not Dead movies. They're not offensive to me, they're kind of funny. Well, funny enough. There are some serious tryhard moments in the movie where I'm not sure if they're trying to preach or to attack atheists, but the bit where the atheist is asked why he hates God or whatever and he's all "BECAUZ HE KILT MUH DADDY!" has me rolling on the floor.

I doubt the creators would appreciate me thinking of it as comedy but it is what it is.

I wasn't offended by being considered part of a Christian group, incidentally. It did throw me, though, because I never thought of what I wrote as having any religious significance.

I've not once in my life considered any piece of media as "offensive media" nor have I ever been actually offended by any form of media either. I do consume media with lots of controversial themes, rudeness and bad behavior, as cathartic entertainment.

I think getting offended by such things shows you have growing to do and are still immature. If you feel like you might be offended by something, that means you're not in the mood for it or it's not to your taste. Anything I see being referenced here as supposedly being offensive registers to me as being merely entertaining and fun.

As for ghostbusters, I think people boycotted it for reasons outside it being offensive, reasons now shared by the fans and actors of that film since another one is being made and that one is not going to include them and their stories. If only they could extend empathy to those people instead of calling them sexist because 2% of them sent them mean messages on the internet, alas, hindsight is always 20-20.

Not really, if only because I tend to steer away from things I know won't be to my taste in the first place. I suppose I enjoy watching youtube videos and I tend to click off of them if too many homophobic slurs get thrown around.

Dreiko:

I think getting offended by such things shows you have growing to do and are still immature. If you feel like you might be offended by something, that means you're not in the mood for it or it's not to your taste. Anything I see being referenced here as supposedly being offensive registers to me as being merely entertaining and fun.

*Recalls all the times Drieko has complained about Japanese imports being "censored"*

Yeah, off the high horse, you haven't earned it. You don't get to call everyone immature for the crime of not liking media that you do.

Dreiko:
I think getting offended by such things shows you have growing to do and are still immature.

Wow, that's a smug and broadly sweeping statement. I'm not offended by much, but I'm fully aware that things CAN be offensive to others. I think anyone who thinks being offended makes one immature is pathologically disinhibited and woefully unaware that the world is a much larger and varied place than the space inside his or her own skull.

If you feel like you might be offended by something, that means you're not in the mood for it or it's not to your taste.

Is it possible "not to your taste" could be that broad umbrella that includes media that makes you mentally uncomfortable or is an affront to deeply held tenets, y'know, what's the word? Oh yeah, OFFENDED.

Anything I see being referenced here as supposedly being offensive registers to me as being merely entertaining and fun.

"Registers to YOU." Because by simply labelling anything as "entertainment" or "fun" makes it such and therefore beyond subjective scrutiny?

I guess I'm immature since I support underage girls not wearing sexualized outfits

I got a lot of growing up to do

There are going to be somethings we will find problematic because of value disonese. What's acceptable in one contry for little kids to watch is adults only in another.

Other times you really have to look into the character of the people making it.

For me personally, I am typically ok with Matt Stone and Trey Parker when they poke fun at my Latter Day Saint faith, because they tend to be, for lack of a better turn, having good clean fun with it, and as much hay is weird, but at least its fun weirdness. Even when I heard about the Book of Mormon Play, a quick Wikipedia skim and I am going: Ok, the two missionaries no one wants to work with. The Holier than though type and the one that knows absolutely nothing about his religion (to the point he mixes and matches Lord of the Rings with Book of Mormon).

Other times, I put my foot down. No matter what others say about their qualety, I do not plan to see Clockwork Orange, the origional Birth of a Nation, or Cannibal Holocaust.

erttheking:

*Recalls all the times Drieko has complained about Japanese imports being "censored"*

Yeah, off the high horse, you haven't earned it. You don't get to call everyone immature for the crime of not liking media that you do.

I'm not offended by censorship though, I don't think I ever claimed I was. It's more like feeling patronized and talked down to by it, if anything. You can acknowledge something sucks without being offended by it.

And no, I don't particularly like the things I see here spoken of as though they're offensive. I just consider them to not be offensive is all. A lot of them are things I actually dislike or find boring and so on. It's a pretty big leap to assume I like it lol.

Xprimentyl:

Wow, that?s a smug and broadly sweeping statement. I?m not offended by much, but I?m fully aware that things CAN be offensive to others. I think anyone who thinks being offended makes one immature is pathologically disinhibited and woefully unaware that the world is a much larger and varied place than the space inside his or her own skull.

Being offended fundamentally comes from a place of lack of understanding. It's the equivalent of an instinctual fear response in a conceptual sense. The way to assuage fear is to learn more about the thing and through understanding it you will feel less offended and more X which is the actually appropriate response, with X being any of a number of things such as disgusted or saddened or horrified (which I of course have felt from various media). Being offended like the late Hitchens said literally means nothing.

Is it possible ?not to your taste? could be that broad umbrella that includes media that makes you mentally uncomfortable or is an affront to deeply held tenets, y?know, what?s the word? Oh yeah, OFFENDED.

Something being not to your taste is not a statement about the thing but you yourself. It means you are incapable of appreciating it like others are. Hence, you can't ascribe traits to the thing based on you, since you are not it. In a sense, being offended by something is describing your own weakness as that thing's concept. It is not describing that thing as this transgressing force that is acting upon you, like some people seem to use the term as.

?Registers to YOU.? Because by simply labelling anything as ?entertainment? or ?fun? makes it such and therefore beyond subjective scrutiny?

Subjective scrutiny can never yield the result of X media being "offensive media" since that's an objective statement about said media. I was talking about the objective nature of media as being just entertainment or fun, incapable of being inherently offensive due to someone's subjective take on them.

Dreiko:

erttheking:

*Recalls all the times Drieko has complained about Japanese imports being "censored"*

Yeah, off the high horse, you haven't earned it. You don't get to call everyone immature for the crime of not liking media that you do.

I'm not offended by censorship though, I don't think I ever claimed I was. It's more like feeling patronized and talked down to by it, if anything. You can acknowledge something sucks without being offended by it.

And no, I don't particularly like the things I see here spoken of as though they're offensive. I just consider them to not be offensive is all. A lot of them are things I actually dislike or find boring and so on. It's a pretty big leap to assume I like it lol.

That strikes me as serious hair splitting. Like most people would associate feeling patronized and talked down to as being offensive.

Which, funnily enough, is what you were doing to the entire thread.

erttheking:

Dreiko:

erttheking:

*Recalls all the times Drieko has complained about Japanese imports being "censored"*

Yeah, off the high horse, you haven't earned it. You don't get to call everyone immature for the crime of not liking media that you do.

I'm not offended by censorship though, I don't think I ever claimed I was. It's more like feeling patronized and talked down to by it, if anything. You can acknowledge something sucks without being offended by it.

And no, I don't particularly like the things I see here spoken of as though they're offensive. I just consider them to not be offensive is all. A lot of them are things I actually dislike or find boring and so on. It's a pretty big leap to assume I like it lol.

That strikes me as serious hair splitting. Like most people would associate feeling patronized and talked down to as being offensive.

Which, funnily enough, is what you were doing to the entire thread.

It's really not the same thing though. When someone censors something, he usurps my autonomy to choose for myself what is suitable for me to consume and he presumes to tell me that he knows better than I what I ought to consume. That's not offensive, such a label is messy and imprecise and literally means nothing. What that is is patronizing and belittling. They're violating the spirit of my rights as a human being with an adult mind and freedom. Being robbed of ones autonomy is not in the same ballpark as being "offended". It is part of my human rights to choose what media I want to consume. Being protected from feeling generally flummoxed at something that bugs me is not.

What use do you get from considering being talked down to as offensive, exactly? Isn't that just a catchall that you use to make whoever is transgressing upon you feel as though they did something bad to you? Well, I happen to think people ought to feel that way more heavily when they are told they're being patronizing than when they're told they're being offensive, since that's an actual thing you can specify and correct, so I see no meaning from trying to include any and all sorts of disagreeable conduct under the blanket of being offensive.

Dreiko:
Snip

Yeah, look, I know you probably assign some definition to the words that makes one totally different from the other, but frankly they come across as both being insulting. Also...someone assuming that he knows better than you do on what to consume...ISN'T offensive to you?

The problem here is that you seem to have a definition that you can only be offended by something if it's some harmless thing, something that's not actually a real problem. As in, you seem to think that if it's a serious problem that infringes on your human rights, you can be offended because it's actually a serious problem. And I generally consider treating human beings as lesser beings to be offensive. So...does that answer your question of what "use" I consider from considering being talked down to as offensive? Oh, by the way.

Dreiko:

Being offended fundamentally comes from a place of lack of understanding.

I'm sorry, you don't get to make shit up about definitions. And that's what you're doing right now. Making shit up.

Transgendered people being banned from the military offends me as someone who believes in the equality of human beings. There is no "lack of understanding" there mate.

Dreiko:
I think getting offended by such things shows you have growing to do and are still immature. If you feel like you might be offended by something, that means you're not in the mood for it or it's not to your taste.

Dreiko:
Being offended fundamentally comes from a place of lack of understanding. It's the equivalent of an instinctual fear response in a conceptual sense.

I find myself offended by the depiction of animal abuse, do you think that's something I just don't understand? Do you ever find yourself in the mood to watch cats or dogs being tortured? Does not wanting to see other living things being hurt make me immature?

The only things I can actually think of that I simply avoid or turn off due to being offensive are primarily old westerns where they depict Native Americans and other minorities in a horrible way or gross stand up comedians. Those and those " British savior" movies where they go into Africa and "save" the uneducated heathen and tame the wild BS. Those are like nails on a chalkboard. That said, I actually like a lot of old films and TV shows, with their 1950's racist shat and all.Even with Lucille Ball's horrific portrayal of Native Americans, and the whole servant housewife role, I still think she is one of the best comedians of all time and I understand why so many comedians that came after her copied her and idolize her and use her jokes even to this day.

Oh and I avoid anything that is remotely like the kardashians, because I find them and the people like them's very existence offensive and grotesque and see that the world would be a better place without them on it.

Dreiko:
I think getting offended by such things shows you have growing to do and are still immature. If you feel like you might be offended by something, that means you're not in the mood for it or it's not to your taste.

I think the exact opposite.

If you're not offended by anything, then it means you've never had the experience of being genuinely hurt by something. It means you live in a sheltered world where you don't have to take anything seriously because you've never had to grow up and see that the world is a serious place.

Not being able to understand real consequences is kind of the definition of immaturity. It's why adolescent kids write edgy stories about murdering their parents in the Purge or something, because a child's developing mind can't comprehend real consequences like mortality. To most children (with a few very sad exceptions) things like death, violence and abuse are just fun aesthetics.

And that's fine, because they're kids, and they will eventually figure it out. They will face the reality of death, they will come to understand emotions like grief and suffering, because that's part of what growing up means.

But if you're already an adult, it's not unreasonable to expect you to have an adult view of the world, and that means considering the very real consequences of your fun aesthetics, and not just for yourself. If you laugh at a racist joke because you've never personally experienced the consequences of racism and therefore it isn't "real" for you, then that's really no different from a child not being able to understand the consequences of death.

Now, you can certainly find value or even humour in things which are uncomfortable. Part of living in a serious world is learning to live with a degree of discomfort. But adults have limits. You cannot demand that someone shares your indifference to things that hurt them, that certainly isn't "maturity".

People who bitch about people being offended need to stop being hypocrites by being offended by that.

'I don't care and I need to make sure everyone knows it!'

So, this seems appropriate right now:

https://slate.com/culture/2019/01/blood-heir-ya-book-twitter-controversy.html

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/279806/how-a-twitter-mob-destroyed-a-young-immigrant-female-authors-budding-career

Haven't read any of his books, but Larry Correia sums up my feelings perfectly:

http://monsterhunternation.com/2019/01/31/to-the-book-community-go-fuck-yourself-an-anti-apology/

You can point out that the author withdrew the book at her own volition, and it doesn't prohibit the book from being published at a later date, but that's really beside the point. I find it telling that on Zhao's "twitter apology" that many authors are saying she's made the wrong decision. And as someone who did creative writing courses, who's been in a creative writing group, and has posted stuff on the net for over a decade...obviously I'm not in the same boat as a published author, but I feel terrible for her.

People have the right to be offended. But when your offence comes from misinterpretation of text, and potentially prevents the source of your offence from being published at all, as written by an aspiring author...bleh.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here