The Big Picture: Correctitude

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NEXT
 

FoolKiller:
Personally I think this just sucked. There is no need to bash on people that object to the PC concept all at once.

He isn't. Notice that he mentioned Carlin and Lenny Bruce? He's bashing on people with nothing interesting or worthwhile to say who use "PC" in a lame attempt to shelter their ignorance and wilful fuckwaddery from criticism.

If you really think you're not one of those people, then why do you care? If you suspect you might be one of those people, maybe you should think about that.

While I do agree with most of the video, Jeff is funny. Sure, he might be being a bit of an ass by using stereotypes, but assholes are often very funny. Look at the snarkiest characters in fiction. They're normally assholes, but they're extremely funny. Look at the largest of the large hams. They're usually assholes, if not evil, but they're fucking awesome.

Technicka:

Marudas:
This is the first time I've found myself in such disagreement with Moviebob.

In my narrow view, I see Political Correctness as a sort of cover for (Possibly) insensitive, yet true stereotypes. Now I'm not going to be so blind as to say that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are racist, jerks, or just plain ignorant, but its always irritating to me that we're not allowed to mention that certain people habitually act certain ways because its insensitive. And where this line starts and ends seems to be utterly arbitrary. For example, you mentioned its utterly inappropriate to mention the "Fried Chicken" stereotype, but another, more broad cultural stereotype is that Americans are ignorant to the rest of the world. I see this one fly all the time, and perhaps its more inappropriate to apply these as jokes and insults (such as applying the stereotype to a president). As another point, its perfectly okay to drag out White Males and say what you will about them (Yes, there were a lot of jerks that were white males in the past, why does this apply to this generation?). It seems like PC only applies when you're talking about a minority or a touchy subject (African Americans/Africans or, in the sense of Jeff Dunham to who you referred, Muslim.) Its okay to point out Factual (but hurtful) remarks about Americans and White Males, but not when referring to minority groups.

PC was created as a means to level the playing field of language for maligned groups in society. Guess which group doesn't fall under that umbrella? White males. So yes, a lot of the rules will not be very inclusive to your typical WASP-ish male. Because history has been oh-so kind to them.

There's a fallacy at work that a lot of the anti-PC crowd will invoke: That because minorities have legal protections, that everything can start at a level baseline. And that's just not true. Having women in office doesn't change that they're still disproportionately paid in the same jobs, overwhelming forced to endure abuse with little, to no, consequences towards their assailants. A black President doesn't negate the ingrained prejudice that is still at work in society to keep minorities poor and stupid. A popular character on TV being gay doesn't mean thousands of GLBT people are still targeted for violence. We aren't working on a level field - PC was an attempt to give minority groups a boost by not having to put up with degrading words all the time. "Reverse-racism" doesn't exist, it's a nifty term coined to make the group of power feel better about those uppity minorities flexing what few muscles they have.

As for the American thing, that's a global issue. PC is only a practice in the US (other countries might have similar unofficial policies, but PC is our baby). So the idea that some bloke over in New Zealand adhering to it, is silly.

You also have to be aware of your audience, it's amazing that this concept seems so foreign to people. Guess what? If you're the lone non-black in a crowd of black people, you don't get to drop the n-word the second you walk into the room. Boo hoo, right? There's an old saying that when you meet a stranger the 3 topics you shouldn't immediately jump to are sex, politics, and religion. And, of course, it goes both ways. If I'm a female that doesn't enjoy sexist talk/jokes, I'm not going to go and sit through an Andrew Dice Clay routine.

Responsibility, people. That's what PC asks of you. Be aware of your words, and use them wisely. Regardless of your view of the subject. It's just as un-PC of me to point to a conservative and call him/her an inbred cracker.

I am responding to the part in bold. It is illegal for women to be paid less than men. The infamous "women get paid 25% less than men" statistic doesn't take into account the increased tendency of women to be housespouses, or the increased tendency of women to take jobs based on the ability to spend time with their family, as opposed to the highest possible pay. Women and men get paid the exact same amount for a given job. It is illegal to pay women less than men.

Secondly, equality can only be achieved by treating everyone exactly the same. Treating people differently prevents equality.

The_root_of_all_evil:

Shycte:

Wouldn't it be eaiser to just stop the hating?

The last guy to say that was nailed to a tree 2 millenia ago. :)

O_o....yeeeeeeeah about that.

At least he was heartfelt about it instead of just another hypocrite.

RelexCryo:

I am responding to the part in bold. It is illegal for women to be paid less than men. The infamous "women get paid 25% less than men" statistic doesn't take into account the increased tendency of women to be housespouses, or the increased tendency of women to take jobs based on the ability to spend time with their family, as opposed to the highest possible pay. Women and men get paid the exact same amount for a given job. It is illegal to pay women less than men.

Secondly, equality can only be achieved by treating everyone exactly the same. Treating people differently prevents equality.

It's illegal, but it still goes on. The excuse of "Oh, well women all have families and whatnot" is a ploy to somehow justify why they're being paid less for the same work. Do women take off for, say, maternity leave? Yes. But men also get the option to do so, as well, if they're wife is pregnant. All of the family-oriented downtime that women get, men also get - so the argument still stands.

It's impossible to claim to want equality, and ignore reality. There isn't any equality going on now. We aren't treating people the same. It's foolish for us to pretend otherwise and start from a clean slate - life isn't an etch-a-sketch, it doesn't work that way. Even if you were to wave a magic wand and give everyone equal rights/pay/opportunities, you'd be ignoring the fact that the groups that were oppressed are still operating at a disadvantage. Minorities are still woefully behind in education - there's no way to have them magically on par with many white students; same for women. We were allowed to take part in the race for the American Dream after white men had already finished a few laps. There's no way to catch up. And hoping that one fine day, those in power are going to realize, or care, that their continuing a sad practice of keeping a large portion of the populace ignorant, is plain silly.

Instead of pining away for this idyllic world where everyone is the same, we should be addressing how to better help those groups catch up.

Technicka:

RelexCryo:

I am responding to the part in bold. It is illegal for women to be paid less than men. The infamous "women get paid 25% less than men" statistic doesn't take into account the increased tendency of women to be housespouses, or the increased tendency of women to take jobs based on the ability to spend time with their family, as opposed to the highest possible pay. Women and men get paid the exact same amount for a given job. It is illegal to pay women less than men.

Secondly, equality can only be achieved by treating everyone exactly the same. Treating people differently prevents equality.

It's illegal, but it still goes on. The excuse of "Oh, well women all have families and whatnot" is a ploy to somehow justify why they're being paid less for the same work. Do women take off for, say, maternity leave? Yes. But men also get the option to do so, as well, if they're wife is pregnant. All of the family-oriented downtime that women get, men also get - so the argument still stands.

It's impossible to claim to want equality, and ignore reality. There isn't any equality going on now. We aren't treating people the same. It's foolish for us to pretend otherwise and start from a clean slate - life isn't an etch-a-sketch, it doesn't work that way. Even if you were to wave a magic wand and give everyone equal rights/pay/opportunities, you'd be ignoring the fact that the groups that were oppressed are still operating at a disadvantage. Minorities are still woefully behind in education - there's no way to have them magically on par with many white students; same for women. We were allowed to take part in the race for the American Dream after white men had already finished a few laps. There's no way to catch up. And hoping that one fine day, those in power are going to realize, or care, that their continuing a sad practice of keeping a large portion of the populace ignorant, is plain silly.

Instead of pining away for this idyllic world where everyone is the same, we should be addressing how to better help those groups catch up.

How are women disadvantaged in education? Women go the same schools as men, and there are many scholarships that only women can get. It is not as if women are educated in some female ghetto school. Women and men use the exact same schools, and women get scholarships that men don't. How can you conclude that women have a disadvantage in education?

RelexCryo:

How are women disadvantaged in education? Women go the same schools as men, and there are many scholarships that only women can get. It is not as if women are educated in some female ghetto school. Women and men use the exact same schools, and women get scholarships that men don't. How can you conclude that women have a disadvantage in education?

Because the ability for women to take part in higher education is a fairly new concept. Historically, women weren't permitted to go to college. They had to fight for the right to enroll. It was considered that educational pursuits weren't lady-like, and besides basic math and grammar, women needed little else since they'd be so busy with the child-rearing.

Madara XIII:

The_root_of_all_evil:

Shycte:

Wouldn't it be eaiser to just stop the hating?

The last guy to say that was nailed to a tree 2 millenia ago. :)

O_o....yeeeeeeeah about that.

At least he was heartfelt about it instead of just another hypocrite.

I dunno, he had his limits of tolerance for assholishness too. Cf. money-changers, temple, can of Messiah-brand whoop-ass.

Technicka:

RelexCryo:

How are women disadvantaged in education? Women go the same schools as men, and there are many scholarships that only women can get. It is not as if women are educated in some female ghetto school. Women and men use the exact same schools, and women get scholarships that men don't. How can you conclude that women have a disadvantage in education?

Because the ability for women to take part in higher education is a fairly new concept. Historically, women weren't permitted to go to college. They had to fight for the right to enroll. It was considered that educational pursuits weren't lady-like, and besides basic math and grammar, women needed little else since they'd be so busy with the child-rearing.

Let me see if I got this straight: You are saying that an opinion held roughly 60 years ago, is still affecting the ability of women to get an education today? So despite the fact that women actually have more physical ability (exclusive scholarships) to get an education than men, they are less likely to get one, just because of a persisting opinion that is taught to them at a young age?

The evidence contradicts your statement: http://education-portal.com/articles/Census_Data_Shows_that_More_Women_than_Men_Hold_College_Degrees.html

Women, on average, are more likely to have College Degrees. Not Less.

The evidence flatly denies your perspective. You percieve women as being disadvantaged in education...when the opposite is true. So the question is, if the evidence supports the opposite of your perspective, why do you hold the perspective you do in the first place?

HyenaThePirate:

Father Time:

Technicka:

Answer me this, how many black heroes can you name from the early days of comics?

If there was a Spider-Man movie and he was cast with a black actor, why is it automatically him being made a token black guy? Could it just be that the writer wanted to change it up for the sake of change?

So first it was to appeal to blacks now it's for no reason?

Um... Actually it wasn't for EITHER. If they had cast Donald Glover as Peter Parker, it would have been because he was the best actor for the job. Unless you want to go make the accusation that the casting directors for the film and the producers all conspired to cast a black man as the lead simply to attract "black audiences."

The sad thing is, that always is the excuse when we see a black person suddenly placed into something where we'd traditionally see white characters... that it is ONLY because someone wanted to cash in on it.

The first reason I said was for the sake of consistency, so don't look at me.

RelexCryo:

Let me see if I got this straight: You are saying that an opinion held roughly 60 years ago, is still affecting the ability of women to get an education today? So despite the fact that women actually have more physical ability (exclusive scholarships) to get an education than men, they are less likely to get one, just because of a persisting opinion that is taught to them at a young age?

The evidence contradicts your statement: http://education-portal.com/articles/Census_Data_Shows_that_More_Women_than_Men_Hold_College_Degrees.html

Women, on average, are more likely to have College Degrees. Not Less.

The evidence flatly denies your perspective. You percieve women as being disadvantaged in education...when the opposite is true. So the question is, if the evidence supports the opposite of your perspective, why do you hold the perspective you do in the first place?

Yes, women now hold more Bachelor's than men. I should've elaborated further on how that didn't mean it was a cake walk for a woman to go out and work on her PhD in cosmology. So, my fault. Of course, that's only when you compare the numbers between the men and women who are(were) in school. Now how much of the population of women vs men are actively involved in post-secondary education. And after that, compare the fields that more women are getting those degrees in. I'm willing to bet that most of those Bachelor's are in the "safe" fields like nursing, child care, and the soft sciences. Sexism is still doing it's level best to keep women regulated - hard sciences are still an upward climb for women. Look up the "Leaky Pipeline" in regards to that. The Census only gives you the most bare minimum of info on the stats. Lot's of kids can get a diploma/GED, but that doesn't automatically mean the quality of their learning was equal across the board. And that was the core of my complaint/point (again, my apologies for doing such a piss-poor job of communicating that).

I was in no way saying that men were standing outside with pitchforks chasing women out of schools, but higher education is still letting outdated modes of gender roles dictate how education is treated among the sexes.

And just because a mentality is decades old doesn't mean it doesn't still permeate the modern mindset. That's a dangerous way to think, and does little to help in the way of progress.

BobDobolina:

the clockmaker:
Imagine for a moment that bob was not a contributor to this site, imagine that he had to make his views, specifically the views that he expressed today heard in spite of the background noise of everybody else shoutign their not so special oppinions. Imagine that instead of saying his piece and running off, he was actually acountable for what he said.

I somehow doubt Bob would have much trouble handling the kinds of blowhards who're put out about this article.

I would welcome that, I would welcome the opportunity to see him use something approaching a coherant debate strategy, I would welcome, as should he, the chance to dismiss these claims that he uses an over relaince on simplistic views and strawman tactics.

If you were to look at the rest of my post, you would see that bob says nothing particullary insightful here and that the tone of his post is more offensive than just about anything that would be allowed by a standard post.

The fact is that the tone of this post conveyed a deely offensive false dichotomy, either you are 100% behind the concept of political correctness, or you are a racist meathead who supports sexual harrasment. I don't see how this merits a spot on the front page of the escapist.

Technicka:

RelexCryo:

Let me see if I got this straight: You are saying that an opinion held roughly 60 years ago, is still affecting the ability of women to get an education today? So despite the fact that women actually have more physical ability (exclusive scholarships) to get an education than men, they are less likely to get one, just because of a persisting opinion that is taught to them at a young age?

The evidence contradicts your statement: http://education-portal.com/articles/Census_Data_Shows_that_More_Women_than_Men_Hold_College_Degrees.html

Women, on average, are more likely to have College Degrees. Not Less.

The evidence flatly denies your perspective. You percieve women as being disadvantaged in education...when the opposite is true. So the question is, if the evidence supports the opposite of your perspective, why do you hold the perspective you do in the first place?

Yes, women now hold more Bachelor's than men. I should've elaborated further on how that didn't mean it was a cake walk for a woman to go out and work on her PhD in cosmology. So, my fault. Of course, that's only when you compare the numbers between the men and women who are(were) in school. Now how much of the population of women vs men are actively involved in post-secondary education. And after that, compare the fields that more women are getting those degrees in. I'm willing to bet that most of those Bachelor's are in the "safe" fields like nursing, child care, and the soft sciences. Sexism is still doing it's level best to keep women regulated - hard sciences are still an upward climb for women. Look up the "Leaky Pipeline" in regards to that. The Census only gives you the most bare minimum of info on the stats. Lot's of kids can get a diploma/GED, but that doesn't automatically mean the quality of their learning was equal across the board. And that was the core of my complaint/point (again, my apologies for doing such a piss-poor job of communicating that).

I was in no way saying that men were standing outside with pitchforks chasing women out of schools, but higher education is still letting outdated modes of gender roles dictate how education is treated among the sexes.

And just because a mentality is decades old doesn't mean it doesn't still permeate the modern mindset. That's a dangerous way to think, and does little to help in the way of progress.

My Mother has a college degree in Bussiness. She minored in Marine Biology. Women currently hold more PHD's than men in Life Sciences, a field which includes such areas as biochemistry and cognitive nueroscience.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/women_and_sciences.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_sciences

That said, if government programs are less inclined to provide tenure to female college professors, as the first link in this post implies, then I am willing to agree that is a problem, though I disagree with tenure in general. I think that it should be possible to fire teachers who do a bad job, so I think tenure should just be discontinued in general.

the clockmaker:
The fact is that the tone of this post conveyed a deely offensive false dichotomy, either you are 100% behind the concept of political correctness, or you are a racist meathead who supports sexual harrasment.

Given that he starts out by problematizing that whole concept and ends with a series of examples of people who could genuinely claim to be bucking foolish political norms, this is as deeply inept an attempt at refutation as it could possibly get; and if this your best shot at a summary of his op-ed, you're in no position to be talking trash about who has a "coherent" understanding of debate or fantasizing about how you'd totally tear Bob up.

What happened wasn't that he engaged in a false dichotomy. His op/ed is loaded to bursting with caveats, qualifiers and careful perspective. What happened was that he struck a nerve, because you obviously see yourself in the kind of foolishness he's denouncing. Here's a radical thought: maybe the problem isn't him. Maybe you're capable of error. Maybe we don't all get to think of ourselves as fabulous inerrant paragons who never make a mistake. If something that basic is too far-out for you, maybe you're exactly the kind of person he was talking to.

RelexCryo:

My Mother has a college degree in Bussiness. She minored in Marine Biology. Women currently hold more PHD's than men in Life Sciences, a field which includes such areas as biochemistry and cognitive nueroscience.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/women_and_sciences.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_sciences

That said, if government programs are less inclined to provide tenure to female college professors, as the first link in this post implies, then I am willing to agree that is a problem, though I disagree with tenure in general. I think that it should be possible to fire teachers who do a bad job, so I think tenure should just be discontinued in general.

Well, your mother is obviously awesome, so there's that.

And I don't disagree with you on that. A person should be fired if they're bad at their job. I'm not arguing for blind acceptance of a person simply because they happen to be a member of a group that's been mistreated; I'm arguing that their is still a ways to go before we can start talking about how we treat women, and minorities, as equal in society. Because, sadly, your mom is the exception, and not the rule in far too many cases.

BobDobolina:
words

1. My problem was that that was the impression conveyed by the tone. Opposing views were given no more than cursory mention and the largest portrayal was through the strawman 'meathead voice'. Please read my posts before responding. Tone was the key word.

2.'and if this your best shot at a summary of his op-ed, you're in no position to be talking trash about who has a "coherent" understanding of debate or fantasizing about how you'd totally tear Bob up.'
-No, my best shot at a summary was my origonal post, you remember, the one that you took a few sentences out of and ignored the rest. Also, I at no point claimed that I would tear bob up, I claimed that nothing differntiated this from any number of R&P posts. I claimed that the agressive and dissmissive tone of his posts would most likely draw moderator attention were he not a contributor. I claimed that he would have trouble defending his views if he stuck around. I at no point claimed that I would 'tear him apart.' perhaps you have my post confused for those of someone else, it does happen. I remember posting a lond rant against someone who it turned out had agreed with me from the get go.

3.'What happened wasn't that he engaged in a false dichotomy. His op/ed is loaded to bursting with caveats, qualifiers and careful perspective. What happened was that he struck a nerve, because you obviously see yourself in the kind of foolishness he's denouncing.' You know what is great about a forum. Things are permanent. Go forth my freind, go forth through all of my posts on this forum on the mighty quest to find where I have hidden behind a shield such as this once, once at all. You shall need companions for this journey. You shall be called the fellowship of the things that do not bloody exist. (also, how awesome would LoTR be if it turned out that the ring had no power at all, and it was just a big waste of time?'

4.'Here's a radical thought: maybe the problem isn't him. Maybe you're capable of error. Maybe we don't all get to think of ourselves as fabulous inerrant paragons who never make a mistake. If something that basic is too far-out for you, maybe you're exactly the kind of person he was talking to.' Where did this come from? You glance at two posts and suddenly you think that I never admit that I am wrong? I gotta say mate, this kind of personal attack, which, I might add offends me deeply as I have tried to maintain a fair stance at all times on this forum. I would apprieciate an appology at this, I consider it deeply unfair and actually kind of emblamatic of the big picture program as a whole. You will note that I have refrained from making personal attacks against you, and that my attack against bob was a corruption of his origional words to show how unfair they were. I have no illusions as to my own skill in debating, I am middling at it, but at least the content of my posts is not littered with base, personal attacks.

Do you consider these sort of straw manning tactics acceptable? I am not talking only of this video, but also of bobs videos as a whole.

Technicka:

RelexCryo:

My Mother has a college degree in Bussiness. She minored in Marine Biology. Women currently hold more PHD's than men in Life Sciences, a field which includes such areas as biochemistry and cognitive nueroscience.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/women_and_sciences.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_sciences

That said, if government programs are less inclined to provide tenure to female college professors, as the first link in this post implies, then I am willing to agree that is a problem, though I disagree with tenure in general. I think that it should be possible to fire teachers who do a bad job, so I think tenure should just be discontinued in general.

Well, your mother is obviously awesome, so there's that.

And I don't disagree with you on that. A person should be fired if they're bad at their job. I'm not arguing for blind acceptance of a person simply because they happen to be a member of a group that's been mistreated; I'm arguing that their is still a ways to go before we can start talking about how we treat women, and minorities, as equal in society. Because, sadly, your mom is the exception, and not the rule in far too many cases.

Just something to throw out there that these statistics might not be able to predict. Is there a lower proportion of females over males that hold PhDs due to lack of opportunity, or is it just that less women choose to pursue the opportunities that are available? You can try to even the playing field all you want (or even stack the odds in favor of minorities), but you can't make people choose something they aren't interested in. Also, unless you are advocating a total destruction of culture and diversity, there will always be some group that is statistically favored in some way or another. What matters is that the opportunities are equal, not that the results are even.

*hugs* You sound like you need one.

I totally agree and thank God someone was able to put my feelings (and so many others) into words ! I keep hearing mean spirited replies to these incidents or bad jokes making fun of them. But I hear about all these things and i just want to scream at the top of my lungs for everyone to shut up and just... calm down... for two minutes... Thank you so much ^_^

What the? I love Jeff Dunham? Meh, oh well. This is, however, coming from the guy who misunderstood most of the subject matter. Being fair to myself, however, I DID grow up in a bubble of a world that is Lancaster County, PA. Oh, and, mad props to Bob for using a clip from the Sega Genesis Beavis & Butthead game at the end of this video :P

Scars Unseen:

Technicka:

RelexCryo:

My Mother has a college degree in Bussiness. She minored in Marine Biology. Women currently hold more PHD's than men in Life Sciences, a field which includes such areas as biochemistry and cognitive nueroscience.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/women_and_sciences.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_sciences

That said, if government programs are less inclined to provide tenure to female college professors, as the first link in this post implies, then I am willing to agree that is a problem, though I disagree with tenure in general. I think that it should be possible to fire teachers who do a bad job, so I think tenure should just be discontinued in general.

Well, your mother is obviously awesome, so there's that.

And I don't disagree with you on that. A person should be fired if they're bad at their job. I'm not arguing for blind acceptance of a person simply because they happen to be a member of a group that's been mistreated; I'm arguing that their is still a ways to go before we can start talking about how we treat women, and minorities, as equal in society. Because, sadly, your mom is the exception, and not the rule in far too many cases.

Just something to throw out there that these statistics might not be able to predict. Is there a lower proportion of females over males that hold PhDs due to lack of opportunity, or is it just that less women choose to pursue the opportunities that are available? You can try to even the playing field all you want (or even stack the odds in favor of minorities), but you can't make people choose something they aren't interested in. Also, unless you are advocating a total destruction of culture and diversity, there will always be some group that is statistically favored in some way or another. What matters is that the opportunities are equal, not that the results are even.

But if there's a strong cultural stigma against certain groups aspiring to specific goals, is it really a level playing field? Chris Rock coined it as "If you're white, the sky's the limit. But if you're black? The limit's the sky." There isn't a drive to promote certain career paths to marginalized groups. Which goes back to a previous point I made about history being so important. We didn't just go, "Okay, ladies, you can vote and go to Uni," it was more, "Okay you can do all that...but really, you're better off staying in the kitchen. It's all a bit beyond your comprehension. But if you must work, I suppose you can answer my phone and handle the coffee." The same for minorities - there's a sever lack of support in developmental years to promote all areas of study.

There is no one way to fix all of this; it'll take a combination of factors being set up to truly even out things.

Technicka:

Scars Unseen:

Technicka:

Well, your mother is obviously awesome, so there's that.

And I don't disagree with you on that. A person should be fired if they're bad at their job. I'm not arguing for blind acceptance of a person simply because they happen to be a member of a group that's been mistreated; I'm arguing that their is still a ways to go before we can start talking about how we treat women, and minorities, as equal in society. Because, sadly, your mom is the exception, and not the rule in far too many cases.

Just something to throw out there that these statistics might not be able to predict. Is there a lower proportion of females over males that hold PhDs due to lack of opportunity, or is it just that less women choose to pursue the opportunities that are available? You can try to even the playing field all you want (or even stack the odds in favor of minorities), but you can't make people choose something they aren't interested in. Also, unless you are advocating a total destruction of culture and diversity, there will always be some group that is statistically favored in some way or another. What matters is that the opportunities are equal, not that the results are even.

But if there's a strong cultural stigma against certain groups aspiring to specific goals, is it really a level playing field? Chris Rock coined it as "If you're white, the sky's the limit. But if you're black? The limit's the sky." There isn't a drive to promote certain career paths to marginalized groups. Which goes back to a previous point I made about history being so important. We didn't just go, "Okay, ladies, you can vote and go to Uni," it was more, "Okay you can do all that...but really, you're better off staying in the kitchen. It's all a bit beyond your comprehension. But if you must work, I suppose you can answer my phone and handle the coffee." The same for minorities - there's a sever lack of support in developmental years to promote all areas of study.

There is no one way to fix all of this; it'll take a combination of factors being set up to truly even out things.

It is true: the environment you are raised in can have a profound impact on the choices you are likely to make later in life. But that's not something that can be changed by external forces. Well not if you want to preserve free culture, anyway. It's also not an excuse. Again, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The opportunities are there. You can grow up believing what you're told, and I can understand that coloring your perceptions. But there comes a time when you have to realize that you're not a child anymore and that you are free to form your own thoughts. Which is what education is really about, when it comes down to it.

I find it hard to truly empathize with the sort of mentality that lets one's environment limit them I grew up in an odd situation that resulted in me never having a stabilizing force in my childhood. I got passed from relative to relative, so I guess I missed out on the whole indoctrination bit that makes people follow in their parent's footsteps. I don't know that this makes me any better off, since that sort of upbringing made its own marks on my life, but I've never felt any external push toward one specific way of thinking. And, now I'm starting to ramble, I think. Kinda tired.

Scars Unseen:

It is true: the environment you are raised in can have a profound impact on the choices you are likely to make later in life. But that's not something that can be changed by external forces. Well not if you want to preserve free culture, anyway. It's also not an excuse. Again, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The opportunities are there. You can grow up believing what you're told, and I can understand that coloring your perceptions. But there comes a time when you have to realize that you're not a child anymore and that you are free to form your own thoughts. Which is what education is really about, when it comes down to it.

I find it hard to truly empathize with the sort of mentality that lets one's environment limit them I grew up in an odd situation that resulted in me never having a stabilizing force in my childhood. I got passed from relative to relative, so I guess I missed out on the whole indoctrination bit that makes people follow in their parent's footsteps. I don't know that this makes me any better off, since that sort of upbringing made its own marks on my life, but I've never felt any external push toward one specific way of thinking. And, now I'm starting to ramble, I think. Kinda tired.

Not necessarily. A lot of schools dropped thing like Math Teams, Debate Clubs, Chess Teams, etc. They were great ways for kids who wanted something besides band and sports to try something different.

I'm sure that not having rooted to one area did save you from having a certain mindset drilled into you. I can happily boast that I missed out on a lot of the self-defeating behaviors of your typical "black urban" upbringing because I was a military brat. It wasn't until secondary school that the notion of what it was to be really black was ever introduced to me, and by then, I was well set in my ways to tell those kids to piss off.

On the other hand, no matter where I went, I had to deal with the steady stream of being told how a real girl acts. I was actually forced into taking Home Ec despite that I wanted my elective class to be the PC lab. Because it was decided that it would be better for me. My love of video games, as I was informed regularly, meant I was a girl trying to be a boy (no, not simply a tomboy - but apparently suffering some gender identity crisis). But I saw how other girls that had similar interests as myself, but no at-home support for them, didn't fight back for long. Not every child is blessed with the gift of strong convictions early in life; it's easy for them to get disheartened and give up.

John Poling II:
[
I disagree with Bob a lot... but I feel he should be able to represent himself on his soapbox. From his intro video it appears they gave him open intellectual freedoms in his contract. But opinions are like anuses... anusi... whatever everyone has one.

I probably articulated myself badly. The point is that given the purpose of this site he should not be using THIS soapbox for political rants. If that is what he plans to do, then I think they need to re-evaluate his contract or that feature.

On many other sites, what he's saying is fine. I don't think it belongs here however.

I do not believe "freedom of speech" means "the freedom to speak as long as I agree with it". I do however believe that there is such a thing as being off topic for a venue, going off about video games on a site dedicated to old muscle cars for example would be a similar problem. It's one thing when your dealing with a conversation between users in a forum that moves off on tangents as the conversation flows, it's quite another when your dealing with material central to a site.

The Escapist is a site dedicated to geek culture, with a focus specifically on video games. Bob's feature was supposed to be about issues central to geek culture, and things that are "wierd" as he puts it. What Bob is using his platform for is to rant about politics that have no real bearing on gaming. What's more his basic message is one where he's saying that people who disagree with him or what he says, shouldn't be allowed any kind of representation. It's not just an issue with this video, but also his rant on "equal time" a while back. The attitude there, combined with what he's saying here, is painting an increasingly disturbing picture of "let's gag the right wing". Basically anyone that is against political correctness and calls people on it is a jerk, and anyone who thinks they deserve the right to express a contrary opinion is both wrong, and has impractical expectations (this latter point he's right about with certain platforms however, but that's a whole differant discussion).

Bob is entitled to his entire pro-left wing, gag the right-wing and those I disagree with position. I don't even care if he expresses it publically, I mean he's hardly alone with these kinds of political sentiments. If a lot of people didn't agree with him political correctness wouldn't be a societal issue to begin with. I just don't think "The Escapist"
is the place for it.

Therumancer:

John Poling II:
[
I disagree with Bob a lot... but I feel he should be able to represent himself on his soapbox. From his intro video it appears they gave him open intellectual freedoms in his contract. But opinions are like anuses... anusi... whatever everyone has one.

I probably articulated myself badly. The point is that given the purpose of this site he should not be using THIS soapbox for political rants. If that is what he plans to do, then I think they need to re-evaluate his contract or that feature.

On many other sites, what he's saying is fine. I don't think it belongs here however.

I do not believe "freedom of speech" means "the freedom to speak as long as I agree with it". I do however believe that there is such a thing as being off topic for a venue, going off about video games on a site dedicated to old muscle cars for example would be a similar problem. It's one thing when your dealing with a conversation between users in a forum that moves off on tangents as the conversation flows, it's quite another when your dealing with material central to a site.

The Escapist is a site dedicated to geek culture, with a focus specifically on video games. Bob's feature was supposed to be about issues central to geek culture, and things that are "wierd" as he puts it. What Bob is using his platform for is to rant about politics that have no real bearing on gaming. What's more his basic message is one where he's saying that people who disagree with him or what he says, shouldn't be allowed any kind of representation. It's not just an issue with this video, but also his rant on "equal time" a while back. The attitude there, combined with what he's saying here, is painting an increasingly disturbing picture of "let's gag the right wing". Basically anyone that is against political correctness and calls people on it is a jerk, and anyone who thinks they deserve the right to express a contrary opinion is both wrong, and has impractical expectations (this latter point he's right about with certain platforms however, but that's a whole differant discussion).

Bob is entitled to his entire pro-left wing, gag the right-wing and those I disagree with position. I don't even care if he expresses it publically, I mean he's hardly alone with these kinds of political sentiments. If a lot of people didn't agree with him political correctness wouldn't be a societal issue to begin with. I just don't think "The Escapist"
is the place for it.

I don't think you actually listened to those two videos you have issues with.

His "Fair Game" issue wasn't about "If you're a right-winger, you're wrong" It was, "Not every opinion is equal, nor should it be treated as such." It was about the false equivalency that is being used in far too many debates out there. Not all opinions are equal. In fact, some can be wrong. "The world is flat," is plain wrong, it doesn't deserve having equal time with, "The world is a round" But the doctrine of 'fairness' that gets used these days would have people believe that they should.

The PC thing wasn't about anyone that disagrees with him is a jerk, and should shut up. He was arguing that a lot of people who refuse to show some common decency will quickly "insult" any person that calls them out on their behavior as being some freedom-snuffing PC drone.

You've made the mistake of implying that those windbag hatemongerers, that Bob was calling out, are an accurate representation of the right-wing ideology. He's calling out idiots that can only communicate via lies, half-truths, and slurs. Do you really want to say that those guys are speaking for (general)you? His point was that the media, and people, shouldn't give groups like Westboro the time of day over truly relevant issues. That doesn't mean he suddenly hates Christians. Just the people of WBC.

BobDobolina:

Madara XIII:

The_root_of_all_evil:

The last guy to say that was nailed to a tree 2 millenia ago. :)

O_o....yeeeeeeeah about that.

At least he was heartfelt about it instead of just another hypocrite.

I dunno, he had his limits of tolerance for assholishness too. Cf. money-changers, temple, can of Messiah-brand whoop-ass.

Indeed. Could you imagine what he'd do to churches now a days? Man he'd be really pissed.

GO JESUS GO JESUS

Ah MovieBob. I don't always agree with everything you say, but sometimes you hit it dead the fuck on. This would be an example of that. And even when you don't, you're thought provoking, and I mean that not in some watered sense which just means controversial. I mean you actually make me think and see things differently with these things, and I think of myself as a pretty smart and thoughtful guy, so thumbs up to you.

Therumancer:
I disagree with almost 100%. I also think you should leave politics of this sort out of your videos.

The problem here is that your disapproval of the "politically correct" arguement is largely that your on the opposite side of the spectrum that uses it, and as such don't like the way it portrays your own personal political biases. Your basically being just as bad, if not worse, as the people you are making a critique of.

Let me get down to one of the biggest parts of why your point of view is a problem. You are portraying bigotry as always being bad. The thing is that nothing can be changed when there is a problem, unless people acknowlege that it exists. Take American black culture for example which is very much anti-societal assimilation, and anti-intellectual at the very least. You make judgements about it, and of course your a bigot, someone who defends this as being okay or "just the way it is" is being politically incorrect. I look at guys like Bill Cosby (who has a PHD in Children's Education) and how he goes on about Black america's attitude of entitlement, and not taking advantage of the oppertunities that have been provided for it. When you have entire major racial subcultures that see education and getting a regular rut-like job as "selling out" you have an issue, and one that needs to be addressed. Of course you start singling out these aspects of black society, defining them, and trying to take action, and your being a bigot. The problem is being a bigot does not mean that you are always wrong. Bill Cosby only gets away with it as much as he has (and he's been criticized heavily for it none the less) because he's Black and the same culture can't go after him politically the way they could a guy from another race who brings up uncomfortable issues.

A better example would be recent situations with immigrants in places like Texas and California. Please not I am not talking about ILLEGAL immigrants which is another issue, but rather people who have become US citizens. We have problems to the point where we have schools banning kids from wearing the American flag, or putting it on a vehicle like a bike that they bring to school, due to fear of violence and retaliation from immigrants, especially during holidays like Cinca De Mayo (I've posted links all over The Escapist, there have been multiple incidents, not one isolated case). Basically a situation where these people have become Americans, but really just want the benefits and otherwise to be Mexicans (or in cases of other incidents around the country, whatever land they came from), these are people getting violent and making threats over the symbol of what is functionally their own country. Yes it is bigoted to single out immigrants for things like this and point out that something needs to be done, and preacing tolerance of such behavior IS political correctness.

Another big issue is things like property rights. In the USA we have tons of laws in place that are used to prevent white people (the majority) from refusing to sell property to minorities, and "whitewash" certain areas so to speak (not that it's anything like the problem it was decades ago when these laws were created). On the other hand we have issue with various minorities like Chinese, Jews, Cubans, and others who refuse to sell property outside of their ethnic group when put on the market. For all intents and purpose your dealing with a major problem of laws with a dual standard, yet there are people who defend this based on the fact that it's minorities and it would be bigoted to single these problems out to be addressed. The very fact that we have "districts" in cities like "China Town", "Little Havana", and similar things represent the problem. A building in Chinatown goes up on the market, and some white guy/company gives the best offer, and they decide to go with a lesser offer because the guys making it are Chinese, that's an issue. Ditto for situations when it's minorities who won't rent apartments or lease space to people who aren't of the appropriate ethnicity.

Finally, I think it's going waaaay off the deepend when it's being argued that taking long-established characters and changing their ethnicity to make it "more diverse" isn't political correctness. That's politically correct boneheadedness at it's absolute worst.

My long standing arguement is that due to the way society has been for a long time there aren't a whole lot of minority characters in things like comics. Of course then again by being "minorities" you don't expect there to be a lot of them in proportion to whites in the US because there are simply a lot more white guys. The problem as it exists is something to be addressed by minorities getting into things like writing and drawing comic books. It's a very competitive business of course, and this entails you having to see genuine interest within minority groups to see it done with hundreds of people dedicating their lives to it and failing for every one that actually succeeds. You need to see a quality product by the same standards, not someone handing off a contract to a black creator beause he's black. Also like anything else they have to deal with appealing to the market as a whole, a black character with a "'tude" that villifies the white majority (even if just through dialogue) like the world is still stuck in the 1930s is of course not going to work for large scale release for example.

To put things into perspective Asians broke into comics in a big way, this happened because of a lot of interest, and massive amounts of persistance. Right now you see both Manga and Western comics in a sort of symbotic relationship and inspiring each other heavily, and a rising number of asian themed super heroes in general. Heck, we've even got The Japanese doing a version of Western super heroes like "The X-men".

The problem is that while it's bigoted, a lot of the minorities that usually get involved in politically correct arguements, are demanding to see instant success and representation in things, without having to put in any real work or effort over the long term. The "get rich or die trying" attitude so to speak.

I'll say flat out bigotry is what society needs more of right now, people who are willing to flat out ignore political correctness and what's nice, focus on problems like a laser, and work to correct them even if it involves being mean. Honestly I think political correctness perpetuates problems and actually does more damage to the people it sets out to protect than it helps them... largely because it tells them that things that aren't okay are just fine.

Oh and Bob (to address you directly again, if you even read the stuff I write) for the record, those of us who take the other side of these arguements are not generally speaking cowards hiding behind the term "politically incorrect". I'm quite up front about what I think even when I use the term, and I generally deal with the crap I get for it. I might be "mean" but I believe it's for the greater good, not out of some sense of superiority, or the sake of meaness for the sake of meaness. To be entirely honest my "problem" is that I think a lot of the groups that I criticize can do a lot better, they can meet the same standards set by the majority, humans are humans. People who think that these groups need to be protected ultimatly have attitudes that come down to those people somehow being unable to do better, which is why the protection is nessicary. On most levels that's actually far more bigoted than I am, and an even worse kind of sugar-coated racism than what the politically correct hope to decry.

Also as far as "Resident Evil 5" goes, the game was fairly accurate, and I see no real reason why a third world hellhole shouldn't be portrayed as a third world hellhole simply to be nice. If people don't like how that imagery is, then strive to change it. It also comes down to the counter-issue of "why is everything set in the USA". Set a game in the third world trying to protect helpless people from bio-terrorism, and oops all of a sudden it's racist because those people are portrayed as victims who need the help.

Also, I for one can't see why the holy heck Sheeva walking around in sexed up tribal garb or a "Jill Of The Jungle" outfit is supposed to be racist or polically incorrect. It's no differant than white guys dressing up like sexed up vikings or Romans (TOGA PARTY!!!). Granted it's impractical for the setting, but that's the way a lot of alternate costumes are (which is why they are alternate costumes), we have games where the protaganist can do things like run around dressed in a chicken suit in an otherwise fairly serious game as an "unlockable". My attitude about "Resident Evi 5" is that it was just the PC crowd trying to grab a headline, and that's not likely to change. The *only* thing that made it differant from what legions of other games has done is the setting. Set the game in eastern Europe and give the female character a sexy jester costume, or a dominatrix outfit and nobody is going to bat an eye.

O_o....Holy Canolly

You sir are a brave and outspoken man. I can agree with you on this mainly because half of the stuff I go through is nothing more than the preachy PC garbage. In a way this video did seem a bit self righteous.

I can stand by your statement though and can be politically incorrect with a smile on my face.

the clockmaker:
My problem was that that was the impression conveyed by the tone. Opposing views were given no more than cursory mention

I see little sign in your posts that you fully understand what the "opposing views" were that he was talking about. Therefore your complaints about "strawmanning" here and elsewhere are worth very little. And so too your complaining about "tone":

Please read my posts before responding. Tone was the key word.

Because to have an understanding of when someone's "tone" is appropriate, you have to have first shown a grasp of what they said and secondly shown a grasp of the context in which they said it.

No, my best shot at a summary was my origonal post

No, actually, it wasn't. That post contains no attempt at a "summary" of Bob's piece, it's a rant about "tone" and quality with no reference to specific content. And your first attempt at referencing the actual, specific content of the piece gets it so spectacularly, utterly, disastrously wrong that it calls into serious question your competence to compare Bob's piece with the bulk of the content of the R&P Forums, much less to fairly assess its "tone" or even who it's being "aggressively dismissive" of.

That kind of sloppiness smacked of a rush to emotional response instead of having thought through what you were seeing and writing. Hence my "hit a nerve" comment; if someone didn't see themselves represented in what Bob was saying, I could see no reason why they'd produce the kind of bilge in response that you've done. If you're saying that's genuinely not the problem and that and subsequent remarks were unfair, I'm more than happy to retract them; I'll take your word for it, I don't need to search all your posts.

That leaves me a bit baffled as to what went wrong here, though. Like, you do realize the "opposing view" he's talking about here isn't conservatism, right? That what he's talking about is the epic quantities of reactionary trolls who plague the Escapist forums, who collectively are responsible for the enormous amounts of aggressiveness, dismissal, strawmanning and intellectual incompetence that Bob is talking about? (Many of whom can be observed in this thread, incidentally, producing long walls of text amounting to "I know you are but what am I?!" and "You're the bigot! You! You!" That these have assumed that Bob is on the "opposite side" from them doesn't actually mean he is in any political, ideological sense; there's in fact nothing very left-wing about Bob at all. They just happen not to be perspicacious enough to realize that sticking up for some common courtesy is not a "left-wing" trait.) I think too many people mistake "sounding even-handed" for thoughtfulness; if you're talking about people like these, who have genuinely exceeded the bounds of polite discourse in your estimation, it's fallacious to try to appear even-handed and (often) wrong-headed to look at such an exercise and tut-tut about its "tone."

Whatever the case, I'll end on a more positive note:

Go forth my freind, go forth through all of my posts on this forum on the mighty quest to find where I have hidden behind a shield such as this once, once at all. You shall need companions for this journey. You shall be called the fellowship of the things that do not bloody exist. (also, how awesome would LoTR be if it turned out that the ring had no power at all, and it was just a big waste of time?'

This genuinely made me smile.

A trite post, but this video way upped my respect for Chipman, and I thank him for it.

I hate how people use PC to try and correct people on a word that, in context, is correct and makes sense for the most part.

However, Bob is right. The other side has it's douchebags as well. People getting mad about PC and using that argument whenever they get something wrong.

I guess Bob is trying to look unbiased which is fine :)

Technicka:
[
I don't think you actually listened to those two videos you have issues with.

His "Fair Game" issue wasn't about "If you're a right-winger, you're wrong" It was, "Not every opinion is equal, nor should it be treated as such." It was about the false equivalency that is being used in far too many debates out there. Not all opinions are equal. In fact, some can be wrong. "The world is flat," is plain wrong, it doesn't deserve having equal time with, "The world is a round" But the doctrine of 'fairness' that gets used these days would have people believe that they should.

The PC thing wasn't about anyone that disagrees with him is a jerk, and should shut up. He was arguing that a lot of people who refuse to show some common decency will quickly "insult" any person that calls them out on their behavior as being some freedom-snuffing PC drone.

You've made the mistake of implying that those windbag hatemongerers, that Bob was calling out, are an accurate representation of the right-wing ideology. He's calling out idiots that can only communicate via lies, half-truths, and slurs. Do you really want to say that those guys are speaking for (general)you? His point was that the media, and people, shouldn't give groups like Westboro the time of day over truly relevant issues. That doesn't mean he suddenly hates Christians. Just the people of WBC.

I most certainly have listened to them, see the issue is that he reinforces his intent with specific examples. A good example here is when he claims that making Heimdall black in the recent Thor movie and similar things isn't "politically correct" but a matter of being in a progressive society. The idea being to dismiss people who object to established characters being changed into minorities, as opposed to creating new minority characters as the minority groups come up and influance this kind of popular culture more (as asians did with comics over a period of time) as a bunch of jerks. You don't need to be a member of the Westboro congregation to think that a Norse God, should look you know... Norse, or a supervillain like "The Kingpin" who is routinely called "cueball" due to his shiny white bald head
should be played by a white guy, yet that is EXACTLY the kind of thing that he's calling out.

What's more his comments on the "equal time doctrine" did use some ridiculous examples, but also involved a far more down to earth commentary which of course fed into his leanings, the basic idea being that if he disagrees with something political, to the point of him feeling the other side is the equivilent of making a flat earth arguement, that it's right that it's not being given equal time.

Overall the disturbing part of this whole thing is the trend, you take both of these videos together, both being against the whole idea of equal time, and what he's considering to be ridiculous viewpoints, and it paints a pretty disturbing picture.

Take big issues on things like gay rights, abortion, the rights (or lack thereof) of terrorists and those accused of terrorism, the exploitation of affirmitive action laws and the dual standards it creates, the education and adaption of various subcultures. On all of these things there is a massive divide with the nation being split pretty close to 50-50
down the middle that's why they are major issues. People on both sides of the fence are pretty vehement of their beliefs and think the other side are a bunch of idiots. Bob's
basic arguement amounts to justifying silencing the other side, both by argueing why they shouldn't be given the abillity to express it, and also because making arguements against political correctness "which is just being nice to people" generally makes people jerks.

It's one of those cases where the examples he gives, definatly makes his opinion apparent. Saying that making Heimdall black isn't PC, and the attitude he takes towards people who have an objection definatly makes it apparent he's not addressing people that are as off their rocker as the Westboro guys... which is incidently a group MOST people have issues with nowadays, and which probably wouldn't warrent an installment of "The Big Picture".

I understand what he's saying quite well, he wasn't exactly ambigious about it with his own examples, illustrating the kinds of things he meant.

BobDobolina:

Madara XIII:

The_root_of_all_evil:

The last guy to say that was nailed to a tree 2 millenia ago. :)

O_o....yeeeeeeeah about that.

At least he was heartfelt about it instead of just another hypocrite.

I dunno, he had his limits of tolerance for assholishness too. Cf. money-changers, temple, can of Messiah-brand whoop-ass.

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"
Mark 11:15-17

Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.

Jesus wasn't trying to be tolerant. Jesus entered the temple, which is meant for prayer and worship to God the Father, and found that it was being used like a marketplace. If the marketplace was anywhere else he would have no reason for driving the money-changers away. However, this was at the TEMPLE, a holy place to worship the Lord. It's disrespectful and offensive to treat it like a parking lot. Jesus showed love, patience, and tolerance to those rejected by society; those who mocked him; even his own disciples that would often question his power. Yet this? Unacceptable. Shalom.

Oddly enough, I find Achmed the Dead Terrorist to be in the same vein of what Movie Bob defended in Four Lions. It is the defanging of terrorism as a scare tactics and portraying terrorists as morons. I find it odd to show that kind of hypocrisy without qualification of some sort.

Other than that, I don't have issue.

Also, fighting tribal zombies in Africa never seemed that off to me. They do have tribal folk out there still. The costume just seems like the usual fan wank that nobody would give a shit about if she wasn't black. *shrugs*

/inb4crucification

Father Time:

The first reason I said was for the sake of consistency, so don't look at me.

Haha, okay my friend. I'll give you that much. This conversation has been enjoyable. Thank you. :)

Therumancer:

I most certainly have listened to them, see the issue is that he reinforces his intent with specific examples. A good example here is when he claims that making Heimdall black in the recent Thor movie and similar things isn't "politically correct" but a matter of being in a progressive society. The idea being to dismiss people who object to established characters being changed into minorities, as opposed to creating new minority characters as the minority groups come up and influance this kind of popular culture more (as asians did with comics over a period of time) as a bunch of jerks. You don't need to be a member of the Westboro congregation to think that a Norse God, should look you know... Norse, or a supervillain like "The Kingpin" who is routinely called "cueball" due to his shiny white bald head
should be played by a white guy, yet that is EXACTLY the kind of thing that he's calling out.

Firstly, the Thor movie isn't a depiction of Norse mythology. It's a depiction of a bunch of advance space aliens that were thought of as gods. This movie isn't a retelling of another culture's beliefs. It's an adaptation of a comic book that plays fast and loose with the idea of what a god is, and just so happens to use the Norse pantheon as it's springboard. Notice there's no outrage over the Asian actor cast as an Asgardian. Ignore that the comics have made a point that the Asgardians can take on physical forms that aren't typically associated with them (Loki decided to be a massive troll and take on a female form, after all). No, the outrage is all about just the black guy. it's not about the integrity of preserving Norse mythos.

Cueball is not a term that is restricted to race. Bald people are typically referred to as that. And, again, the movies are not the comics. They are a separate world. An alternate dimension, if you must see them in connection to the comic-verse. So they aren't obliged to stay slavishly faithful to the comics. Marvel even said the movies were not the same world of the comics. So they don't have to play those rules. Did you get outraged when Final Crisis showed that another universe has a Black Superman. Do you protest against the so-called political correctness of Marvel saying Janet Van Dyne is Asian in Ultimates?

What's more his comments on the "equal time doctrine" did use some ridiculous examples, but also involved a far more down to earth commentary which of course fed into his leanings, the basic idea being that if he disagrees with something political, to the point of him feeling the other side is the equivilent of making a flat earth arguement, that it's right that it's not being given equal time.

Overall the disturbing part of this whole thing is the trend, you take both of these videos together, both being against the whole idea of equal time, and what he's considering to be ridiculous viewpoints, and it paints a pretty disturbing picture.

Firstly, he isn't a political journalist, he's a ranting guy on the internet. He doesn't have to be "fair". That jerky answer aside, if an opinion can be seen as wrong, there is no need to treat as if it has any validity compared to the truth. Your opinion can be that Obama is a Muslim. He self-identifies as a Christian, so guess what? Any other opinion as to his spirituality is invalid, and doesn't deserve to be debated as a pertinent issue.

Take big issues on things like gay rights, abortion, the rights (or lack thereof) of terrorists and those accused of terrorism, the exploitation of affirmitive action laws and the dual standards it creates, the education and adaption of various subcultures. On all of these things there is a massive divide with the nation being split pretty close to 50-50
down the middle that's why they are major issues. People on both sides of the fence are pretty vehement of their beliefs and think the other side are a bunch of idiots. Bob's
basic arguement amounts to justifying silencing the other side, both by argueing why they shouldn't be given the abillity to express it, and also because making arguements against political correctness "which is just being nice to people" generally makes people jerks.

Gay rights is more of a 70/30 thing. An overwhelming majority of people just don't care what two grown men, or women, do with one another. Abortion may be a hazy issue - but there can still be wrong opinions on the matter that don't warrant being legitimized. An extremist that goes around assaulting/murdering doctors, staff, and patients doesn't deserve the same credibility as doctors and theologists (if you want to debate it on moral grounds). Cries of ~reverse racism that talk of affirmative action almost always devolve too, are silly. And shouldn't be given the time of day because it always takes the topic away from reality. White people aren't losing their jobs because of affirmative action. They're losing their jobs to outsourcing, which has less to do with racial diversity, and more to do with corporate greed. But that issue never gets touched on, because it's easier for blowhards like Anne Coulter to point a finger at some phantom black guy and say it's all his fault. And like clockwork, white America caves to the fear of that scary boogeyman of the stereotypical black guy/Latino crypt walking into some Fortune 500 and literally taking their job from them. Are there issues with Affirmative Action? Sure. No system is without it's flaws an loopholes. But most of the work-arounds have been for the benefit of white people.

And once, again, you are more than capable of disagreeing with a person's beliefs, and not have to resort to hatespeech. Your posts prove that, which was the intent of PC. You spoke on your complaints with the casting of Heimdall - and you didn't have to use the N-word to communicate the fact that you didn't agree with the race switch. The over-reaching of PC is bad. Bob pointed that out when the super PC crowd get's trigger happy with trying to change words that are offensive, but serve a purpose beyond what the word represents. He was also using fairly public, and well-known examples that people would more than likely be able to recall. The sad reality is, far too often we're treated with the jerks who are offensive for no redeeming reasons. When Limbaugh goes on his tirades, he isn't trying to invoke deep thought, and discussion on social topics. He wants fear and anger. And how can a person tell this? Simple; because when an asshole is just talking out their ass for the sake of being an asshole, they never have a response to someone refuting their claim - it's automatically an attack on their freedoms to disagree, or to tell them to piss off. There are plenty of conservatives that can get their point across without have to be unnecessarily dickish. You don't have to call someone a w-back in order to say they're wrong. The notion, as another poster mentioned, that bigotry is a good thing is mindbogglingly stupid. There is, in no way, that a practice of being cruel, spiteful, and threatening to a group of people that you don't like for being different is ever a good thing. The person who claims that unjustified hate is a good thing is someone that's proclaiming that stance from the safety of their privilege. But that's what the asshole subgroup of the anti-PC crowd honestly thinks. And those people don't deserve to have their opinions treated as enlightened.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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