Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The last few years have definitely been throwing up incidents and events that i don't think would have happened even 10 years ago. Its a strange time, and yeah it does feel like we're going backwards to an extent.
I would be against Redcafe having an "upvote" feature for all posters but damn I'd like to give one for this.
Damn. That's feckries... What's going on over there?
On another note, I'm sure those that like to pop into this thread outraged over the latest molehill will ignore this mountain tho.
Look, I shouldn't have used the term, but the core idea of being a SJW and fighting against genuine persecution has been completely twisted. You now have comedians releasing documentaries in order to get a minor character in a cartoon banned because it was a bit offensive, you have people shutting down debate online because people happen to express views which fall outside of their left wing echo chamber .. and so on. That's why the idea of being a SJW has become so toxic and mocked, because people have decided to take the original purpose and instead fight tooth and nail over meaningless nonsense, which mostly just serves to wind people up and push them towards horrible people.
Yeah, of course I still stand by the fact that the alt-right and guys like Rayush Valizadeh are far worse than people on the internet trying to shut down debates about cartoons. They're genuinely evil people. I just don't think shit like this helps, it just adds fuel to the fire.
What is anybody meant to even say about this? It's obviously horrible, there is absolutely no debate to be had. Fascism is evil and should be fought at any possible opportunity, but there is feck all we can do about it in Brazil beyond mounting a South American D Day.
Feckall you can do about Apu leaving the Simpsons but here you are... Couldn't resist sorry.
Fair.@Mockney @afrocentricity
Tbf, the reason why these events don’t get debated here much is because there’s pretty much full consensus (on this board at least) that it’s just fecked up and wrong.
- “Brazil sliding towards authoritarianism. Bolsonaro elected. Freedom of speech at Universities under serious threat”
- “Yeah man, shit’s fecked up. Horrible news”
Conversation over.
The whole Jazz hands, Kleenex or Apu conversation gets traction because there’s differing views. Unless you mean to tell me that there should be differing views on the Brazil situation as well, but that sounds more like looking for someone to vent against. Because let’s be honest if there’s someone defending what’s happening there, they’re so far gone that you can’t have a rational discussion with them anyway.
Surely the fact that we have no one here willing to defend it, even by playing devil’s advocate, is a good thing and not a bad thing?
Tbf, the reason why these events don’t get debated here much is because there’s pretty much full consensus (on this board at least) that it’s just fecked up and wrong.
- “Brazil sliding towards authoritarianism. Bolsonaro elected. Freedom of speech at Universities under serious threat”
- “Yeah man, shit’s fecked up. Horrible news”
Conversation over.
The whole Jazz hands, Kleenex or Apu conversation gets traction because there’s differing views. Unless you mean to tell me that there should be differing views on the Brazil situation as well, but that sounds more like looking for someone to vent against. Because let’s be honest if there’s someone defending what’s happening there, they’re so far gone that you can’t have a rational discussion with them anyway.
Surely the fact that we have no one here willing to defend it, even by playing devil’s advocate, is a good thing and not a bad thing?
Last edited:
Really tho? Brazil election has its own thread at the moment, I suspect it will end up having more posts than all 3 of those minor subjects got combined. Unless you are taking about posts specifically in this thread?
Regardless, my point is that you can talk about both. Personally I spend most of my time discussing or enquiring about other issues on here... It's just a matter of perspective.
Examples of PC gone mad in this thread usually don't get more than a few posts from me, if any...
Regardless, my point is that you can talk about both. Personally I spend most of my time discussing or enquiring about other issues on here... It's just a matter of perspective.
Examples of PC gone mad in this thread usually don't get more than a few posts from me, if any...
Last edited:
Still waiting for someone who actually gives a shit that Apu is gone rather than giving a shit about why he is gone.
Apu is a tedious character, and Apu-heavy episodes are almost universally bad. Even if the Simpson's wasn't a hollow shell of its former self, I can't imagine anyone being saddened or disappointed by his departure
Yh I never found Apu funny, always seemed like lazy comedy to me. Does anyone still watch the Simpsons? It's been bad for a while. This does beg the question, how do you balance have more diverse characters in shows, which people have been calling for and the fear that those characters will be held up as evidence of stereotyping? Take a show like The Boondocks for example, if that show was written by a white person, wouldn't people be up in arms claiming it perpetrated stereotypes of minorities?
I see what you're saying, but a show like Boondocks couldn't (I mean technically its not impossible, but in reality, it pretty much is impossible) be written by a white person, because it's a racial satire that critiques black culture primarily - which includes analysis of stereotypes, good & bad. In order to do that well, imo, you need to have lived the experience yourself.
The over-arching message of Boondocks doesn't celebrate stereotypes of black people - if anything it criticises them deeply, and the characters who don't suffer from the stereotypes are the normalised ones. Riley is probably an exception - but even then he personifies the stereotype of someone who uses violence & slang as a front for their own insecurity & pain, while actually being intellectual, just never having the platform to express himself positively.
If a show written by white writers could do something similar then I would be thoroughly impressed (The Wire is the only one that immediately comes to mind) and it would be received well. The problem is trying to portray the black experience (and likewise the PoC experience) while not personally experiencing it yourself, means that you're often left to rely on others' narratives, which often means you tend to revert to stereotypes.
If shows want diverse characters, it's very easy to do - just not centre a characters personality around their race. Shows like Brooklyn Nine Nine, Black Mirror, New Girl etc - achieve this very well.
Most Simpsons characters are lazy comedy, there's some great writing in there (aside from the recent series..) but the characters are hardly well rounded. Pretty much everybody is an example of a stereotype and designed to generate cheap laughs.
Not everything in comedy has to be clever, sometimes it can just be light hearted fun. I think somebody mentioned Manuel from Fawlty Towers earlier, a pretty nailed on example of a stereotype .. and it was funny to a lot of people. I don't think people are watching the likes of the Simpsons, Family Guy or South Park for their intellectually stimulating content. It's cheap laughs.
I found Apu pretty funny, so did a lot of people I'd guess. I also completely disagree that he was a 'tedious character' @Halftrack .. I actually thought he was pretty good and represented as being a genuinely good, family guy, and I enjoyed his episodes. I've even seen plenty of people from India coming out and saying they found the character funny and don't understand the backlash.
I just hope this isn't a sign of the future of comedy, I think this is what a lot of people are worried about. At what point do the likes of South Park also start coming under siege from those who see themselves as being the comedy crusaders?
Why worry about what hasn't happened? If there was a movement against stereotypes or crass humour then there are loads of cartoons that would have been targeted long before The Simpsons.
I suspect if there's ever a campaign against Family Guy, Fox and Seth will piss themselves with laughter and then dry their eyes after with all the money they've made from it.
At this point in time we are talking about a singular cartoon, a family show. Let me know when there's actually something to worry about and you never know, I might even agree with you.
Until then... Stop making a mountain of a molehill. This is peak drama queenery.
Seems like @SquishyMcSquish will miss him badly.
Haven't seen any of the bold myself. And again the most "snowflake" protected character is the American WASP. Imagine if the Simpsons actually had a character mocking the midwest, ignorant American WASP stereotype and making fun of the protestant religion on a regular basis? The Fox News crowd would have gone berserk years ago. Actually that's probably why the Simpsons never had a character like that - they were a Fox show so its okay to make fun of Scots, Italians, rich guys but never, ever okay to make fun of the ignorant Anglo-Saxon Protestant
I don't disagree, and if they did release such a character and there was a huge backlash, I'd be defending the shows right to have that stereotype as well.
Hi diddly ho neighborinos!
I agree with everything else you said. I think a show of that nature written by a white person would get destroyed on social media. Brooklyn 9-9, BM and New Girl are pretty "safe" shows in terms of character depictions and that's fine, I think all 3 of those shows are good. But I don't think in this day and age, those shows that try to push the boundaries, can take those types of risks anymore. Breaking bad got quite a bit of criticism for it's depiction of certain characters and some even suggested it was pushing a white supremacy narrative. And maybe that's fine, maybe we should be more critical of the types of characters and shows we put on TV and creators have to keep this in mind, maybe just a sign of the times we are living in.
I think those guys are pretty immune to any such criticism.
What am I doing? I never claimed to be a defender of minorities. There's very little I can do.
That said, I think people who fight such committed campaigns over minor shit like a stereotype in a cartoon, actually do more harm than good. It just entrenches people's view of the left as rabid fun police. Was this a battle worth fighting? I guess to him it was, but I imagine it will be used as an example of PC gone mad for a good while. And an example that a lot of people will probably view as reasonable.
I dunno, to me it just seems like unnecessary fuel to the fire. A guy with a silly accent in a silly cartoon filled with similar stereotypes? I don't get the need for the outrage. Like I've said numerous times, I personally do not care about the removal of the character, I don't even watch the show. I just see examples of this across the internet and how people react to it and use it, and think that sometimes people need to pick the right battles.
Are adult shows under the same kind of scrutiny? Can't say I've heard of anything and haven't seen anyone post an example in here yet.
And people wonder why we have no funny shows like Monty Python anymore
Sorry I saw this late...but have you seen Archer? It doesn't exactly shy away from race-based humour, and I haven't seen any significant pushback against it. I think it's because no character is used as a stand-in for a race. Conway Stern was the one ad the recurring joke about him was how unusual he was (black Jew). And (obviously IMO) the first 4 seasons are the funniest things on TV.
In the same vain, even as the transgender agenda compels speech and destroys freedoms, somehow this also happens.
All References to Transgender Americans Scrubbed From Government Websites
https://medium.com/@Phaylen/all-ref...Lu9s5mkLq4TeuneYw4-vXB3zejmJmZVAwr8UTcxHHXFS0
Well they've been going after South Park for years, especially Christian groups but the episode where they depicted Mohammed attracted a lot of controversy as well.
Family Guy has come under attack loads of times, quite often from religious groups but also LGBT ones after an episode about Quagmire's dad being transgender.
family guy should be under attack for not being funny
And yeah, there has been a ton of backlash against South Park. I'm pretty sure plenty of episodes have been banned in a load of countries.
You can quit trying to paint the people willing to actually do something, as the bad guys in this. That would be a start.
I mean to the extent where they've had to course correct. Is that the case?
Willing to do what? Launch huge campaigns to get a guy with a funny voice removed from a cartoon? Huge gains. All it will achieve is winding a bunch of people up, and kids will continue to turn to other shows which aren't being curbed in that way.
I believe the South Park episode featuring Muhammad was censored, but I'm not sure about any other examples.
If that's where your mind goes when I say 'the people who are willing to do something' then I think you might have a bit of a perspective problem.
Tbh, I don't even know why I'm still bothering...
When did I criticise people actively fighting to make genuine change? I have huge respect for these people, just not this man in particular, or others like him who have picked similar fights.
Maybe I'm wrong and it will help make a genuine change and will be totally worth it. Who knows? I'm sure in his mind he's achieved something.
They take the piss out of religion quite a lot don't they? Lots of scenes of the reverend in church and Flanders bringing up his kids in a ludicrous manner. I see what you mean about wasp characters though, they could probably do with one or two. They do get stuck into capitalism and mega-corporations quite a bit, and possibly Fox news as well, although not being American I may be misunderstanding that.
Then I’m not sure what it is you’re asking?
You asked whether diverse casts can make shows that don’t center around stereotypes and I gave you a few of some of the most popular and highly rated shows in recent times.
I thought that’s what you were asking, but it appears you’re trying to insist that stereotypes are necessary to push controversial storylines, and that should be allowed?
I’m not sure why that signals a ‘sign of the times’ as far as I can tell, the quality of tv shows is higher than it’s been in a long time, and a lot of the highly rated shows have more diverse characters.
If this is a sign of the times, then I’m failing to see the problem.
I’ve never heard of that breaking bad narrative. I’m sure there are some who thought that, but this is a symptom that’s common in this thread - just because there are a few hundred, even a few thousand opinions that sound ridiculous - it doesn’t dictate the popular opinion.
You implied that everyone is wasting their time complaining about Apu (I don’t think anyone in here was, but still) and that that time could be better spent on defending minorities, right?
So by your logic, you could also defend minorities rather than complaining about the people who are complaining about Apu, too, right?
If you think the problem with Apu does more harm than good, for minorities, while actively not doing anything for minorities then I have to question exactly what you expect minorities to do? Or how your position helps anyone, except your own insistence that minorities should just accept it, because it’s better than being outwardly called a slur, or whatever you’ve decided is the ‘right’ battle that minorities should engage in.
You want us to accept stereotypes, fight ‘genuine persecution’ and not do anything that could dare ‘add fuel to the flame’ for the type of people who insist minorities should pick their battles, while actively not helping those same minorities fight those battles because they insist they are not a defender of minorities.
I'm watching the documentary .. he makes some points, but at times it just comes across that he's expecting way too much from a Simpsons character. He talks about how the character simply doesn't represent the struggle of Indian immigrants to America, but I honestly don't know what he wants?
99% of characters on the Simpsons aren't accurate representations of real life people, they're just lazy funny characters. He's simply watching the wrong show if he expected his particular minority to be represented in a nuanced and accurate manner. A really intelligent, hard working Indian character just wouldn't be funny to people on the show.
It's weird because he's annoyed that they straight up removed the character rather than working on it. Is he really surprised? Like I've said time and time again, characters on the simpsons are mostly there for cheap laughs, so if they had to rework a character to create the kind of one he wants .. it just wouldn't be funny.
Just like if they had to rework Willie to make him an accurate representation of Scottish Americans, nobody would laugh. Or if Barnie was an accurate showing of the struggle that alcoholics go through.
It's a cartoon..
99% of characters on the Simpsons aren't accurate representations of real life people, they're just lazy funny characters. He's simply watching the wrong show if he expected his particular minority to be represented in a nuanced and accurate manner. A really intelligent, hard working Indian character just wouldn't be funny to people on the show.
It's weird because he's annoyed that they straight up removed the character rather than working on it. Is he really surprised? Like I've said time and time again, characters on the simpsons are mostly there for cheap laughs, so if they had to rework a character to create the kind of one he wants .. it just wouldn't be funny.
Just like if they had to rework Willie to make him an accurate representation of Scottish Americans, nobody would laugh. Or if Barnie was an accurate showing of the struggle that alcoholics go through.
It's a cartoon..
Do Willy, Chief Wiggum, Krusty, Cletus etc offend people the way that Apu does?
We're doing a good job at self imploding, we don't need much outside help tbh.
Give it time, bro.