Atheistforums.com

(http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hugh-Laurie-Facepalm-During-A-Conversation.gif)

http://www.nme.com/news/tv/new-documentary-asks-simpsons-apu-offensive-racist-stereotype-2159199

"The Problem with Apu' airs this weekend

QuoteA new documentary sets out to investigate the impact of The Simpsons character Apu Nahasapeemapetilon â€" and how widely he’s considered to be an offensive stereotype to people of Indian and Asian descent.

Set to premiere this weekend on November 19 on truTV,  The Problem With Apu follows comedian and Simpsons‘ fan Hari Kondabolu as he interviews figures from the world of entertainment including Aziz Ansari, Utkarsh Ambudkar, Maulik Pancholy, Sakina Jaffrey, Whoopi Goldberg and Kal Penn to look into the problematic nature of iconic shop-owner.

“Kids in the playground would always mimic the accent and say ‘Thank you, come again!’ or ‘Hello, Mr Homer!’” Kondabolu told the BBC. “Sure, growing up in New York City everyone tries to be funny. If you grow up there you learn to make jokes and how to make comebacks, but it’s hard to counter an accent â€" what’s your comeback for an accent?”

He continued: “The Simpsons is an important work of art that has influenced so many, including myself. Apu was the only Indian we had on TV at all so I was happy for any representation as a kid. And of course he’s funny, but that doesn’t mean this representation is accurate or right or righteous. It gets to the insidiousness of racism, though, because you don’t even notice it when it’s right in front of you. It becomes so normal that you don’t even think about it. It seeps into our language to the point we don’t even question it because it seems like it’s just been that way forever.”

Speaking of the stereotypical traits that Apu has been loaded with, Kondabolu said: “He’s defined almost entirely by his job. But he also happens to have eight kids, a joke about India having so many people, and he has an arranged marriage via this weird matchmaking system that’s almost like football draft picks.

“And even though some may defend Apu with ‘Well, he’s a small business owner, and he’s a key part of the community and he’s loved,’ he’s still so limiting, because he’s never grown. I mean, some Simpsons characters have changed â€" some have died, Flanders became a widow. But the only Indian in town has always been a convenience store owner.”

White actor Hank Azaria has voiced Apu since the ’90s â€" a portrayal which Kondabolu describes as “a white guy doing an impression of a white guy making fun of my father.”

Elaborating on Apu being voiced by a white actor, Kondabolu told NBC: “To imagine a white dude doing that voice, that was a torment. It was like bullying from behind the screen.”


In a clip from the documentary, Azaria himself that’s Apu’s voice and manner may be considered offensive.


“Right away, they were like, ‘Can you do an Indian voice and how offensive can you make it?’” he said of early auditions for the part. “I was like: ‘It’s not tremendously accurate, it’s a little stereotyped,’ and they were like: ‘Nah, that’s alright!’”

Responding to critics at the trailer’s conclusion, Kondabolu added: “I realise some of you think I’m some annoying, PC, social justice warrior that’s very sensitive and you’re probably thinking ‘come on snow flake, let it go’. Well I have let it go â€" for 28 years.”

I think the first comment made at the bottom of the article says it all. Simpsons uses stereotypes and makes fun of EVERYTHING!

(https://img.discogs.com/tEDaPcTvoHNhhjAK1-HIB-6SiiE=/fit-in/300x300/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(40)/discogs-images/A-1770045-1273644180.jpeg.jpg)(http://worldwide-web.com/JeffreyBabad/Simpsons/Bee/bee2.gif)(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c6/b3/f4/c6b3f4fdec3d986f89e8a4d89c4b819b--les-simpson-law-enforcement-officer.jpg)(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsonstappedout/images/9/94/Frink1.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/185?cb=20131023185711)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmLnHhiCYAAWWf3.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/VwFVsYo.png)(https://a1cf74336522e87f135f-2f21ace9a6cf0052456644b80fa06d4f.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/images/characters/p-the-simpsons-harry-shearer-ned-flanders.jpg)(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/springfieldbound/images/0/06/Rich_Texan_%28Official_Image%29.png/revision/latest?cb=20130607195753)

Yet, the only character this guy takes offense to, is the Indian stereotype. i would even say Apu more of a well rounded character on simpsons then many of the examples above, because he has a character arch and progressive story. To say this guy misses the point of what the simpsons is as a show entirely is an understatement.

Some people love to be offended.  I piss in their general direction.

(http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/grandpa-simpson-gif-9.gif)

(https://thomasfilmblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/fat-tony.jpg)

Everyone is made fun of in the Simpsons.  No one gets a pass.  It's part of the show's appeal.  Do Indians take offense when the show makes fun of Christians, rednecks, politicians, or scientists?  Part of the humor is that Indians seem to gravitate to owning convenience stores.  The Simpson's is a stereotype of the stereotype.  Don't tell me you haven't noticed that an unusual number of Indians run convenience stores.  Perhaps a better stereotype would be a humorless doctor who never does anything stupid, but that wouldn't be as funny.

To be fair, I can completely see how it's an offensive character. On the other, if they are offensive to everyone equally... then it really seems like tough shit for them.

I think we shouldn't go out of our way to be offensive, but at the same it is a genre of comedy that is likely not going away any time soon.

It is different though between white people making fun of fellow white people and white people making fun of minorities they have oppressed for generations. It's easy as a white person to say get over it, but it's really not that easy.

Quote“And even though some may defend Apu with ‘Well, he’s a small business owner, and he’s a key part of the community and he’s loved,’ he’s still so limiting, because he’s never grown. I mean, some Simpsons characters have changed â€" some have died, Flanders became a widow. But the only Indian in town has always been a convenience store owner.”

Unlike Groundskeeper Willie, Super Nintendo Chaumers, Comic Book guy, Lenny, Carl, Burns, Moe...

Also, Apu does have some hidden depth to him.  He's consistently caring and (when not hawking crappy convenience store items) pretty honest.  And compared to other Springfield characters, he's one of the most level-headed characters around.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 16, 2017, 10:45:30 AMIt is different though between white people making fun of fellow white people and white people making fun of minorities they have oppressed for generations. It's easy as a white person to say get over it, but it's really not that easy.

But most people on the Simpsons are yellow, not white.  :P

The thing is, simpsons is a cartoon, with real world settings, but its still a cartoon, meaning it operates on cartoonish logic. Its also a parody, opening itself to modern day humor. If you take stuff that happens in shows like simpsons, south park, family guy and rick and morty serious enough to consider it 'offensive', then your missing the point of parody entirely.

Think about the humor George Carlin once gave on on stage, ahead of its time, and he pretty much took the piss out of everything and everyone. Its comedy, and in comedy if you without making fun of a certain group because they get offended by being mocked, then they deserve to be mocked all the more for it. Being thinned skinned that comedy offends you means you need to grow some. If you can't laugh at yourself, then your pretty much a no hope case.

I like this Simpsons gif:




(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/IdioticBlushingAmericantoad-size_restricted.gif)



People who can't stand being made fun of shouldn't make fun of others.

Except not really.

As a society, we have agreed that certain ethnicities are not in taste to make jokes about; for example, jokes about "those" blacks in the hood by a white guy is racist, same joke by an African American isn't. That's just the way society works.

Humour and comedy does not have an inalienable right to be offensive; society and the consumer decides what is acceptable. And I don't see any logical reason for comedy to be hateful or offensive for offense sake. I love Carlin, Pryor, 9/11 and Holocaust jokes... but if society said the last two weren't acceptable in society because they only serve to shock and not to actually make a point, I don't think anything of value would be lost.

It comes down to how "free" freedom of speech should go, and ultimately that all comes down to culture; for every argument that it should be completely free, there is a just as logical and valid reason why it should be restricted. So at the end of the day all i can really count on is what harms the least amount of people and think that is what we should aim for.

Being rude and not understanding one another may be the norm, but that doesn't mean it's how it should or has to be.

Edit: And I don't mean that in that I personally think this is offensive; problematic? Certainly. But offensive? That's not my place to decide. It does further a derogatory stereotype though, and as I said... that is inherently problematic.

I wonder what Dopender thinks of this.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 16, 2017, 03:53:23 PM
As a society, we have agreed that certain ethnicities are not in taste to make jokes about; for example, jokes about "those" blacks in the hood by a white guy is racist, same joke by an African American isn't. That's just the way society works.

Well, I gotta say, honestly, that sounds awful and racist.
I'd rather not live in that society.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 16, 2017, 05:36:23 PM
Well, I gotta say, honestly, that sounds awful and racist.
I'd rather not live in that society.

How?

Look at it from an African Americans perspective: The people who enslaved generations of your ancestors, who fought tooth and nail to deny you civil rights, who continue to pass laws and regulations that keep you poor or murdered in the street to either gangsters or policemen are making jokes about your poverty and way of life... I don't think it is even remotely a stretch to see how some African Americans can find that offensive.

I don't understand how white people always find a way to make it all about us. That is not even remotely racist to think that the differences in social power makes it okay for a group to make jokes about themselves but not as acceptable for the oppressor to make jokes about them.

It would be like a Chinese man making a dark joke about Nanking and a Japanese man making the same joke, or a Congolese making a joke about the Belgian Congo and then a Belgian making the same... you may think it's horrible that they can't both say the same thing, but that's like finding the rising of the sun horrible.

Making it okay to casually joke about oppressed minorities makes any meaningful dialog about actually helping them near impossible. Comedians like Carlin are fine, because at the end of the day his jokes were about bringing awareness to an issue. But just a random joke like, "lol those Indians with their gas stations!", "ching chong ding dong I r Chinese" and "Lolol black people and grape juice, amirite?" bring nothing to the table and have no real reason to be defended.

Quote from: SGOS on November 16, 2017, 08:04:18 AM
Everyone is made fun of in the Simpsons.  No one gets a pass.  It's part of the show's appeal.  Do Indians take offense when the show makes fun of Christians, rednecks, politicians, or scientists?  Part of the humor is that Indians seem to gravitate to owning convenience stores.  The Simpson's is a stereotype of the stereotype.  Don't tell me you haven't noticed that an unusual number of Indians run convenience stores.  Perhaps a better stereotype would be a humorless doctor who never does anything stupid, but that wouldn't be as funny.

Futurama ... a Jewish doctor who is shellfish ;-))

Quote from: Shiranu on November 16, 2017, 03:53:23 PM
Except not really.

As a society, we have agreed that certain ethnicities are not in taste to make jokes about; for example, jokes about "those" blacks in the hood by a white guy is racist, same joke by an African American isn't. That's just the way society works.

Humour and comedy does not have an inalienable right to be offensive; society and the consumer decides what is acceptable. And I don't see any logical reason for comedy to be hateful or offensive for offense sake. I love Carlin, Pryor, 9/11 and Holocaust jokes... but if society said the last two weren't acceptable in society because they only serve to shock and not to actually make a point, I don't think anything of value would be lost.

It comes down to how "free" freedom of speech should go, and ultimately that all comes down to culture; for every argument that it should be completely free, there is a just as logical and valid reason why it should be restricted. So at the end of the day all i can really count on is what harms the least amount of people and think that is what we should aim for.

Being rude and not understanding one another may be the norm, but that doesn't mean it's how it should or has to be.

Edit: And I don't mean that in that I personally think this is offensive; problematic? Certainly. But offensive? That's not my place to decide. It does further a derogatory stereotype though, and as I said... that is inherently problematic.

For the record ... FU ... and I say that because I am free to admire you so much.  SJW ... 7 billion people kissing the asses of the other 7 billion people ... and that kind of kiss is the kiss of the Devil BTW.  The world's largest human caterpillar, but circular, like Ouroboros.

So ... don't post anymore, unless every word is preapproved by your Chicago ward healer ;-)

As an aside, I piss on British Utilitarianism ... the mother of all Fabian bullshit.

Baruch, I am sooooo deeply offended by that. We brits value our utility rooms for washing and cleaning at the most impeccable tastes.

Quote from: Munch on November 16, 2017, 06:59:58 PM
Baruch, I am sooooo deeply offended by that. We brits value our utility rooms for washing and cleaning at the most impeccable tastes.

Sorry, but I won't bother getting a glass of water from any of your WC ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on November 16, 2017, 07:08:32 PM
Sorry, but I won't bother getting a glass of water from any of your WC ;-)

aww that made utility room sad.

(https://i.imgur.com/kxoJA3T.jpg)

So why does one group have privileges another doesn't get?

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 16, 2017, 07:25:47 PM
So why does one group have privileges another doesn't get?

QEII and gay men who tend to dress like Vegas girls.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 16, 2017, 07:25:47 PM
So why does one group have privileges another doesn't get?

A history (and present, in many cases) of oppression by the people making the jokes.

Let's take "race" out of it: Irish man makes a dark joke about the potato famine or take your pick English genocide against them, everyone laughs. English guy does the same, everyone kinda hesitates and is uncomfortable.

Is that racist, even though they are now considered the same race?

Quote from: Shiranu on November 16, 2017, 11:31:53 PM
A history (and present, in many cases) of oppression by the people making the jokes.

Let's take "race" out of it: Irish man makes a dark joke about the potato famine or take your pick English genocide against them, everyone laughs. English guy does the same, everyone kinda hesitates and is uncomfortable.

Is that racist, even though they are now considered the same race?

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/hitlerparody/images/9/9d/Butthurt.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121210214736)

Quote from: _Xenu_ on November 17, 2017, 04:22:38 AM
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/hitlerparody/images/9/9d/Butthurt.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121210214736)

I appreciate you admitting I am right, though I understand you have an image to keep and couldn't just outright say it.

Yo secret safe with me, fam.

Reserved words are racist by their character.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 17, 2017, 04:54:42 AM
Reserved words are racist by their character.

I never understood what Hollywood was doing when they started having black actors saying "nigger this," and "nigger that" for 90 minutes of a movie until I started to think that was actually inherent in the African American culture.  But it's just as offensive to me coming from a black person as it is from a white person, and it's probably none of my business.  My closest personal friend at this time happens to be a black man.  He is happy to talk about what it's like to be black and the pressures he has to work against, but he doesn't say shit like "nigger."  I've never once heard him use that term.  Maybe he's trying not to offend me by referencing his race that way.

Quote from: SGOS on November 17, 2017, 05:23:59 AM
I never understood what Hollywood was doing when they started having black actors saying "nigger this," and "nigger that" for 90 minutes of a movie until I started to think that was actually inherent in the African American culture.  But it's just as offensive to me coming from a black person as it is from a white person, and it's probably none of my business.  My closest personal friend at this time happens to be a black man.  He is happy to talk about what it's like to be black and the pressures he has to work against, but he doesn't say shit like "nigger."  I've never once heard him use that term.  Maybe he's trying not to offend me by referencing his race that way.

I've always just looked at it as men trying to act tough with a give no shits attitude because their trying to overcompensate for something. "Yo my nigga" just sounds so silly, but saying that I've heard gay guys refer to each other as faggot before, not often, but still.
you just don't see someone like obama or morgan freeman saying that.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 16, 2017, 06:25:29 PM
How?

Look at it from an African Americans perspective: The people who enslaved generations of your ancestors, who fought tooth and nail to deny you civil rights, who continue to pass laws and regulations that keep you poor or murdered in the street to either gangsters or policemen are making jokes about your poverty and way of life... I don't think it is even remotely a stretch to see how some African Americans can find that offensive.

I don't understand how white people always find a way to make it all about us. That is not even remotely racist to think that the differences in social power makes it okay for a group to make jokes about themselves but not as acceptable for the oppressor to make jokes about them.

It would be like a Chinese man making a dark joke about Nanking and a Japanese man making the same joke, or a Congolese making a joke about the Belgian Congo and then a Belgian making the same... you may think it's horrible that they can't both say the same thing, but that's like finding the rising of the sun horrible.

Making it okay to casually joke about oppressed minorities makes any meaningful dialog about actually helping them near impossible. Comedians like Carlin are fine, because at the end of the day his jokes were about bringing awareness to an issue. But just a random joke like, "lol those Indians with their gas stations!", "ching chong ding dong I r Chinese" and "Lolol black people and grape juice, amirite?" bring nothing to the table and have no real reason to be defended.

How? Because it perpetuates this ideology that there are different races and we can assign differences to them. More than comedy does.  I'm not making this about 'white people'. I'm making this about people. And that's what good comedy does. That's its strength. Ridicule and mockery allow for us to see our own preconceptions and (possibly problematic) world views in a safe light and thus reëvaluate them. For instance, just saying "Lol those Indians with their gas stations!" isn't a joke. That's only the stereotype uttered. A joke, though admittedly not a very good one (but hey I'm on the spot here) would be saying "You have more chance of finding a gas-station not run by an Indian man than finding that dossier on your cluttered desk." And while not the best joke, it deforces rather than enforces our actual feelings regarding the stereotype; because it puts it in a mocking spotlight. That's the key strength of comedy. It can take, more than anything else, something that has power and authority, be it nations or religions or man-made absurd concepts such as race and gender-roles, and take the foundation out from right underneath them. By protecting something from mockery, such as the idea of race, you are putting giving it status and power and are making it excempt from ridicule. Thus making it valid and strong when it should be laughed at and destroyed. It's only when something is not allowed to be ridiculed, that I truly start to fear it.
And that's why I'm not offended when I hear a joke about anything I concider myself to be; be it from white to male to actor to social worker to socialist to atheist to ... There is a difference between an insult and a joke. Both can cause one to be offended, true, because joke's are always 'at the expense' of something or someone. Because they challenge the status quo. But that does not make them insults or insulting. And you can't say a joke is an insult. Most you can say is that you take it as one. And I'm sorry, because I do care about other people's feelings, but the fear of offending or insulting is not a good reason limit comedy and the freedom of speech. By rule it's more of an indication that it is necessary.

It used to be a stereotype in the US, that cops were Irish-American.  But most people wouldn't get that as a joke today, because Irish-Americans have broadened out.  Indians in convenience stores is the same thing.  I have seen that, and Indians owning motels.  But in fact Indians are very upwardly mobile in the US, because we are mostly importing the best ones.

QuoteHow? Because it perpetuates this ideology that there are different races and we can assign differences to them.

Except the dynamic has nothing to do with race, it has to do with power vs lack of power. I have used white-v-white to show that race isn't the key factor, but let me take race completely out of the picture...

A working class guy starts making jokes about poor people, it's funny. A multi-billionaire starts making the exact same jokes, it's offensive and wow, that dude is an asshole.

It's not about race, it's about power. That power might come from differences in ethnic background, but it can also be through economic, religious or other factors and is considered offensive for the same reasons.

And yes, there is no such things as races... but there are such things as different cultures, and that is what racist jokes (generally) target. While you have jokes about Asian's having skinny eyes or little penises, the majority of jokes directed at them have to do with cultural factors like language or owning laundry shops. Same with Jews and money, African Americans and the "ghetto" culture, etc. . The only group that an easy example doesn't come to mind is whites... which shows that there is something inherently problematic with that type of comedy.

QuoteAnd that's what good comedy does.

Would you say using the exact same stereotype of Indians as every other comedy in the history of comedy does is "good" comedy, though?

What exactly does Apu bring to the table that is new, or good?

QuoteFor instance, just saying "Lol those Indians with their gas stations!" isn't a joke. That's only the stereotype uttered.

And yet that is exactly what we are talking about in OP; that Apu's entire existence is just a, "lol, Indian gas station owner!" and, "Tank u, com again!".

I am not saying I necessarily agree that is all Apu offers, having not watched alot of Simpsons, but I am saying that is apparently how he perceived by the people who are the butt of the joke, and to just dismiss their opinion as, "Lol butthurt, just get over it!" is both douchy and just moronic.

QuoteAnd while not the best joke, it deforces rather than enforces our actual feelings regarding the stereotype; because it puts it in a mocking spotlight.

That's how you perceive it. Not everyone perceives it the same way you do, and you have to take into account the people who are the butt of the joke might have a little more invested in it than just, "comedy for comedies sake.".

QuoteBy protecting something from mockery, such as the idea of race, you are putting giving it status and power and are making it excempt from ridicule.

By protecting something from mockery, such as the idea of women have rights, you are giving it status and power and making it exempt from ridicule.

By protecting something from mockery, such as the idea that the Holocaust happened, you are giving it status and power and making it exempt from ridicule.

I'm sorry, what you just said literally just proves my point that comedy, when it comes to intentionally targeting a group to be offensive towards, should not just be something you casually do.

QuoteBecause they challenge the status quo.

And you proved my point yet again... you say you aren't offended by jokes about being white, or being male... being the status quo. But being an Indian, being an Asian, being black, gay, a woman, etc. is not "the status quo".

Jokes about minorities from majorities are not challenging the status quo, they are continuing to enforce it.

QuoteAnd I'm sorry, because I do care about other people's feelings, but the fear of offending or insulting is not a good reason limit comedy and the freedom of speech.

I'm not saying there should be laws against it; I am saying we should be conscious that our words and jokes have consequences and we should go out of our way not  to be offensive. I am saying we as a society should realise that the majority of jokes and stereotypes about minorities are not funny and almost always boil down to boring cliches decades old. That's the difference between say George Carlin and Apu; while Carlin is offensive, it was to teach a lesson. Apu, Mickey Rooney's yellowface in "Breakfast at Tifanny's", etc. are just "comedy for comedy's sake", and at the end of the day will not be viewed fondly. If a joke isn't good, there is no point in telling it... and if it ends up being a flop, there is no point in continuing it for 20+ years.

And give me an objective reason why comedy is more important than people's dignity.

Ah yes ... it does come down to power.  Go get some ... then show some restraint, or not.  If you don't like people who have power now, you are just another sans-cullote.  Napoleon will come along and disperse you, from the streets of Paris, with grapeshot.  In his case, conservatives ... but grapeshot doesn't respect ideology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzYrLNcspNU

I think it is worth noting that Apu is one of the few characters who represents a race on The Simpsons and rather positively.  He might be the "least jerk" of the show.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 18, 2017, 03:56:32 AM
I think it is worth noting that Apu is one of the few characters who represents a race on The Simpsons and rather positively.  He might be the "least jerk" of the show.

Most of the other characters with few exceptions like Lisa are worthy of actual contempt and they are all stereotypes of various aspects of our society, so why get bent out of shape over the stereotype of Apu, a guy unfamiliar with western culture, who is just fumbling to find his way?

Quote from: SGOS on November 18, 2017, 10:03:46 AM
Most of the other characters with few exceptions like Lisa are worthy of actual contempt and they are all stereotypes of various aspects of our society, so why get bent out of shape over the stereotype of Apu, a guy unfamiliar with western culture, who is just fumbling to find his way?

It is no longer cool to be sympathetic to Italian or Irish-Americans.

Quote from: Baruch on November 18, 2017, 10:13:31 AM
It is no longer cool to be sympathetic to Italian or Irish-Americans.

Right, they have been assimilated into the whole of western culture and any idiosyncrasies they may still have are simply accepted as "Western" making them familiar and no longer in need of special considerations.  I won't try to diminish the efforts of the SJWs trying to defend minorities.  In many ways the SJWs make a contribution to tolerance, but when taken to extremes the process becomes a two edged sword that can also create an environment of contempt where good intentions start to backfire.  I don't have a solution for that.  Mankind is in a struggle with itself.  It's just something we get ourselves into.  We are still tribal in our nature, and I think it's probably genetic, and we don't get to evolve ourselves out of that.  Evolution is hit and miss and never results in perfection, only survival or extinction. 

Quote from: SGOS on November 18, 2017, 10:03:46 AM
like Lisa [/spoiler]

nah I hold her with contempt too :3

Quote from: Munch on November 18, 2017, 11:32:06 AM

Quote from: SGOS on November 18, 2017, 10:03:46 AM
like Lisa [/spoiler]

nah I hold her with contempt too :3

Yeah, the little holier than thou smarty pants.

I would just like to point out the original article was written by actual Indians, not SJWs. This isn't the majority perceiving offense where there is none, this is the offended saying this is offensive.

And yet again, I will clarify I don't necessarily agree that the character is only a stereotYpe having not watched enough Simpson's, but it is important to take the opinion of the people who are the butt of the joke seriously.

I always thought Apu was a racist depiction.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 18, 2017, 11:58:22 AM
I would just like to point out the original article was written by actual Indians, not SJWs. This isn't the majority perceiving offense where there is none, this is the offended saying this is offensive.

And yet again, I will clarify I don't necessarily agree that the character is only a stereotYpe having not watched enough Simpson's, but it is important to take the opinion of the people who are the butt of the joke seriously.

The Indians can just hope to reincarnate as NYC Jewish bankers ;-)

Anyway, Raj from BBT ... is a better stereotype.  Also Asok from Dilbert cartoons.  All Indians are geniuses.

After watching YouTube clips of him, I change my position to he is definitely in poor taste, particularly since he is the animated equivalent of black face (Brown face?).

Still not my place to call him offensive, but certainly poor taste and borderline racist at multiple times.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 18, 2017, 08:33:06 PM
After watching YouTube clips of him, I change my position to he is definitely in poor taste, particularly since he is the animated equivalent of black face (Brown face?).

Still not my place to call him offensive, but certainly poor taste and borderline racist at multiple times.

Your new avatar is bonnie ;-)

One could consider Apu the only real individual in the Simpsons' world of Yellows...

Quote from: Cavebear on November 26, 2017, 05:09:25 AM
One could consider Apu the only real individual in the Simpsons' world of Yellows...

don't forget Lou, Julius M. Hibbert, Carl, Judge Roy Snyder

Quote from: Munch on November 26, 2017, 05:34:35 AM
don't forget Lou, Julius M. Hibbert, Carl, Judge Roy Snyder

OK, "one of"...

Every single character is a stereotype. Why pick on Apu?

It's a cartoon! Not real.

Quote from: pr126 on November 26, 2017, 05:43:12 AM
Every single character is a stereotype. Why pick on Apu?

It's a cartoon! Not real.

Actually, if you have seen any of the "future" episodes, none of the characters are very strereotypical.

I realise this is half a year later, but I watched a video of Indian people reacting to various portrayals of Indians in media today and it really reminded me of this. It really puts alot of things in a perspective we as the majority don't get.

Note, it is from Buzzfeed, but I will say throughout the video you had several of the members disagreeing based on conservative and liberal viewpoints, so I would say as a whole the video was not slanted either left or right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px6NL-c_fD0

I met a guy from India in Chicago through my sister.  He played the sitar and even performed part of a score in a Beatles song or movie.  I can't remember which.  But I just threw that in because it was interesting.  We were at this home, and at one point, he wanted to show us this video satire of an Indian man doing customer service.  You've seen the typical skit before.  I think this one came from SNL.  We were visiting and talking, and we agreed, although none of us were dying to see it at the moment.  But he wanted to show it to us right then, which seemed unnecessarily pushy. 

Maybe he just wanted to change the subject because we were debating his nutty wife, a doctor, on global warming, which she insisted was a hoax.  Granted this was long ago at a time when major industries were still denying it publically.  She was not of Indian decent, by the way.  She was true blue American Red Neck.  At one point, her husband rolled his eyes and interjected apologetically, "She's a Republican." Anyway, we watched the video, which seemed to delight him more than anyone else, although I did think it was funny, as a lot of SNL stuff often is.

I suppose, majorities don't all understand they are offensive, but some do.  On the other hand, not all minorities, Indians anyway, seem to take offense when made fun of.  SNL makes fun of people, situations, and stereotypes.  As a member of a majority, I should probably take offense when they make a mockery of my government, but I don't.  As a minority that I do belong to, the subset of non-believers, I take offense when some one makes fun of atheists, but it's not an overwhelming offensiveness where I want to start a national movement.  In time, atheists will become accepted, or killed, or just relegated as they are now to an annoying outsider group.  It's just the way it is.

Also, the Simpsons, outdo even SNL when it comes to making fun of anyone or anything.  I haven't watched it for years, but at one time, it was my favorite TV program.  Apu was cute, but not a major figure to me.  I liked him.  There was a certain believability about him.  His stereotype was immediately identifiable, and then they go on to Ned, whose stereotype was even more immediately identifiable.  Homer, Marge, Lisa, and Bart were stereotypes too, along with the guy that ran the nuclear power plant.

Hate speech ... anything Liberals hate about free speech.

Aka ... must have a Commissar for Satire ... and you can't post anything, unless you get his/her permission first.  Would fit in right well with Commie Europe.  Even Commie Canada.  Not so much in the US.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 24, 2018, 07:58:39 AM


Note, it is from Buzzfeed,

(http://www.leadpeople.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/OfCourse.gif)

Hey, at least one of us knows how to admit their source is biased and should be taken with some scepticism, even if multiple view points are presented.


Also didn't present it as fact like some people here do but just an interesting perspective. If you posted a video from Brietbart, Fox News, whoever, and it was just, "______ (Let's say conservatives) Opinion on ______ (say Muslims), I wouldn't have any problem with the validity of that, because it's very clearly an opinion. I might have a problem with the validity of what they say, but not the source sharing it.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 24, 2018, 07:17:43 PM
Hey, at least one of us knows how to admit their source is biased and should be taken with some scepticism, even if multiple view points are presented.


Also didn't present it as fact like some people here do but just an interesting perspective.


*shrug*

All sources are biased, including posters themselves.  When are y'all going to implode from the unconsciousness of your self contradictions?

Cartoon characters are sterotyped to make the plots easier to grasp.  It isn't just Apu, ALL of the Simpsons characters are equally stereotyped. 

Like Groundskeeper Willie?

Quote from: Mermaid on July 25, 2018, 08:29:10 PM
Like Groundskeeper Willie?

Part Scottish then, me lass?

I can't believe this shit is still going on lol

Every person I know that moved from India after the age of 20 or so sounds like apu. Not exactly, of course. But with apu's type of accent.

And yes, "not all bla bla bla" the people that sound like the rest of the United States population... they were fucking either born here or moved here earlier in their lives.


Guess what. I had neigbors that were indian. They moved here in their mid to late 20s, probably their 30s and guess who they sounded like? Apu. Their son, my friend of course did not, but he still had some accent things going on. He worked REALLY hard to get rid of them, but they were there for a long while. For instance, when he tried to pronounce "van" he pronounced it "wan".  My friends grandparents that lived there with them even had THICKER accents.

*but pickelledeggs, what about the fact that they have him working a convenience store?*
yeah? what about it? Almost every single convenience store, with the exception of 1 in my area is run by thick accented indians. Not going to say that i have anything against that, but it's just a fact. The convenience stores, at least near me, are run by indians that all have thick indian accents like Apu's...

So no, Apu isn't doing any damage to anything. It's just a fucking character. In fact, it's probably one of the least offensive characters in that show

I should add that I have nothing against Indians at all.

well... except maybe the fact that they use cashews a lot in their cuisine.... I'm allergic to nuts

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 25, 2018, 09:13:03 PM
I should add that I have nothing against Indians at all.

well... except maybe the fact that they use cashews a lot in their cuisine.... I'm allergic to nuts

And yet you hang out here ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on July 25, 2018, 09:25:09 PM
And yet you hang out here ;-)

I'm trying to build up my tolerance

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 25, 2018, 09:11:08 PM
So no, Apu isn't doing any damage to anything. It's just a fucking character. In fact, it's probably one of the least offensive characters in that show

Exactly.  He is a likeable guy.  He's just a caricature of a type we are all familiar with.  Also, I live in the boondocks 20 miles from the nearest groceries, but we do have a local convenience store/gas station.  It's the only store that sells anything at all around here, and It's run by an Indian family. 

How about the Muppets and the Swedish Chef.  Does he offend or delight the Swedes?

Quote from: SGOS on July 25, 2018, 10:44:49 PM
How about the Muppets and the Swedish Chef.  Does he offend or delight the Swedes?

Power plus privilege, man.

*tongue firmly in cheek*

How about Mario wearing a Sombrero in the new super Mario?

Everyone in North America cries "offensive!" but every single one of my friends that have lived in Mexico their entire lives (I know a lot in the art community) think it's great and also think the US is really stupid for being offended at it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Vicarious offense is stupid, and offensive in itself.

ah the easily offended for everyone else that isn't them generation.

Quote from: Munch on July 26, 2018, 02:32:20 PM
ah the easily offended for everyone else that isn't them generation.

So Indians aren't Indians...

Makes sense

Quote from: Shiranu on July 26, 2018, 03:56:08 PM
So Indians aren't Indians...

Makes sense

so does that mean Indians who aren't offended by apu aren't real Indians?

wonder what the uncle tom version of an Indian is.

Quote from: Munch on July 26, 2018, 02:32:20 PM
ah the easily offended for everyone else that isn't them generation.

Eh, that is every generation. It just becomes about a different set of things

Quote from: Shiranu on July 26, 2018, 03:56:08 PM
So Indians aren't Indians...

Makes sense

What about indians that work convenience stores that have thick Apu-like accents?... which is basically all the people that work convenience stores by me?

Quote from: Munch on July 26, 2018, 04:03:01 PM
so does that mean Indians who aren't offended by apu aren't real Indians?

No.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 26, 2018, 04:54:54 PM
What about indians that work convenience stores that have thick Apu-like accents?... which is basically all the people that work convenience stores by me?

What about them?

Apu is funny. And a nice character. I don’t care if a few people find it offensive, just like you don’t care that people don’t find it offensive or don’t care. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. Mine is leave him how he is. He’s amusing as he is. And don’t drown the opinions of people who like him out.


In summary: no one cares.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 26, 2018, 04:53:37 PM
Eh, that is every generation. It just becomes about a different set of things

He means the generation of today full of SJW's that cry and moan at everything. This is very different from other generations because they literately get pissy from something like the color blue.

QuoteIn summary: no one cares.

Obviously. That's why we are 70-something posts in, and the majority of the posts haven't even been by people who find him offensive.

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 26, 2018, 05:48:03 PM
He means the generation of today full of SJW's that cry and moan at everything. This is very different from other generations because they literately get pissy from something like the color blue.

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/06/11/why-is-everyone-getting-offended-all-the-time-this-explains-it/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kGBQSXX_GU&t=650s

Quote from: Shiranu on July 26, 2018, 07:09:30 PM
Obviously. That's why we are 70-something posts in, and the majority of the posts haven't even been by people who find him offensive.

looking back though, seems your the only one here getting offended for others, to the point of looking to buzzfeed for sources of those offended by a cartoon.

No where in the OP did it ever call for any action to be taken against the Simpsons; no one is calling for it to be boycotted, no one is calling for the show to be removed from television, no one is saying the government needs to ban it, no one is even calling for Apu to be removed.

All that has been said from the Indian perspectives in this thread is that from their perspective the character is offensive. That is it.

Think about the diversity of character traits white characters get. Now think of the diversity of character traits Indian characters are given. Do you really think they are remotely equal? What, exactly, is so offensive to point out that PoC in media are portrayed in a much more limited role than white actors? Why do white people get so fussy over the suggestion that PoC should be given more diverse roles and characters other than just, "Gangbanger. 7/11 owner. Math nerd."?

And again, I more than realise there are characters of color who are written just as, if not even more, brilliantly than white characters... but for every T'Chala, Mindi Lahiri or Constance Wu... you have 500, "Tyrone the Gangster", Apu the Convience Store Owner or Raj from BBT, or "Ahmed the Terrorist". Or even worse, you have characters just completely whitewashed, with the go-to example being... *gag* ... Micky Rooney as fucking Mr. Yunoishi.   





Literally all that was said by OP and the Indians in my video was, "Yeah, it is kinda annoying that most of the representation of us is characters who portray a certain stereotype, it would be cool to see show writers portray people who look like me, or are from the same culture as me, as human beings and not just charactures to be either the villain or the comedic punching bag."

Again, why someone saying that is so damned shocking to yall is absolutely beyond me.

Early SJW policy ... inventors of plant and animal domestication create unfair competition against hunter/gatherers.  It is necessary to shackle the agriculturalists in order to be fair to the cave men.

Quote from: Munch on July 26, 2018, 07:31:53 PM
looking back though, seems your the only one here getting offended for others, to the point of looking to buzzfeed for sources of those offended by a cartoon.

You're right, not offensive... just incredibly defensive and demeaning that how dare someone have an opinion other than yall.

My mistake, two totally different things.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 26, 2018, 03:56:08 PM
So Indians aren't Indians...

Makes sense

Are you conscious of your stereotyping?  A major SJW sin, you must beat yourself off to Playgirl centerfolds until it hurts, in penance.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 26, 2018, 07:34:24 PM
No where in the OP did it ever call for any action to be taken against the Simpsons; no one is calling for it to be boycotted, no one is calling for the show to be removed from television, no one is saying the government needs to ban it, no one is even calling for Apu to be removed.

All that has been said from the Indian perspectives in this thread is that from their perspective the character is offensive. That is it.

Think about the diversity of character traits white characters get. Now think of the diversity of character traits Indian characters are given. Do you really think they are remotely equal? What, exactly, is so offensive to point out that PoC in media are portrayed in a much more limited role than white actors? Why do white people get so fussy over the suggestion that PoC should be given more diverse roles and characters other than just, "Gangbanger. 7/11 owner. Math nerd."?

And again, I more than realise there are characters of color who are written just as, if not even more, brilliantly than white characters... but for every T'Chala, Mindi Lahiri or Constance Wu... you have 500, "Tyrone the Gangster", Apu the Convience Store Owner or Raj from BBT, or "Ahmed the Terrorist". Or even worse, you have characters just completely whitewashed, with the go-to example being... *gag* ... Micky Rooney as fucking Mr. Yunoishi.   





Literally all that was said by OP and the Indians in my video was, "Yeah, it is kinda annoying that most of the representation of us is characters who portray a certain stereotype, it would be cool to see show writers portray people who look like me, or are from the same culture as me, as human beings and not just charactures to be either the villain or the comedic punching bag."

Again, why someone saying that is so damned shocking to yall is absolutely beyond me.

How about an actual woman author, Indian-American (aka from Asia), who wrote a fun novel, about her own subculture in Cali?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/287873.Goddess_for_Hire  I really enjoyed this when it came out ;-)  And no, convenience stores don't figure prominently.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 26, 2018, 07:40:46 PM
You're right, not offensive... just incredibly defensive and demeaning that how dare someone have an opinion other than yall.

My mistake, two totally different things.

Don't get too pissy, unless you are near a bathroom.

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 26, 2018, 05:48:03 PM
He means the generation of today full of SJW's that cry and moan at everything. This is very different from other generations because they literately get pissy from something like the color blue.

And as I've mentioned, it's the same shit;different underwear right now we have sjws, in the 60s we had hippies. Every generation has their own.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Did the Hippies go around breaking status because it offendd them? Did they shove their ideas down others throats and demand people to pick a side. No. They were more chill.

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 26, 2018, 08:21:01 PM
Did the Hippies go around breaking status because it offendd them? Did they shove their ideas down others throats and demand people to pick a side. No. They were more chill.

Don't confuse yippies with hippies.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yippie

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 26, 2018, 08:21:01 PM
Did the Hippies go around breaking status because it offendd them? Did they shove their ideas down others throats and demand people to pick a side. No. They were more chill.

heres a good analogy of it on here.

https://www.quora.com/Are-social-justice-warriors-the-equivalent-of-1960s-hippies-Will-America-now-be-living-through-the-equivalent-of-1970s-counterculture-backlash-for-the-next-decade

QuoteNo. Hippies thought modern society was bogus, and simply wanted to drop out.

Social justice warriors are the logical end result of a particular self-inflicted psychosis of our society.

Progressive theory sees society as a collection of groups: the rich, the poor, people of color, LGBTQ. People's individual interests are purely defined by the interest group or groups they happen to identify with.

In that system, every group oppressed except for white males of middle class or above, who are obviously the beneficiaries of said oppression. In the system of grievance and claims of oppression, no status is more more highly regarded than that of "victim".

It gets fun when groups start squabbling among themselves about which one can claim the highest degree of victimhood.

It's a sickness. Don't blame the hippies.

Edited for brevity...

I actually am prone to agree that SJW and hippies are completely different things and shouldn't really be compared. The hippies were a tangible group that had a clear set of ideological viewpoints, where as "SJW" to this day, 2 years after it's entrance into the public lexicon, still does not have any real unified meaning to it.

When you look at the term "SJW", you realise what a joke it is. It originated, literally, from men who were harassing women that pointed out sexism in video games, and then exploded into popularity with far-right wingers as a strawman against anyone who called them on their shit. Unfortunately it managed to make it's way into even moderate lexicon.


Vice's Alegra Ringo has a great quote on the concept of SJW, which is, "In other words, SJWs don't hold strong principles, but they pretend to. The problem is, that's not a real category of people. It's simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice.", and that is bang on. You see that every day on this forum, and you see it every day extending all the way up into elected officials.


If we want to compare it to words of the past, "SJW" would be analogous to "Commie" during the Red Scare; it's a catch-all slur you can use for anyone to the left of you, of anyone who has a progressive ideology that threatens your world view or even worse your political/social power, and in using it you can instead focus on the fact they are the boogieman instead of actually having to address what is being discussed.

Quoteheres a good analogy of it on here.

If by good, you mean inaccurate, then yes. He starts off with a blatantly wrong statement and just digs deeper.

QuoteNo. Hippies thought modern society was bogus, and simply wanted to drop out.

The hippies did not "want to drop out". The hippies were heavily involved in the Civil Rights marches, were holding protests at universities over free speech (such as holding a police officer hostage for 32 hours at Berkley who had arrested a student calling for racial equality), were one of the most iconic symbols of the anti-Vietnam War movement and of course were a huge part of the Environmental movement and anti-Nuke movements.

To say they "wanted to drop out" of society shows a borderline complete lack of any American history knowledge.


(https://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/09/01/704f1a61-81a9-411d-b00f-2e2fe464619a/thumbnail/1200x630/137804b7b479a7aa1123c0b7b87bec86/par37859-srgb.jpg)

QuoteProgressive theory sees society as a collection of group...

Yes, because that is how politics work. We don't live in a direct democracy; the very basis of all Western government is on forming groups to represent your interests. That is how it has worked for thousands of years, and for us in the West we can mostly thank the Romans for implementing it at the scale it has been done at.

Have you ever thought what the alternative to collectivism is? Individualism. As an individual, how much political power do you think you actually hold? How much political power do you think you hold compared to someone who makes 1000 times more money than you a year, or demographically outnumbers people who would share your interest 100-1? Do you really think a government focused on individual power rather than collective power to enact change would better represent your interests?

It's one of those things I have to just shake my head and wonder how people say it's "SJW" who are destroying Western culture, when they seem to not have even the most elementary of understanding what Western culture even is.

QuoteIn that system, every group oppressed except for white males of middle class or above, who are obviously the beneficiaries of said oppression.

And here we go, the patented "victim card" that regressives want to use all the time.

Equality for women is not going to bring down men, it's going to help them.
Equality for the LGBT community is not going to hurt straight people, it's going to ultimately benefit them.
Equality for non-whites does not mean that white people will start to be treated like they have treated non-whites.
Fixing the economy for minorities will also fix the economy for lower-class whites.

Yes, many of these issues do focus on the people who need help, that is just common sense, but that doesn't mean it won't benefit the whole as well. To oppose these things is literally cutting your nose off to smite your own face.

Do you walk up to food banks and yell at them for being SJW cucks because they only feed the poor, and what about us middle class people you morons?

I just think it's interesting that people seek so hard to be virtuous that they would disregard the hard facts of reality to sound it.

"Apu is offensive! never mind that he actually represents a hefty portion of Indian immigrants that work convenience stores and have thick Indian accents! Forget all of that!"


My personal take on SJWs are not that they are in an actual "oppression Olympics", though it definitely comes off that way. They're in a "virtue olympics". The one that finds offense and tries to correct the most things is the most virtuous. Don't worry about if it's not even a thing that needs fixing, they're gonna want to fix it anyway.

And to a very slight point, it's nice. It's a great set of intentions. Some actual good things get done. But lets get real here. There is a metric shit ton of complaining about fixing things that don't need fixing and also without a clear plan on how to fix it. Just "fix it!". ... which goes back to the fact that a lot of the stuff being complained about doesn't need fixing.

I partially blame sensationalism.

Quote"Apu is offensive! never mind that he actually represents a hefty portion of Indian immigrants that work convenience stores and have thick Indian accents! Forget all of that!"

I don't think anyone is denying that there are plenty of Indians like that, either in this thread or in the videos provided.

But i'm also not sold that this is a relevant argument anyways. The issue is not that Indians are being portrayed this way, it's that they were almost exclusively portrayed this way until actors like Aziz Ansari, Mindy Kaling, Pryanka Chopra and so on only very recently began to pave the way for Indian characters who were defined not the fact they were "Indian" and playing "Indians" but rather who were liked as characters for their characters own merits.

Apu, at his core, is "brown-face"; it is a white actor pretending to brown and to do it in the most stereotypical way he possibly can to make fun of someone. He is the animated equivalent of Micky Rooney's, "Mr. Yunioshi", or late 1800s minstrel shows... and the people who defended those made the exact same arguments.

I don't think minstrel shows should be illegal, Micky Rooney should have been arrested for his just... horrible... depiction of Japanese-Americans, or that Apu should be written out or the Simpsons punished for how they portrayed him. But the entire point of this thread was to both mock and dismiss someone who spent their entire life being the butt of a joke, and that's fucked up.

It would be one thing if there were any depictions of Indians in media that weren't the butt of the joke, but until only very recently that wasn't the case. If he was calling for the Simpsons to be banned... I would be right besides you in saying that he needs to calm the fuck down... but when all he is saying is that he wants to see Indian people portrayed as anything more than just a joke... what is so fundamentally offensive about that?

QuoteMy personal take on SJWs are not that they are in an actual "oppression Olympics", though it definitely comes off that way. They're in a "virtue olympics". The one that finds offense and tries to correct the most things is the most virtuous. Don't worry about if it's not even a thing that needs fixing, they're gonna want to fix it anyway.

Honest question here... who the fuck cares about those type of people?

Name me one "SJW" who currently holds a position of power in the American government. Name me one court case that has been passed in the favour of "SJW ideology". Shit, as an American... it's getting to the point where I am tempted to ask even one recent moderate leaning piece of legislation that has been passed lately.

The "SJW" you talk about are like the "radical vegans"... yes they are loud and obnoxious as fuck, but that's about it. Who gives a shit?

Quote from: Shiranu on July 26, 2018, 11:56:36 PM
Honest question here... who the fuck cares about those type of people?

Name me one "SJW" who currently holds a position of power in the American government. Name me one court case that has been passed in the favour of "SJW ideology". Shit, as an American... it's getting to the point where I am tempted to ask even one recent moderate leaning piece of legislation that has been passed lately.

The "SJW" you talk about are like the "radical vegans"... yes they are loud and obnoxious as fuck, but that's about it. Who gives a shit?

*cracks knuckles*

*continues to wait*

Quote from: Shiranu on July 27, 2018, 12:18:13 AM
*continues to wait*

*cracks knuckles while looking at Shiranu who knows my exfreind is now a politician who supported Hilary the most SJW like*

Why should anyone care that the SJW and Feminism poisons everything it touches?

Gee I wonder.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 26, 2018, 11:20:28 PM


The hippies did not "want to drop out". The hippies were heavily involved in the Civil Rights marches, were holding protests at universities over free speech (such as holding a police officer hostage for 32 hours at Berkley who had arrested a student calling for racial equality), were one of the most iconic symbols of the anti-Vietnam War movement and of course were a huge part of the Environmental movement and anti-Nuke movements.

That's good considering modern sjws (and third wave feminists) want to ban freedom of speech.

Quote from: Munch on July 27, 2018, 03:29:14 AM
That's good considering modern sjws (and third wave feminists) want to ban freedom of speech.

Only to those who disagree with them.

Quote from: pr126 on July 27, 2018, 04:06:43 AM
Only to those who disagree with them.

Thought police

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 27, 2018, 12:25:49 AM
Why should anyone care that the SJW and Feminism poisons everything it touches?

Gee I wonder.

Most social change comes from psycho teens murdering their parents.  We don't kill our teens first ... because our legacy ...

Biggest laugh ... Shiranu is an expert on the 60s, was right there at the 68 Democratic Chicago Convention Riots, next to Abbie Hoffmann.

If the US was Marxist, the SJWs would be pickup driving, gun totting red neck wanna-bees.  Youth IS wasted on the young.

lol "brown face"

Why do you say that? because it's a white guy voicing him? Dude. 6 or so people voice the entire 100+ roster of characters on that show. Why would they hire an extra person to voice a character when they already have someone that is able to do it perfectly?

Maybe you would want to supply that extra person's salary, @Shiranu ? lol

wonder how good Shiranu be at the hummingbird.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buaAEYuR-9Q

QuoteWhy do you say that? because it's a white guy voicing him?

In part, and partly because he was told that being as stereotypical as possible was a plus.

QuoteDude. 6 or so people voice the entire 100+ roster of characters on that show.

Brown face doesn't have to be done with malicious intent to still be brown face.

QuoteMaybe you would want to supply that extra person's salary, @Shiranu ? lol

Again, no one is saying the character needs to be removed or necessarily that they need(ed) to hire an Indian to portray him. All that has been said is that the character in his current incantation is offensive. Think Ben Kingsly in, "Gandhi"... very, very few people had a problem with an Englishman playing Gandhi, and even Nehru said that Gandhi himself would have been amused and supportive of it.



There are plenty of changes that could be made to the character that would make him both a better character and a less offensive one at the same time, but ultimately at this point the damage has been done. But I just don't understand how pointing out a character caused tangible effects in the real world is so triggering to yall.

And I didn't touch on it earlier, but this, "Well, George Carlin was offensive too!" is just complete hokey. George Carlin's humour, AFAIK, never really played off of making fun of racial stereotypes. The more accurate comparison would be to compare Apu to Carlos Mencia... which like every other example I have used, I don't think should be banned or silenced or anything like that but we, as audiences, need to realise it is scraping the bottom of the comedic barrel.

To compare Apu to Carlin is an insult to the quality of Carlin's comedy.

your the only one here offended by this.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 27, 2018, 07:03:09 PM



There are plenty of changes that could be made to the character that would make him both a better character and a less offensive one at the same time, but ultimately at this point the damage has been done. But I just don't understand how pointing out a character caused tangible effects in the real world is so triggering to yall.

the only damage risk comes from thin skinned social justice cry babies like you looking to get offended by anything to help your PC points grow, and the risk being them actually changing the character to suit that shallow need.
We've seen what happens when thats been done in comics, big surprise, the social justice cry babies who wanted more pc reforms in comics, ended up not even buying the comics, and it ruined it for everyone else as well, forcing marvel to take two steps back to win genuine fans back.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/12/forcing-political-correctness-employees-characters-killing-marvel-comics/

The biggest mistake modern media can make is trying to appeal to the easily offended generation, since all you do it get offended, and then don't even support the ones who make the changes for you.

And even if they did change Apu, you'd just find the next thing to get offended by and drag that down too.

Quote from: Munch on July 27, 2018, 07:19:44 PM
the only damage risk comes from thin skinned social justice cry babies like you looking to get offended by anything to help your PC points grow, and the risk being them actually changing the character to suit that shallow need.
We've seen what happens when thats been done in comics, big surprise, the social justice cry babies who wanted more pc reforms in comics, ended up not even buying the comics, and it ruined it for everyone else as well, forcing marvel to take two steps back to win genuine fans back.

The biggest mistake modern media can make is trying to appeal ti the easily offended generation, since all you do it get offended, and then don't even support the ones who make the changes for you.

And even if they did change Apu, you'd just find the next thing to get offended by and drag that down too.

Yeah, clearly you aren't offended... that's why it took you six words to start throwing insults around and then just kept going from there...

I think there's a very important distinction some people need to learn to make.
The distinction in that being offended by something, does not mean said cause of offence is offensive in itself.

Lots of people are offended by things that aren't actually offensive.

Apu, imho, seems to have become one of those things.

"stereotypical as possible" LOLZ

What voice would you suggest an indian immigrant character to have, @Shiranu ?

Or would you rather the character not exist at all?

(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Two-Buttons.jpg)
*do I press "no accent for an immigrant character" or "shouldn't represent immigrants at all"*

QuoteApu, imho, seems to have become one of those things.

And I think that hints at a fundamental issue between our two "sides"...

Actual people from India, actual Indian-Americans, have pretty consistently considered characters like Apu to be offensive. Hank Azaria himself has said that he feels it might be time for him to leave his role as the character because he is deeply hurt by how people have used the character as a tool to attack Indian Americans.* And Mr. Azaria has broken rank with "The Simpsons" who have doubled down on the issue, so it's not like he is being told to say that to save the brand.

When both the butt of the joke and the actor who portrayed him both say that there is an element of offensiveness and hurtfulness behind the character, than in it self-evident that at some level Apu is an inherently offensive character. That is simply inarguable. When both the offended and the person doing the offending say it's offensive, than it is offensive.

But my fundamental... lack of understanding?... is how people who are not the butt of the joke can tell people what they are or aren't suppose to be offended by. That seems to be what this conversation has ultimately boiled down to... that your opinion on what is offensive is more important than the opinion of the people being offended.


Edit - Derp, forgot to post link.


*https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-who-needs-the-kwik-e-mart-not-apu/ (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-who-needs-the-kwik-e-mart-not-apu/)

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 27, 2018, 07:33:50 PM
"stereotypical as possible" LOLZ

What voice would you suggest an indian immigrant character to have, @Shiranu ?

Or would you rather the character not exist at all?

(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Two-Buttons.jpg)
*do I press "no accent for an immigrant character" or "shouldn't represent immigrants at all"*

Neither of those two choices are the ones I have advocated for this entire thread, nor do either actually relate to anything I have said, so I am not going to answer that question.

Shiranu - You really, really need to watch my post of the preview of the Warren Beatty movie, Reds.  You are Warren Beatty (well the character he is playing, anyway).  Out there defending the Proletariat.

Quote from: Baruch on July 27, 2018, 08:00:10 PM
Shiranu - You really, really need to watch my post of the preview of the Warren Beatty movie, Reds.  You are Warren Beatty (well the character he is playing, anyway).  Out there defending the Proletariat.

Was that in this thread? I don't remember seeing it, but I'll check it out.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 27, 2018, 08:01:37 PM
Was that in this thread? I don't remember seeing it, but I'll check it out.

Under American Myths, in the Political section.  It is a good movie, but at least see the preview if you have never seen it.  And don't take offense at the comparison.  Ordinary people don't like their fun-house reflection, and if you are a monster then you won't like the ordinary mirror reflection.  Or not.

I know how annoying as fuck it gets when people like pr post videos here, and if yall don't watch it I am completely understand, but @Mr.Obvious  and @PickelledEggs I would really be interested in hearing your opinion on what Mr. Azaria has to say over the first 5 minutes or so about the character of Apu and how "The Simpsons" responded to it by doubling down.

I am completely unable to comprehend what is so wrong with what he says, but perhaps hearing a rebuttal to the way he put the argument can help me understand the rebuttals you have made here or at least better understand where yall are coming from. And maybe likewise hearing it from someone yall don't stereotype as being further to the left will help explain where I am arguing from.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrlpU99lGzI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrlpU99lGzI)

I'll check it out this weekend. I'm on he 59.5 of a 60 hr week. Probably more than that at this point actually.

I just think it's interesting. The people that say apu is offensive... I wonder if they'd go out of their way to say Samesh, the owner of the convenience store down the street is offensive. I say no, but I guess I also live in a culturally diverse area, which I am pretty happy about. Unrelated, but I I wouldn't be able to do or say half the shit I do in Arizona or Alabama. I. E. Signing bibles and handing them back to the street preacher

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

So I'd also like to add, @shiranu that if I misrepresented your point, I apologize because I'm not 100% from this long-ass week

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

We made fun of Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans ... are Indo-Americans so special?

Quote from: Baruch on July 28, 2018, 12:11:35 AM
We made fun of Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans ... are Indo-Americans so special?

Yes apparently because no on cares if its white people.

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 28, 2018, 01:06:41 AM
Yes apparently because no on cares if its white people.

Used to be that Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans etc weren't considered White ;-)

I find this [insert your label here] -  American strange. Why is it not just American?
Why is it important to name the country of origin for citizens?
For example, African American usually refers to black people
What about those who never been to Africa for generations or not from Africa at all?

Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans who never been to their original countries but born in America?

Isn't that labeling a kind of discrimination?
A melting pot that refuses to become fully American?

Also, this constant mentioning of the melanin content of the individual, isn't that race-baiting?

I lived in the UK since 1970. Never once I was called Hungarian British.
It would sound weird. You can be called either Hungarian or British. Never both.

Come to think of it, here in the UK we also have some labeling system.
The child molesting groups which are so prevalent here have a distinct label, they are called “Asians”.
Of course everybody understands that the eupheism really means Pakistani Muslims.
But this way it sound inoffensive. It could be anybody east of Europe.



Let's see who gets triggered by this post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGzvEqBvkP8

"You hate yourself"

It's only racist if it's not white.

I fucking hate culture appropriated, less humored, SJW, PC, Colored Double Standards.

I try to b a little bit PC, a little bit grasping SJW. But when they flung their shit at me just for the  color of my skin for every goddamn mistake or word I say I want to physical tear them a new one.

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 28, 2018, 05:51:59 AM
I try to b a little bit PC, a little bit grasping SJW. But when they flung their shit at me just for the  color of my skin for every goddamn mistake or word I say I want to physical tear them a new one.

I've learned myself where I stand politically in things, and i stand in a bit more balance of ideas in how the world works today. I'm a classic liberal and you probably are too.
The problem today is modern sjw types are so far left, that you are to the right of them and so what you think about todays political problems will be seen as 'on the right'.

Quote from: pr126 on July 28, 2018, 04:01:18 AM
I find this [insert your label here] -  American strange. Why is it not just American?
Why is it important to name the country of origin for citizens?
For example, African American usually refers to black people
What about those who never been to Africa for generations or not from Africa at all?

Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans who never been to their original countries but born in America?

Isn't that labeling a kind of discrimination?
A melting pot that refuses to become fully American?

Also, this constant mentioning of the melanin content of the individual, isn't that race-baiting?

I lived in the UK since 1970. Never once I was called Hungarian British.
It would sound weird. You can be called either Hungarian or British. Never both.

Come to think of it, here in the UK we also have some labeling system.
The child molesting groups which are so prevalent here have a distinct label, they are called “Asians”.
Of course everybody understands that the eupheism really means Pakistani Muslims.
But this way it sound inoffensive. It could be anybody east of Europe.

Let's see who gets triggered by this post.

Click..... BOOM!

Actually, I'm not triggered by this at all, but I do find some parts of discussions interesting.  Melting pots, mixed American labels, and race caught my attention.  I was told in grade school that the US is a melting pot, and my teacher explained what that meant.  I could tell by the tone of her voice that we should all be proud to be a melting pot, because that was a good thing and separated us from other countries, which presumably are not.

Much later in life, just out of high school, I visited British Columbia and Alberta, and I was surprised to realize that Canada was more of a melting pot than we were.  Except maybe for Quebec, which is all about being French, flipping off Americans, and speaking French (or more correctly, never speaking English (or acting all pissy when it's necessary).  I only spent a short time there, but I didn't feel welcomed, and I drove through Quebec as fast as I could.

I'm guessing here that America did take pride in being a melting pot one time.  It's even written on the Statue of Liberty, given to us by the French; Go figure.  But the fact is that "melting pot" is just a meme, and about half of all Americans hate the concept, and that is a large part for why Trump is president.  So I don't take this melting pot thing seriously.  I think we are a relatively poor melting pot.  I don't know about others.

German/American, Italian/American, etc, are labels that are important to Americans.  I won't try to explain why; I don't know why.  Maybe it's not really important, but just something we do.  African/American is a special case, however.  I don't know if I speak for all, but I don't think it signifies country of origin which is seldom Africa, anyway (It's actually America).  It specifically means a black person, and somewhere back around the 60s, it became the politically correct term to use to identify race.  Much later, it became politically correct to stamp out race, as if race didn't exist.  Possibly it doesn't, although I think there are genetic arguments on both sides.  But that's irrelevant.  Race exists, even if it's only a human construct, and you can bet your ass that people treat it as important, because it affects all of our lives on a daily basis, and even if that's not true, people think it's true.

The movement to psychologically remove the essence of race from our lives will fail.  At best, there will just be other words instead of African/American and white invented to describe this thing that is part of our lives.  This is not to say there are no problems with race.  It is imperative they be corrected, but we need to acknowledge the thing we call race rather than ignore it to even begin.  How about embracing races and racial equality?  That's the way I would handle it.

Maybe 300 years from now things will be different, but the concept of race is still as strong today as it was 300 years ago, although some of the inequalities have been removed, race still affects people, even with "integration" and civil rights.  Getting rid of the concept, whether or not it exists in our DNA is not going to happen very fast.

I was also surprised when blacks at the university years ago became adamant about being called black.  "That's our color," I heard one yell through an electronic megaphone.  I was surprised for two reasons.  When I was a kid, calling an African/American black, was an invite to receive a punch in the face.  And two, black is not really accurate.  Black is a very vivid absence of color, and even the most dark skinned African/Americans don't achieve that.  But I'm happy to use "black" when I'm around my black friends.  Everyone is comfortable with the term, and it's a necessary term whenever we discuss issues of RACE, which come up from time to time. 

Quote from: pr126 on July 28, 2018, 04:01:18 AM
I find this [insert your label here] -  American strange. Why is it not just American?
Why is it important to name the country of origin for citizens?
For example, African American usually refers to black people
What about those who never been to Africa for generations or not from Africa at all?

Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans who never been to their original countries but born in America?

Isn't that labeling a kind of discrimination?
A melting pot that refuses to become fully American?

Also, this constant mentioning of the melanin content of the individual, isn't that race-baiting?

I lived in the UK since 1970. Never once I was called Hungarian British.
It would sound weird. You can be called either Hungarian or British. Never both.

Come to think of it, here in the UK we also have some labeling system.
The child molesting groups which are so prevalent here have a distinct label, they are called “Asians”.
Of course everybody understands that the eupheism really means Pakistani Muslims.
But this way it sound inoffensive. It could be anybody east of Europe.

Let's see who gets triggered by this post.

If you were from Nigeria or Jamaica ... you might have heard about it.  Hungarian-Jewish folks are considered White now.  In the US it is all about politics ... from Teddy Roosevelt to Woodrow Wilson ... back in the day when immigration was an open door into the US (closed in 1920).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American

Identity politics ... the Republicans were losing immigrant votes to the Democrats (start of pre-FDR coalition) and Wilson was a racist Democrat.  There isn't much teeth in the old European-American epithets today, but it was a big deal with prior generations, say 1960 or earlier.  My wife's grandmother was Italian-American (recent immigrant) and was discriminated in the local Catholic Church, because it was run by German-Americans.

Jewish folks are assimilated now, so only die-hard anti-semites still care.  Part of that assimilation was political ... Jews moved from supporting Socialist parties, to supporting the D/R duopoly.

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 28, 2018, 05:51:59 AM
I try to b a little bit PC, a little bit grasping SJW. But when they flung their shit at me just for the  color of my skin for every goddamn mistake or word I say I want to physical tear them a new one.

Anyone who mentions skin color at all, in anything other than a skin doctor/plastic surgeon convention, is a racist.  No matter what trendy liberal labels they put on themselves.  Generally speaking, if you are talking about an American who was born and raised here, mentioning their parents/ancestors  national origin is bigoted, except on Ancestry.com.  No matter what trendy liberal labels they put on themselves.  Talking about immigrants is touchy ... naturalized legal immigrants are better citizens than the native born ones.

African immigrants, and native African-Americans are the situation that breaks the rules however.

Quote from: Baruch on July 28, 2018, 10:36:41 AM
Anyone who mentions skin color at all, in anything other than a skin doctor/plastic surgeon convention, is a racist.  No matter what trendy liberal labels they put on themselves.  Generally speaking, if you are talking about an American who was born and raised here, mentioning their parents/ancestors  national origin is bigoted, except on Ancestry.com.  No matter what trendy liberal labels they put on themselves.  Talking about immigrants is touchy ... naturalized legal immigrants are better citizens than the native born ones.

African immigrants, and native African-Americans are the situation that breaks the rules however.

Humanity has to turn beigeish...

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 04:19:56 AM
Humanity has to turn beigeish...

But being a Democrat is a recessive gene ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2018, 08:01:46 PM
But being a Democrat is a recessive gene ;-)

You never HAVE shown much understanding about genetics...  And this further proves it.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 04, 2018, 02:18:09 AM
You never HAVE shown much understanding about genetics...  And this further proves it.

Being Democrat is a dominant gene?  Seems both R and D are dominant genes.  Wannabee tyrants.