'The Simpsons' under fire over concerns about racism

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Luckily for them many people who are not you do care.

No, they don’t.

I’d say a racist portrayal isn’t “nothing” but you’re entitled to disagree.

There’s nothing racist about this.

Heh, it certainly looks like quite a few people do. And it’s okay if you don’t; folks disagree on things.

And I’m going to take the opinion of the various Indian Americans who believe the portrayal has racist problems word on this over yours. Sorry, but I just feel they have a bit more knowledge on the topic.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I know you were trying to equate “social justice warriors” to a religion of political correctness. But that frankly seems rather dismissive of religion to me. It also ignores that this issue was raised by Indian Americans.

SJWs are their own religion. They run around telling people who they can and cannot date, have original sin (being a straight white male) and want restrictions on what people can say, only at the government level.

And these “Indian Americans” do not speak for all Indian Americans and certainly not all minorities. No one appointed them or you spokesperson.

What you are hoping to achieve will have the exact opposite effect.

 

[abucs]

Heh, if you say so, friend. So, any thoughts of the question?

The first distinction I would make is between some people raising their objections and the forced changing of people’s behaviour.

Some Indian Americans raising their objection is perfectly fine with me.
The makers of Simpsons implicitly answering ‘not really interested in what you say’ is also fine with me.

For me that is freedom and respect for different people’s views.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

I know you were trying to equate “social justice warriors” to a religion of political correctness. But that frankly seems rather dismissive of religion to me. It also ignores that this issue was raised by Indian Americans.

SJWs are their own religion. They run around telling people who they can and cannot date, have original sin (being a straight white male) and want restrictions on what people can say, only at the government level.

And these “Indian Americans” do not speak for all Indian Americans and certainly not all minorities. No one appointed them or you spokesperson.

What you are hoping to achieve will have the exact opposite effect.

If you say so. I personally don’t think folks who care about social justice are all one religion. From what I’ve seen they tend to be of many religions, or none, and have many and varied opinions on things. And I don’t think I’ve ever seen one tell someone who they cannot date (unless you mean warning someone about an abusive person?)

And quite a few of the folks I know that you would class as a most dreaded SJW (gasp!) are straight, white, men. Indeed the one in the other room has asked me to inform you that he prefers to be called a Social Justice Ranger (he’s into his archery, what can I say?)

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Heh, if you say so, friend. So, any thoughts of the question?

The first distinction I would make is between some people raising their objections and the forced changing of people’s behaviour.

Some Indian Americans raising their objection is perfectly fine with me.
The makers of Simpsons implicitly answering ‘not really interested in what you say’ is also fine with me.

For me that is freedom and respect for different people’s views.

And that is, so far, all that has happened in this debate. So I take it you are fine with the video that was made?

 

[SuperLuigi]

And I’m going to take the opinion of the various Indian Americans who believe the portrayal has racist problems word on this over yours. Sorry, but I just feel they have a bit more knowledge on the topic.

So much for the spirit of Dr. King.

More identity politics. Being Indian American does not give you more moral authority on issues related to Indian Americans. The merits of the arguments need to be considered, not what people look like. A straight Black male could have a FAR better argument than an Indian American on Indian American affairs.

Their concerns are not geninue. They are just whining and throwing a tantrum about nothing.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

And I’m going to take the opinion of the various Indian Americans who believe the portrayal has racist problems word on this over yours. Sorry, but I just feel they have a bit more knowledge on the topic.

So much for the spirit of Dr. King.

More identity politics. Being Indian American does not give you more moral authority on issues related to Indian Americans. The merits of the arguments need to be considered, not what people look like. A straight Black male could have a FAR better argument than an Indian American on Indian American affairs.

Their concerns are not geninue. They are just whining and throwing a tantrum about nothing.

I’m afraid that the group in question gets to define what is offensive to them. Who else should define it?

And I’m afraid that they seem to have put together a thoughtful video outlining their reasons on the topic; that is hardly “throwing a tantrum”. How would you prefer them to outline their premise?

 

[abucs]

I didn’t watch it. If it basically says that they do not like the Apu character portrayal because they believe it is one dimensional or negative and they want a different portrayal then there is nothing wrong with that.

Other people of course are not going to agree with them for a variety of reasons including presumably the makers of Simpsons.

It is up to the makers of the video if there is a follow up or not and what that follow up should be.

 

[SuperLuigi]

And quite a few of the folks I know that you would class as a most dreaded SJW (gasp!) are straight, white, men

I am aware, and no matter how much you to pander to minorities, in the end they’ll turn on you and each other. In order to be a victim, you have to have an oppressor.

This is actually a great example. The Simpsons have been liberal for a while and now they get hit with this.

And you don’t care how much they’ve advanced your cause, because this hot potato flavor of the month is too much to resist.

I’ve ever seen one tell someone who they cannot date (unless you mean warning someone about an abusive person?)

Nope. Their SOP is telling people they are transphobic if they don’t date transpeople and then there is the whole Laci Green situation…

 

[abucs]

Nope. Their SOP is telling people they are transphobic if they don’t date transpeople and then there is the whole Laci Green situation…

What is the story with Laci Green these days? Is she still dating the conservative guy?

 

[Alex337]

I didn’t watch it. If it basically says that they do not like the Apu character portrayal because they believe it is one dimensional or negative then there is nothing wrong with that.

Other people of course are not going to agree wit them for a variety of reasons including presumably the makers of Simpsons.

It is up to the makers of the video if there is a follow up or not and what that follow up should be.

I find it hard to engage with a text without watching it, to be honest. But if it helps it does contain a variety of views on the character and reasons why the exact portrayal is problematic to them. The creator has also raised the idea of expanding the character through a character arc, possibly to do with his family or the like.

Now nothing may come of this from the Simpsons, and that’s okay too. But what’s cool is the chance to talk about it and think about it.

I love the Simpsons, or at least I used to (it’s gone down hill in the last decade in my honest opinion). But I find it important to be able to be critical even of things we like. It doesn’t mean we’re saying the whole thing is bad, or that even that one idea was terrible; simply that it could have been done better. Constructive criticism is great stuff.

And I know this is a terribly political discussion, it’s gotten more heated than a lot of the religious ones I’ve had in here. But I just think it’s cool to hear out other peoples points of view and in this case I kinda thought; yeah, fair enough, I can see how that depiction would be a bit annoying.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The issue I have is they are making this out to be some kind of morally righteous crusade for justice.

It isn’t.

There’s a push to try and keep Asian groups on the left in the USA as there is an election coming up and the notion of Asian privilege is starting to ring, especially in places like CA where Asians are rampantly discriminated against in higher education. So they have to make it look like Asian groups are under attack in order to get them to hopefully become emotional and side with the SJW left as victims.

Asian-Americans have numerous values that align with conservatives, and the culture of death on the left has slowed their progress. They were supposed to have taken over Texas and Arizona by now, but instead deep blue states have flashed red recently.

In short, a lot of this is political post-modernism and this is just the flavor of the month. I’m in three different minority groups and I can tell you these people don’t care.

 

[abucs]

I find it hard to engage with a text without watching it, to be honest.

I wasn’t engaging with the text until you asked me. I was engaging with the tv report above and with other posts. I did not watch the full documentary ‘text/video’ referred to in the news clip.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

And quite a few of the folks I know that you would class as a most dreaded SJW (gasp!) are straight, white, men

I am aware, and no matter how much you to pander to minorities, in the end they’ll turn on you and each other. In order to be a victim, you have to have an oppressor.

This is actually a great example. The Simpsons have been liberal for a while and now they get hit with this.

And you don’t care how much they’ve advanced your cause, because this hot potato flavor of the month is too much to resist.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that I suddenly dislike the Simpsons? I’ll admit the last ten seasons have been a bit boring but I would say that has nothing to do with this “controversy” and everything to do with a general decline in standard.

Alex337:

I’ve ever seen one tell someone who they cannot date (unless you mean warning someone about an abusive person?)

Nope. Their SOP is telling people they are transphobic if they don’t date transpeople and then there is the whole Laci Green situation…

SOP? I’m afraid I don’t know that acronym. It does indeed seem like you may have met a bad egg, or misinterpreted something that was said. It happens. No single group is perfect

 

[SuperLuigi]

SOP? I’m afraid I don’t know that acronym. It does indeed seem like you may have met a bad egg, or misinterpreted something that was said. It happens. No single group is perfect

I would say that leaders in the global SJW and 3rd wave feminist movement who call on Twitter for sabotaging a relationship between a woman who is half-Persian and a Puerto Rican guy is more than just one bad egg. It also makes me wonder why their accounts were not shut down but Sargon, Milo and Owen Benjamin were. It’s a systemic problem. And then of course there’s all the blabbity nonsense about being a transphobe if you don’t date cross-dresser or people who put on wig and pretend to be a woman.

I’m curious, Alexander----how much credit do you really think you’re going to get for this? Because none of these Indian-Americans you claim are oh-SO offended are defending you or praising you in any way. I wonder how long you’re going to be able to keep these kinds of one-way street relationships going in your life. Oh sure, you can reply to me with all the smiley faces in the world, but eventually, Alexander, this will take its toll. And who knows? Maybe it will hit you so fast and hard that you’ll be all in with Richard Spencer.

Enjoy!

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

SOP? I’m afraid I don’t know that acronym. It does indeed seem like you may have met a bad egg, or misinterpreted something that was said. It happens. No single group is perfect

I would say that leaders in the global SJW and 3rd wave feminist movement who call on Twitter for sabotaging a relationship between a woman who is half-Persian and a Puerto Rican guy is more than just one bad egg. It also makes me wonder why their accounts were not shut down but Sargon, Milo and Owen Benjamin were. It’s a systemic problem. And then of course there’s all the blabbity nonsense about being a transphobe if you don’t date cross-dresser or people who put on wig and pretend to be a woman.

I’m curious, Alexander----how much credit do you really think you’re going to get for this? Because none of these Indian-Americans you claim are oh-SO offended are defending you or praising you in any way. I wonder how long you’re going to be able to keep these kinds of one-way street relationships going in your life. Oh sure, you can reply to me with all the smiley faces in the world, but eventually, Alexander, this will take its toll. And who knows? Maybe it will hit you so fast and hard that you’ll be all in with Richard Spencer.

Enjoy!

Friend, you do know that Milo defended paedophilia; right? I’m not sure his is the hill you should stake a flag on.

In terms of your second paragraph; I don’t care about credit. I care about doing what’s right by folks, it’s the Christian thing to do.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’m afraid that the group in question gets to define what is offensive to them. Who else should define it?

And I’m afraid that they seem to have put together a thoughtful video outlining their reasons on the topic; that is hardly “throwing a tantrum”. How would you prefer them to outline their premise?

Taking “offense” is not of any merit unless it can be linked to real harm at some level. I might be offended when someone legitimately points out some actual failure or fault on my part, but that doesn’t mean the failure ought not be pointed out. It might be a signal for me to grow up, mature or develop some virtue or other.

The problem is that this kind of offense-taking has given inordinate legitimacy to hurt feelings at the expense and complete mitigation of discussion about what it means to be human in the first place and how the interests of one’s being counted as or valued as a human being have been discounted or harmed in the process.

The presumably settled definition of ‘human being’ appears to be “a thing with feelings,” such that anytime feelings are in any way slighted, that is the sole determiner of harm having been done. Has the state of humanity degenerated to the point that we are that pathetic?

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

I’m afraid that the group in question gets to define what is offensive to them. Who else should define it?

And I’m afraid that they seem to have put together a thoughtful video outlining their reasons on the topic; that is hardly “throwing a tantrum”. How would you prefer them to outline their premise?

Taking “offense” is not of any merit unless it can be linked to real harm at some level. I might be offended when someone legitimately points out some actual failure or fault on my part, but that doesn’t mean the failure ought not be pointed out. It might be a signal for me to grow up, mature or develop some virtue or other.

The problem is that this kind of offense-taking has given inordinate legitimacy to hurt feelings at the expense and complete mitigation of discussion about what it means to be human in the first place and how the interests of one’s being counted as or valued as a human being have been discounted or harmed in the process.

The presumably settled definition of ‘human being’ appears to be “a thing with feelings,” such that anytime feelings are in any way slighted, that is the sole determiner of harm having been done. Has the state of humanity degenerated to the point that we are that pathetic?

Actually as pointed out by the creator of the documentary the whole point of the documentary was to discuss the situation. Which it did both within the documentary and on many other platforms. Did you have a chance to watch the news article or the documentary?

 

[DeniseNY]

How do we listen when minorities speak. . Unless you’re saying all minorities think alike

 

[Alex337]

How do we listen when minorities speak. . Unless you’re saying all minorities think alike

Largely just by being open to the discussion I know earlier on in this thread someone said that ideas like the ones addressed in the documentary should be mocked rather than listened to. And I don’t think that’s a terribly helpful approach.