Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
-isms in the Media
We need to move this out of the MLP thread. That thread should be a happy place.
Post edited by Victor Frost on
Comments
Do you see why that doesn't make any sense?
Bullshit argument: Derpy Hooves is offensive because a disabled person said they were offended by her.
I believe that part of what you are saying is that nobody can decide whether something is offensive or not to someone else. For example, I could be offended by the number nine. I mean, fuck nine. You can't tell me I'm NOT offended by that thing.
But anyone, anywhere, of any kind, of any thing, can make a case for why I should not be offended by this thing. That is totally legitimate. And all of their own circumstances have nothing to do with whether or not their argument is valid.
But it is also entirely up to me whether or not their argument influences my own choice of being offended.
If you are saying something within the above, I can back you up on that. If you are saying that I don't have permission to formulate an argument because of my status, you're not cogent.
Sometimes it is obvious to everyone, but sometimes our privilege, our separation from the issue, our ability to not have to think about it, gets in the way.
Privilege is this; how often, when you are doing something, do you have to stop and think about how it would be done if you were in a wheelchair? Basically never. If you are in a wheelchair, however, you have to think about that constantly. We have the Privilege of not worrying about it; they don't. When we fail to install ramps for the wheelchair guy and he goes, hey, wait a minute, it would be stupid to tell him there is no problem because, hey, we can walk up these stairs just fine!
That is what this is. There are people, a lot of people, who were hurt by the way Derpy was portrayed. You are looking at those people and telling them that because you, personally, were not hurt, they are stupid for feeling that way and have no right. People who have the privilege of not having to think about living with disabilities telling those who don't have it, and those arguing on their behalf, that there is no problem because they were not affected.
It is funny this argument has been phrased as "Who gets to decide what is offensive" because what this is is a lot of people deciding what isn't offensive and applying that statement to everyone.
Yes, you explained privileged, good job, we really didn't know anything about it before because we're clearly stupid and horrible people because we're not offended. The problem is, you basically went "Here is what privileged is, By the way, I'm right."
What, you expect a pat on the head and a gold star just because you're offended by something? I fear you've clicked the wrong bookmark in your browser.
You want me to take your arguments seriously? Make a legitimate one. I don't think I'll be holding my breath while waiting for you to start, considering you're still congratulating yourself for leaping over the bar set at the SRS level, which is somewhere between being lower than a snake's dick, and buried underground.
Jesus christ, sketch, I'm starting to think you'd look at Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron, and consider it a victorious tale of a truly progressive society being publically attacked by a privileged bigot. Wait, So there is no arbiter of offensiveness, it's something you feel, but there is something wrong with us that needs to be corrected if we're not offended by something like someone else is?
Okay, sure, No arbiter of offensiveness. Sure, nobody decides what is offensive, and it is purely subjective. Why is your opinion more legitimate therefore, because you are offended and others are not? Why is there something "wrong" with people who are not offended, if that is the case? Why are you assuming that people are not offended because they are either bad, wrong, or something is wrong with them, if that is the case?
Also, finally - Why is your assessment of the character that caused offense more legitimate than Scott's that doesn't? Especially considering yours is based on the offensive(to me, at least) notion that a character who is clumsy, talks funny, and has a lazy eye must be developmentally disabled and therefore the character is making fun of the developmentally disabled?
>_<
I do, however, care when you say that because you didn't find it offensive, it clearly isn't offensive at all and there is no reason not to be concerned, or that changing it is just bowing to PC nonsense and has no value. It wasn't done because there are roving bands of feminists who think it is their job to make sure nobody has any fun ever. It was done because it might reinforce negative stereotypes, especially as the word "derp" starts to filter down off the internet and into children's lives. It's a children's show, and when we're young media makes up a huge amount of our worldview! If it were a show for adults, or teens, I'd have no problem, but this show is aimed at really young kids. They do not need that stereotype from their media.
That's it, that's all.
But is that painting anti-semitic? Even if a bunch of Jews all get the same feeling looking at it, does that automatically make it an anti-semitic painting? Should the painting be taken down? Should the artist apologize and modify the painting because it has caused these feelings?
It turns out that this is abstract art. That symbology just happens to be there by accident, and it stands out like a weird Rorschach test or magic eyeball. The artist had no such intent. It's just something that one group of people decided to pick out and fixated on. The other abstract masterpieces down the hallway also have all sorts of accidental symbology, and have been there for decades. It just so happens that one very vocal person just decided to make a stink about this one particular painting, and now it's a controversy.
The feelings of a subset of people who view a work of art are not sufficient evidence to pass judgement on or apply labels to that work of art. That's not to say that those people do not have real feelings. It's just that they are seeing something that isn't there, so we shouldn't be going out of our way to make them feel better when it will only result in increasing the consternation and controversy.
There's a huge gap between those two things. I suspect that getting from A to B there involves some intuition you have that when examined carefully will probably yield, but I could be wrong in either that you would yield it or that there is no path between the two.
I get where you were struck by how some people violated the first premise, because they too used some language that was too unyielding and broad to express their views on why one should or should not be offended by a thing - but I don't see how you can dip into your later arguments where there is really no ground to stand on.
Hasbro had a really good response to it; they toned it down and removed a word that is starting to become used as a slur, and put the episode back up. Problem solved.
I'm not dismissing privilege, I'm not dismissing your arguments for being about or stemming from Privilege. I'm dismissing your arguments for being shithouse arguments to the point of barely being arguments at all, if one wishes to speak of them generously.
Let me put it another way - Say you give me the shell of a car. It's got everything but an engine. I'm going to say it's a god-awful car, and dismiss it as useless, and now you're saying that I'm just dismissing it because of the colour of the paint. It's not because of the maker's badge, not because of the colour of the paint, nor the steel it's made from, nor the quality of the construction. It's a shit car because it doesn't have an engine.
Sorry to throw a bucket of water on your fire before you got your strawman more than smoldering, but I can't help but feel you're not speaking of this to argue, you're speaking of this to be RIGHT and GOOD.
I'll give you credit, you do have a conclusion, you do have a premise, but your premise is essentially "I think this thing, therefore this is correct, and the answer to any questioning of it is that you're wrong because privilege."
I'm not saying that privilege doesn't exist, I'm not saying derpy isn't offensive to some people, I'm not saying it's right or wrong the way the character is, morally, socially, factually or otherwise.
I'm saying you're doing a shithouse job of arguing your case, and you need to step up your goddamn game. Everything else is personal commentary unrelated to the issue of Derpy, unless I'm directly addressing that - for example, the second half of the above post, where I quote you from this thread.
I know I have a point in here somewhere, but I can't articulate it. I'll let Linkigi take over; I need to go punch something.
I'm happy to argue with you till we're both blue in the face, but I'm not happy to do so if it's upsetting you too much to do so. Take a break, man, step back, chill out, come back to it whenever, I want to make it clear that nobody holds that against you.
(Now, back to the part previously posted.) Thank you for the explination. Not what I was looking for, but it's nice to know people better.
So, because this teacher identified the source of a single insult, that is why it's evil and wrong? So, I suppose, by the same logic, the Spastic's society in England was evil and wrong, as is SCOPE(What they were re-named to later) because they gave generations of English school children exactly the same impetus to call people spastics and scopers.
That isn't an issue of MLP. That's an issue of childeren being assholes as childeren do, and the teacher(s) in that case need to take actions to discourage it, rather than just blaming MLP. I remember when I was going to Primary School, the small group of special needs children in the school were called the "Goof Troop." Does that mean Disney is at fault?
Now we get to the fun bit. I never said that. That's a complete fabrication of your own mind, a nonsense strawman. I never said that. Complete fabrication, nonsense strawman. I'm inclined to think they are also ad homenim attacks to boot, in an attempt to portray me like those odious fuckwits you often find in the men's rights movement.
Or, you might just think that people who disagree with what you say for any reason are like that, in which case, you need to step the fuck back and stop taking hits from the srs crackpipe. Those people have the occasional good point, but take it to the delusional extremes you'd usually only see from the most hardcore of Ron Paul supporters, and bury it in bullshit. Not healthy, dude. Finally, a point that isn't completely fucking made up. But one I'll address again - Whose job is it to raise, teach, and guide these children? The TV, or the parents? If a kid watches Pulp Fiction and starts saying "Fuck" all the time, who is at fault, Pulp Fiction, or the parent who either let them watch pulp fiction, or who didn't attempt to correct that behavior, instead leaping to blame someone else.