Handman

How is this even possible?

What’s wrong with Trek fans? 😛

Since my last post, I’ve seen:
The Big Boss (1971)
8 1/2 (1963)
The Godfather (1972)
Somehow I haven’t seen any of these until just this week.

He pretty much condensed this entire thread into a couple paragraphs.

Frankly I don’t get why there’s so much focus on words rather than intent. Mfm mentioned “oriental”, which seems to be in a transition to this “unspeakable words” phase, when I could watch any late night show from the late 80s and Asians would refer to themselves as Oriental. It’s a rapid change, and the offending words are always changing that it’s really confusing to keep up with. For another example, about 10-15 years ago I was consistently told referring to black people as black was offensive, which doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.

So I guess here I’m just confused, don’t crucify me.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I do begrudge people expecting everyone else to fall in line with their choices

To be clear… “people” weren’t involved in making “everyone” do what they said. ONE person highlighted ONE t-shirt to the boss of ONE company. The boss agreed it was offensive.

The little picture of text heavily implied that everyone should fall in line with the person who wrote it.

I just don’t get why your right to offend someone is more important to you than the fact that you might be offending someone.

Speech that is offensive is much more important to protect than non-offensive speech, as offensive speech is the only speech that is questioned anyway.

That is absolutely true. But it misses the point… nobody has said that the vendor shouldn’t have the right to sell the shirt. The vendor considered the evidence, and chose not to sell the shirt. You seem to be angry about that.

If I was angry, I don’t feel it now, it’s a lot of effort to carry anger over stupid things for a long period of time. If it was the vendor’s choice of his own free will, and not due to a fear of severe backlash on social media, then I see no reason not to be okay with it.

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

How are you offended by alcohol?

The consumption of alcohol is abhorrent to me. Read up on why the Prohibition movement took hold.

Is the consumption of alcohol really affecting you in the way a racist remark might or do you just not like it?

It’s done a lot to ostracize me, so perhaps it is affecting me. It was just an example, I don’t want to be psychoanalyzed.

That sounds like it has nothing to do with the alcohol itself.

Perhaps not.

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

How are you offended by alcohol?

The consumption of alcohol is abhorrent to me. Read up on why the Prohibition movement took hold.

Is the consumption of alcohol really affecting you in the way a racist remark might or do you just not like it?

It’s done a lot to ostracize me, so perhaps it is affecting me. It was just an example, I don’t want to be psychoanalyzed.

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

What sort of life is that? That would mean I wouldn’t be able to do literally anything but breathe. This is impossible. The things I personally get offended over would spoil a lot of people’s fun, like alcohol etc. . Do I do anything about it? No, because I realize I can’t police people from doing things I don’t like.

If you really think being offended over alcohol and over race are equivalent…I don’t even know what to do with that.

You’re twisting my words, you said if anyone is offended over anything, then they should stop. You were the one making all offense equivalent, and I was pointing that out.

DominicCobb said:

How are you offended by alcohol?

The consumption of alcohol is abhorrent to me. Read up on why the Prohibition movement took hold. I don’t tell anyone to stop drinking it, though. Why the hell would they listen to me?

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I do begrudge people expecting everyone else to fall in line with their choices

To be clear… “people” weren’t involved in making “everyone” do what they said. ONE person highlighted ONE t-shirt to the boss of ONE company. The boss agreed it was offensive.

The little picture of text heavily implied that everyone should fall in line with the person who wrote it.

I just don’t get why your right to offend someone is more important to you than the fact that you might be offending someone.

Speech that is offensive is much more important to protect than non-offensive speech, as offensive speech is the only speech that is questioned anyway. Again, bringing this to Star Trek, many of the ideas then were considered offensive at the time, women wrote in saying they didn’t like the female first officer in “The Cage”! Did they change to stop causing offense? They got rid of the female first officer, but it didn’t change their mindset.

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

If you’re just going to go ahead and think it’s empathy v. not having empathy because you found one black person who was offended, I don’t know what to say. If you’re trying to tell me I have to fall in line with what black people tell me to do, which one do I follow? Ben Carson or Obama? Who? All of them? That’s a lot of conflicting opinions and perspectives there. What do I do? Once again I’m going to refer to the fact that a group is comprised of individuals, you simplifying it to just black people can do no wrong is patronizing.

I said black people can do no wrong?

You have repeatedly said over the years that if a black person is offended about anything, I should change my behaviors and ideology to suit this stranger. It gives that impression.

How about this - if some people (not all) are offended by something, don’t do it.

What sort of life is that? That would mean I wouldn’t be able to do literally anything but breathe. This is impossible. The things I personally get offended over would spoil a lot of people’s fun, like alcohol etc. . Do I do anything about it? No, because I realize I can’t police people from doing things I don’t like. In fact, they did once, it was Prohibition and it was a disaster. So no, that does not appeal to me.

You also don’t really seem to be too kind to people getting upset over some jokes you’ve made. Are the people offended over them not legitimate? You ignored them or continued to make jokes, yes? How is this any different?

There was a poll a while back that said only something like 10% of Native Americans are offended by the Washington Redskins team name. Ok, so 90% aren’t offended, but 10% still are. We should keep the name just so you can protect your right to offend that 10%?

I am conflicted over this issue, as it is a racial slur. I’m also not a fan of sports in general, so I honestly don’t care. But again, everyone is offended by something, the NAACP now has a racial slur in its name (colored people), yet this does not seem to be an issue. Probably because it’s a nonissue.

If you’re just going to go ahead and think it’s empathy v. not having empathy because you found one black person who was offended, I don’t know what to say. If you’re trying to tell me I have to fall in line with what black people tell me to do, which one do I follow? Ben Carson or Obama? Who? All of them? That’s a lot of conflicting opinions and perspectives there. What do I do? Once again I’m going to refer to the fact that a group is comprised of individuals, you simplifying it to just black people can do no wrong is patronizing. I don’t see the empathy.

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

And if you aren’t personally offended why act offended? Saying something is offensive to a particular group without being involved or a part of that particular group isn’t really much of a favor to them. In fact, it’s a tad bit condescending, isn’t it? Figuring they can’t complain themselves, that you have to do it on their behalf – not even factoring in the group in question is made up of a bunch of individuals who don’t even agree completely!

So, a business is selling a potentially offensive t-shirt, I should just ignore it because it’s not my problem?

I prefer to show some empathy.

It’s not empathy, it’s coddling. Taking the moral high ground here is wrong, honestly I find people going out of their way to protect minorities from things that might hurt their feelings as if they’re children who can’t do it themselves patronizing, and I’m not alone there. When everything is potentially offensive, as offense is subjective by nature, where’s the line drawn? How far are we going to go to hide people from simple harsh realities?

Who asked for your empathy?

Well, it’s not as if these minorities don’t have a history of significant offenses against them. I mean that’s just a fact that you can’t get around. Instead of pretending that history never existed or pretending that there’s nothing wrong anymore, we should be working to make things right. We can’t just throw our hands up in the air and say “that’s life!” We should be better than that.

Where am I denying this? We’re looking at the wrong things.

I give up. Clearly I suck at explaining my mindset, and am not gaining any friends in the process.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

So when I was a kid and my friends were using the N word, I shouldn’t say anything?

Go ahead, that word is a special case. You again ignored the fact that in this instance the word is not used, so your complaint isn’t even relevant.

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

And if you aren’t personally offended why act offended? Saying something is offensive to a particular group without being involved or a part of that particular group isn’t really much of a favor to them. In fact, it’s a tad bit condescending, isn’t it? Figuring they can’t complain themselves, that you have to do it on their behalf – not even factoring in the group in question is made up of a bunch of individuals who don’t even agree completely!

So, a business is selling a potentially offensive t-shirt, I should just ignore it because it’s not my problem?

I prefer to show some empathy.

It’s not empathy, it’s coddling. Taking the moral high ground here is wrong, honestly I find people going out of their way to protect minorities from things that might hurt their feelings as if they’re children who can’t do it themselves patronizing, and I’m not alone there. When everything is potentially offensive, as offense is subjective by nature, where’s the line drawn? How far are we going to go to hide people from simple harsh realities?

Who asked for your empathy?

Except it didn’t even use the word! What, do we stop saying the rhyme cold turkey because in the 19th century it used a racist term?

And if you aren’t personally offended why act offended? Saying something is offensive to a particular group without being involved or a part of that particular group isn’t really much of a favor to them. In fact, it’s a tad bit condescending, isn’t it? Figuring they can’t complain themselves, that you have to do it on their behalf – not even factoring in the group in question is made up of a bunch of individuals who don’t even agree completely!

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:
You can’t just call everyone doing things you don’t like “political correctness.”

Right, just like how you dismiss everyone acting on what they believe to be politically correct as not being “political correctness”.

Sorry, I’ve just been trying to look at the topic through the prism of a set definition of the term. Other people (on both sides) love to twist the concept. This frustrates me, but I guess I can’t really do anything about it.

But you’ve never explained how anyone is twisting the concept. The reason PC can and does go too far is because it’s so broad.

I guess I just expect people to act within reason. “Eenie meenie miney mo” is an extremely common phrase that nowadays has essentially no racist component to it. Most people don’t know the history of it and most of those that do surely understand it’s use now. There’s no reasonable reason to think that it’s offense.

I had no idea of the history, but now that I know, I’m not going to tell a black person they shouldn’t be offended.

Except the offended party wasn’t even black.

Methodist Minister Ian Lucraft said:
“It is directly threatening of a racist assault, and if I were black and were faced by a wearer I would know just where I stood.”

If Frink knew Christie, what would happen next would make headlines.

DominicCobb said:
You can’t just call everyone doing things you don’t like “political correctness.”

Right, just like how you dismiss everyone acting on what they believe to be politically correct as not being “political correctness”.

“Family values” are the right’s version of “political correctness” to hide behind. Also bastardized and misused, to go with the terminology Dom used with political correctness.

DominicCobb said:

Star Trek certainly had moments back in its day that’d be considered politically incorrect now. But I’m talking about at the time.

It’s not really fair to call anything Star Trek did in the name of political correctness when that ideology wouldn’t exist for the next 20 years. Progressive, sure, but there’s a difference.

Political correctness is about being sensitives to the attitudes and cultures of underrepresented populations. People can put whatever bs interpretation of it if they want, but that’s what it is - treating people with respect. And that’s what Star Trek has always strived for, even if it didn’t always hit the mark.

That may have been the original intent, but that is not how it has been implemented. If you’re so sure, and going to call all opposing viewpoints bs, there’s no use arguing. In fact it proves my interpretation of what it’s caused. Star Trek has not always strived for the ideals of political correctness, I could point to pretty much any episode, as mfm did. Then you’ll say as you did that it was going for what was politically correct at the time, to which I’ll say political correctness didn’t even exist until the late 1980s, and we’ll just repeat the same damn thing over again.

Ex. They put a Russian on the Enterprise during the height of the Cold War. Now, the execution wasn’t perfect (pretty stereotypical portrayal, looking back), but the mere fact of the matter was a ballsy move to promote inclusion.

That was not to “promote inclusion”. The mindset was to paint a hopeful picture for the audience that the conflict they now found themselves in, one that could very well destroy the earth, would be solved. Not only that, that humanity would find a way to bring these former enemies together. It wasn’t “Let’s put a Russian in there for diversity”, it was “Let’s bring Russia onto Spaceship Earth”. Criticizing the character for being a stereotype is what political correctness has brought us now, and lost sight of the bigger picture.

Warbler said:

Handman said:

Online gaming never appealed to me, I don’t know why it’s such a big deal.

Some people prefer to play against real humans as opposed to computer opponents.

That’s when I invite someone over.

I was cautiously curious about Milo, not sure what to think of him. I knew the protests he was getting from college kids was ridiculous and overblown, his appearance on Bill Maher’s show earlier this week proves that much (He begged for the entire panel to say “Fuck you”, pathetic attention seeker). But, although the protests make the left look bad, Milo makes the right look really bad. I don’t even think there are any good conservatives in the US anymore. They all died in the 90s.

Female/black leads and diverse casts have been considered politically correct for decades. The only difference is political correctness is more controversial than it was in the 90s, probably because some shows (Voyager included) neglected quality stories and the only thing going for them was being politically correct. So now the idea is if a show is overtly-politically-correct, the storytelling will suffer for it. Problem is, a lot of the time, it’s true.