LGBTQ activists call to boycott 'Zoolander 2' over "harmful" portrayal of trans character
142 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SadisticGecko;49158448]
LGBTQ= lesbian, gay, bi, transgender, and queer/questioning. Depends on who you talk to. Questioning is better to go with since some people considered queer to be a slur.[/QUOTE]
I find queer is better, since it basically means anyone who isn't straight / cisgender, meaning you don't need people making up their own acronyms like "LGBTTQQIAAP", "LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM" and "FABGLITTER" because they need to include every kind of subculture
Man, I remember when I was younger and you didn't have to walk on eggshells (SORRY EGGKIN!!!) in order to avoid offending some hurt-feelings nambypampby punk. People need to toughen the fuck up.
[QUOTE=kaze4159;49158613]I find queer is better, since it basically means anyone who isn't straight / cisgender, meaning you don't need people making up their own acronyms like "LGBTTQQIAAP", "LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM" and "FABGLITTER" because they need to include every kind of subculture[/QUOTE]
Problem is, some people will shit a brick if you call them queer. Others don't care.
[QUOTE=kyle877;49158638]Man, I remember when I was younger and you didn't have to walk on eggshells (SORRY EGGKIN!!!) in order to avoid offending some hurt-feelings nambypampby punk. People need to toughen the fuck up.[/QUOTE]
Yeah you didn't need to walk on egg shells cause you were a child who no one cared if you asked people if they had a penis or vagina cause you were a little kid not because feelings suddenly started getting in the mid 2000s...
[editline]21st November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=SadisticGecko;49158653]Problem is, some people will shit a brick if you call them queer. Others don't care.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I definitely have refrained from calling people queer because I've only ever heard it used hurtfully. It's a word I've seen as co-opted [I]from [/I] homophobic people but I don't think it's a nice thing to call people still.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49159302]Yeah you didn't need to walk on egg shells cause you were a child who no one cared if you asked people if they had a penis or vagina cause you were a little kid not because feelings suddenly started getting in the mid 2000s...
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you're right, [URL=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1494498]it's[/url] [URL=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1494456]totally[/url] [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1494207]not[/url] people being unable to handle the slightest dent to their little safety bubble. It's just that I was a child and have no clear recollection of how other people interacted amongst themselves.
You're right. Good job.
[QUOTE=kyle877;49159376]Yeah, you're right, [URL=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1494498]it's[/url] [URL=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1494456]totally[/url] [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1494207]not[/url] people being unable to handle the slightest dent to their little safety bubble. It's just that I was a child and have no clear recollection of how other people interacted amongst themselves.
You're right. Good job.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. People have been mad since the dawn of time, bud.
[editline]21st November 2015[/editline]
Maaaaybe not about [I]this[/I] back then, but more at stuff like [I]that[/I]. People have always been whiners, you're now connected to the internet which is almost literally a direct feeding pipe for you to get your triple-A rage material to get even further "mad" about.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49159389]Yeah. People have been mad since the dawn of time, bud.
[editline]21st November 2015[/editline]
Maaaaybe not about [I]this[/I] back then, but more at stuff like [I]that[/I]. People have always been whiners, you're now connected to the internet which is almost literally a direct feeding pipe for you to get your triple-A rage material to get even further "mad" about.[/QUOTE]
No... this safe space and progressive racism thing only appeared in the last few decades.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49159389]Yeah. People have been mad since the dawn of time, bud.[/QUOTE]
Be that as it may, it's absolute garbage that any time someone of any minority (be it racial, gender identity, sexuality, whatever) gets offended it's national fucking news.
[QUOTE=kyle877;49158638]Man, I remember when I was younger and you didn't have to walk on eggshells (SORRY EGGKIN!!!) in order to avoid offending some hurt-feelings nambypampby punk. People need to toughen the fuck up.[/QUOTE]
Walking egg shells. Last time I had to do that, I was dealing with an abusive person. Is there a relation to that? Naaaahhhhhhhh..................
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49154504]I'm sorry did you watch the first movie? They make a mockery of all models, that's the point of Zoolander! His male model friends died in a literal gasoline fight and you're worried about them making a mockery out of a single character who was on screen for 5 seconds?[/QUOTE]
These are the same people that boycotted and caused the eventual box office failure of a movie made specifically to praise and honor the LGBT community, because they felt there were too many white people in it lol
[QUOTE=Zyler;49156985]"It's not negative...but it is negative...and it's not offensive...but it's perpeturating misrepresentation of transgendered people, so it's not offensive but we need to eliminate it because it offends trans people by misrepresenting them."[/quote]
That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm saying that the representation isn't inherently negative, but the effect is has is. So it doesn't have to portray x minority in an outright negative way to cause a negative effect. It's the same reason that stereotypes aren't always negative, but they're still stereotypes.
And no, again, the portrayal itself isn't inherently offensive, either, and people shouldn't get offended by it, I agree. But it's disrespectful. It's not necessarily promoting, but certainly it's displaying, inappropriate behavior regarding treatment of LGBTQ individuals, without acknowledging how disrespectful the behavior actually is. Not offensive; disrespectful and potentially dangerous.
[quote]That's not even really remotely comparable, Drag Queens (whom the guy you were responding to was talking about) are a self-identified group of people who deliberately present exaggerated displays of sexuality and gender-fluidity. Flamboyant LGBTQ people are also a staple of western culture, in the form of mardi gra for example, to the point where claiming that being flamboyantly gay or the like was offensive would in fact be offensive to people who organized such events.[/quote]
Fair. But again and I'll take this opportunity to say it, -- I'm not claiming anything is offensive. In fact, I almost never see "SJW" people use the word "offensive" seriously, except for the extremist sort you find in niche groups on Tumblr. Way fewer people than you guys seem to think actually look at these things and think "gee, I'm offended". No, it's about recognizing that letting little things like these go without being called out makes it seem like there's nothing wrong with doing those things, and so quietly promotes the idea that it's okay to do them. Do that enough times and it's no longer just okay, it's normal. That's the problem.
[quote]Just because you find a specific cultural artifact uncomfortable doesn't make it objectively offensive/harmful/negative/negative-but-not-offensive/offensive-but-not-negative or any other qualitative synonym of stating it is bad or harmful. Nor does it make sense that a small group of LGBTQ activists who criticize a Adam Sandler movie be seen as the entire LGBTQ movement.[/QUOTE]
I never said the trailer was harmful because it makes me uncomfortable -- I'm just saying the trailer is harmful. I'm not even agreeing with the LGBTQ activists in the OP -- I think they're arguing very much the wrong point. My main gripe is with the whole "hot dog or a bun" comment, because it's incredibly disrespectful and inappropriate, and being used for a joke. (Please pay attention that I'm not saying it's an "inappropriate joke" because yeah, jokes are jokes and sometimes jokes are crude, dirty jokes are fine, I get that.)
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49155172]So context and the fact that it isn't done with malicious intent matters?[/QUOTE]
Eh often malicious intent is a not the important factor. Remember that kid that adored MLK and when doing a report on him dressed up as him, including dark makeup. The fury that that unleashed.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49154472]I'm sorry but this movie just looks like shit to me. It's like it's trying too hard. Maybe it's because it's supposed to be that way and I never saw the first one, but I don't like what I've seen so far.[/QUOTE]
then watch the first one
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49154472]I'm sorry but this movie just looks like shit to me. It's like it's trying too hard. Maybe it's because it's supposed to be that way and [B]I never saw the first one[/B], but I don't like what I've seen so far.[/QUOTE]
Fucking fix that
holy shit
Also, unrelated, BILLY ZANE IS BACK IN THE SEQUEL FUCK YEAH
[QUOTE=srobins;49159766]These are the same people that boycotted and caused the eventual box office failure of a movie made specifically to praise and honor the LGBT community, because they felt there were too many white people in it lol[/QUOTE]
No one knows who threw the first stone during the Stonewall riots. It was the funniest shit to watch people attack.
[QUOTE=Megadave;49154716]funny thing is they got all pissed about Simple Jack[/QUOTE]
Well you never go full retard man.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49154472]I'm sorry but this movie just looks like shit to me. It's like it's trying too hard. Maybe it's because it's supposed to be that way and I never saw the first one, but I don't like what I've seen so far.[/QUOTE]
You have to at least give the first a try. Its a stupid movie, and probably isn't everyone's cup of tea, but you can't say its sequel "looks shit" when you don't know what was in the first.
Its on Netflix right now if you have it.
That being said, I have a bad feeling its going to be Anchorman 2. Trying so hard to live up to the original and falling short.
why boycott it over this theres plenty other things to boycott this bad movie over
[QUOTE=Map in a box;49169694]why boycott it over this theres plenty other things to boycott this bad movie over[/QUOTE]
have you seen it
Like many things, these people feed on attention, the more you give them the more they will appear.
[QUOTE=darth-veger;49169869]Like many things, these people feed on attention, the more you give them the more they will appear.[/QUOTE]
On the topic of attention. The film will be benefitting from all this publicity + people who see the boycott will be outraged and might feel obliged to watch the movie as a sort of counter protest.
So the squabbling is sort of win win.
IMO they have an absolute right to boycott just as the company has a right to use silly stereotypes. We should do what we can to stop damaging stereotypes but it should be up to the individuals if to do so, forcing your opinion of what they should and shouldn't do is sort of... oppressive.
[QUOTE=Beetle179;49160150]That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm saying that the representation isn't inherently negative, but the effect is has is. So it doesn't have to portray x minority in an outright negative way to cause a negative effect. It's the same reason that stereotypes aren't always negative, but they're still stereotypes.
And no, again, the portrayal itself isn't inherently offensive, either, and people shouldn't get offended by it, I agree. But it's disrespectful. It's not necessarily promoting, but certainly it's displaying, inappropriate behavior regarding treatment of LGBTQ individuals, without acknowledging how disrespectful the behavior actually is. Not offensive; disrespectful and potentially dangerous.
Fair. But again and I'll take this opportunity to say it, -- I'm not claiming anything is offensive. In fact, I almost never see "SJW" people use the word "offensive" seriously, except for the extremist sort you find in niche groups on Tumblr. Way fewer people than you guys seem to think actually look at these things and think "gee, I'm offended". No, it's about recognizing that letting little things like these go without being called out makes it seem like there's nothing wrong with doing those things, and so quietly promotes the idea that it's okay to do them. Do that enough times and it's no longer just okay, it's normal. That's the problem.
I never said the trailer was harmful because it makes me uncomfortable -- I'm just saying the trailer is harmful. I'm not even agreeing with the LGBTQ activists in the OP -- I think they're arguing very much the wrong point. My main gripe is with the whole "hot dog or a bun" comment, because it's incredibly disrespectful and inappropriate, and being used for a joke. (Please pay attention that I'm not saying it's an "inappropriate joke" because yeah, jokes are jokes and sometimes jokes are crude, dirty jokes are fine, I get that.)[/QUOTE]
Generally when someone says something is offensive, they mean that it is harmful. Your entire argument is a semantic point and a whole lot of weasel words. You say something is harmful/offensive/any-other-way-of-saying-negative-or-bad and then I explain why it isn't and you shift to some other way of saying the thing is harmful/offensive/any-other-way-of-saying-negative-or-bad.
Meanwhile you haven't done anything to prove why the thing in question is bad/negative/harmful or whatever adjective you want to apply, except to stipulate that I was in some way stereotyping you into the role of a Tumblr 'SJW' (a word that I didn't even use).
[QUOTE]No, it's about recognizing that letting little things like these go without being called out makes it seem like there's nothing wrong with doing those things, and so quietly promotes the idea that it's okay to do them. Do that enough times and it's no longer just okay, it's normal. [b]That's the problem.[/b][/QUOTE]
What's the problem? That whole paragraph was basically just: "People do this thing that I don't like without me telling them the thing I don't like is something I don't like, which means they might continue doing this thing I don't like, and that's a problem." You haven't explained why the thing is bad/negative/harmful, I specifically addressed why you thinking something is harmful is actually more harmful, because there are actual people in the world who celebrate that lifestyle who you are disrespecting.
[QUOTE]I never said the trailer was harmful because it makes me uncomfortable -- I'm just saying the trailer is harmful.[/QUOTE]
If the thing is harmful and you believe it is harmful, then would it not be correct to say that it made you unhappy or uncomfortable or pissed off or something like that? Are you worried about not seeming manly or something because you happen to dislike something and I used a synonym of 'dislike' that, and I know this is ironic, [i]made you uncomfortable?[/i] Are you simply trying to distance yourself from the issue and you don't want to have any mention of an emotional connection?
It's a form of speech, saying "made you uncomfortable" is another way of saying "you didn't like it".
Oh god. So you're saying you think the trailer is 'harmful'. Would it be fair to say you didn't like it? Would it also then be fair to say that it made you uncomfortable? Unless that word means something different to you than it does to me.
[QUOTE]My main gripe is with the whole "hot dog or a bun" comment, because it's incredibly disrespectful and inappropriate, and being used for a joke. (Please pay attention that I'm not saying it's an "inappropriate joke" because yeah, jokes are jokes and sometimes jokes are crude, dirty jokes are fine, I get that.) [/QUOTE]
IT IS an "inappropriate joke", there's literally no other way of describing it. What objective rule are you using to distinguish this joke as being "disrespectful and inappropriate" (I thought it was 'harmful')? Also, why didn't you just say that in the first place? You initially claimed that it was the representation of the character that you found 'harmful' and now you're saying that it was just the joke and nothing else that was 'disrespectful and inappropriate'.
This leads me to suspect you are moving the goal posts because I pointed out how the representation you thought was 'harmful' is not so much.
I'm not so offended by this because it's harmful to trans people, more because caricatures of lgbt people like that are just painfully unfunny and effortless, and I kind of thought better than that of Cumberbatch. It's just bad comedy. Then again, we've only seen the trailer so I could be way wrong.
It's a joke about how male models are made so androgynous that it can be hard to tell if they're a man or a woman. It has nothing to do with LGBT people. Stop getting your knickers in a twist over assumptions. The entire joke of Zoolander is that the modelling industry is so over the top and strange that it's near incomprehensible, and that the two main characters are stupid and have gotten by in life entirely on looks.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;49170522]It's a joke about how male models are made so androgynous that it can be hard to tell if they're a man or a woman. It has nothing to do with LGBT people. Stop getting your knickers in a twist over assumptions. The entire joke of Zoolander is that the modelling industry is so over the top and strange that it's near incomprehensible, and that the two main characters are stupid and have gotten by in life entirely on looks.[/QUOTE]
It's very heavily implied that the character is supposed to be nonbinary.
A "good representation" would be completely out of place in a movie like this. However judging from the trailer this is not a misrepresentation or a mockery, so what is the problem?
The complaint says it's mockery, but just because it's over the top doesn't make it mockery in my opinion.
It just seems like a really unfunny joke about a sensitive topic. They probably should have just not written a joke in this direction at all imo; just seems like lazy humor. Maybe he comes back and throws it in Hansel's face, but the editing in the trailer just made it seem like he's weird and "hehee who knows!? I'll never tell ;)"
Cry about it, nothing should be off limits when it comes to comedy, regardless of how funny or unfunny it turns out.
[QUOTE=unrezt;49172023]Cry about it, nothing should be off limits when it comes to comedy, regardless of how funny or unfunny it turns out.[/QUOTE]
Unfunny things should be off limits to comedians imo. This isn't really offensive, just a really stupid sounding joke.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49172037]Unfunny things should be off limits to comedians imo. This isn't really offensive, just a really stupid sounding joke.[/QUOTE]
Why? What gives you the right to tell others what they can and cannot find funny? If you are offended by something you suck it up and move on, that's how freedom works.
My opinion. I think the joke is stupid, most people in this thread seem to as well and I have no problem judging people's sense of humor if they laugh at something that, baring a variation of word choice, I heard when I was still in elementary school. Please, continue to laugh if you must but this is a dumb joke.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.