• LGBTQ activists call to boycott 'Zoolander 2' over "harmful" portrayal of trans character
    142 replies, posted
I really think all this is completely overblown. I don't like that society is getting to the point that something isn't fully accepted into society if it's made a joke in a comedy movie. Is this really the biggest issue that LGBTQ has to worry about right now? People are still literally being killed for that stuff in other countries and people want to whine over a joke in a movie that makes fun of literally everything in it. There are no "serious" moments in the movies. You don't see Malaysia crying about how it unfairly portrays their child laborers or male models complaining about how it makes a mockery of their lifestyle. All this is going to do is breed contempt for activists.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49170400]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). What's the problem? [i]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."[/i] 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. [i]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.[/i] 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.[/QUOTE] You're cherrypicking things I'm saying and trying to extrapolate on assumptions about my meaning that are pretty hilariously off target. That whole italicized portion is you literally putting words in my mouth and going off on tangents about things I never claimed. So, what's wrong (I was hoping I wouldn't have to explain this): it's very disrespectful to just go out and ask someone whether they've got a schlong or a clam -- it's not your business, it doesn't matter, and in the special case where someone is clearly somehow androgynous or transgendered, you very well may cause gender dysphoria, which, depending on the person, can yield a lot of other issues (but is also just bad enough in itself). If you [I]really[/I] want to ask so badly, you can politely ask someone what their pronouns are. But their genitals are a private matter and you don't know for sure if they're comfortable about that, and their sex as a whole is irrelevant anyway. Back to the movie then -- it's very explicitly making a joke of the whole matter without being sensitive or at all aware of what I just explained. It's inappropriate, disrespectful, and harmful, if you're going to be so pedantic to try to call me out like [quote]"disrespectful and inappropriate" (I thought it was 'harmful')?[/quote] The trailer doesn't have to make me unhappy, uncomfortable, pissed off, etc to make it harmful. It doesn't have to make [I]anyone[/I] feel that way. I don't [I]have[/I] any emotional connection to the trailer, that's why I'm not bringing it up -- not because I'm trying to dodge your heckling. I don't see how my "manliness" plays into this at all, and I don't know why you think I'd try to prove my masculinity when you're literally halfway across the world and neither of us could possibly care any less for the other. The closest thing I have to an emotional connection to this is that I'm close friends with a couple of transgendered people, and I've spent enough time with them to realize the danger in perpetuating* this behavior. That's the perspective I'm trying to share with you. I'm not moving any goalposts, I've just realized through the conversation that my original argument wasn't as strong as I thought, and so I've redeveloped it to be more defensible, although I still stand by the first. But you're forcing me to examine the trailer from a million perspectives anyway, because I'm just trying to explain how this trailer [I]is[/i] "offensive" to you and everyone else who can't seem to grasp the implications of condoning* the behavior shown in it. *I know the trailer isn't [I]outright[/I] condoning/perpetuating anything. But to someone who watches the movie and doesn't know any better, they can and some definitely will get the impression that that joke is appropriate and not disrespectful.
[QUOTE=Beetle179;49174137]You're cherrypicking things I'm saying and trying to extrapolate on assumptions about my meaning that are pretty hilariously off target. That whole italicized portion is you literally putting words in my mouth and going off on tangents about things I never claimed. [/QUOTE] You're misinterpreting me not understanding what you're saying as cherrypicking, I have to extrapolate what you say because you're not actually giving me enough information. If you were a bit more clear in what your actual argument was/is then I wouldn't need to extrapolate anything. [QUOTE]So, what's wrong (I was hoping I wouldn't have to explain this): it's very disrespectful to just go out and ask someone whether they've got a schlong or a clam -- it's not your business, it doesn't matter, and in the special case where someone is clearly somehow androgynous or transgendered, you very well may cause gender dysphoria, which, depending on the person, can yield a lot of other issues (but is also just bad enough in itself). If you really want to ask so badly, you can politely ask someone what their pronouns are. But their genitals are a private matter and you don't know for sure if they're comfortable about that, and their sex as a whole is irrelevant anyway.[/QUOTE] That whole point is irelevant, this is a movie and not real life. The character in the movie is not a real person and a representation of something in a movie does not mean that the creator of the film condones the action being represented being performed in real life [b]or that the viewer of the film should/would/could reciprocate it.[/b] Grand Theft Auto doesn't make people steal cars and run over hookers, a holocaust documentary doesn't turn people into neo-nazis who try to reenact what they saw on the screen and a comedy about a bunch of dumb people doing dumb things doesn't make people think it's suddenly acceptable to do dumb things they wouldn't otherwise because they saw it in a dumb movie. [QUOTE]Back to the movie then -- it's very explicitly making a joke of the whole matter without being sensitive or at all aware of what I just explained. It's inappropriate, disrespectful, and harmful, if you're going to be so pedantic to try to call me out like "disrespectful and inappropriate" (I thought it was 'harmful')?"[/QUOTE] Your calling me pendantic when you were the one who got iffy over the exact words I used to describe your level of disgruntlement. [QUOTE]The trailer doesn't have to make me unhappy, uncomfortable, pissed off, etc to make it harmful. It doesn't have to make anyone feel that way. I don't have any emotional connection to the trailer, that's why I'm not bringing it up -- not because I'm trying to dodge your heckling. I don't see how my "manliness" plays into this at all, and I don't know why you think I'd try to prove my masculinity when you're literally halfway across the world and neither of us could possibly care any less for the other. [/QUOTE] It's taken you this long just to explain exactly what the problem is that you have with the movie, and even that had to involve moving the goal posts from your initial position after you got called out for it. Is it any wonder that I've had to extrapolate what your argument is when you've given me, up until this point, absolutely nothing to work with but some vague accusation of wrongdoing? [QUOTE]The closest thing I have to an emotional connection to this is that I'm close friends with a couple of transgendered people, and I've spent enough time with them to realize the danger in perpetuating* this behavior. That's the perspective I'm trying to share with you.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, the rhetorical equivalent of "I have a black friend...". Knowing nothing else about you, all I can really do here is repeat the argument I made earlier, there are people who actually enjoy the lifestyle you claimed was harmful before you moved the goalposts: [QUOTE=Zyler;49156985] 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] You started out arguing that the representation of the character in the film was 'harmful' and then you changed your argument to the claim that a specific joke made in the trailer was "disrespectful and inappropriate". [QUOTE]I'm not moving any goalposts, I've just realized through the conversation that my original argument wasn't as strong as I thought, and so I've redeveloped it to be more defensible, although I still stand by the first. But you're forcing me to examine the trailer from a million perspectives anyway, because I'm just trying to explain how this trailer is "offensive" to you and everyone else who can't seem to grasp the implications of condoning* the behavior shown in it.[/QUOTE] That is the definition of moving the goalposts, your previous argument was untenable so you backpedaled and changed your argument in order to not be wrong while still standing by the previous argument. You claim that I'm heckling you but in reality I'm just trying to pin down what you're actually saying because you keep making vague allusions to the effect of something being harmful without clearly explaining what is harmful and why that is. Whether intentional or not, what you're doing is completely disingenuous. Remember I can't hear things like the tone of your voice through text on the internet, if you're going to say something you need to be clear and explicit and leave no room for misinterpretation. [QUOTE]*I know the trailer isn't outright condoning/perpetuating anything. But to someone who watches the movie and doesn't know any better, they can and some definitely will get the impression that that joke is appropriate and not disrespectful. [/QUOTE] See the previous paragraphs in this post, also look up the hypodermic needle theory.
[QUOTE=Beetle179;49174137]You're cherrypicking things I'm saying and trying to extrapolate on assumptions about my meaning that are pretty hilariously off target. That whole italicized portion is you literally putting words in my mouth and going off on tangents about things I never claimed. So, what's wrong (I was hoping I wouldn't have to explain this): it's very disrespectful to just go out and ask someone whether they've got a schlong or a clam -- it's not your business, it doesn't matter, and in the special case where someone is clearly somehow androgynous or transgendered, you very well may cause gender dysphoria, which, depending on the person, can yield a lot of other issues (but is also just bad enough in itself). If you [I]really[/I] want to ask so badly, you can politely ask someone what their pronouns are. But their genitals are a private matter and you don't know for sure if they're comfortable about that, and their sex as a whole is irrelevant anyway. Back to the movie then -- it's very explicitly making a joke of the whole matter without being sensitive or at all aware of what I just explained. It's inappropriate, disrespectful, and harmful, if you're going to be so pedantic to try to call me out like The trailer doesn't have to make me unhappy, uncomfortable, pissed off, etc to make it harmful. It doesn't have to make [I]anyone[/I] feel that way. I don't [I]have[/I] any emotional connection to the trailer, that's why I'm not bringing it up -- not because I'm trying to dodge your heckling. I don't see how my "manliness" plays into this at all, and I don't know why you think I'd try to prove my masculinity when you're literally halfway across the world and neither of us could possibly care any less for the other. The closest thing I have to an emotional connection to this is that I'm close friends with a couple of transgendered people, and I've spent enough time with them to realize the danger in perpetuating* this behavior. That's the perspective I'm trying to share with you. I'm not moving any goalposts, I've just realized through the conversation that my original argument wasn't as strong as I thought, and so I've redeveloped it to be more defensible, although I still stand by the first. But you're forcing me to examine the trailer from a million perspectives anyway, because I'm just trying to explain how this trailer [I]is[/i] "offensive" to you and everyone else who can't seem to grasp the implications of condoning* the behavior shown in it. *I know the trailer isn't [I]outright[/I] condoning/perpetuating anything. But to someone who watches the movie and doesn't know any better, they can and some definitely will get the impression that that joke is appropriate and not disrespectful.[/QUOTE] if asking someone a question can trigger something as extreme as gender dysphoria, you need to fucking grow up imho
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;49174869]if asking someone a question can trigger something as extreme as gender dysphoria, you need to fucking grow up imho[/QUOTE] ..What? Gender dysphoria is something transgender people deal with on a daily basis. It can be triggered by a ton of things or just come and go on its own, which is the case a lot of the time -- trans boys [url=http://transguys.com/features/chest-binding]go out of their way[/url] to feel and appear less like their birth sex, because it helps cut down on dysphoria. I haven't read the other post yet and I probably won't get around to it for a little while [editline]23rd November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;49174508]You're misinterpreting me not understanding what you're saying as cherrypicking, I have to extrapolate what you say because you're not actually giving me enough information. If you were a bit more clear in what your actual argument was/is then I wouldn't need to extrapolate anything.[/quote] I'm sorry if I'm not being clear enough. Frankly I think I'm being plenty clear but I just don't think we're even close enough to the same page to realistically get anywhere with this argument. __ [quote]That whole point is irelevant, this is a movie and not real life. The character in the movie is not a real person and a representation of something in a movie does not mean that the creator of the film condones the action being represented being performed in real life [b]or that the viewer of the film should/would/could reciprocate it.[/b] Grand Theft Auto doesn't make people steal cars and run over hookers, a holocaust documentary doesn't turn people into neo-nazis who try to reenact what they saw on the screen and a comedy about a bunch of dumb people doing dumb things doesn't make people think it's suddenly acceptable to do dumb things they wouldn't otherwise because they saw it in a dumb movie.[/quote] You're absolutely right. GTA doesn't make people steal, holocaust documentaries don't turn people into nazis. But that's because these are well-understood by the populace to be blatantly negative things. People are generally much, much less familiar with LGBTQ issues, because it wasn't until only recently that the movement for equality and respectful treatment really kicked off. As I said in my first post, "as it is now, society is clearly very confused and doesn't know how to deal with LBGTQ+ people, and so this sort of [del]grossly inaccurate portrayal of those people and the[/del] blatant disrespect shown to them is very much negative. It's misleading and makes light of the issue in the wrong way (because yeah, there are ways you can tastefully joke about anything -- but this isn't one of those ways)." And yeah, you're still right, the creator of the movie is not condoning poor treatment of trans people. I can tell that's not the intent. But here I'll borrow from what someone else has already said: [QUOTE=wraithcat;49161105]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] It doesn't have to be mal-intentioned for it to be somehow negative. In wraithcat's example, the kid's doing blackface for a report -- totally innocent and just trying to play the character, he doesn't know any better. But that doesn't make blackface any more acceptable. Given historical context that this kid didn't have, we know blackface has been associated with awful, racist things. But with regards to the movie... the director, the writers, the actors, etc. aren't elementary school children, they're adults making a multimillion dollar movie and marketing to a wide audience. Somewhere in this process, someone is expected to raise the point, "hey, maybe this joke is a bit too touchy and inappropriate" -- or at the [I]very least[/I], "hey, this could cause controversy". The question of if they [I]want[/I] the controversy is something else. __ [quote]Your calling me pendantic when you were the one who got iffy over the exact words I used to describe your level of disgruntlement.[/quote] What? No, you called me out for being pedantic: [quote]Your entire argument is a semantic point and a whole lot of weasel words. [/quote] because you didn't like my use of the words harmful, offensive, etc. And then you started in with this: [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, made you uncomfortable?[/quote] which is literally, objectively, a semantics argument. __ [quote]It's taken you this long just to explain exactly what the problem is that you have with the movie, and even that had to involve moving the goal posts from your initial position after you got called out for it. Is it any wonder that I've had to extrapolate what your argument is when you've given me, up until this point, absolutely nothing to work with but some vague accusation of wrongdoing? [/quote] I wasn't aware I had to explain what was wrong about asking somebody what genitals they have when there's a pretty strong hint that they may be insecure about that. And again, I'm not moving goal posts -- my goal post has been from the start to argue from the perspective of the activists in the OP as to why this trailer does have some questionable content. All that's changed is what I've said the questionable content is -- even then, I withdrew my first argument about the portrayal/representation of the character and moved on to the more blatant issue, which was the joke. __ [quote]Ah yes, the rhetorical equivalent of "I have a black friend...".[/quote] No, no, no, no, no, no, not at [I]all[/I]. There are so many things wrong with that. I'm not saying "I have a trans friend so I can joke about this" (the direct analog to the "black friend" thing), I literally [I]only[/I] brought it up because you said: [quote]Are you simply trying to distance yourself from the issue and you don't want to have any mention of an emotional connection?[/quote] to which I even said, [quote][B]I don't have any emotional connection to the trailer[/B], that's why I'm not bringing it up ... The closest thing I have to an emotional connection to this is that I'm close friends with a couple of transgendered people, and I've spent enough time with them to realize the danger in perpetuating* this behavior.[/quote] __ [quote]Knowing nothing else about you, all I can really do here is repeat the argument I made earlier, there are people who actually enjoy the lifestyle you claimed was harmful before you moved the goalposts: You started out arguing that the representation of the character in the film was 'harmful' and then you changed your argument to the claim that a specific joke made in the trailer was "disrespectful and inappropriate".[/quote] Yes, you're right, I ceded my argument because I realized it wasn't strong. You won that argument -- I'm not moving any goalposts, I admitted that my argument was flawed when I said "Fair" and stopped arguing the point. __ [quote]That is the definition of moving the goalposts, your previous argument was untenable so you backpedaled and changed your argument in order to not be wrong while still standing by the previous argument. [/quote] The argument I'm standing by is the fundamental argument of respectful treatment of the LGBTQ community. The argument that I "backpedaled" (read: admitted was flawed) was about the representation of the character being harmful. __ [quote]You claim that I'm heckling you but in reality I'm just trying to pin down what you're actually saying because you keep making vague allusions to the effect of something being harmful without clearly explaining what is harmful and why that is. Whether intentional or not, what you're doing is completely disingenuous.[/quote] The harmful thing is the joke question. It's disrespectful to ask that question, especially to someone androgynous or who you think is trans, because it may induce dysphoria. It's then harmful because people who aren't familiar with proper LGBTQ treatment [I]may[/I] see this, especially given more scenes in this movie or others, and not recognize the disrespect. Then you have people who think this is acceptable humor to trans people. __ [quote]Remember I can't hear things like the tone of your voice through text on the internet, if you're going to say something you need to be clear and explicit and leave no room for misinterpretation.[/quote] I'm trying my hardest to be concise but I don't think there's any way we're going to reach any sort of reasonable conclusion here because we just do not see eye to eye, and I just am not talented enough with words to convey my thoughts effectively. __ [quote]See the previous paragraphs in this post, also look up the hypodermic needle theory.[/QUOTE] I looked it up, and I can see why my argument might be misinterpreted as an application of the bunk theory, but it's not what I'm suggesting. Literally just from exploring the related articles on Wikipedia I'm more arguing this to be one drop in a case of agenda-setting theory: as I said at some point earlier, [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. That's the problem.[/quote] I confess I've been arguing from a limited perspective, only focusing on this one scene, because it's more convenient to look at it like that (I think for both of us). That's where it may look like I'm applying hypodermic needle theory. [editline]a[/editline] jfc, you ever spend an hour writing out a response for an internet argument and then see what a monster post you've made and just wonder what you're doing with your life
Jesus crackers christ, that's a really long post to say basically one thing. Instead of going through it point-by-point I'll just respond to the general ideas being presented. First off, in response to your reply to Radical_ed; I think you're misinterpreting what they're saying. They aren't arguing that people do not suffer from dysphoria on a daily basis, they're making the point that people who do not suffer from gender dysphoria don't tend to suddenly start to suffer from it in reaction to something they've experienced, which is what the common nomenclature or neologism of 'trigger' on the internet tends to mean, i.e. they're going off the Tumblr version of 'trigger' as opposed to the real one. Secondly, you continue by making the point that even though individuals do not normally reciprocate the actions seen in fictional media, the absence of contextual information regarding the subject matter of the action taking place in the media would cause an individual to reciprocate that action regardless. I disagree with this, unless the information is presented in a factual/non-fictional manner, i.e. in a news broadcast or a documentary, or the individual in question has a negative predisposition towards any affected parties there is no reason for any individual to copy behavior just because they saw it in a comedic film. Moreover, there is no scientific basis for this claim. We know that the media does not affect people in this way from longitudinal studies that go back for decades. Finally, you refer to agenda-setting theory as the basis of your claim that a joke in the trailer is harmful. Agenda-setting theory refers to the ability of news media, i.e. non-fictional information presented as fact, "to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda." (McCombs, M; Reynolds, A (2002). "News influence on our pictures of the world". Media effects: Advances in theory and research.). What you're describing has nothing to do with agenda-setting theory. [QUOTE]I confess I've been arguing from a limited perspective, only focusing on this one scene, because it's more convenient to look at it like that (I think for both of us). That's where it may look like I'm applying hypodermic needle theory.[/QUOTE] It looks like you're applying the hypodermic needle theory because you're applying the hypodermic needle theory. You're arguing that people's behavior in society will change because of a joke in a movie without explaining why or how, which isn't how society works much less how individual people work. You also haven't given any other reason for the harmful nature of the trailer aside from this one joke because you lost the other argument you made. So yes, you're using the hypodermic needle theory. You've lost two arguments, I could extrapolate into other arguments you could make but I that would probably be cherry-picking.
RuPaul said it best. [hd]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWKHx1ExoQY[/hd] TL;DW insufferable cunts, the lot of them. [editline]24th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Beetle179;49174925]:words: :words: :words: :words: :words: :words: :words: :words: :words: :words: :words: :words: :words: :words: :words: :words:[/QUOTE] [b]JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, DUDE.[/b] Do you read your own posts? Lighten the fuck up, will ya.
[QUOTE=Beetle179;49156327]This is among the stupidest things I've ever read on Facepunch Some black people like watermelon. When black people are [I]living[/I] that stereotype, can you really call it one?? Meanwhile I don't think the trailer really goes too far with its representation of genderqueer persons, but the dude asking if "you've got a hot dog or a bun" is really uncool and I think it's totally fair to be disappointed with that [editline]21st November 2015[/editline] The representation doesn't have to be negative for it to be concerning -- as it is now, society is clearly very confused and doesn't know how to deal with LBGTQ+ people, and so this sort of grossly inaccurate portrayal of those people and the blatant disrespect shown to them is very much negative. It's misleading and makes light of the issue in the wrong way (because yeah, there are ways you can tastefully joke about anything -- but this isn't one of those ways).[/QUOTE] if what you said is true and i don't know how to 'deal' with those people groups... well, why wouldn't i just make my own decisions instead of relying on hollywood movie-writers to subtly brainwash me into being an accepting person? are normal folks somehow just somehow that much dumber?
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;49177207] [b]JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, DUDE.[/b] Do you read your own posts? Lighten the fuck up, will ya.[/QUOTE] Its sort of immature to disregard his entire argument just because its long and well thought out.
[QUOTE=Beetle179;49174925]..What? Gender dysphoria is something transgender people deal with on a daily basis. It can be triggered by a ton of things or just come and go on its own, which is the case a lot of the time -- trans boys [url=http://transguys.com/features/chest-binding]go out of their way[/url] to feel and appear less like their birth sex, because it helps cut down on dysphoria.[/QUOTE] ....No it's not. Dysphoria isn't a cut and dry thing. Some people have extreme cases, and for others, it's a hit or miss thing/they barely have it. It's not a constant, daily thing. Furthermore, while asking what parts someone has [I]is[/I] considered disrespectful, asking them "Hey, what gender do you identify as?" isn't. Why? It means you're making an effort to identify them correctly and use the proper pronouns. Please get your facts correct before you defend transpeople. You're honestly not helping. Source: I'm trans.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49178557]Its sort of immature to disregard his entire argument just because its long and well thought out.[/QUOTE] Brevity is the soul of wit. I'm sure he could have condensed his post to a shorter: "I don't care what anyone say, this hurts my feelings and you should feel bad for having a different sense of humor than I do". To which one could simply reply: "Duly noted. Now pretty please, with sugar on top, would you stop fucking whining to the rest of us, the sane and well-adjusted people of the world, for not crumbling and pandering to your insecurities, specially when it comes to sense of humor? Don't try to ruin the fucking movie for the rest of us, because [I]it hurts your feelings[/I]."
[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] Who defines funny though? Whenever people like you say shit like that I truly believe you don't understand the very concept of "subjective"
[QUOTE=SadisticGecko;49178692]....No it's not. Dysphoria isn't a cut and dry thing. Some people have extreme cases, and for others, it's a hit or miss thing/they barely have it. It's not a constant, daily thing.[/quote] Everybody's different, I know that. But the reality is that many trans people have bouts of dysphoria on a daily basis. I certainly wasn't as clear as I should have been about what I meant -- and I'm not trans, so I won't pretend to understand exactly how dysphoria works -- but from what my trans friends have told me, this is my understanding, generalized. [quote=SadisticGecko]Furthermore, while asking what parts someone has [I]is[/I] considered disrespectful, asking them "Hey, what gender do you identify as?" isn't. Why? It means you're making an effort to identify them correctly and use the proper pronouns.[/QUOTE] ...I know, I already talked about that. That's the basis of my argument. [quote=Beetle179]...you can politely ask someone what their pronouns are. But their genitals are a private matter and you don't know for sure if they're comfortable about that, and their sex as a whole is irrelevant anyway.[/quote] [quote=SadisticGecko]Please get your facts correct before you defend transpeople. You're honestly not helping.[/quote] At least I'm trying. I'll take any new information I'm offered. [QUOTE=Pretiacruento;49179696]Brevity is the soul of wit. I'm sure he could have condensed his post to a shorter: "I don't care what anyone say, this hurts my feelings and you should feel bad for having a different sense of humor than I do". To which one could simply reply: "Duly noted. Now pretty please, with sugar on top, would you stop fucking whining to the rest of us, the sane and well-adjusted people of the world, for not crumbling and pandering to your insecurities, specially when it comes to sense of humor? Don't try to ruin the fucking movie for the rest of us, because [I]it hurts your feelings[/I]."[/QUOTE] If you've read 5 words of what I've said you'd recognize that's not what I'm saying at all. My feelings aren't hurt, I've even said that if anyone's [I]feelings[/I] are hurt by this then they're overreacting. [editline]24th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;49176663]Jesus crackers christ, that's a really long post to say basically one thing. Instead of going through it point-by-point I'll just respond to the general ideas being presented. First off, in response to your reply to Radical_ed; I think you're misinterpreting what they're saying. They aren't arguing that people do not suffer from dysphoria on a daily basis, they're making the point that people who do not suffer from gender dysphoria don't tend to suddenly start to suffer from it in reaction to something they've experienced, which is what the common nomenclature or neologism of 'trigger' on the internet tends to mean, i.e. they're going off the Tumblr version of 'trigger' as opposed to the real one.[/quote] Of course, I'm well aware that if you ask a cis person what genitals they have they're not going to suddenly experience dysphoria. That should be insanely obvious and that's why I'm frustrated with Radical_ed. [quote]Secondly, you continue by making the point that even though individuals do not normally reciprocate the actions seen in fictional media, the absence of contextual information regarding the subject matter of the action taking place in the media would cause an individual to reciprocate that action regardless. I disagree with this, unless the information is presented in a factual/non-fictional manner, i.e. in a news broadcast or a documentary, or the individual in question has a negative predisposition towards any affected parties there is no reason for any individual to copy behavior just because they saw it in a comedic film. Moreover, there is no scientific basis for this claim. We know that the media does not affect people in this way from longitudinal studies that go back for decades. Finally, you refer to agenda-setting theory as the basis of your claim that a joke in the trailer is harmful. Agenda-setting theory refers to the ability of news media, i.e. non-fictional information presented as fact, "to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda." (McCombs, M; Reynolds, A (2002). "News influence on our pictures of the world". Media effects: Advances in theory and research.). What you're describing has nothing to do with agenda-setting theory. It looks like you're applying the hypodermic needle theory because you're applying the hypodermic needle theory. You're arguing that people's behavior in society will change because of a joke in a movie without explaining why or how, which isn't how society works much less how individual people work. You also haven't given any other reason for the harmful nature of the trailer aside from this one joke because you lost the other argument you made. So yes, you're using the hypodermic needle theory. [B]You've lost two arguments[/B], I could extrapolate into other arguments you could make but I that would probably be cherry-picking.[/QUOTE] First of all, you don't suddenly decide you've won an argument, that's not how things work. I ceded one point to you and if I had the patience, time, and energy, I'd fight the other ones until the thread was locked or someone got banned. Anyway -- you're damn right I keep repeating myself because clearly what I'm saying isn't getting through. That's part because we're both too stubborn to change our minds and part because, as I said, I'm not good at explaining things, certainly not concisely. Regardless, I'm done with this argument. If you want to call that "winning" then by all means, go ahead, but very obviously we're getting nowhere and yeah, the truth is that I'm pretty peeved about some of the things I'm reading, if you're all so desperate for me to admit some sort of emotional reaction. I could try and argue again how I'm not arguing from the perspective of hypodermic-needle theory, or wherein I think the trailer is harmful -- the things we seem to be stuck on now -- but you're not going to listen, because you're already decided, and I'll do the same to you. I respect your persistence and dedication to your argument (nice citations) but fundamentally we are not going to agree. I'm guessing ahead of time that the response to this will be "there's nothing to disagree on, you're just factually wrong". If that's what you think, fine, believe it.
[QUOTE=Beetle179;49180225]Of course, I'm well aware that if you ask a cis person what genitals they have they're not going to suddenly experience dysphoria. That should be insanely obvious and that's why I'm frustrated with Radical_ed.[/QUOTE] Neither will all transgender people. You can't paint us with a sweeping brush and say that every one is going to crumble into a sobbing mess if someone says something remotely offensive.
[QUOTE=SadisticGecko;49180366]Neither will all transgender people. You can't paint us with a sweeping brush and say that every one is going to crumble into a sobbing mess if someone says something remotely offensive.[/QUOTE] And I'm not claiming that... But some trans people do experience dysphoria when confronted with these things, so besides just being disrespectful, you're risking causing an emotional reaction. An emotional reaction that I also never said will be a "sobbing mess", but obviously depends on the person and in most cases probably won't be visibly clear anyway. Did you read my response to you or not? Can I ask why you're being so combative to someone who's making an effort to understand where you're coming from?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49179717]Who defines funny though? Whenever people like you say shit like that I truly believe you don't understand the very concept of "subjective"[/QUOTE] There's no objectivity, but this thread and [I]my opinion[/I] seem to indicate this is not really funny. Haven't heard a lot of people in here praising the joke, just attacking the reaction towards it and I definitely feel safe saying this is unfunny and shouldn't be made just because it's plainly unfunny. -edit- I don't even know why you presume I meant that as objective, of course it's my opinion...
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49181672]There's no objectivity, but this thread and [I]my opinion[/I] seem to indicate this is not really funny. Haven't heard a lot of people in here praising the joke, just attacking the reaction towards it and I definitely feel safe saying this is unfunny and shouldn't be made just because it's plainly unfunny.[/QUOTE] The simple fact you don't see any contradictions in what you said is why I'm not taking you seriously. If you really meant it wasn't objective then you failed to communicate that by using your subjective views and the subjective views of those you value around you, something akin to a echo chamber, to attempt to argue that your view is more "right" and by extension objective. "I didn't find it funny, my friend didn't find it funny, the consensus almost objectively is, it's not funny". [editline]24th November 2015[/editline] Because you're talking about how a general group feels and rules about humour that should apply AS IF it were objective
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49181708]The simple fact you don't see any contradictions in what you said is why I'm not taking you seriously. If you really meant it wasn't objective then you failed to communicate that by using your subjective views and the subjective views of those you value around you, something akin to a echo chamber, to attempt to argue that your view is more "right" and by extension objective. "I didn't find it funny, my friend didn't find it funny, the consensus almost objectively is, it's not funny".[/QUOTE] No, I am using the fact that no one has claimed that this joke is funny and that it appears to be far more interesting to argue over the reaction to the joke than the actual humor of the joke in this thread as my basis for my conclusion that: this joke is stupid and no one seems to think it is funny.
No ones even seen the joke in the movie yet so how are you basing that off of anything but pure conjecture you're just twisting to your favour. It could be funny. I'd rather wait and see. I just don't think there's topics that should really be off limit.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49182032]No ones even seen the joke in the movie yet so how are you basing that off of anything but pure conjecture you're just twisting to your favour. It could be funny. I'd rather wait and see. I just don't think there's topics that should really be off limit.[/QUOTE] Dude, the joke is the same joke everyone's been talking about in this thread. Don't point at me and say I alone am basing this off of conjecture. If you want to criticize that people just "haven't heard the full joke yet! it could be really funny! just wait!" then you should have been saying this posts ago. [editline]24th November 2015[/editline] I even mentioned something like this on this page, but clearly everyone is talking about the joke made/edited together in the trailer.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49182032]No ones even seen the joke in the movie yet so how are you basing that off of anything but pure conjecture you're just twisting to your favour. It could be funny. I'd rather wait and see. I just don't think there's topics that should really be off limit.[/QUOTE] Precisely. Which is why this whole thing is pretty stupid to begin with, a fucking trailer is nothing to argue about.
Yeah but have you guys seen the movie yet?
[URL="https://facepunch.com/member.php?u=228847"]Map In A Box[/URL] has.
But hunour is by its nature very subjective. Even if one person was the only one to find a joke funny that doesn't mean it's objectively not funny.
It is my belief that people have the right to make bad jokes, and people who want the government to stop them from making bad jokes are an even worse joke and should fuck off.
Why is a character, whose entire shtick is their stupidity, asking "do you have a hotdog or a bun?" inherently offensive? Yeah it's an offensive question and one that hurts trans people and digs up gross memories and everything but on the other side of that coin, does the trailer not also highlight how intolerant and bovine it is as a thing to ask?
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49182768]a boycott isn't exactly a government ban[/QUOTE] Other people in this thread want to restrict the topics comedians are allowed to use, I can't think of an effective means of doing so that doesn't include the government: [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]
Most people find comedians joke's funny most of the time, that's the point? They're a tiny minority that refuses to take the joke for a joke and don't want people to find it funny. The only way to restrict it would require government intervention. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQA6UStpOyQ[/url]
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49182885]i think he means "comedians should probably make funny jokes" not "the govt should become the funny police"[/QUOTE] Uhm What does "restricted" really mean to you?
Holy crap they put Kyle from GoodNeighborStuff in there
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.