They might as well get rid of the whole series at that point.
@LegateLanius Yep, might as well
Get this woman a beer.
Bloody nonsense indeed. There are several "white trash" characters. But that's fine cuz they're white... my bad.
White trash characters... Written and voiced by white people.
@meicrosoft Well if you wanna call it like that, Cletus is voiced by a New Yorker. Far from the dirty south.
Poor/Working class white people or "White trash" aren't all from the dirty South
Obviously. But Cletus is a stereotype of the dirty south.
There's still a large difference in the offensiveness of Hank Azaria voicing Cletus in comparison to Apu
@meicrosoft if it's ok for a black guy to voice a Japanese guy (Samurai Jack) and a Argentinan guy to voice an Australian wallaby (rocko from rocko's Modern Life) then why isn't ok for a white guy to voice an Indian?
It depends on who is/ writing those characters and how stereotypical they are
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Lisa was 2nd born. I think? Not sure.😒
Bart, then Lisa, then Maggie.
Also side note: The Italian chef, shouldn’t he be offensive to Italians, or when they visit the U. K? They make fun of everyone!
Yes, but they're white. Well yellow, but they're white stereotypes. Therefore SJW don't give a damn.
Because homer is a straight white male. He’s open season.
And it's not like Apu was portrayed negatively either. He was portrayed as a good father, hardworking, embracing American culture while observing his own. One of the most beloved characters, actually.
Well actually the complaints about the character did start amongst some people of Indian descent...So basically you are mistaken in your assumption
I’m Indian and he’s very stereotypical character, but I still liked the show and his character didn’t offend me as much. Only complain I have about him is that his accent is not exactly Indian accent lol
The idea is to pander to western stereotypes about India, same way the do for hillbillies, Scottish people etc
I’m not saying you’re incorrect about the Simpsons sucking, but I find it concerning when iconic forms of entertainment are this malleable to those who would pick and choose what is appropriate to joke about. It seems morbidly censorious to go on a campaign against a fictional character, not to mention for reasons that really can apply to any others on that show. It just sets a worse precedent for the freedom of creative minds.
@Mexicoman101 @Mexicoman101 Then maybe you should start a YouTube vlog about how these postmodern neo-marxist SJWs are ruining our fun, get hundreds of thousands of views, make lots of money and become the 7364th most famous SJW-bashing free speech warrior on YouTube of all time. Or something like that.I'm not saying I agree with it. I don't. I'm just way more sick of the outrage about these things than about the things themselves. There are far more concerning developments in our society right now. And they're caused by the Anti-SJW crowd. I agree that there's plenty of issues with this whole "SJW" thing (although I refuse to use that buzzword unironically). But the polar opposite of them is what causes BY FAR more worrisome issues in our society right now. If you want to worry about shit, worry about the rise of the New Right and their tactics (for instance, edgy SJW-bashing) instead of overly sensitive people complaining about TV shows.
I don’t think you’re wrong about the right using the worst examples of the left to prop up their bullshit, that’s what’s going on to an extent. But as someone who cares about seeing at least certain elements of the left succeed, I can’t help but be concerned when developments like this happen. I don’t think we need to shut up about any one side of that spectrum we’re told to align on. The thing is, also, about these tactics of censorship is that when the left hones it down to an art the right will pick it up and use it in debatably worse ways. There are right wing SJW’s who whine incessantly about things in media as well.Comedy is one of few things I hold as sacred. Its a solace from the discord, tribalism, and regress. When it is attacked, it matters at least to me.
No one needs to shut up, I just think the focus is WAY too much on that in recent years. And whether you're aware of it or not, that is mainly thanks to far right movements like the Alt-Right infiltrating social media to manipulate and control public discourse. YouTube is absolutely DOMINATED by SJW-bashing and the comment sections on any social/political content are about 90% far right opinions, let alone all the hyper popular channels who make tons of money. SJW-bashing has become a huge industry of its own. I agree though that it's a huge problem within the Left. And it's just one of their huge problems. There are plenty.What I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't play along with these tactics and be useful idiots to the far Right. Because that's exactly why they have become so successful. The real far Right are a minority. Their genius strategy was to influence people outside of their ideology to adopt their rehtoric and way of thinking to make it mainstream. And it works.
There's probably 1000 times more anti-SJW content on YouTube than actual SJW content. Why's that? Well, I think we both know why. Extremist ideologies always need a boogeyman to scare the people into following their ideology.
I understand your hyperbole but I don’t think the disparity is that pronounced. Like Contrapoints is pretty popular and Brett Weinstein even made favorable tweets towards her. Youtube is a platform of mostly males, but if you looked at Tumblr (mostly women) you might think the ‘muh sjw’ epidemic was a huge looming threat. But I acknowledge anti sjw content markets better on Youtube consistently. I think its a consequence of people not wanting to be told what to do, more about venting against authoritarianism than servicing the right. I know the right stands to gain from that in many regards but the underlying principle isn’t faulty just for that. I completely sympathize with your concerns about the far right, most of the people I watch are predominately anti right wing, but the alt right in itself is another kind of boogeyman. In truth I think SJW’s are also a minority, but because their opinions market better it gives them more reach to do things like change entertainment.
I think any symptoms of extremity, whether far left or far right, stand to empower either side by creating vulnerabilities that can be exploited by factions of the alternative and legacy media.
@Mexicoman101 You'd have to be very blind not to see it. First of all channels like ContraPoints may be popular, but nowhere near as popular as the Anti-SJW channels. And second, these channels are compareably very few. I'm telling you, YouTube is absolutely, undoubtly, DOMINATED by right-wingers. Both in terms of channels (in the case of social/political content, that is) and in terms of active (commenting and liking/disliking) viewers. If you think that's a hyperbole, you are not paying enough attention. Simple as that.And you're right about Tumblr. Tumblr is dominated by the Left, and mostly by the worst parts of the Left. But here's the thing - compare YouTube's influence on society to Tumblr's influence on society. No comparison. Not even close. YouTube is one of the most influential, if not *the* most influencial media there is today. Tumblr is an elitist circle jerk. It's irrelevant.
You’re right, I tend to ignore right wing content that comes across to me as extremist. I know of like Steven Crowder, No Bullshit, Molyneux and... not many others except maybe Styxhexenhammer but I actually respect him to a degree. He is not as popular as Kulinski though. I won’t contest that more right wing content thrives there. I know Jean Francois and Andy Warski got way more popular than I would have liked.https://youtu.be/7s2BLwkk7WIBut Dr. Layman made a pretty decent case about the developing success of the left. I think that this tide we’re seeing will turn in time.
I agree that Tumblr is comparatively irrelevant, but Twitter is vehemently left wing and it has definitely made the news in its sphere of influence. Twitter is so left wing they made a racist free speech platform just for disaffected right wingers, which I will not name.
Yeah, like I said, there definitely are many great Left channels. ContraPoints being my favorite probably, and some others. But compare them to the likes of Sargon Of Akkad and Dave Rubin - they have *millions* of viewers and subscribers. And there are plenty of such channels with this amount of popularity. And let's not forget the massive amounts of Jordan Peterson worshipping conent since 2016. His cultists are all over YouTube. (And yes, Jordan Peterson is a Right-Winger for the most part, no matter what he calls it.)
I get why you would prefer people focus more on the far right, I agree, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who is perturbed by this Apu deal is necessarily a useful idiot.
I will watch that video, thanks!
Jordan Peterson is left compared to the American right, but divorcing myself from that I do see him as generally right. He is not really a problem or extreme though, I mean he spends so much time warning people about their capacity for the evils that the Nazi’s succumbed to. Like I told you earlier I have at least some respect for him.
@Mexicoman101 I didn't say everyone. But many... nay, most, definitely are. And *that's* what I'd like to see batteled.
I might have some respect for him in a few small regards, but that potential respect was wiped out as soon as I found out that he outright *lied* his way up to his prominence and consequently his wealth. And even after that he's been so disingenious on so many occasions. People worship him as a God like figure (which in itself is utterly worrisome) who's so pure, and even you think that way to degree. But the opposite is the case. He's not being open and honest about his intentions and opinions.Absolutely no respect from me.
I don’t think I’ve said anything to warrant being lumped in with the cult of Peterson. I just don’t hate him, and think a lot of what he has to say makes sense and can be a moderating influence on the American right. I just don’t find him malevolent. I view him in a similar regard as I view Sam Harris. None of them are heroes or role models, but they contribute something in spite of their faults. I respect you more than them, but I don’t think your assessments are as judicious as it ought to be. Its easy to believe that because repugnant people also like someone that it stains everybody around their brand. Its fair to say Jordan Peterson has issues that overwhelm your regard for him but not everybody has the same value judgement.
I didn't lump you in with them. But whatever positive influence he migth have on the Right itself (which I don't even see), the negative influence he generally has overshadows that by far. I'm starting to think that you don't really know much about him to begin with, which would explain your - forgive me, but - ignorance regarding him. It's becoming quite obvious to me that you simply don't know many of the things about JP that I base my assessment on. Maybe you have read his ridiculous self-help book and saw a couple of interviews, but apparently you don't know much about his views, his oppurtunistic lies, and how he really wants to influence the world.
I’ve never read his books but I saw his appearances on some youtube channels (Rogan, H3H3, Rubin), TV news stations, his Bill Maher appearance, and some of his lectures on Youtube. Also have seen some people point out when he tries tough talking his critics. I also have seen people like TheAmazingAtheist and Kyle Kulinski refute him. I don’t consider that level of exposure to be not enough to form an opinion.
And yet you apparently aren't aware of certain crucial things about him. Like him lying to get to the fame and wealth. Or his utter lack of understanding of political history. Or evolution and science in general (yes, he's a psychologist, but he utterly sucks at science.)
But if you saw his Joe Rogan appearance you at least saw one example of his utter hypocrisy. he first complains - as usual - about "postmodernists" and "neo-marxists". (By te way, he doesn't understand the meaning of those words, not even remotely, and several historians and political scientists have debunked him on that. He uses these words as boogeymen scares and it's working, like it did when the Nazis scared everyone about "cultural Marxists"). He complains about their supposed idea of "equality of outcome". (Another boogeyman scare - no one calls for equality of outcome in the Left, maybe a tiny fraction.) And then he talks about incels and about a solution being (socially) "forced monogamy". That idea is in itself insane and speaks volumes about the ideology of this man. But as Joe Rogan pointed out then - that would essentially equality of outcome. JP didn't know what to respond to that hypocrisy of his being exposed.Just one example.
Yes, I saw Rachel Oates on youtube debunking many of the scientific claims he makes, but even she acknowledged some of it was true even if it was presented in a verbose, bloviating manner. I wouldn’t peg him as an evolutionary biologist in league with Dawkins.And yeah I do find it funny that he constantly dismisses people as nihilist postmodernist marxists etc, but I just view this as an extension of his experience being harangued by campus leftists who are very extreme. The kind of people who want to compel you to call them Ze or Zir. I think he’s just maladjusted as a consequence of who he dealt with in academia. Most leftists aren’t like that. I think comparing his words to Nazi framing is unfair though. I don’t think its unreasonable to take issue with marxism, or postmodernism, even if he’s liberal with the terms. People called Obama a neo marxist practically every day who were just neo conservatives and had no Nazi sympathies.
But that's also what pseudoscientists do - they cherry-pick certain scientific facts and then twist and turn them to fit their narrative. So yeah, obviously he says some things that are scientifically correct, but the way he interprets and uses them are very skewed to fit his biases."but I just view this as an extension of his experience being harangued by campus leftists who are very extreme."- Neither is that an excuse to not know the meaning of these terms (especially since he claims he's very knowledgable about this stuff), nor does that change the fact that it very negatively influences people who follow him. More and more people are falling that nonsense. That is worrisome, and he's doing it deliberately.
He’s entitled to his opinion on monogamy with respect to inceldom. I don’t think there were no incels were around when monogamy was socially enforced and I find it grossly puritanical to enforce monogamy but I personally believe monogamy is just better as a lifestyle and don’t consider its advocacy a bad thing, if not this solution to inceldom as he suggests. At least he’s trying to encourage the incels to become better men and not view sex as a means of accruing credibility through body count. I don’t think he necessarily wants equality of outcome, he just acknowledges that there is a disparity in the ratio of sexual options between men/women and views it as an issue. I don’t agree with him on his proposed solution but he’s not a Saudi royalist about it. These are legitimate beefs, but not really the type to completely undermine everything else he has to say.
Ah, the whole "compelled speech" thing. See, I knew you weren't aware of his lies. :)
Yeah I’ve heard some debate about whether the Bill C16 thing meant truly compelled speech in the context he described. I’m referring to the students though, I think they really do want to see the government compel speech. Maybe it isn’t an excuse, but it’s my best explanation of why he’s that maladjusted. These are serious issues but I don’t really think you need to dismiss his every word on them.You can cherry pick what speakers/philosopers/writers put out into the world. I personally believe that the truth is like a big mosaic, every persons perspective is a piece of the truth but doesn’t describe the whole. There is sense within even perspectives that are divergent from one another.
He's entitled to all his opinions. And I do think that some of the advice he gives to incels directly, is actually good advice. As for the monogamy thing - I already know your opinions on that, and I still think some of them are based mostly your subjective emotions regarding monogamy nut mostly on your misconcepptions regarding polygamy. We've had this discussion before. You do have many misconceptions about it, whether you're aware of it or not."I don’t think he necessarily wants equality of outcome"- And yet he immediately shut up when Rogan pointed it out. But see, that's the problem with him - he's always being very vague, only implying stuff, so then when called out on it he can always say "I didn't say that!". That's what pseudointellectuals do. Quite typically."These are legitimate beefs, but not really the type to completely undermine everything else he has to say."- Not everything, but sure as hell most of it.
"I’m referring to the students though, I think they really do want to see the government compel speech."- Crazies be crazy."These are serious issues but I don’t really think you need to dismiss his every word on them."- Again, not every word. I do say it when I agree with him. I did in my last comment, for instance. It's just there is so so so much more he says that is utter bullshit. Haha"I personally believe that the truth is like a big mosaic, every persons perspective is a piece of the truth but doesn’t describe the whole."- The truth about what? Apparently you're not referring to objective truths.
No I said that cuckolds were mentally ill, I don’t necessarily take issue with polygamists. I just don’t want to be involved in it. I don’t believe polygamy is an intrinsic evil or descriptive of mental health issues. Nor is casual sex. I am pro casual sex even if with respect to relationships I’m a monogamist.
He does keep what he says vague but I think that has the benefit of making him malleable to changing his mind. Like when he admitted he was wrong about bigots refusing to serve gay couples their wedding cakes to Jim Jeffries.
Well he is a right winger, I am on the left. I don’t generally believe most of what he says about politics and I’m a pantheist who does not take what he says about god seriously either.
All I’m saying is that if you’re surrounded by crazy people, that can effect you.I mean the truth as it refers to the nature of reality and how we interact with it. Like how you could say Uncle Toms Cabin was a work of fiction but was depicting truths about the nature of slave life in the Southern American United States. Everybodies perspective is tainted by bias and misconceptions but each perspective holds at least some truth to it that is valuable to forming a worldview if you encounter it.
@Mexicoman101 And you still don't understand what cuckolding is in a kink sense. No matter what you say, you already proved that to me in our discussion about that. You explained to me what you think cuckolding is, and you simply have no clue. You are entirely misinformed about the subject. And FYI, I work in the field of psychology, I know my shit, especially when it comes to sexual psychology. And I'm telling you - you clearly don't know the first thing about cuckolding. And apparently also about mental illness. And I find that statement disgusting and something I wouldn't expect from someone like you. Educate yourself about the topic or shut the fuck up. Seriously.
Okay I don’t have access to those messages but I remember specifically declining to define it. You can perhaps tell me if I’m wrong. I don’t understand this anger over my thoughts on the matter. Why is this such a hot button issue for you? This conversation really wasn’t about that in the first place.
@Mexicoman101 I just told you why - I work in the field of psychology. People calling things they personally dislike a "mental illness" really pisses me off. Do you even know what a mental illness is? Do you even remotely have any professional knowledge about human (and especially sexual) psychology, other than watchting some lectures by a right-wing psychologist (who by the way often blends in his personal views into his lectures)? Right.These are not your simple thoughts on it. Calling something a mental illness is not "just a thought". And even that aside, your thoughts are completely misinformed. So again - either inform yourself properly, or don't make such statements, especially such extreme ones.
But you know what's funny? That actually fits perfectly with our JP discussion and his influence. He's a professor of psychology. People listen to him. They learn from him. And that's the thing - he does blend in his personal views. I've seen his lectures. he makes a lot of unscientific, very biased claims. He's a traditoionalist. Traditionalism is very often in conflict with our current knowledge of psychology. It often doesn't go together well. And he ignores that. Because of his personal views.And then we have people like you, making such uninformed psychological statements. I'm not saying you have that opinion because of him. I'm saying that's the type of influence someone like him can have. And whatever influenced you to have that uninformed, biased opinion, it was someone or something similar to him.
Lol well I don't really recall any instance of him talking about that.
I don't want this Apu censorship/'muh SJW' conversation to devolve into one about cuckoldry. If you want to talk about that we can do it in the DM's but I think this exchange is ill served going into that.
Suffice it to say I think we agree on the issue of the extreme right and left, I just personally find the censorship of comedy pretty dear to me even if it is true that the zeitgeist also does not properly address the dirty laundry of the right.
Again, I'm not saying you got that from him necessarily. Although he does talk about monogamy in an archaic traditionalist way a lot, so I wouldn't be surprised if many people who listen to him form such uninformed opinions about kinks like cuckolding. As a psychologist and a lecturer, he is quite biased in what he emphasizes. He's often subtly pushing an agenda in his lectures.
Fine, I think we can thus wrap this up.
This has become a sad truth. 20 years ago nobody batted an eye. He is portrayed as Indian. That's racist?Hello? That's what Indians are.
I'll bet hundreds on that
Didn't know you were a big fan of the series. I am delighted.
I was up until many seasons ago but as of late I basically just dip my toe in it to see what's up here and there. I probably won't watch it anymore though.
I didn't know it was still all that popular. Hari had waged this campaign for years. He finally won.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC0P8dLSLg
I think it's pretty morbid for a comedian to go around joke policing.
What does that mean? No joke is off limits?
What is wrong with you? Really. What the hell is wrong with you people? The Simpson’s was overall liberal even before the SJW mob existed. The creator Matt groening is a Democrat. The female characters where smart (Lisa) and responsible (marge). The male characters were deviants (bart, nelson) and Neanderthals (homer, barney, etc). The black characters where in respectable positions (cop and doctor). Social justice is neither social nor justice. It’s destruction.
@sonnysunshine We've known for a long time that comedy that lampoons a person's accent or ethnicity is often perceived as insulting. This is not new. We've known this for 100 years, more even...What is wrong with you that you still think it's a good way to get laughs?
The Simpson’s might have lampooned their accents but NEVER ever their work ethic, character or overall reputation. They usually made them BETTER than white people on purpose. Your Gustapo political correctness is killing comedy and actually making racism worse.
by the way if you want the Simpson’s to get rid of people for lampooning accents you need to get rid of groundskeeper willie? The really made of him of being an angry, alcoholic sometimes creepy Irish immigrant. Oh wait a minute. Yeah we both know why that’s okay.
@sonnysunshine Groundskeeper Willy is Scottish not Irish.
@AngelaUK I stand corrected. Scottish. But still my argument stands. He was lampooned for being an immigrant (much more harshly than Apu). But since he’s white that’s completely and totally fine.
@sonnysunshine yes, I agree.
Beyond comparison over a cartoon pathetic pacifist who cares what color race creed origin its a dam comedy
Then get him tossed off the series.:D