"Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back"/GLADD controversy (PG - 13: Adult Content) [Archive]

Trent Lane

08-01-2001, 05:58 PM

Welcome to the Offended States of America... I'm so tired of every little power group finding something wrong with everything in the world. If it's not GLADD, it's PETA, and so on and so forth. Can we as a society not just GET OVER IT? Lord, this wears on my nerves. EVERYONE is subjected to some sort of discrimonation, it's only the ones who can shrug it off and get on with there lives who don't get bothered by it. Those remaining handfuls have to gripe about how "such and such is discriminating me" or whatever other cry they may make. No one forces people to walk into a movie theater and watch this, or shoves a CD into your CD player and forces you to listen to it. If you find it offensive, DON'T BUY IT, GO NEAR IT, etc. By doing that, you avoid the problem. Such an easy solution people just can't seem to grasp... Sorry to sound preachy, but I've heard this song and dance one time to many...

James Harvey

08-01-2001, 06:26 PM

I think is it a bit ridiculous, but I've heard worse. Just today I heard THE most ridiculous thing. Mark Walhberg said that Helena Bonham Carter's (in PLANET OF THE APES) hair do looked just like Janet Jackson's. Now many groups are screaming "Racist" at Wahlberg. How idiotic is that?

Brian Cruz

08-01-2001, 06:51 PM

Yay! The curse word censor works!:D

How could anyone think Kevin Smith is homophobic after he made "Chasing Amy"? Some people just look to get offended, so they can get some attention for whatever cause they have.

The Mad Hatter

08-01-2001, 08:56 PM

Yeesh. Admittedly, none of us have seen the movie, but knowing Kevin Smith I'm sure homophobia is ridiculed, rather than held up. Man, I'm not sure what else to say.

DerekPowers

08-01-2001, 10:27 PM

smith makes good points about how his kind of satire can help create a kind of tolerence. but i also can understand why people at gladd may get offended. i find myself getting offended really easily lately when asian jokes are made (cause i'm asian). i think it has to do with (and maybe its just me) how its not seen as bad amoung the general public to make a joke about asian people or gay people for that matter. it kind of seems to me like its much more acceptable to make a gay joke or asian joke than say a black or hispanic joke. so i can see where they are coming from. they have a right to be offended, because a lot of people in the majority never have to be at a movie with their family or friends and then have a bunch of jokes about who you are come up, and feel really really uncomfortable. i dont think smith should change it, and since i didnt see the movie i cant say whether gladd is being overly sensative, but i'm guessing theyre not being overly sensative, because the worst is when a joke is made and shrugged off like its no big deal, especially when those jokes and stereotypes are the only exposure a lot of people have to that race or group of people. and i am really surprised that all the people who responded to this thread all said the obvious "oh people are too sensative" response. I dont mean to make a big deal about this, i just think alot of people forget that there are things they will never ever have to deal with in everyday life that a lot of minorities have to, and sometimes i think if white people (and people in the majority) knew what it was like, they'd be more sensative and accepting. well thats my little rant. peace.

James Harvey

08-01-2001, 10:29 PM

I agree. I think some people just go looking for something to offend, no matter how miniscule (like that ridiculous Wahlberg/Racist thing, and it's just rearing it's ugly head at Smith. I am anticipating this movie with open arms and I can't wait to see it. I consider Chasing Amy one of his best movies, and (suprise, suprise) there's alot of homosexual stuff in it.

Bud 'n Lou

08-01-2001, 10:30 PM

I agree that it's ridiculous the way the media is interpreting things, and the way GLAAD seems to be handling this situation. But unlike some of you, I do think that there is SOME validity to GLAAD's concerns.
I don't give American audiences much credit. I think that the majority of viewers will not read between the lines and just see a few gay jokes, and will probably think nothing of it. I don't believe in censorship, and I don't believe anyone's art should be "edited".
However, art inspires people to do things, whether it be to persue their dreams of becoming an astronaut, or kick someone's ass. Even if a bigotted joke is meant in good humor or satire, a large amount of people are sure to misinterpret it, and take it on face value. One of two things may happen: it can be blown out of proportion by some and seen as offensive, or it might just re-enforce bigotted beliefs in others. It's not a matter of "changing the station if it offends you", as some of you suggest. When it inspires other people to commit violent acts against a targetted group (and right now, homosexuals are one of the most, if not THE most targetted groups, which is why this whole thing makes me nervous) , it's a little hard to just ignore it. That's my concern.
As for the arguement that EVERYONE gets picked on, and you should just deal with it...why? Even if that's true, it doesn't make it right. And if I have a problem with something, my First Amendment rights say I have just as much right to speak out against it as the person who created whatever it is that I'm protesting has, thanks very much.
I'm not saying I agree completely with GLAAD. I sympathize with Kevin Smith, and nothing I've said pertains to him specifically, it was just a general statement. I can see somewhat where GLAAD is coming from though, even though our opinions vary a little.
Edited to say: Word, DerekPowers!

RockItShipper

08-02-2001, 12:25 AM

In general, anything targeted for mass-production runs the risk of being misinterpreted. There are people out there who look up to Jay and Silent Bob because they're fanboys/potheads/porn readers etc. At the same time, there's sites with Kevin Smith characters in slash situations, like this one... http://homepage.mac.com/~dashab/ksslash.html

And it's most likely that the first group is a larger demographic, and prone to misinterpreting the jokes. That's GLAAD's major concern. I mean, alot of this sounds like this book I'm reading called "Wilma loves Betty". All the stories are parodies of pop culture and gay stereotypes in general. Like the successful "Ex-Straight Ministry" leading a man to shun women and start talking in a stereotypical gay manner. But it's safe to say that a book in a specific section of Barnes and Noble is less likely to offend/be misinterpreted than a studio movie.

Trent Lane

08-02-2001, 01:31 AM

Clayface

08-02-2001, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Clayface
Hey folks, DG here. Due to some emails I've received, I've been asked to remove the post. Well, intead of removing it, I'm going to simply redirect you to the post on Kevin Smith's www.viewaskew.com website:

http://www.newsaskew.com/talkback/996632946,86437,.shtml

I can's stress enough (like in the subject line) this is adult material and is not intended for children. Although, this is an interesting yet unfair controversy. My apologies to Clayface for having to massively edit his post.

-DG

Hmmmm. Well, sorry about that DG - didn't mean to stir up any controversy or cause you and the boards any trouble. Though I must admit I'm a bit miffed that anyone would ask to have that taken down - sort of seems like people just want to censor Smith's view on the whole situation, and that aggravates me. I didn't realize these types of topics would be considered PG-13 by anyone, but I guess I just have a different viewpoint when it comes to what's appropriate for what ages - I was raised in a house where these types of topics were "G" rated.

Dont' get me wrong - I'm not ticked at you DG, I know you did what you had to. But I am a bit ticked at those that requested to have it taken down. So much for free thinking....

Clayface

08-02-2001, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by Bud 'n Lou

I don't give American audiences much credit. I think that the majority of viewers will not read between the lines and just see a few gay jokes, and will probably think nothing of it.

I don't agree with this statement. I think you're not giving people enough credit - don't let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch.

However, art inspires people to do things, whether it be to persue their dreams of becoming an astronaut, or kick someone's ass. Even if a bigotted joke is meant in good humor or satire, a large amount of people are sure to misinterpret it, and take it on face value. One of two things may happen: it can be blown out of proportion by some and seen as offensive, or it might just re-enforce bigotted beliefs in others.

True, but I don't feel that we should be made to live our lifes on "what-ifs". Every action can have possible bad outcomes, and in this case, I don't see anything that points to the idea that this will have any greater effect than anything else in the world. The truth is, most bigots stay that way because they're stubborn ignorant people that aren't willing to really look at things from a neutral viewpoint - they've had these beliefs ingrained in them for a long time. The truely stubborn of them can and will use anything and everything they can find to reinforce these types of views. Does that mean we should tip toe around the issues, and avoid jokes about something some are sensitive about? I don't believe so.

It's not a matter of "changing the station if it offends you", as some of you suggest. When it inspires other people to commit violent acts against a targetted group (and right now, homosexuals are one of the most, if not THE most targetted groups, which is why this whole thing makes me nervous) , it's a little hard to just ignore it. That's my concern.

And its a valid concern. But, to be honest, I don't believe that a movie like this can inspire anyone to commit violence. Those that would go out and commit that sort of hatred and violence are usually looking for any excuse or cop out to go do these stupid things - they've already made up their minds, and I don't believe that a movie can truely inspire any reasonable and/or sane individual go out and gay bash someone. Its an old debate - which came first, the chicken or the egg.

As for the arguement that EVERYONE gets picked on, and you
should just deal with it...why? Even if that's true, it doesn't make it right.

I don't think anyone's saying that its right, or that it should happen. But I do agree that at some point you have to let it roll off your back. The types of people that bully are doing it to get that reaction from you - by reacting that way, you're just giving them exactly what they want. Learn to deal with it, and it doesn't become an overwhelming factor in your life. At some point you have to grow up enough to know how to deal with it and move on, rather than obsess about it. It's a basic coping skill.

And if I have a problem with something, my First Amendment rights say I have just as much right to speak out against it as the person who created whatever it is that I'm protesting has, thanks very much.

I agree. But at the same time, I think that there has to be a valid reason for that protest, and in this situation, I'm just not seeing it. My issue with the situation is that it seems like the only reason it was brought up at all was because "political correctness" forced the issue. Scott Seomin himself admitted that he didn't believe that Smith was a homophobe, yet he went ahead with the push anyway - I just don't see the logic in that. "Yeah, we know you're not really what we're saying you are - we just want to milk you and your company for some more funds." It feels like outright extortion, rather than some group trying to protect its own.

Calhoun07

08-02-2001, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by The Mad Hatter
Yeesh. Admittedly, none of us have seen the movie, but knowing Kevin Smith I'm sure homophobia is ridiculed, rather than held up. Man, I'm not sure what else to say.

That's true. Look at all the "religious" people who were bent out of shape over Dogma, but the main problem with Dogma is that Dogma had the balls to tell it the way it is. I've studied theology, and all the stuff they say in there is true. Did they say in there that Jesus is the descendent of a hooker, too? I don't remember if that's in the movie, but I've said it before and have gotten in trouble for it, tho it is in the Bible. People don't like to hear the truth, or to have their comfort zones challenged. I am sure once those of us with an open mind see this movie, it will all be clear that Kevin Smith is being wrongly persecuted AGAIN.

DR. BELCH

08-02-2001, 01:05 PM

DickGrayson:
Just today I heard THE most ridiculous thing. Mark Walhberg said that Helena Bonham Carter's...hair do looked just like Janet Jackson's. Now many groups are screaming "Racist" at Wahlberg. How idiotic is that?
Actually, I thought she looked more like a monkey version of Rozie Perez. Now I'll sit back and let the anit-Hispanic-defamation groups crucify me....

Nightwing

08-02-2001, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by DickGrayson
I agree. I think some people just go looking for something to offend, no matter how miniscule (like that ridiculous Wahlberg/Racist thing, and it's just rearing it's ugly head at Smith. I am anticipating this movie with open arms and I can't wait to see it. I consider Chasing Amy one of his best movies, and (suprise, suprise) there's alot of homosexual stuff in it.

That Mark Wahlburg racism thing makes me so angry I honestly don't know what I could do to those accusing jerks. One of the world's worst tragedies in good vs evil is when good uses evil's methods to achieve a goal.

Nightwing

08-02-2001, 05:30 PM

I don't know if ALL cases of violence are just a fact of the person's life, and he/she is just looking for an outlet to focus it on, but it is common. The rest is just about the stubborn factor, with opinions that just aren't fair.

Originally posted by Clayface

don't let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch.........

I'm with Clayface all the way, as am I with BudnLou. There's a few billion tons of crap out there making up what we call life, but we've got OTHER types of people fighting JUST as hard.

Clayface

08-02-2001, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Nightwing
I don't know if ALL cases of violence are just a fact of the person's life, and he/she is just looking for an outlet to focus it on, but it is common. The rest is just about the stubborn factor, with opinions that just aren't fair.

I agree completely - I didn't mean to imply that that was the only reason behind these violent acts, but it is a rather common occurence - ignorant people acting out violently based on ridiculous opinions.

Calhoun07

08-02-2001, 06:10 PM

I grew up in Owatonna, Minnesota, and Owatonna was founded by Indians and named for Princess Owatonna. The legend goes that the chief's daughter was sick and they found a mineral spring that was said to restore her health, so they set up camp there and founded the town. To this day, Owatonna is all about Indian folklore, and Mineral Springs Park still has the statue of Princess Owatonna standing tall and proud. So you can imagine that the history of the town was and is important to it's citizens, and they named the high school team the Indians.

However, in the late 80's and early 90's, a series of court cases took away the name the Owatonna Indians from the high school football team, because there were Indians who said it was durogatory. Now the team is known as the Owatonna Huskies. I guess they are safe for now until a group for the Alaskan dog comes along and tries to support their rights.

So maybe instead of worrying what ape looked like who in POTA, the ape activists should just sue the whole damn movie and get it over with.

James Harvey

08-02-2001, 07:48 PM

Stuff like this bums me out. It's almost like people go looking for this kind of stuff. They look and count how many times a slang is used, and whether or not they can just say it's racist or whatever. We live in a day and age when people are getting scared to say their opinions becuase someone's gonna call that opinion biased, racist, homophobic, sexist, or whatever else is out there. How are people supposed to teach and learn if they're afraid of what's coming out of their mouths?

It only take sone complaint to ruin something.

The Mad Hatter

08-02-2001, 08:41 PM

As I've said before, people who are looking to be offended (at anything in general) will be offended. The guy from GLAAD probably has to put up with a lot of genuinely homophobic stuff, so maybe his radar has gotten a wee bit too sensitive over time.

Maxie Zeus

08-02-2001, 08:53 PM

Am I the only one who was less horrified by the fact that GLAAD got its knickers in a knot (no one in this country has walked right in years, because we've all got our knickers in a knot over something or other) than by the way they were able to leverage their anger into a 6 figure contribution to a pet cause?

Never mind that the cause is a worthy one; never mind that maybe GLAAD has a legitimate beef; never mind that Smith is sypathetic to both. It still looks and smells like a "protection racket": Give us money or we'll make your life miserable.

That's the real corruption at work here, IMHO.

Calhoun07

08-02-2001, 09:56 PM

That's a good point. Would people be getting this upset if they weren't getting paid to get this upset?

Bud 'n Lou

08-02-2001, 10:19 PM

It's good to see that all these groups are criticizing movie material and not the stuff that happens in real life. REAL kids have to deal with REAL violence every day, REAL people have to put up with discrimination from other REAL people, not characters on a movie screen, REAL people have REAL problems with substance abuse. And yet, we're worried about a @%$#ing movie?!?!?!?! Man, please, people, open your eyes. There's more going on in the world than a FICTIONAL movie....

Where do you get your information from? Real life acts of discrimination ARE criticized/protested. You may not know this because it gets less media attention than when something objectionable happens in a movie. The reason for that is that blaming movies is an easy resolution to the problem. I *DO* believe that movies may influence some people to commit acts of hatred (it may not even do *that* much; it may just plant the idea) and THAT'S when it becomes a REALITY, in case you were wondering. But I definately don't think that movies and music are the sole cause. Things like drug use, inadequate education, poverty, upbringing etc all factor in largely. However, addressing these issues would be somewhat more expensive/time consuming, so the entertainment industry is attacked.
I disagree with the sentiment that if the movie changes one person's mind that it's all worth it. What about the many others who might be NEGATIVELY impacted? That's like saying "Let's drop a bomb on the bank that's being robbed to stop the crazed criminals. If just one hostage survives, we'll be vindicated."
And I think it's inaccurate to say that GLAAD is just "looking for an excuse to complain about something." No one is looking to get offended. These are obviously things that concern them. Some of you couldn't possibly understand, I realize. I obviously can't explain it to you, and I most certainly don't hold it against you. I know it's not an issue of unintelligence or unwillingness to understand, but it's different when you experience it yourself. I know I'll get some angry replies for that, but oh well.
One of GLAAD's concerns that I share is when people use the word "gay" to describe something in a negative way. It irritates me, because whether or not they're directly insulting homosexuals, the implication that homosexuality is bad is offensive to me, because it's a big part of who I am. And as much as everyone says "don't let it get to you", blah blah blah, it still gets to me. Maybe that sort of thing doesn't offend you, but I'm not at that place yet, and you can't hold that against me, in all fairness.
As for the apparent extortion tactics of GLAAD, I agree it was wrong of them to do.

James Harvey

08-02-2001, 10:21 PM

Why does everyone now need money to solve things. SOmeone called you a hottie? Sue them for 4 figures. Made a slur, sue then for 6. Made a movie full of slangs and the like, ask for 7. What does this prove? That they can get money for complaining? Sometimes I wonder if the money isn't the principle reason to do this kinda thing.

Calhoun07

08-02-2001, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by DickGrayson
Why does everyone now need money to solve things. SOmeone called you a hottie? Sue them for 4 figures. Made a slur, sue then for 6. Made a movie full of slangs and the like, ask for 7. What does this prove? That they can get money for complaining? Sometimes I wonder if the money isn't the principle reason to do this kinda thing.

Just sometimes? I often wonder.

RockItShipper

08-03-2001, 02:37 AM

Well, it's the whole "thought police" bit...

How saying a racist/sexist/homophobic slur during a robbery can add to jail time?

Or that whole thing with a pedophile's private writings being grounds for new legal problems?

The precedents established by protecting oneself from the reprehensible can be risks to personal freedoms.

Particularly when ideas on what's 'reprehensible' and not differ from person to person. Homosexuality is such an issue. The biggest part of it in my experience seems to be "hands-off" acceptance. Where it exists but certainly not in your family ever ever ever. :rolleyes: Or even among your friends. It even goes into media characters, judging by some of the reviews I've had at ff.net. That no one on a certain show 'can' be gay b/c so-and-so likes it... Or that the characters so-and-so hates or is indifferent to 'can' be gay. If one is out to write something less common in- say, Harry Potter fandom, why is Ginny Weasley a more acceptable love interest for Harry than her brother Ron?

James

08-03-2001, 08:48 AM

Bud N' Lou:

No one is looking to get offended. These are obviously things that concern them. Some of you couldn't possibly understand, I realize. I obviously can't explain it to you, and I most certainly don't hold it against you. I know it's not an issue of unintelligence or unwillingness to understand, but it's different when you experience it yourself. I know I'll get some angry replies for that, but oh well.

No angry replies. I don't totally agree. I think people DO look for things to get offended by. In some ways, perhaps we all do. We all look for justification to our outlook on life, universe and well... everything.

For instance, I'll look for a post on these forums which stimulates or interests me. I think the same goes for things that offend us. Look at the response this thread has received even though the subject doesn't really affect our lives. It's because censorship offends our ideology. I think people who have been invovled in a sensitive subject matter - personally or just voluntary - will be looking for subjects which offend or oppose their ideology and respnd accordingly. Just as many have done on this thread.

My only problem on this subject matter is that the attempts to censor are based on misinterpretation - and by many who have not seen the subject matter (I recall similar anger at the screening of Life Of Brian way back in the 70's). There is no way Mr Smith is homophobic.

In the UK, we have a similar problem at the moment with a strong satire programme called Brasseye. The programme mocks in content, visuals and script the media and it's handling of sensitive affairs. It's latest target has been the media's hysterical handling of paedophilia, (a recent tabloid hysteria expose resulted in a paediatrcian being attacked by an angry group).

Of course, this programme has suffered the same type of censorship attacks for encouraging paedophilia(!). More shocking, the goverenment has taken a stand on the programme (with several ministers - who admit to having not seen the offending programme!! - condemning it on air). This I don't like. This is what we have independent regulators for. When goverenments get involved in matters of entertainment we should get VERY afraid.... In fairness, the programme was shocking, but it was supporting child abuse, it was drawing attention to it and how the British media exploit it for news. If the message is too shocking. Turn it over.

I have no problem with people trying to protect the rights of any human group whether it be racial, gay, child rights. I just think that they should be a little more careful who they choose as targets and not take down those people who believe in the same human rights as they do.

At least make sure you've watched the material first!! That seems to be the biggest mistake people make!!!

Otherwise it ain't cricket, man!

The Mad Hatter

08-03-2001, 09:44 AM

Bud N' Lou, I can certainly understand your concerns. If someone sees a piece of satire, and somehow misinterprets it as an affirmation of bigoted beliefs, then it is indeed a tragedy, even if it's the person's fault rather than the author's.

Unfortunately, there are people who will misenterpret ANYTHING. Bigots in the past have used passages in the Bible to support racism and slavery. So because a few bad apples have gotten it wrong, does that mean we should chuck the entire thing, despite it's other messages of brotherhood and love? (Okay, bad example since many Christian sects have done countless atrocities in the name of the Bible, but there's still good things to find in there no matter what beliefs you have.)

Anyone ever hear the "Weird Al" Yankovic song "Trigger Happy?" It's a very direct satire of a gun fondler's state of mind, with extremely clear (yet funny) criticism of guns in general, set to Beach Boys music ("better watch out punk, or I'm gonna have to blow you away!"). Yet he still got a call from a gun nut, who congratulated him for "having the guts to support guns." (Weird Al just agreed with him, thinking it unwise to disagree with the heavily armed.)

The point is that there are always some goobers who are going to misinterpret what you have to say, no matter how clear you make the message. And honestly, anyone who looks at Jay and thinks that he's a fine upstanding role model is a complete nimrod. Yet these nimrods exist. And if we eliminated all forms of entertainment that causes even one person to misinterpret it in a negative way... then we'd elminate all forms of entertainment.

Honestly, I think there are more people out there who will see the flick and take away a message of "man, homophobes are idiots" rather than a message supporting homophobia, so all in all it'll be a positive. And these folks that misinterpret it are probably willfully misinterpreting it, since they're so die-hard anti-gay that they look for any shallow excuse to support their bigotry, and that they'd unfortunately remain venomously anti-gay despite anyone's best efforts to convince them otherwise.

DR. BELCH

08-03-2001, 02:06 PM

Rocky's right. There is a definite "thought police" mentality in media/government today. If a minority person breaks into my house and I beat him crippled with a baseball bat, I would get more jail time than he would because I'm white and it would be deemed "hate crime"...though he's not robbing me and threatening my family out of any love for me.
After the spate of school shootings several years back, one of Stephen King's stories about a young man who murders his classmates was banned in bookstores and removed from circulation--the modern day equivalent of burning them in the town square.
People are all too willing to give up personal freedom for what they percieve as security. Everywhere you go you'll see some Stalinist/fascist measure to rob us of our rights in the name of protection.
How is brutality justified? "Well, I've suffered," says the black man. "My ancestors were taken out of Africa in chains four hundred years ago and brought to America, so that gives me the right to hate and kill the white man." The Jews have suffered for ten times that long, but you don't see gangs of rabbis riding about grabbing people off the streets and circumcising them, or hurling unleavened bread through windows. If suffering justifies vile behavior, and I've gotten a raw deal, couldn't I cut up and carry on, then just give over a laundry list of groups that victimized me so I can be vindicated? Or does it not apply because I'm white, male, straight, and Protestant? Seems to me that we are the number one endangered species in America.
On the whole, conservatives suffer more discrimination, name-calling, libel, slander, violence, and abuse than women, gays, blacks, Hispanics, or spotted owls. They all have support groups and organizations to protect them from the tiniest slander. Where's mine?

Bud 'n Lou

08-03-2001, 02:47 PM

Thank you, SJJ and Hatter. You've helped me understand your point of view.

They all have support groups and organizations to protect them from the tiniest slander. Where's mine?
You're perfectly free to start one up, if you're so inclined.

The Mad Hatter

08-03-2001, 03:00 PM

Yay! You actually got through a discrimination post without using the tired buzzword "politically correct!" Muchos kudos. Now, if we can only get you to stop calling everything you disagree with "Stalinist"... :)

A couple of random points I can't stop myself from making:

The Jews have suffered for ten times that long, but you don't see gangs of rabbis riding about grabbing people off the streets and circumcising them, or hurling unleavened bread through windows.

Nah, they just launch unprovoked rocket attacks against the Hamaas, like they've been doing the past month. Then again, both the Israelis and the Palestinians have both been acting like jerks lately. I mourn the peace process...

On the whole, conservatives suffer more discrimination, name-calling, libel, slander, violence, and abuse than women, gays, blacks, Hispanics, or spotted owls. They all have support groups and organizations to protect them from the tiniest slander. Where's mine?

The White House.

Trent Lane

08-03-2001, 04:38 PM

I know that real life discrimination is dealt with and somewhat talked about at the last minute of a news broadcast, but this movie stuff is headline news, and it's about time that the media as a whole started looking at the things that really matter- REAL life. I don't doubt that there are some "wackos" who would take something as small as a movie for real life and play it out, but it's a small percentage. Though I don't agree with what GLADD stands for, it is not my place to pass judgement on them, or any other organization like it. I just wish we as a society could tackle more real problems than attack every other movie that comes out because of "discrimination" in it. Just my two cents, although I pretty much said this all before...

Maxie Zeus

08-03-2001, 08:39 PM

Again, a little history of movie censorship:

GLAAD's tactics are not new. Back in the 30s, 40s and 50s the Catholic-backed Legion of Decency would not only rate movies (like many Christian groups do on-line today) but would actually meet with film makers to discuss particular problems with projects in production and lobby for changes. In the event that things did not go as they liked, they always had recourse to boycotts to get the producers' attention. The NAACP launched similar actions in the early 60s. The Production Code, in fact, was set up by the industry in an attempt to pre-empt and control these kinds of external pressures.

The relative absence of this kind of pressure dates back only to the late 60s and 70s. It began picking up again in the late 70s and 80s (but directly almost exclusively against TV--remember complaints about "Three's Company" and "Married with Children"?). But where in the past it was almost always pressure from the right, in recent years it has come from both directions. The only other innovation has been the shakedown tactics just employed by GLAAD.

Want nightmares? The movie industry was able to impose the Production Code in the 30s because it was dominated by 8 large companies, and the Code fell apart in the 50s when that oligopoly fell apart. (The Code was basically a legal, quasi-monopolistic restraint of trade agreement.) Today the entire entertainment-communications industry is close to the same kind of oligopoly conditions. If they wanted to, I'm sure they could impose a new Production Code on all film, TV and music. Only the new Code would be composed and informed by an unholy alliance ranging from Barbra Streisand on the left to Gary Bauer on the right.

To quote Dr. Belch: (::Sideshow Bob shudder::)

RockItShipper

08-03-2001, 11:59 PM

I think the whole "groups" thing is out of hand.

It doesn't help that I just see people pretty much. So if we're all just people, how can one really be in a straight, interracial or homosexual relationship? Don't most religions stress what's inside, not outside, to begin with?

James Harvey

08-04-2001, 01:29 AM

I think it's hard for some groups to imagine that some people actually don't care whether someone is straight, gay, black, white, short, tall, evil, etc...While these groups are set up with the best intentions, sometime they do falter from time to time. Personally, I don't care what you are as long as your an interesting and cool person to hang out with. If you're a jerk-off, then I'm not gonna talk to ya. Not becuase your of a different race or sexuality, but becuase I don't like you. Personality is they key, I think. The groups are created with the best of intentions, but sometimes those can go astray.

Robin2099

08-04-2001, 01:52 AM

My whole take on this is the exact same thing that everyone else has been saying; today, people look for ways to be offended. Some people may have a legitimate beef over how there nationality, or whatever is portrayed. But getting offeneded about every thing is just plain stupid. Like the people who wanted to sue the Sopranos because it represented Italians in a steriotypical way! Well, my mom's side is Itallion, so I'm part Italian, and I can honsetly say that the Sopranos isn't offensive! I think an episode of South Park put it best when they couldn't have any Christmas related things becuase it kept offending people, and everything was just bland. It's pretty sad when you can't say anything without being worried about offending someone.

Calhoun07

08-04-2001, 02:07 AM

I once got in some hot water at my second job for telling an "off color" joke to a female employee.

The jokes were along the lines of What do you call a dog with no legs? Anything you want, he won't come to you anyway. What do you each day with a dog with no legs? Take him out for a drag. And I told jokes like that until I got to one that I thought, hey, I am a manager here, and she may not like this next joke, I better tell her it's slightly off color, and I told her so, and she said it was cool, she could take it. So, I told her What do you call a dog with no hind legs, two front legs, and steel balls? Sparky Heh, heh! I figure I can get away with that in the rated thread! She laughed and found it pretty darn funny. The next time I worked, I was in the store manager's office so fast because she complained about this joke and felt it was inapporopriate, and I got this sexual harassment speech. I have told other people that joke since, even girls, and nobody told me they felt it was even off color. Dogs have nuts, I am sorry to break it to ya. I didn't think the joke was that big of a deal.

So do I think people look for things to be offended by? Man, if I only had time to relate all my life experiences with that statement!

DR. BELCH

08-04-2001, 03:27 PM

RockItShipper:
...if we're all just people, how can one really be in a straight, interracial or homosexual relationship? Don't most religions stress what's inside...to begin with?
Ideally. I'm not sure whether to kiss you for being open-minded or chide you for being naive. ;) From what I've seen religion tends to get in the way more often than not. Homosexual relationships are expressly forbidden in the Bible, though I'll paraphrase conservative talk show host Ken Hamblin here and say I don't give a g.d. what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms as long as I don't have to watch it and it doesn't involve children and small animals. One could go further and point to a verse or two in there against interracial relationships. I like to say love should conquer all, but I'm forced to be practical. If I were to date outside my race, I'd have to put up with flak from society (living here in the South) and from in my own family (my mom would frigging kill me if I brought home a black girl, though she wasn't too worried about my brief liason with a Japanese exchange student--make of that what you will). Really I don't care for myself, but why subject someone I love to such hatred, even from my well-meaning mother or my horse's-arse brother?
When one dates outside one's religion, the first question is, how will you raise the kids? Will they go to a Lutheran church with Father or to temple/mass with Mother? Mixed-race kids are often looked on with scorn as well. That's just human nature, for better or worse.

Regarding Bud'n'Lou's query about starting my own group: easier said than done. Where do I get funding and members for such a thing? I've been brusquely turned away by a call screener on a AM talk show, had another host ignore my letter and repeated follow-up e-mails, and got an e-mail from a campus radio programming director who called my ideas "creepy". So much for my grassroots stir-up-the-masses campaign.... :(

On jokes: I used to do stand-up acts of Andrew Dice Clay material in the ASU caf by request, for mixed audiences, and no one ever complained. Well, once I had a cup of chocolate pudding thrown at my bum after I did some material on gays right after that whole Ellen Degenerate--oops, DeGeneres--thing, but there's always one cowardly crybaby in the bunch....

Calhoun07

08-04-2001, 04:14 PM

Some of these posts are reminding me of one of my all time favorite comedies, Bullworth. That movie stirred up some trouble, too. I recall several people getting up and walking out of that one when I saw it at the theater. Like Kevin Smith's movies, this movie told the truth and the truth can be offensive. The truth can hit home hard, and really hurt deep sometimes, but it's the truth that sets us free from our pretentions and hypocricies.

And ond of my favorite lines in Bulworth, which I thought of reading Dr Belch's previous reply, and I paraphrase, "Maybe if we all keep on (deleted word-watch the movie!)ing, we will all end up the same color!"

Maxie Zeus

08-04-2001, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by calhoun07
I once got in some hot water at my second job for telling an "off color" joke to a female employee.
She laughed and found it pretty darn funny. The next time I worked, I was in the store manager's office so fast because she complained about this joke and felt it was inapporopriate, and I got this sexual harassment speech. I have told other people that joke since, even girls, and nobody told me they felt it was even off color. Dogs have nuts, I am sorry to break it to ya. I didn't think the joke was that big of a deal.

I like PJ O'Rourke's explanation of the difference between liberals and conservatives: A conservative will say you shouldn't laugh at an offensive joke. But a liberal will say that you can't laugh at an offensive joke. Which, O'Rourke went on to say, is plainly false, as can be attested to by anyone who's heard the story about the time Helen Keller fell down a well and broke three fingers calling for help.

Bud 'n Lou

08-05-2001, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by DR. BELCH

Homosexual relationships are expressly forbidden in the Bible, though I'll paraphrase conservative talk show host Ken Hamblin here and say I don't give a g.d. what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms as long as I don't have to watch it...
And by that you mean..."Unless they're hot lesbians," right? You know, for someone with such a "hands off" viewpoint on homosexuality, you sure talk about it a LOT. I've seen the word "yaoi" pop up in about 2 out of every three posts of yours that I read. What's with that?

Regarding Bud'n'Lou's query about starting my own group: easier said than done. Where do I get funding and members for such a thing? I've been brusquely turned away by a call screener on a AM talk show, had another host ignore my letter and repeated follow-up e-mails, and got an e-mail from a campus radio programming director who called my ideas "creepy"... [/B]
Honestly, I can't say I blame him. As for recruiting members, if all else fails, maybe your local chapter of the KKK will have some takers.
Sorry for coming off so brutal, but it seems to me that a reaction is what Belch is looking for, so I gave him one. Maybe you're all right; that there are some people looking to get offended. But if that's true, there are also people looking to offend.

DR. BELCH

08-05-2001, 01:39 PM

I have seen and enjoyed Bullworth, Cal, and while I'm not sure I can subscribe totally to that philosophy, I do think if one can find love with a girl who shares one's interests and goals, race and religion shouldn't get in the way. Then again, I figure even if the girl I bring home is white as a lily, some member of my family will find something to dislike about her. :rolleyes:
What gets me is, when someone took offense at something I did around the office in my days as a newspaperman, they didn't come to me directly about it; they ran bawling to the editors and the faculty advisor and got me in trouble there. That's a big part of the reason I got out of the business--loved the work, hated the people! Again, there's always some cowardly crybaby who can't step forward and say, "Pardon me, but I'm bothered by what you sayand do. Please stop." Maybe it's the liberal mindset that teaches them its better to cry to management/ big government than handle conflict on their own, I don't know...meantime, if I confront someone directly with my grievances, I'm deemed a troublemaker and sent away to rot. So where's the logic? :confused:

SilverKnight

08-05-2001, 06:14 PM

>smiles< Well said, B'nL.

Calhoun07

08-05-2001, 06:29 PM

I have no respect at all for managers/bosses that will take another employees word on a situation if that employee is going behind another person's back to complain about them. I have actually worked for managers and bosses that would have no part of office politic crap like that and would blutly tell the person to go and take up their beef with the person in question. 99.999% of the time, that took care of the problem before it resulted in resignations and/or firings.

Calhoun07

08-05-2001, 06:30 PM

Maxie Zeus

08-05-2001, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by calhoun07
And, yes, Dr Belch, sometimes I wonder if you're trying to offend, also. But I am not complaining, just saying I can see it too. We all need a devil's advocate in our lives. If we didn't have one, we'd get too complacent and not know how to stand up for our own principles.

It's called being a gadfly, and the good doctor does a good job at it: Principled, honest, and good-natured needling, designed to keep others at their honest and principled best.

Bud 'n Lou

08-05-2001, 09:15 PM

Call it what you will, but what it boils down to is this: If I'm not mistaken, one of the rules of this board is to respect fellow posters. I have, on more than one occassion asked for certain posters to refrain from saying certain things that offend me (such as using the word "gay" to describe something in a negative way), but I still read similar things from them (I think this is the point where it stops being "good-natured", because I see this as an obvious disregaurd for me). I really don't think that I was asking for something totally unreasonable. So even if you disagreed with me, out of courtesy for me, and respect for the rules of these boards, I don't see why it was such a big deal. It's not NECESSARY to say these things, afterall. Life would go on (at least on these message boards) without the usage of those phrases. I understand that many people here, including moderators, hold said posters in high esteem, but is that reason enough to ignore the rules? I find it frusutrating that it's glossed over as "good-natured needling". I don't need a devil's advocate to question my beliefs. Especially on a message board I go to as an escape from the harsh real world. I really don't care WHAT anyone here thinks or says in their daily life, so long as I don't have to read it here, on an all-ages message board that I enjoy coming to, but often find my enjoyment compromised by the lack of respect for me exihibited. I am very disheartened that I've had to go to such lengths as to say a few "off-color" things for anyone to even *take notice* of my complaints.

The Mad Hatter

08-05-2001, 11:01 PM

And, yes, Dr Belch, sometimes I wonder if you're trying to offend, also. But I am not complaining, just saying I can see it too. We all need a devil's advocate in our lives. If we didn't have one, we'd get too complacent and not know how to stand up for our own principles.

Actually, Dr. Belch has been around for a long time... and as far as I can tell, he really IS the way he presents himself in his posts. Whether or not that's a good thing is up to you...

James Harvey

08-05-2001, 11:56 PM

Okay - time to come in and try and calm things down. One thing, I expect people to follow the rules here (and yes, the link is broken but being fixed) and that means respecting each other. In the rules it says to imnagine this place as a house you are visiting. Present yourself in that fashion. I honestly don't care how you act off the boards, but if you bring persona here, then it is NOT welcome. We're all here as guests, now act that way. This thread is slowly breaking down to hate prophagandi, and I won't allow it. If I have to, I will close this thread down. Now stick ontopic of the contrversy and not your personal views on homosexuality or skin color. Just stick to the topic. That's all I ask here and that's the very point of this thread. Someone being gay or black should not matter here or to anyone.. Everyone is a poster here, and friends. Not something to be categorized by skin pigment or sexual attraction. If you want to have a private dispuite, then do it privately. Not here. Not ever here. That's happened before and we all know where it leads.

Now, please, get back on topic. Keep your personnel vendettas off this site.

Now, please, get back on topic.

Maxie Zeus

08-06-2001, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Bud 'n Lou
I have, on more than one occassion asked for certain posters to refrain from saying certain things that offend me . . ., but I still read similar things from them. I really don't think that I was asking for something totally unreasonable. So even if you disagreed with me, out of courtesy for me, and respect for the rules of these boards, I don't see why it was such a big deal.

We meet here one of the arguments for censorship, and since such an argument is rarely made on these boards, it is well worth picking it up and amplifying it. Bud 'n Lou makes points well worth remembering, and generalizing.

First, notice that these boards are, to be blunt about it, "censored," in that everything is subject to review and change by someone in authority. And no one here thinks that in principle this is a bad thing. Why not?

Because human beings are social creatures: We cannot thrive without the support of and interaction with other people. Life is a complex activity depending not just on individual contacts and friendships, but upon entire networks of social groups and communities. But communities cannot survive without codes of conduct that set out how the community is to function, and assigning specific roles and tasks to members, and with procedures for protecting itself. Hence, because we individuals depend upon communities for our survival, and communities depend upon rules of conduct, individuals depend upon them too.

So I come to this board not only because I like and admire DG, Bud 'n Lou, and Dr. Belch (and all the others who, if I listed them all, would leave me sounding like a Julia Roberts acceptance speech), but because the group itself is something special. There is a quality to the interplay of minds that I enjoy, which makes this board not a cacophony of individual voices, but a free form symphony; not an aggregate if individual chatterboxes, but a co-operative endeavor expressing the hopes, wishes, passions and thoughts of a fan community.

That community would die unless we all implicitly agreed to act according to certain rules, and to the steps for enforcing them. It is sometimes said that this board is so great simply because of the quality of the people. Well, that quality is certainly very high, but we only need to remember the late and unlamented "heart and soul of the board" to see that, without a mechanism to protect itself from such tissue rejects, this community would dissolve into a Lovecraftian puddle of goo.

The same holds for other groups--churches, towns, clubs, political parties, ethnic enclaves, states and nations--that are designed to nourish individuals and to project their dreams and ambitions into the universe. Censorship codes, designed to maintain stability within a group and peace among them, are an ancient and time-honored way of nurturing these communities. The irony is only compounded when we realize that many such groups were formed to protect otherwise defenseless individuals from the depradations of other groups; GLAAD is around because for too long homosexuals were on the painful end of some very unfunny punch lines.

The problem, of course, is that the individual and the group will always, to some extent, be in tension with each other. What nourishes the community may stifle the individual, and what protects the individual may destroy the community. It's a balancing act, and there is no Archimedaean pivot point, no Fermatian equation, which describes where and how to maintain the balance. Instead, there is only a ceaseless series of compromises: in art, in politics, and in all facets of life.

The problem is acute in contemporary democracies, home to thousands of interest groups, each composed of millions of truculent individualists. And the problem is not going to go away, so it's no good insisting on absolutes.

NewMaxFranklin

08-14-2001, 05:12 PM

I'm opposed to censorship. I don't think that anyone's beliefs should be silenced in the name of protecting others. I don't think people give their peers, elders and children enough credit. It seems that many groups believe individuals lack the ability to think independently and simply soak up all the evil in the world like a sponge and then stagger around spreading filth. Their solution is to eliminate that which upsets them, so that others can't have access to it.

But there will always be people with different perspectives. So no resolution can ever come form trying to eliminate the opposing side. Attacking something only brings more focus to it, by making it topical, and providing an outlet for hostility. I believe that the problem is not the presence of "objectionable" material, but the lack of acceptance.

Once you accept, the frustration goes away. Accepting something dosen't meam agreeing with it, or finding some validity, or even understanding. Just accept the fact that this belief exist.

If the only fruits you eat are oranges, good for you. But don't protest against farmers for growing other things, don't hate stores for selling them and don't hate people for buying and consuming them. Just accept that others are different and eat your orange.

Confrontation is born out of ignorance; The lack of knowledge and the understanding of information. So eliminating access to information only feeds the problem. We should encourage everyone to keep an open mind. Opinions are not the enemy.

Nightwing

08-14-2001, 05:18 PM

My responsibilities on these message boards come before my personal opinion, as opinions differ immensely and therefore can easily cause conflict between people, but this post disturbs me; as a moderator AND a poster. Keeping my personal views as far from the situation as possible so as not to be labeled as "taking sides" let me just say, this must stop. There is no need for attacking other posters opinions. And an easy way to do this is when one side (or either side) of it thinks his or her argument is "the truth."

If you want to be a member of these very fun and prosperous forums, you must abide by all of their rules, and respect each and every poster without question, no matter who you are or who they are. But when rules are broken and/or ignored, that's when the moderators and administrators have to step in. We don't accept the ignoring and breaking of rules and we also don't accept taking a personal discussion/argument and making it public to cause even more conflict between posters.

I'll be contacting the posters involved here with some friendly dialogue, to be as discrete here on the forums as possible. Fellow mod buds, add what you will.

Maxie Zeus

08-14-2001, 06:54 PM

This notice is not occassioned by any of the replies since Belch weighed back in. But--

The temptation in these circumstances is to argue back, carefully (as SJJ has done) or angrily. This is not a good idea. Whatever the merits in Belch's post, the emotion contained within it is too easy to react to, no matter how much you try to maintain a cool and reasonable tone. The best course is to not respond at all.

I dislike seeing locks on threads, much less putting them there myself. However, this appears to be the only course open.

Maxie Zeus

08-15-2001, 12:33 AM

I have deleted a post made on 8-14-01 by Dr. Belch, along with replies to that post and the quotation from it in Nightwing's warning post.

The post was not deleted for its editorial content. Dr. Belch is welcome to his opinions, and is free to express them, so long as they do not constitute the harassment or abuse of other members of these boards. After an investigation, the moderators of these boards have determined that the post in question constituted a public reply in a series of private messages with another board member; further, that it was composed in a manner prejudicial and harmful to the member in question.

The moderators of these boards do not regulate the exchange of private messages or emails between members. What you say in those messages is your business, and you converse with others only at your own discretion and peril. However, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO TAKE THAT EXCHANGE PUBLIC WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER PARTY. And to do in a way that mischaracterizes that person's beliefs and maligns his character is SHAMEFUL and INDEFENSIBLE. Private warnings and judgements in this matter have been issued.

That this issue has not previously arisen is testament to the good conduct, character, and common sense of the posters here. This has not been a problem in the past, and we have every confidence that it will not be a problem in the future.

This thread will remain locked for the time being, until such time as the moderators decide either to reopen it, or remove it entirely from the boards.

* * * * *

On a separate but related issue:

This thread is locked, and the material in question expunged to discourage further posts on the expunged material. The ban on such comments extends to the posting of new threads which seek to regurgitate and/or reply to that content.

THIS IS A MODERATOR WARNING: Resurrecting the material in question in any form is grounds for immediate banning. All moderator decisions, including this one, are final.