I’d imagine there were quite a few at the time.

Also as an easily offended liberal I frequently walk around singing springtime for hitler. It’s catchy.

May 2, 2018 23:53:39 GMT mikec said:

I’d imagine there were quite a few at the time.

Also as an easily offended liberal I frequently walk around singing springtime for hitler. It’s catchy.

You probably get offended by being called a snowflake, snowflake
(sarcasm)

I think you’re reaction to the Katy Perry situation is a really dangerous one, to be honest. You’re dismissing it because it happened to a male, but also because it was an opportunity for the right to say “DOUBLE STANDARD!” Both of those reasons are really inappropriate reasons to not consider it as bad as if the same thing happened to a young woman today (or 20 years ago ...). I’m not outraged, but it was still a wholly inappropriate action.

The boy himself went home to his parents still feeling off put about the situation and unsure how he felt about being violated.

But some people don't see that worthy of people's speaking about it, like the women in the video clip.

Men had hahtag for their sexual assaults various male actors spoke of their incidents but it's dismissed because of a tweet or two by randoms.

Rape apologists I tell ya.

I’m not equating it to Rape; that’s crazy too.

But it was absolutely an unwanted act. That should matter, regardless of gender.

May 3, 2018 22:56:34 GMT KJ said:

I think you’re reaction to the Katy Perry situation is a really dangerous one, to be honest. You’re dismissing it because it happened to a male, but also because it was an opportunity for the right to say “DOUBLE STANDARD!” Both of those reasons are really inappropriate reasons to not consider it as bad as if the same thing happened to a young woman today (or 20 years ago ...). I’m not outraged, but it was still a wholly inappropriate action.

If you’re not outraged, then you don’t really disagree with my basic position that it’s not something worth being outraged by. My reaction is that outrage is fueled by people trying to put down the metoo movement and over the top, not that it was a perfectly fine thing to do.

And it’s not the same as if it happened to a woman. That doesn’t mean it’s not bad, just not the same.

And the #mentoo feed was mostly vile when I looked at it, not a great thing marred by a rogue voice. If the concept is to be that men get assaulted too, awesome. But that wasn’t its primary story the day I searched it.

fair statement in saying the day you searched for it.

I think we need to take into account, the intent. In the Katy Perry incident, it was meant to a be fun moment, that obviously backfired. I doubt there was ever any intent on it being anything else. Sadly, we're living in this world, where there's now a increasingly finer line between a fun moment, a joke and causing a great deal of offense. Maybe, just maybe fueled on by the current climate.

Similar to the Issac Butterfield incident recently in Australia. This guy is essentially a comedian playing an exaggerated version of a typical 18-34 Australian Male. You can imagine, his entire schtick is classic Aussie banter and pop-culture references. He made some jokes on his Youtube show about New Zealand - a classic rivalry - that weren't exactly new mind you, exactly the sort of stuff you'd hear, when a New Zealander has the fortune of moving to Australia. Or similar to Canadians for you Americans. Facebook, the ever seeing and knowing conspirators of censorship decided it was hate-speech and it had caused great offense. The intent, as Butterfield explained on NZ Television, was that of a joke. It wasn't hate speech, it wasn't anything of the sort.

May 4, 2018 0:59:27 GMT mikec said:

May 3, 2018 22:56:34 GMT KJ said:

I think you’re reaction to the Katy Perry situation is a really dangerous one, to be honest. You’re dismissing it because it happened to a male, but also because it was an opportunity for the right to say “DOUBLE STANDARD!” Both of those reasons are really inappropriate reasons to not consider it as bad as if the same thing happened to a young woman today (or 20 years ago ...). I’m not outraged, but it was still a wholly inappropriate action.

If you’re not outraged, then you don’t really disagree with my basic position that it’s not something worth being outraged by. My reaction is that outrage is fueled by people trying to put down the metoo movement and over the top, not that it was a perfectly fine thing to do.

And it’s not the same as if it happened to a woman. That doesn’t mean it’s not bad, just not the same.

And the #mentoo feed was mostly vile when I looked at it, not a great thing marred by a rogue voice. If the concept is to be that men get assaulted too, awesome. But that wasn’t its primary story the day I searched it.

Well that’s one helluva barometer: it’s either outrage or it doesn’t matter.

There was something else there I find interesting: if I’m not outraged, other people’s outrage is irrelevant.

It’s not possible FOX News drowns our legitimate voices; this was only an issue because the right wing wanted it to be.

Your POV is as extreme as the right. To them, this only mattered to identify some hyproricy, and you’ve acknowledged it doesn’t matter because it was a man.

Both those viewpoints are insane.

I guess you’re gonna have to remind me of when I said it didn’t matter. You responded to my initial post about people going overboard about the Katy Perry thing, and I think I’ve stayed fairly consistent in my argument that there’s a difference between saying it’s wrong and going overboard on it. I’ve yet to call it a good thing, an okay thing, or something that should be completely ignored, I just also think it’s silly that it was a story on the internet and tv for a week, that people like theend are calling it rape, etc.

The rest of your post feels like you’re arguing against something I didn’t say or think. You’re exaggerating my argument on a woman doing it being different to me means it doesn’t matter at all, but not arguing with the reasons I said it was different.



To point my argument at a different subject, it’s like the three hours of internet fury over the presidents comments on the Special Olympics last week. The left wants it to be that the President is a vile human being who can’t stand to watch disabled people compete when the reality is in context that wasn’t what he was saying. I’m bothered that the President has no self-censor to consider the way his words are going to sound when he speaks them, but I’m not outraged that he said the sentence he said because it’s obviously not what he meant. That’s pretty well how I feel about Katy Perry. I don’t like that she did it, but the Right wants to turn it into an unfair double standard which I think in historical context is not true. I don’t like it, but I’m not outraged. There’s a difference.

Ok, was anyone really offended by that guy teaching his dog to give the nazi salute?



I do find most of the Canadian cases where comedians are getting fined for speech offensive.

May 4, 2018 2:27:11 GMT mikec said:

I guess you’re gonna have to remind me of when I said it didn’t matter. You responded to my initial post about people going overboard about the Katy Perry thing, and I think I’ve stayed fairly consistent in my argument that there’s a difference between saying it’s wrong and going overboard on it. I’ve yet to call it a good thing, an okay thing, or something that should be completely ignored, I just also think it’s silly that it was a story on the internet and tv for a week, that people like theend are calling it rape, etc.

The rest of your post feels like you’re arguing against something I didn’t say or think. You’re exaggerating my argument on a woman doing it being different to me means it doesn’t matter at all, but not arguing with the reasons I said it was different.



To point my argument at a different subject, it’s like the three hours of internet fury over the presidents comments on the Special Olympics last week. The left wants it to be that the President is a vile human being who can’t stand to watch disabled people compete when the reality is in context that wasn’t what he was saying. I’m bothered that the President has no self-censor to consider the way his words are going to sound when he speaks them, but I’m not outraged that he said the sentence he said because it’s obviously not what he meant. That’s pretty well how I feel about Katy Perry. I don’t like that she did it, but the Right wants to turn it into an unfair double standard which I think in historical context is not true. I don’t like it, but I’m not outraged. There’s a difference.

Maybe I’m misinterpreting this, but I’d say this is another way of saying it doesn’t matter (unless you dismiss things that do): “I am the guy that is quick to dismiss the Katy Perry situation.”

I’m not ignoring your comments; I think I’ve spoken to all of them at one point or another.

Yeahthat is a misinterpretation, probably on my part . I meant dismiss as “Well it happened, that was bad. Moving on.”

May 4, 2018 3:53:16 GMT mikec said:

Yeahthat is a misinterpretation, probably on my part . I meant dismiss as “Well it happened, that was bad. Moving on.”

Fair enough.

All I’ll say to close is this: A situation like Perry is impossible to generate meaningful discussion in today’s political climate. If you’re a Republican, it’s an attempt to minimize the Me Too Movement, andnif you’re a liberal, you’re talked down to by your own party. Whether it was as outrageous as the right made it, or as “meh” as I think you consider it, it seemingly can only be viewed or truly discussed (or on the other end, isn’t worth validating by discussing) on the extreme ends. I think that’s my biggest issue.

May 4, 2018 2:34:48 GMT theend said:

Ok, was anyone really offended by that guy teaching his dog to give the nazi salute?

Nope.

I was teaching my Labrador the same thing before this video went viral... until my wife found out.

May 4, 2018 4:28:15 GMT KJ said:

May 4, 2018 3:53:16 GMT mikec said:

Yeahthat is a misinterpretation, probably on my part . I meant dismiss as “Well it happened, that was bad. Moving on.”

Fair enough.

All I’ll say to close is this: A situation like Perry is impossible to generate meaningful discussion in today’s political climate. If you’re a Republican, it’s an attempt to minimize the Me Too Movement, andnif you’re a liberal, you’re talked down to by your own party. Whether it was as outrageous as the right made it, or as “meh” as I think you consider it, it seemingly can only be viewed or truly discussed (or on the other end, isn’t worth validating by discussing) on the extreme ends. I think that’s my biggest issue.

Possible. I’m so turned off by today’s rapid outrage movement on both sides (primarily in my party’s resist everything attitude) that I am more apt to minimize as a response.

May 4, 2018 12:06:51 GMT mikec said:

May 4, 2018 4:28:15 GMT KJ said:

Fair enough.

All I’ll say to close is this: A situation like Perry is impossible to generate meaningful discussion in today’s political climate. If you’re a Republican, it’s an attempt to minimize the Me Too Movement, andnif you’re a liberal, you’re talked down to by your own party. Whether it was as outrageous as the right made it, or as “meh” as I think you consider it, it seemingly can only be viewed or truly discussed (or on the other end, isn’t worth validating by discussing) on the extreme ends. I think that’s my biggest issue.

Possible. I’m so turned off by today’s rapid outrage movement on both sides (primarily in my party’s resist everything attitude) that I am more apt to minimize as a response.

I commonly call it the Age of Outrage. Everything, no matter what, is met with the same level of anger and animosity. There’s no nuance. There’s no ability to say “that wasn’t great and shouldn’t happen again. Lesson learned.” Every “controversy” is 0 to 100 in six seconds.

Apr 25, 2018 20:36:07 GMT NATH45 said:

It seems that everything our parent's generation fought for, our generation is tearing apart. Free Speech and creative license only exists if it suits a narrative. Tokenism is mistaken for diversity and now films are being judged on whether they properly address social justice issues rather than tell stories.

What is happening?

I’ve been turning this over and over in my head since it was written. What did our parents fight for? Maybe your parents are older and more active than mine, but my parents didn’t fight for anything related to pop culture. I can’t even place the generation or fight you’re talking about.

But because we’re in the medium of television in talking about The Simpsons, speech is freer than its ever been. There’s so many shows with so many fewer restrictions that we’ve gone from having tv shows be protested for saying abortion to having a male character accidentally snort an abortion pill in the span of sixty years. The medium requires such a smaller number of viewers to be profitable that show runners are able to do more creative things, and because of cable they can take on topics they didn’t take on as often in older times.

And if I don’t like what’s on a show? I can go to Twitter and cuss out the actors, writers, and network that produced the content in a much simpler way than I ever did before.

Azaria did what he did for whatever reasons he did them, but if he hadn’t the show would have gone on and done whatever it wanted to do with no real fear of an Indian-American uprising.

I’m just confused about this argument. Mostly about the fight of my parents, but the rest too.

mikec, I'm speaking largely about the Baby Boomer generation.

So in short, things like the civil rights movement, free speech, etc.

This current generation, in some very famous cases, employs and promotes based on a quota of sex, race and color rather than character, merit or skill. Equality and diversity is mistaken for tokenism - ticking a box, because it's currently advantageous politically or socially. This idea of equality is warped if we base our selection on the former rather than the later.  

Of course free speech is the big one. We didn't have it. And a lot of countries still don't. In Australia, it's only implied in the political sense. People fought for it, whether it's spoken or written word, politically, socially, culturally, artistically, etc. And ironically, those who should/would have traditionally fought for it, now fight against it - ironically deeming their political/social opposition as fascist, despite the accuser's intolerance for opposing opinions.

All in all using it in perpetuating this outrage culture.

Is it your belief that the baby boomers left us in a meritocracy that allows all people to be judged equally and liberals just aren’t allowing it? No judgment to the response, I’m just curious. I don’t have a great argument against the realities of tokenism, specifically in pop culture, but I figure it’s the step between “unspoken, almost universal bias against” to “meritocracy that determines every story that’s made, every actor/actress is cast based on talent alone”

Also I would be fine with my side cutting down on the “fascism”remarks, but would like to respond with the other side cutting down on use of the phrase snowflake and libtard. But since it isn’t a two way street where you’re suggesting both sides are to blame (which they are), I can’t imagine one going away without the other.

But the other point to that though is that it doesn’t change anyones right to expression to know they might get called a fascist if they say what they want to say. While I believe both parties have become more insulated and more okay with the idea of dehumanizing their opponents and it hurts our civil discourse... I don’t think it infringes on anyone’s rights to free speech (nor do I think baby boomers did much fighting for free speech, they elected Nixon who believed in oppressing political opponents more than any president until our current one who wants to loosen libel laws against the press to shut down their freedom to report news.)

Speech, and especially creative expression, feels freer than ever. You say that Hank Azaria suggesting he could drop a character is an infringement of speech, I say a man making a documentary that suggests that Apu is a problem for people of his descent is an example of free speech that baby boomers had no interest in.

The thing is though liberals from the baby boomer generation were some of the biggest free speech advocates of all (while still being major crusaders for civil rights and other forms of social justice) They would have sooner slapped their mother than try and suppress someone's opinion.


Liberals from this generation ARE NOT cut from that same cloth. They are some of the anti free speech people I've seen, often adopting tactics that outright resemble fascism. It' a really sad turn IMO.

nor do I think baby boomers did much fighting for free speech, they elected Nixon who believed in oppressing political opponents more than any president until our current one who wants to loosen libel laws against the press to shut down their freedom to report news.)

LOL please.

www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/politics/under-obama-a-chill-on-press-freedom.html

For all the press's whining about Trump  oppressing political opponents and trying to curtail their rights, Trump has  done little more than insult his political opponents, deny the press access, and tell the press how much they absolutely suck.    The press still can and does REPEATEDLY post negative articles about Trump and his administration without any official sanction placed upon them.

Obama on the other had multiple instances of suppressing the media during his term and by and large the press said nothing.  Only a few honest reporters had to balls and integrity to report it.

What gets me confused is how shouting down comedians and speakers by liberals is considered not a slight on free speech.

Am I the only one who watched

www.imdb.com/title/tt4324916/

??

May 7, 2018 18:49:31 GMT thereallt said:

The thing is though liberals from the baby boomer generation were some of the biggest free speech advocates of all (while still being major crusaders for civil rights and other forms of social justice) They would have sooner slapped their mother than try and suppress someone's opinion.


Liberals from this generation ARE NOT cut from that same cloth. They are some of the anti free speech people I've seen, often adopting tactics that outright resemble fascism. It' a really sad turn IMO.

The idea that baby boomers weren’t trying to shout down conservatives by calling them l fascist in the 60’s and 70’s is ludicrous, and if they had the megaphone that the youth of today had there’d be the same complaints about their generation (well technically I’m sure there were the same complaints about their generation from the one prior). This same inability to listen to others has escalated on both sides. But inability/unwillingness to listen doesn’t actually suppress freedom of speech.

May 7, 2018 19:12:19 GMT theend said:

What gets me confused is how shouting down comedians and speakers by liberals is considered not a slight on free speech.

Am I the only one who watched

www.imdb.com/title/tt4324916/

??

Because freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences of your speech. I’d say this on either side. But no I haven’t watched that movie but I like Gilbert.

I can see consequences. But arguably , stupidly douchey to shoutdown someone when you don't even really know their slant. Say Christina hoff sommers speaking or a random comedian. Like, give em a shot before you hate em and shut em down.

Well if we could suppress the free speech of the stupidly douchey ..

The world is insane and truth is always a democratic thing.

Germany committed War crimes in WW2 with the death camps.
USA are not war criminals for killing over 200,000 civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima with weapons of mass destruciton.
This isn't me being edgy, I honestly don't get it.

May 8, 2018 7:25:20 GMT iNCY said:

The world is insane and truth is always a democratic thing.

Germany committed War crimes in WW2 with the death camps.
USA are not war criminals for killing over 200,000 civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima with weapons of mass destruciton.
This isn't me being edgy, I honestly don't get it.

History is written by the victors. However, there's a massive difference in the final solution and despite the civilian loss, an act that ended 6 years of global death and destruction, and 8 for the Japanese. No one said war was pretty.

The other odd note I have to make on the whole liberal vs conservative thing on the radical fringes is how quick to violence and threatening violence the protesting left can be.

Aren’t both sides of the fringe easier to violence and haven’t they always been?

speaking of being offended

www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_31856127/merrimack-college-professor-files-complaint-over-lingerie-joke



It is interesting to see the puritans have switched sides.