I LOVE IT MAN

kame.......HAME..............HAAAAAAAAAAAAA~!!!~!~!~!~!

LARGE RESPONSE INITIATING... TARGETS: DADA, BELROSS, DDAY

here's the thing: you can't objectively decide for other people what's offensive ("actual" offensive shit). and that's what you were doing. I'm sure you have a good analysis for why John K's intentions were pure, but you don't jump to the conclusion that because you don't find it offensive, other people must be going out of their way to complain, and that makes it a fake outrage. just don't do that because yes that is very insensitive and presumptuous of you.

Yeah, its subjective. Which actually in my opinion makes it hard to justify a complaint in either direction. If you say "This is offensive" or "I find this offensive" most people will perceive this to mean (even though technically this isn't the case in the latter) that they think this is objectively bad and people who enjoy it should feel bad or they are bad people who should be shunned.

Or in the direction you are pushing it, "This isn't offensive" or "I don't find this offensive" the same problem arises in peoples minds that they are saying they think something is objectively NOT offensive.

Anything can be deemed by anyone as offensive or not offensive. To me, that muddles up any argument up FAR to much. I don't like subjectivity very much when it some to any important topics. Its makes it almost... unfixable. Like there isn't a correct way of doing things. ugh.

for what it's worth I absolutely believe you when you say you care deeply about serious LGBT issues, and I don't think you're a bad guy at all (on the contrary) but you really shouldn't believe that having done activism or w/e gives you some sort of "cares far more than everybody else; thus right" pass.

Actually this is a common phenomenon. When someone has done something they believe to be extremely good they 'take it easy' in other categories of ethics. I'm not saying DC is the type to do so though. Just saying its very common. Its why the stereotype that people who drive hybrids are kind of jerks came about.

I have not actually watched enough of the Adult Party Cartoons to have a good grasp of how it depicts homosexuality. But in any context, using homosexuality itself as the butt of a joke, with no other gag, is fairly offensive. It is deliberately stereotyping a marginalized group of people for laughs.

Its sort of a cyclical thing isn't it, LBGT jokes are so common, so everyone has them on their mind, so when people make a joke there is a decent chance they will make another LGBT joke, which others will hear, and further reinforcing it. Problem is that telling someone they shouldn't or can't make such jokes is really jarring (Not saying because of experience) and I imagine spurs a 'rebellious' 'fuck you' attitude because they think you are calling them out on their THOUGHTS (thus the "thought police" trope) when really you are pointing out something that they just happen to share with most people (like people/society are some sort of hive mind) most people take call outs to be personal. And now that I think about it, telling them its not directed at them on the fact that THEY say it because so many people already do and its exhausting doesn't help either because THEN you are saying "Heh, you are unoriginal and go with the herd, you are a dull person."

I also think the OFFENSIVENESS can sometimes be kind of crucial to certain elements of humor in general. The whole schaden freud thing. But then, its common for most people to mock INDIVIDUALS and its generally not considered ethically or morally wrong (though perhaps rude and mean spirited). Like "haha Jake tripped over a traffic cone." *group chuckles* Jake response could either be public shame or laughing right with them.

From the perspective of someone unaffected by anti-LGBT prejudice, it's too easy to dismiss it as "it's just a joke and all in good fun" or "they're joking about it just like they joke about anything else - LGBT shouldn't get special treatment in this respect." If you're not offended, why should anyone else, right?

Well, even though this is like living in a social vacuum, If you spend your entire life making jokes at a entire groups expense and never encounter a single person who gets offended for many many years and suddenly you are introduced to someone of that group and they get offended like, do you not think it unreasonable to expect them to renounce so much of what they've said jokingly? Even if they were wrong. Like, there is almost a cloud of nostalgia guarding this sort of behavior too. Like, you encounter a bigot and he makes jokes he might defend his nasty jokes because in the back of their mind they remember making such jokes with their dad or something and just having a great time that to them it seems like if you suddenly tell them that they are wrong for making such offensive jokes that their past is null or corrupted.

Yes, I seriously remember with a bit of nostalgia eating chik-fil-a with my family. So I kind of realize that is another reason I defended my actions of continuing to eat their chicken.

But from the perspective of someone who undergoes actual, life-effecting prejudice and discrimination, it's not "all in good fun." Even the most "harmless" of stereotyping juvenile humor simply adds to an overwhelming tide of similar comments, jokes, and actions that some people have to deal with every day. Prejudice is like the proverbial death of a thousand cuts - sure each comment on its own can seem minor, but when you add them all together you have a major, pervasive problem.

Yeah so back to my cyclical argument, what you are saying is true. but that would indicate that at some point (if we successfully tear down most of the prejudiced attitudes that society seems to have.) does that suddenly make LGBT jokes OK? because if we've reached the point where such jokes are uncommon enough (and in my household they are pretty rare) that its more like tens of cuts, like the hypothetical duck dresser would have to deal with from Jamie's movie.

So no, it's not "grasping at straws" to find any kind of stereotyping humor about LGBT people offensive, when the line between playing homosexuality for laughs and serious discrimination is so thin. The kind of joke someone might make who is "okay with gays" and someone who is a seriously hateful person are pretty much identical. Just because the intention of the person making the joke is different doesn't mean it has any less sting, no matter who it's coming from.

Well, you are employing a judgment of "he made a LGBT joke, I should assume he's guilty of being seriously discriminatory gays since I can't tell for sure, I should assume the worst."

On one hand I can actually understand this line of thinking. Its usually a good idea to assume the worst (allowing you to prepare for it) but to at least HOPE for the best "I hope I'm wrong about this person who made this LGBT joke."

But to make many decisions on how you treat them after such a judgement call is important because its possible that they just have that particular unfortunate taste in comedy.

Take for example jamie's Duck Movie. If that was a movie about a woman finding out her partner was secretly bisexual or gay and enjoyed crossdressing in secret, and tried to play it for laughs, it'd be pretty fucking offensive. But as a movie about a secret duck, it's fine, because people who dress up as ducks aren't a systematically oppressed and discriminated-against group who deal with similar shit every day, while LGBT people are. In fact thinking about it now I'm pretty sure that's the point of the movie.

This is an excellent point. actually. Hard to feel bad about a guy that dresses as a duck when there are probably very few specific jokes made about his 'hobby' in his social environment.

how do you like my new avy

How long will this one last? you seem to change you avatars a lot DDay. lol.


OLD THROWBACK RESPONSE to DADA:

Yeah, I can get why you wouldn't like this, but I don't think the "if you're going to boycott something, you have to boycott everything" argument really applies in this case. If someone told me to boycott Apple because their factories employ virtual slaves to do the work, I'd say no. Same for a ton of other things. If you're going to start doing that it becomes extremely hard, probably impossible, not to be hypocritical because literally every other alternative is just as bad. But it's a lot easier in this particular case because the reason for the boycott is something that's unique. Nobody else does this. So I don't consider it hypocritical. But I can get why you'd have a hard time agreeing to this. I think the reason you mention is really the only legit reason for not going along with this.

I thought about this some more. While I'm still not going to eat at Chik-Fil-A. I think a huge reason I had such a mental tug of war was that I honestly thought (and still do) think Chik-Fil-A is unique in that I can't get chicken that tastes like theirs anywhere else. Like, there are pretty much no real substitute. NOW the real reason I still wont buy chicken from them is that, while uniquely delicious, I don't need delicious fast food chicken as much as say (as in your example) computer hardware which, despite involving many different companies is still pretty crowded with equally unethical practices.

Like I really want someone to make a more ethical copy cat of Chik-Fil-A chicken so I can continue to occasionally eat it.

drink more~