|
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 5, 2016 11:09:11 GMT -5
As time goes on, I'm more and more amazed (or maybe it's saddened) by people and what offends them as well as what they say in response to those things. Some times it is in the political realm, while other times it's in popular culture, and other times it's just day to day life.
Whatever the situation, there are things that just leave me Shaking My Head, which led me to create this thread for people to post things that make them concerned about the future of critical thought, rational discourse, and humanity in general.
While I think that we can have some fun with this, let's all be mindful to focus on specific situations and never paint in broad strokes or stereotype entire groups, be it by race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, religion, etc.
MODERATORS - If you feel this thread is inappropriate, please accept my apologies in advance and do with it as you need to. It is not my intention to create something that will cause discord on the forum but rather to create a place for folks to post things they find to be absurd and worthy of discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 5, 2016 11:27:06 GMT -5
Fox Apologizes for X-Men: Apocalypse AdsFox has decided to apologize after some folks complained about the advertising campaign for X-Men: Apocalypse, or more specifically, one facet of that campaign in which Mystique (played by Jennifer Lawrence) is shown being strangled by the movie's titular villain. Some women's groups have taken to social media to argue that Fox is promoting violence against women by using that image in advertisements, which has caused Fox to issue apologies and pull said image from its campaign. Physical violence against women is wrong. Full stop. There is never any excuse why a man should lay hands on a woman in an aggressive or violent manner. My father hit my mother once early in their marriage while under the influence of alcohol, and she told him that if he ever struck her again, she would leave him, move back to her hometown, and take any children they may have at the time with her. Two weeks from today, they will celebrate their 47th wedding anniversary, so he apparently got the message. That said, THIS IS A MOVIE! Have people completely lost the ability to differentiate between reality and fantasy, particularly when one of the individuals pictured is a giant ancient "god" and the other is a blue-skinned shapeshifter? Also, while the image may be taken out of context, they are in the middle of a battle, so are we now no longer allowed to have a female character suffer any physical harm, even in the midst of a fight scene? Can women only be shown as victors and never victims, even in works of fiction? Mystique has been a big part of the X-Men franchise (both trilogies) and has always been shown as a capable and strong woman. The use of that specific image was to show the power level of the villain and the threat he posed to the heroes, and they used a character familiar to moviegoers rather than one of the newer characters, not to somehow promote violence toward women. SMH...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 5, 2016 11:40:18 GMT -5
Judd Apatow: New "Ghostbusters" Haters are probably Trump Supporters
Writer/director/producter Judd Apatow believes there is a common demographic between individuals who are against the new "Ghostbusters" movie and supporters of Donald Trump. "I would assume there's a very large crossover of people who are doubtful 'Ghostbusters' will be great and people excited about the Donald Trump candidacy," said Apatow, who is a producer on "Ghostbusters." "I would assume they are the exact same people." Well, another possibility is that folks have fond memories of the original movie and don't feel it needed to be remade, rebooted, or reimagined, as some movies just stand the test of time and should be left alone. Maybe there are folks out there who have seen the trailers and don't think it looks very good. Perhaps there are folks who just don't find Melissa McCarthy and/or Kristen Wiig funny. There are lots of reasons why someone may not be fully in favor of this film that have nothing to do with their political leanings. This seems like a bit of a stretch, as though he's trying to shame people who don't like how the new movie looks into changing their minds to avoid being lumped in with Trump supporters. Whatever the case, SMH...
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 5, 2016 12:01:12 GMT -5
My props for starting a thread that could get a bit combative, Cap. In this society, at this present age, no one knows how to laugh at themselves and everything is a cause for offense. The Ghostbusters director has to take it on the chin if his new movie tanks and not blame anyone. Many successful movies started out being hated by fanboys only to be a hit. The First Keaton Batman movie comes to mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mormel on Jun 5, 2016 12:47:48 GMT -5
The X-Men Apocalypse controversy puzzles me. I am very peeved at the fact that Civil War featured 2 female heroes in a cast of 12; likewise I was disappointed in the depiction of two of the most powerful X-Women, Storm and Psylocke. But the poster of Apocalypse strangling Mystique doesn't irritate me; I just see it as a main heroine of the trilogy being placed under threat by the villain of the movie, establishing how dangerous he is. The poster could just as easily have shown Apocalypse grabbing Professor X or twisting Quicksilver's leg; it would have been equally urgent but the victim would have been male-, and the emotional impact should have been no different in that case. A strong hero is brought down by a powerful villain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 5, 2016 16:02:29 GMT -5
Judd Apatow: New "Ghostbusters" Haters are probably Trump Supporters
Writer/director/producter Judd Apatow believes there is a common demographic between individuals who are against the new "Ghostbusters" movie and supporters of Donald Trump. "I would assume there's a very large crossover of people who are doubtful 'Ghostbusters' will be great and people excited about the Donald Trump candidacy," said Apatow, who is a producer on "Ghostbusters." "I would assume they are the exact same people." Well, another possibility is that folks have fond memories of the original movie and don't feel it needed to be remade, rebooted, or reimagined, as some movies just stand the test of time and should be left alone. Maybe there are folks out there who have seen the trailers and don't think it looks very good. Perhaps there are folks who just don't find Melissa McCarthy and/or Kristen Wiig funny. There are lots of reasons why someone may not be fully in favor of this film that have nothing to do with their political leanings. This seems like a bit of a stretch, as though he's trying to shame people who don't like how the new movie looks into changing their minds to avoid being lumped in with Trump supporters. Whatever the case, SMH... So many ways to go with this one. I think there is plenty of blame to go around with the Ghostbusters thing. There are a LOT of people who are in the "Butthurt they're raping my childhood with this remake of a sacred cow" group who need to grow a life. I have no interest in the movie because I find that McCarthy gal about as funny as a prolapsed rectum, but it's a movie. Who cares. On the other hand...who cares what Judd Apatow thinks? Is his statement stupid? Why, yes...yes it is. It's frankly stupid enough that you have to kind of wonder if he did it on purpose. But more stupid is the fact that there is media out there that think that what Judd Apatow has to say about this is actually important and needs coverage. I'll go ahead and shake my damn head that anyone actually printed this story. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 5, 2016 19:58:37 GMT -5
Judd Apatow: New "Ghostbusters" Haters are probably Trump Supporters
Writer/director/producter Judd Apatow believes there is a common demographic between individuals who are against the new "Ghostbusters" movie and supporters of Donald Trump. "I would assume there's a very large crossover of people who are doubtful 'Ghostbusters' will be great and people excited about the Donald Trump candidacy," said Apatow, who is a producer on "Ghostbusters." "I would assume they are the exact same people." Well, another possibility is that folks have fond memories of the original movie and don't feel it needed to be remade, rebooted, or reimagined, as some movies just stand the test of time and should be left alone. Maybe there are folks out there who have seen the trailers and don't think it looks very good. Perhaps there are folks who just don't find Melissa McCarthy and/or Kristen Wiig funny. There are lots of reasons why someone may not be fully in favor of this film that have nothing to do with their political leanings. This seems like a bit of a stretch, as though he's trying to shame people who don't like how the new movie looks into changing their minds to avoid being lumped in with Trump supporters. Whatever the case, SMH... So many ways to go with this one. I think there is plenty of blame to go around with the Ghostbusters thing. There are a LOT of people who are in the "Butthurt they're raping my childhood with this remake of a sacred cow" group who need to grow a life. I have no interest in the movie because I find that McCarthy gal about as funny as a prolapsed rectum, but it's a movie. Who cares. On the other hand...who cares what Judd Apatow thinks? Is his statement stupid? Why, yes...yes it is. It's frankly stupid enough that you have to kind of wonder if he did it on purpose. But more stupid is the fact that there is media out there that think that what Judd Apatow has to say about this is actually important and needs coverage. I'll go ahead and shake my damn head that anyone actually printed this story. Sadly, too many people care what celebrities have to say, even on subjects they are less-than-qualified to opine on. Be it Mark Ruffalo on hydraulic fracturing, Sean Penn on global warming, or Oprah on pretty much anything, these folks are seen as authorities because of their celebrity status, and they have the ability to sway public opinion due to the constant platform they're given by the media. So, yes, while you're absolutely correct in your assertion that there is a lot of stupidity to go around, the fact that a celebrity said it and CNN reported on it gives it far more credence in the public eye than if some random guy sitting on a barstool in Boise, Idaho had said the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2016 21:46:49 GMT -5
So many ways to go with this one. I think there is plenty of blame to go around with the Ghostbusters thing. There are a LOT of people who are in the "Butthurt they're raping my childhood with this remake of a sacred cow" group who need to grow a life. I have no interest in the movie because I find that McCarthy gal about as funny as a prolapsed rectum, but it's a movie. Who cares. On the other hand...who cares what Judd Apatow thinks? Is his statement stupid? Why, yes...yes it is. It's frankly stupid enough that you have to kind of wonder if he did it on purpose. But more stupid is the fact that there is media out there that think that what Judd Apatow has to say about this is actually important and needs coverage. I'll go ahead and shake my damn head that anyone actually printed this story. Sadly, too many people care what celebrities have to say, even on subjects they are less-than-qualified to opine on. Be it Mark Ruffalo on hydraulic fracturing, Sean Penn on global warming, or Oprah on pretty much anything, these folks are seen as authorities because of their celebrity status, and they have the ability to sway public opinion due to the constant platform they're given by the media. So, yes, while you're absolutely correct in your assertion that there is a lot of stupidity to go around, the fact that a celebrity said it and CNN reported on it gives it far more credence in the public eye than if some random guy sitting on a barstool in Boise, Idaho had said the same thing. And again, 24/7 newscycles require content, media sources only include content that gets them clicks or ratings, so if people didn't go for those sorts of things, media wouldn't cover it, so there's a lot of blame to go around. Most of the stuff covered by the media today is no more informative, entertaining, necessary or interesting than the old...  but people watch it or click on it so it creates revenue for the media sources. As long as people vote with their wallet by watching/clicking on the stuff, we'll keep getting more of it (though I prefer the off the air screen or just plain snow static to most media these days).  -M |
|
|
|
Post by batlaw on Jun 5, 2016 22:35:47 GMT -5
Fox Apologizes for X-Men: Apocalypse AdsFox has decided to apologize after some folks complained about the advertising campaign for X-Men: Apocalypse, or more specifically, one facet of that campaign in which Mystique (played by Jennifer Lawrence) is shown being strangled by the movie's titular villain. Some women's groups have taken to social media to argue that Fox is promoting violence against women by using that image in advertisements, which has caused Fox to issue apologies and pull said image from its campaign. Physical violence against women is wrong. Full stop. There is never any excuse why a man should lay hands on a woman in an aggressive or violent manner. My father hit my mother once early in their marriage while under the influence of alcohol, and she told him that if he ever struck her again, she would leave him, move back to her hometown, and take any children they may have at the time with her. Two weeks from today, they will celebrate their 47th wedding anniversary, so he apparently got the message. That said, THIS IS A MOVIE! Have people completely lost the ability to differentiate between reality and fantasy, particularly when one of the individuals pictured is a giant ancient "god" and the other is a blue-skinned shapeshifter? Also, while the image may be taken out of context, they are in the middle of a battle, so are we now no longer allowed to have a female character suffer any physical harm, even in the midst of a fight scene? Can women only be shown as victors and never victims, even in works of fiction? Mystique has been a big part of the X-Men franchise (both trilogies) and has always been shown as a capable and strong woman. The use of that specific image was to show the power level of the villain and the threat he posed to the heroes, and they used a character familiar to moviegoers rather than one of the newer characters, not to somehow promote violence toward women. SMH... Any person genuinely or preemptivly "offended" by this, or any person motivated to fake outrage at this is completely and absolutely brain dead. They have no business walking unsupervised among the rest of society. They should be isolated for their own safety. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jun 6, 2016 0:14:18 GMT -5
I can kind of see the X-Men thing: it might be obvious to comics fans like us that Rogue is a powerful superhero in this fantasy world where male and female are on a par physically and fight each other all the time without it being in any way an example of violence against women. And in the course of watching the movie this should be obvious to the casual viewer as well.
But the poster is something that will be seen by all kinds of people outside the context of the film itself and I suppose there could be some fear that it might send the wrong message just as an image to people who might just react to it without thinking about the context of the superhero fantasy it's part of. So I can see that they might have chosen a different image for the poster even while leaving the scene as it is in the film.
BTW, I do think there are still some issues with sexism in superhero comics: for example, there are a lot of godlike male characters like Apocalypse (many of the villainous ones more or less Darkseid analogues) who are a level up from even the most powerful superheroes, but hardly any female examples (Hela? Umar?) and those few aren't nearly as popular or well known. That's something I think Marvel and DC should address.
Perhaps Marvel made a stab at it with the All-Mother in Thor recently? I can't say myself as I didn't read that run. And I believe they've tried to introduce female equivalents to Galactus and Eternity but AFAIK these efforts were more or less unsuccessful, creatively and commercially. So there's still some work to be done there, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spike-X on Jun 6, 2016 1:38:27 GMT -5
Fox Apologizes for X-Men: Apocalypse AdsFox has decided to apologize after some folks complained about the advertising campaign for X-Men: Apocalypse, or more specifically, one facet of that campaign in which Mystique (played by Jennifer Lawrence) is shown being strangled by the movie's titular villain. Some women's groups have taken to social media to argue that Fox is promoting violence against women by using that image in advertisements, which has caused Fox to issue apologies and pull said image from its campaign. Physical violence against women is wrong. Full stop. There is never any excuse why a man should lay hands on a woman in an aggressive or violent manner. My father hit my mother once early in their marriage while under the influence of alcohol, and she told him that if he ever struck her again, she would leave him, move back to her hometown, and take any children they may have at the time with her. Two weeks from today, they will celebrate their 47th wedding anniversary, so he apparently got the message. That said, THIS IS A MOVIE! Have people completely lost the ability to differentiate between reality and fantasy, particularly when one of the individuals pictured is a giant ancient "god" and the other is a blue-skinned shapeshifter? Also, while the image may be taken out of context, they are in the middle of a battle, so are we now no longer allowed to have a female character suffer any physical harm, even in the midst of a fight scene? Can women only be shown as victors and never victims, even in works of fiction? Mystique has been a big part of the X-Men franchise (both trilogies) and has always been shown as a capable and strong woman. The use of that specific image was to show the power level of the villain and the threat he posed to the heroes, and they used a character familiar to moviegoers rather than one of the newer characters, not to somehow promote violence toward women. SMH... Any person genuinely or preemptivly "offended" by this, or any person motivated to fake outrage at this is completely and absolutely brain dead. They have no business walking unsupervised among the rest of society. They should be isolated for their own safety. Or - and hear me out here - we could let other people decide for themselves what bothers them, instead of having to run it past a committee of StraightWhiteDudes first? Because if a woman, or several women*, decide that something bothers them, I don't think it's my place to tell them that it shouldn't. People doing that is something that makes me SMH. * or non-white people, or LGBT people, or etc etc |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jun 6, 2016 10:13:53 GMT -5
I can kind of see the X-Men thing: it might be obvious to comics fans like us that Rogue is a powerful superhero in this fantasy world where male and female are on a par physically and fight each other all the time without it being in any way an example of violence against women. And in the course of watching the movie this should be obvious to the casual viewer as well. But the poster is something that will be seen by all kinds of people outside the context of the film itself and I suppose there could be some fear that it might send the wrong message just as an image to people who might just react to it without thinking about the context of the superhero fantasy it's part of. So I can see that they might have chosen a different image for the poster even while leaving the scene as it is in the film. BTW, I do think there are still some issues with sexism in superhero comics: for example, there are a lot of godlike male characters like Apocalypse (many of the villainous ones more or less Darkseid analogues) who are a level up from even the most powerful superheroes, but hardly any female examples (Hela? Umar?) and those few aren't nearly as popular or well known. That's something I think Marvel and DC should address. Perhaps Marvel made a stab at it with the All-Mother in Thor recently? I can't say myself as I didn't read that run. And I believe they've tried to introduce female equivalents to Galactus and Eternity but AFAIK these efforts were more or less unsuccessful, creatively and commercially. So there's still some work to be done there, IMO. The image definitely carries with it a set of undertones that are troubling. A scantly clad(in this case only body paint) woman being choked out by a much more powerful male as an image to illustrate said male's power is like a text book example of how to come up with a sexist media portrayal, with out even getting into the possible message against violence against women. |
|
|
|
Post by batlaw on Jun 6, 2016 12:28:50 GMT -5
Any person genuinely or preemptivly "offended" by this, or any person motivated to fake outrage at this is completely and absolutely brain dead. They have no business walking unsupervised among the rest of society. They should be isolated for their own safety. Or - and hear me out here - we could let other people decide for themselves what bothers them, instead of having to run it past a committee of StraightWhiteDudes first? Because if a woman, or several women*, decide that something bothers them, I don't think it's my place to tell them that it shouldn't. People doing that is something that makes me SMH. * or non-white people, or LGBT people, or etc etc Nope. They need help. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 6, 2016 12:32:13 GMT -5
In my experience the people who can't figure out why others become offended at stuff that they deem trivial, inevitably become deeply offended at extremely trivial shit.
Glass houses, throwers of stones, physician heal, etc., etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 6, 2016 13:33:51 GMT -5
Any person genuinely or preemptivly "offended" by this, or any person motivated to fake outrage at this is completely and absolutely brain dead. They have no business walking unsupervised among the rest of society. They should be isolated for their own safety. Or - and hear me out here - we could let other people decide for themselves what bothers them, instead of having to run it past a committee of StraightWhiteDudes first? Because if a woman, or several women*, decide that something bothers them, I don't think it's my place to tell them that it shouldn't. People doing that is something that makes me SMH. * or non-white people, or LGBT people, or etc etc In the instance of the X-Men ads, why does Fox have to apologize to them for them getting offended? Well, they have to because it would be bad public relations not to, so while they may want to tell those offended to "get over it and go f#$% themselves", they'll bend a knee and beg forgiveness in order to sell a few more tickets, and the special snowflakes will once more have gotten what they want through intimidation and bullying, the very things they decry when done against them. As you asked, I would also ask for you to hear me out (I will make a point, but it requires some explanation). My father covered popular music for the then-biggest newspaper in our city for 17 years. During that time, he wrote many reviews that were less than favorable toward artists, either their albums or their concerts. I've asked him about responses to those reviews, and he said the worst he ever got was hate mail from some stoners who couldn't believe he didn't think the latest Pink Floyd record was a masterpiece; he read them and tossed them, never thinking about them again. Fast forward to today. Beyonce has a legion of loyal followers known as the "Bey Hive", and these folks take to social media every time anything negative is said or written about the singer, savaging any individual who dares say something that is not glowingly positive about Queen Bey. She recently released an album that was almost universally given high reviews by critics in the media, praising her for tackling tough issues and doing so in a musically-pleasing way. Now, I cannot comment on the quality of the album because I don't like that kind of music and as such have not listened to it, but I have to wonder how many reviews were influenced by critics who didn't want to risk inviting the wrath of the Hive. With access to information as it is, it only takes a search and a couple of clicks and then someone's home or personal cell number is posted for the world to see, to say nothing of potentially their home address, and all it takes is one mentally unstable person who didn't like that their favorite actor or band got something bad written or said about them to escalate into something far worse. So I guess my problem is less with them being bothered about something and more about what happens after they take offense. Do what most of us do: call Nick Spencer a douchebag in an online forum, explain why he's a moron for suggesting the story can ever make sense, create a new avatar to use for a while, and move on with your life. |
|
