|
Post by paulbearer on Oct 27, 2018 23:27:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by paulbearer on Oct 27, 2018 23:44:24 GMT -5
People might think Norway is a paradise and only friendly people but the truth is not as nice as reality :
there was this guy in Oslo that was asked on the street if he was gay when he said yes two bullies beat him up , that was all it took
Also just because were polite doesnt mean we really like you , its like in Japan where they might dislike you but its their protocol to be nice to you.....I think mostly we like the money you tourists leave behind lol
(and just like the japanese were usually not talkative so Im shocked here in the US , how people talk to each other in uber or elsewhere lol)
People in general are more friendly outside of Oslo , that doesnt mean that everyone there is a jerk but many are pompous and look down on you if youre not from the city or even if youre from Oslo east (Oslo west is where the rich in general live)
It can be scary at "Jernbanetorget" near Oslo S (central train station) at night , theres no reason to get there either at night unless youre after drugs or prostitutes , Bergen and Trondheim are just as nice cities , some would say nicer , than Oslo
Norwegians are also terrible naive/gullible when it comes to scams (heard about a woman who sent money to what she thought was high profile guy in US army , possibly she lost a million krones and who knows if shes able to get them back)
(sorry if its offensive but its not really far from the truth)
|
|
|
Post by paulbearer on Oct 28, 2018 0:11:17 GMT -5
So ridiculous its genious lol
|
|
hassanchop
Grimlock
Who are you to doubt Belldandy?
Posts: 14,796
|
Post by hassanchop on Oct 28, 2018 0:31:12 GMT -5
I assume Chinese and Japanese. Of course in Hwood asians always know martial arts , I dont take stereotypes so seriously....its just fiction in the end As in native or Westernized?
|
|
Johnny Flamingo
Hank Scorpio
Killing the business one post at a time
Posts: 6,505
|
Post by Johnny Flamingo on Oct 28, 2018 0:36:41 GMT -5
I know we're not supposed to be negative here, but honestly, I just cannot understand the logic some people have when they go "It's still great!" when you just had the Season 29 finale and Season 30 premiere be "Bart in a Coma" episodes, with the latter just running into the ground the same two damn jokes about Gal Gadot playing Lisa and Homer mistaking Actor Marge for his real wife. Besides, I can point out the "really good" episodes from Seasons 11 to 30 with less than 10 digits on my hands and point out the "horrible" episodes by the dozens. Considering that accounts for well over 400 episodes, I would not say that it justifies saying "It's still great". I didn’t find your post negative. You explained your opinion in s respectful way. I don’t think you are the type of fan the writers hate either as it sounds like you at least give the newer episodes a chance. I simply disagree with your opinion as you disagree with mine. Nothing wrong with that. I really enjoyed the coma episode and Ice found Season 30 to be really good so far. I have really enjoyed more episodes than not since season 10. In my opinion it’s still a really good show with some “great” episodes still sprinkled in. I thought the Bob killing Bart Treehouse of Horror segment was an all-time great. That is just my opinion and having s different opinion is OK as long as we respect each other’s opinion, which you seem to do as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 2:17:54 GMT -5
When I first read this I was really frustrated. As someone who loved The Simpsons for many years and didn't think anything of the issues with Apu simply because he was well written and honestly the show has more characters that are stereotypes than not. I also grew up in a neighborhood that didn't have much racism at least among my age group and group of friends so I was fairly naive towards things of that nature for awhile. The fact that people were hurt because people used the catchphrases of Apu as insults sucks but ultimately I feel those people would find other ways to be assholes and that Apu no longer appearing in the Simpsons will not solve that issue. It also sucks that there was no other representation than Apu in mainstream television for a long time but at least that has changed now.
I would like to thank people who have posted in this thread as it is a much more interesting issue than I initially thought. After reading through this thread I feel like this is sadly a bandaid solution to a much larger problem but if this ultimately makes people happy and they believe that this is a step in the right direction for equality then I say go for it as much as this white boy from Winnipeg's opinion means anything.
I do need to ask a question though and I hope it doesn't come across as confrontational or anything I'm honestly interested to hear people's opinions. I want to ask where the line is on things like this in your opinion? For example what if there were to be a comedy tv show or film with a stereotypical minority character but one whose character is fleshed out like Apu's was, would this cause your enjoyment of the show/film to change? Is it due to the longevity of the Simpson's and its place in American culture that Apu is being phased out?
|
|
Dragonfly
Samurai Cop
...is no Barry Windham.
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Dragonfly on Oct 28, 2018 2:19:53 GMT -5
About the "comedy evolves" argument: What's edgy and groundbreaking to one generation is boring, dull and played out to another.
There are two "younger" people in my writing group - 23 and 25, respectively. Neither fit any of the millennial stereotypes (pc or otherwise) people like to throw around. Both of them have said they have a hard time watching classic Simpsons. "I'm a bit too young for it," one said. "I appreciate what they did, but I can't relate. Most of the jokes go over my head.” I feel the same way when I see my dad laughing at Barney Miller or my mom watching That Girl. And their kids will be bored by Family Guy and whatever other comedy touchstone their generation has. That's just how things work.
And for the record, I was against altering Apu until I watched the documentary. He won me over completely. I do think the "think piece" crowd goes overboard sometimes. The article about how Kahn from King of the Hill is worse than Apu written by a white lady from Brooklyn I mentioned the last time this topic came up, for example. But not in this case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 2:31:04 GMT -5
Honestly how hard is it to do an episode where Apu accidentally is on medication due to an operation and speaks in a completely different voice and then a few days later when back to normal is confronted about it, he denies it but eventually admits that he lost his accent years ago due but because people expected the accent from him he kept it up. Means you can get a new more appropriate actor to do the voice and addresses the actual issue
I mean that took 2 minutes to think of and type out instead of going “Hmmmmm better get rid of the character”
|
|
Johnny Flamingo
Hank Scorpio
Killing the business one post at a time
Posts: 6,505
|
Post by Johnny Flamingo on Oct 28, 2018 2:31:35 GMT -5
My opinion is that both sides failed on this issue.
The Simpson’s writers for not having a dialogue and discussion about it. While I understand retiring the character .it could have been handled better.
Hari because after the documentary he resulted to insults instead of talking to people. Thus killing any positivity that could have come from this.
In the end no one wins. One less chance for a positive Indian portrayal on tv and a beloved character is simply retired instead of tweaked. All because both sides refused to have a meaningful dialogue. It is quite sad,
Hari and Hank both talked in private and were quite respectful. They have both given well though out statements regarding each other that were respectful as well. If this would have been the tone of the dialogue from the beginning I think real change would have happened,
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Oct 28, 2018 2:41:16 GMT -5
About the "comedy evolves" argument: What's edgy and groundbreaking to one generation is boring, dull and played out to another. In other words:
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 28, 2018 5:18:13 GMT -5
Aye yi yi.
A lot of people have handled this thread well, and I'm grateful for that.
However, I have a request for many of us:
Please stop posting in the thread (and threads like it) until you've taken the time to read through it, first. A lot of arguments that have already been discussed are being repeated ad nauseam, when it would be more constructive to actively engage with your fellow posters to progress the conversation instead of just bringing them up again verbatim.
|
|
Fauxnaki
Unicron
0 Followers Club
Posts: 2,861
|
Post by Fauxnaki on Oct 28, 2018 6:56:53 GMT -5
Hate that "documentary" its a bunch of comedians sitting around getting offended by a joke. I think their in the wrong line of work.
|
|
hassanchop
Grimlock
Who are you to doubt Belldandy?
Posts: 14,796
|
Post by hassanchop on Oct 28, 2018 8:21:23 GMT -5
An Indian's Response to The Simpsons Apu Controversy:
Description of video:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 9:32:12 GMT -5
A part of me feels weird chiming in here because I've only seen the movie and a few select episodes of the show, but I resent the implication that comedy has become "too PC" or that we're now living a culture that's easily offended by everything. Comedy evolves, and part of that means dropping lazy, racist stereotypes from the routine that never should've been acceptable in the first place. That doesn't necessarily mean comedy is becoming less edgy because, really, there's nothing edgy about using racist caricatures that have been used to oppress a group of people throughout modern history. And if it seems like everyone is suddenly offended by everything, that's simply not correct. Concerns like this have existed for a long time; it's just that marginalized folks are only now getting the platforms to give their concerns visibility. There isn't really such a thing as PC culture on the rise, but there is certainly such a thing as society growing more aware on what types of humor can be harmful. If eliminating a cartoon character that's brigning harm to an already marginalized group of people suddenly means comedy is becoming sterilized, then, good, clean that shit up. The problem with comedy is that so many people want to go for the low-hanging fruit because it's the easiest to pick. Like, instead of doing jokes about self-service checkout stands or what random diet craze is going to happen next, people would prefer making fun of the mentally disabled or ethnic groups they never encountered in real life. You will always leave people behind as time progresses. Now, it has admittedly been several years since I have watched The Simpsons, but I remember Apu being one of my favorite characters. If they do remove the character, I'll miss him, but I understand the issues people have with the character. Whatever they do, hopefully they do it in a way that's respectable to all. Nah, they'll just kill him off-screen and then spend the whole episode bitching about how "PC Culture" ruined everything because the geriatric writers hate "snowflakes". The irony is that the writers stopped doing character development a long time ago because it meant invoking the most hated word in the room; continuity. Reciting past events is okay (especially if you can add your dopey spin on it, like how Apu and Ms. Krabappel did it during Homer and Marge's second wedding), but not how characters acted versus today. The writers came from an era in which you could describe them as being akin to "daily funnies" like in comic strips such as "Hi and Lois" and "Hagar the Horrible", in which you have a pre-set list of characters, but rather than telling a story over a period of time, each strip was inconsequential to the next. The early episodes were groundbreaking in part due to the fact that they explored characters in their wants, fears, and flaws, but they also had complexity because most of the writers weren't set in doldrums yet. When the show brought in old fogeys like Max Pross and Tom Gammil to replace the younger staff that moved on, the show decided that "The Simpsons tackle Outdated Thing" was more important, and rather than mocking culture, they chose to embrace culture and even set a mandate that the concept of celebrity was to be idolized. But, a funny thing happened on the way to the present. Although shows that spawned (with many dying almost immediately) in the late 90s and early 2000s wanted to be as inconsequential as The Simpsons, shows started focusing on character development and looking at in-world implications as they realized there was untapped potential. Granted, not every show has succeeded in development; every character in "Rick & Morty" who isn't named Rick or Morty is stuck as one-note entities and good God almighty, "Steven Universe" is Botchamania, but then you see shows like "Bojack Horseman" which have gone out of their way to not only build a world, but also build the characters themselves. The writers could have easily just kept the dynamic between Bojack and Mr. Peanutbutter as "one child star who failed and another who succeeded", but the writers wanted to see WHY Bojack failed, and how unfulfilled Mr. Peanutbutter still felt. The majority of these shows were made by people who were likely teenagers or young adults during the heyday of The Simpsons, which meant they probably saw the show at its apex and understood the complexities, while the shows that failed in that time period were made by old people who assumed people just liked the show for its shock factor and thought that would translate to their own projects.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Oct 28, 2018 12:42:32 GMT -5
My opinion is that both sides failed on this issue. The Simpson’s writers for not having a dialogue and discussion about it. While I understand retiring the character .it could have been handled better. Hari because after the documentary he resulted to insults instead of talking to people. Thus killing any positivity that could have come from this. In the end no one wins. One less chance for a positive Indian portrayal on tv and a beloved character is simply retired instead of tweaked. All because both sides refused to have a meaningful dialogue. It is quite sad, Hari and Hank both talked in private and were quite respectful. They have both given well though out statements regarding each other that were respectful as well. If this would have been the tone of the dialogue from the beginning I think real change would have happened, Hank Azaria's been as respectful and receptive to changes as possible. The one person who's acting like a petulant child in all this is Al Jean, who like the last 15 or so seasons of the show, is stuck in his ways.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedigger's Biscuits on Oct 28, 2018 13:15:35 GMT -5
I feel like I'm seeing online just as many people that are of Indian or South Asian descent who don't think there's a problem with Apu necessarily, and don't want him to change, as those who think there is.
So who do you listen to?
As someone else said, it's a complicated issue. I think both sides (change/don't change) make valid points. And whatever the outcome is was always going to make people unhappy.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Oct 28, 2018 13:17:55 GMT -5
Seems like the laziest thing possible.
|
|
|
Post by Toilet Paper Roll on Oct 28, 2018 13:22:45 GMT -5
I feel like I'm seeing online just as many people that are of Indian or South Asian descent who don't think there's a problem with Apu necessarily, and don't want him to change, as there is those who think there is. So who do you listen to? As someone else said, it's a complicated issue. I think both sides (change/don't change) make valid points. And whatever the outcome is was always going to make people unhappy. A lot of people with Indian heritage might see it more as a play off people they know. Remember the live “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” got? It was heavy with stereotypes but a lot of people saw people they knew and family members in the parody.
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Oct 28, 2018 14:40:43 GMT -5
Like. It’s been on 30’years. Why are people just now offended lol. I hate society. No, you hate technology. Indian and South Asian people have been offended by Apu pretty much since the character debuted. The major difference between then and now is the internet, not just in terms of people being able to voice their concerns, but being able to voice their concerns among like-minded people. I feel like about 85% of what we call "outrage culture" is just people expressing how they've always felt about shit and somebody online seeing it and saying "I'm not alone after all!". Beyond that, I think this comment covers how I feel about much of the outrage about "sensitivity": It's incredibly easy to say "people are so sensitive " when you're not the one being made fun of by being called apu growing up.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 28, 2018 15:04:48 GMT -5
I feel like I'm seeing online just as many people that are of Indian or South Asian descent who don't think there's a problem with Apu necessarily, and don't want him to change, as those who think there is. So who do you listen to? As someone else said, it's a complicated issue. I think both sides (change/don't change) make valid points. And whatever the outcome is was always going to make people unhappy. Right; again, life's just complicated, no two ways about it. The fact is, there's no single "right" answer to an issue like this one and others like it; if Apu had nothing of value to offer as a character beyond "thank you, come again" it'd be a much easier conversation, but part of what makes this such a touchy matter is that, yeah, it's not that cut and dry. However, as someone who's not Indian-American, who also came up during the Simpsons' "golden age" and was highly entertained by Apu, I figure all I can really do is listen to what Indian-American people have to say, recognize that no group of people of similar backgrounds agree on every single topic, and save my own input for times when I feel I actually have something to offer - like, I can discuss things like changes in communications technology and why I think listening to communities different from my own is important, but I have no basis on which I can tell Indian-American people how they should feel about an issue like this. You can't force someone to feel offended, no more than you can tell someone they're wrong for feeling offended; it's their own feeling, no one else's. It's why I really dislike when edgelords try to pull the "they're not REALLY offended!" card on a community over <insert controversial hot button topic here>. If someone wants to accuse me of not really being offended by Apu then, well, yeah...I'm a white dude who's nearly a lifelong old school Simpsons' fan, so I would never claim that Apu ever personally offended me. But there's clearly a chunk of people out there who come from a different background than I do who had an entirely different experience with the character and the show than I did; all I can do is listen to them, try to understand why they feel the way they do, and possibly offer support where appropriate, whether they're from the part of the community that's not cool with the character as-is or the part that is. But telling them "you don't actually feel that way!" or "you're wrong to feel that way!" when I can't begin to comprehend their lived experience on the matter is silly, so that's what I try to avoid.
|
|