WackyForeigner

Probably the more accurate assessment

I very much believe people can do unintentionally racist things. My point is that the people labeling this image as racist are doing something unintentionally racist. We don't have to argue about that, it's merely a comment on the subject. I am a fairly tall U.S. citizen of Irish descent. I am naturally not very coordinated and a little bit clumsy. I like to drink, and when I do, I tend to talk very loudly and be pretty obnoxious. I would imagine this behavior would lead a person native to a city or country that I am visiting to consider me to be "wacky." That, of course, assumes that it is possible to consider myself as a foreigner to another culture, and not just everyone else as foreign to me.

The image itself is not racist. The people who created the image are not racist. These people used imagery generally accepted as signs of reckless affluence in most branches of modern society to depict a character. If the viewer takes that imagery and the characters depicted, and assigns them a race or ethnicity, even for the purpose of rejecting said racial categorization, then it is the viewer who is racist. It is the viewer who had made a judgement based upon stereotypical preconceptions of ethnicity, not the artist.

I urge as strongly as any anonymous internet voice possibly can for you not to stop. Any observation of art is a 50/50 exchange. The viewer brings their own point of view, ideas and experiences to the content presented by the artist. If your work is misinterpreted by someone who sees it in a hateful way, that hate comes from them and you did not create it. You cannot let their hate stop you from making the statement that feels right to you. If you cut all the sharp edges off of your work. it will lose its shape, and become something that does not actually reflect what you honestly want to say. I don't want to further escalate, but I really don't think it was an unfair framing of what was said. That said, I come across Danielle's work fairly regularly, and, though I find myself strongly disagreeing with many of her opinions, I hold a high amount of respect and admiration for what she does. Her writing has been a catalyst that has started many conversations I have encountered in which people who have operated in predominately male oriented environments have grappled with concepts of feminism. Agree with her or not, she has gotten a lot of people to think in ways they hadn't before. I hope she sees past all of the flames and rage that are an unfortunately fundamental element of internet culture and recognizes this.

The oppression those people were fighting was a very different thing than a bad word on television show.

It's tough to phrase this argument without accidentally marginalizing the problem with the wrong language. Physical oppression involves blood and death. The problem that we are talking about is very different. These images, these words, they're immaterial. When we look at something and an emotional response is triggered, that response does not come from the object, or the image, or the word, it comes from within us, within our minds, and we are giving the object, the image, or the word power over us by letting it affect us. I don't think exploitation of women in media is the cause of the problem. It is a symptom. The cold hard fact of the matter is that it wouldn't be so prevalent if it didn't work. Truly fighting and changing the culture that produces those images has to start at an individual, intimate level, because public outcry is only going to draw attention to them and give them more power. Getting a woman to recognize the inherent stupidity in a doctored photograph is the only way I can see of removing that photograph's ability to hurt her, because I look at doctored photographs of men with accordions for abdomens and think "That's the dumbest thing I've ever seen," and, thus, it has no power over me. I refuse to believe that a woman is somehow physically incapable of doing the same. Historically, cultural exploited groups of people have only truly overcome the exploitation by owning the stereotypes, becoming immune to the pain that they cause, and letting their power fade away. It doesn't happen over night, but it does happen.

And I don't, because true empowerment is elevating someone's self worth to the point where a thirty minute cartoon or a bad name doesn't throw it out of whack. We're sitting here debating the oppressive nature of images of Sandra Bullock in her underwear. How much more first world can we get? You use the word oppression like any of this actually qualifies. Real oppression involves blood and death. I watch my girlfriend struggle every day with insecurity over her self image that is created by images of femininity in media and it drives me up the wall, because I see her as beautiful. However, those images aren't going to go away. They generate money, and money is, sadly, actually what makes the world go round. If we can elevate a person's view of themselves, so that exploitative images no longer hold any kind of power over them, we take away the monetary value of those images, and truly grow. If we subdue those images to protect people from exposure to them, we only reinforce the power that they have and make them more valuable.

Yeah. Okay, But come on, relative to her role in Speed, where she had to be coached through every stressful situation by the totally competent man who was in charge, its a freaking step up, and deserves some credit.

I apologize if I've given the impression that I'm accusing anyone here of censorship. That was not my intent. I'm just trying to bring a different view point to the conversation, one that I think gets glossed over in our current society's tendency toward sensitivity. I would not bother to post here if I did not respect the forum and find the discussion legitimately interesting. I think its easy to view a lot of currently successful art as unthoughtful, but there's more validity to it than we think. For example, I think the massive success of The Avengers franchise is a much more telling artistic statement about the nature of our society than it appears on the surface. While it's easy, and completely legitimate, to view these films as only a streamlined cash in on escapism, can't we look at them a something deeper than that? Is it possible that audiences identify with the characters of these films because of a widespread cultural feeling of powerlessness? Another example is the massive success of The X-Files in the 90's, which signaled a growing dissatisfaction with and mistrust of the federal government. The Fast and the Furious franchise is extremely important in this regard, as its found unprecedented success with a multi-ethnic cast of characters. As is Gravity, with its strong, un-sexualized female lead. These are really significant breakthroughs. I would think these types of media, while not necessarily the most thought provoking or culturally challenging pieces out there, are still extremely important. I would liken these things to the art we find on pottery from early civilization. It reflects the cultural trends that are currently prevalent in society and helps us identify them so that we can challenge them. There's equal validity in art that is culturally insensitive, if for no other reason than to put that insensitivity on a platform so that some people can look at it and say "lol look at that idiot," and some people can say "I don't think he's such an idiot," and then those people can talk. All art is valid, because every single person's opinion of it matters. Edit: The opinionated in a way that is different from me thing is clever.

I can't see it any other way. Censorship is censorship no matter what the nature of the content being suppressed. What happens when people disagree on what creates a more progressive society? There is no one sect of society that is infallible and capable of making those decisions. It's one of the legitimate strengths of capitalism, in theory. People essentially vote for what sort of content is acceptable by choosing what material to consume. Also related to episode 152, specifically Leland Yee: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0

Discussing and qualifying a person or group of people's "media literacy" treads on some pretty dangerous ground. It's rather arrogant to view a particular work of art and internalize it as "I can consume this responsibility because I have acheived a level of literacy, intelligence or understanding that most other people have not, and, as such, it is my responsibility to monitor the content of this atrist or medium to protect those who do not share my level of literacy from its harmful influences." Not only is such a view point loaded with self importance, but its also extremely condescending to other people. The fact is that most people are able to see things like South Park and All in the Family for what they are. The core audience of South Park is the generation that is now in its mid 20s and early 30s. These are people who have been watching this show for over a decade. It didn't acheive success because a high number of these people are prejudiced and misunderstand its humor. It succeeded because so many people do see the point of its humor. It's unfair to suggest that there's some kind of sub intelligent sect of society out there who are susceptible to negative influences of contraversial media that only the enlightened can responsibly enjoy. Archie Bunker didn't create an aging generation with antiquated social viewpoints. That group of people already existed and latched onto him, just as the more open minded audience did. Archie put both of those people in front of the same piece of art and got them to talk about it, which is a catalyst for change. The path to hell is paved with good intentions. No one ever burned a book because "fuck freedom." It was only ever done by someone who was afraid that its content would influence the minds of those less capable of understanding it than they were. Edit: I am aware that no one on the podcast or in the thread advocated the censoring of South Park. My intent was merely to offer a counter point to a discussion that I found absurdly interesting.