Did the humor in the final scene of ASM #581 work?

[Jim Thompson]

Still this issue was much better then last issue. Like been mentioned above this issue became a lot strongers by seeing the supporting cast members featured prominently. Loved harrys reaction to seeing spiderman and thinking that's who peter called on the phone at the gas station. Then he kept calling peter and spidey bffs. Is spiderman your boyfriend, it would explain a lot about your girl troubles :biggrin:Yeah -- well, third grade type humor doesn't do a lot for me personally. :biggrin:

[CyberHubbs]

Yeah -- well, third grade type humor doesn't do a lot for me personally. :biggrin:

'Cause Spider-Man has always been known for his complex, high-brow humor? :wink:

[Jim Thompson]

'Cause Spider-Man has always been known for his complex, high-brow humor? :wink:Yeah, you're right -- Spider-Man and his supporting cast have always been closet gay bashers. :rolleyes:

[CyberHubbs]

Yeah, you're right -- Spider-Man and his supporting cast have always been closet gay bashers. :rolleyes:

So the scene between Harry and Peter on the sidewalk was closet gay-bashing? Really, Jim?

[ShaggyB]

Yeah, you're right -- Spider-Man and his supporting cast have always been closet gay bashers. :rolleyes:

because giving cpr is clearly a shot at gay people.....

[CyberHubbs]

because giving cpr is clearly a shot at gay people.....

The angles, man! THE ANGLES!

[ShaggyB]

So the scene between Harry and Peter on the sidewalk was closet gay-bashing? Really, Jim?

honestly if i were harry i would have asked... its a valid question. spidey is always around pete... he doesnt date lots of girls and he doesnt explain his relationship with spidey.

Its not disrespectful to ask.....

[Jim Thompson]

So the scene between Harry and Peter on the sidewalk was closet gay-bashing? Really, Jim?You really think taking a shot at a man for having a boyfriend isn't somehow closet gay-bashing?

[ShaggyB]

You really think taking a shot at a man for having a boyfriend isn't somehow closet gay-bashing?

gonna need to go back and re-read it for the exact wording but i read it as an honest question, not a pot shot.... Anyone got a scan?

[Jim Thompson]

gonna need to go back and re-read it for the exact wording but i read it as an honest question, not a pot shot.... Anyone got a scan?BTW -- I'll say right now I don't believe this was meant to be an intentional shot. I just found that part of it revealing.

[CyberHubbs]

You really think taking a shot at a man for having a boyfriend isn't somehow closet gay-bashing?

It's not like Harry is pointing an accusing finger and sneering. He's making fun of Peter and Spider-Man's 'relationship', or just joking around with Peter. Have we become so PC that this is even vaguely controversial?

Now if Peter and Spider-Man WERE boyfriends, and Harry was making fun of them, that'd be something else. Harry's just talking friendly trash to his buddy after a long day.

[Jim Thompson]

It's not like Harry is pointing an accusing finger and sneering. He's making fun of Peter and Spider-Man's 'relationship', or just joking around with Peter. Have we become so PC that this is even vaguely controversial?

Now if Peter and Spider-Man WERE boyfriends, and Harry was making fun of them, that'd be something else. Harry's just talking friendly trash to his buddy after a long day.I don't think it's particularly controversial. I think it's sort of third grade humor, in that it's unthinkingly derogatory. Just doesn't work for me.

[Dr. Chaos]

So the scene between Harry and Peter on the sidewalk was closet gay-bashing? Really, Jim?
It's just like when that bastard Spider-Man was quipping on Raxton, he's obviously berating burn victims.

Has Spider-Man fought any african american villians lately? I think I'm going to go back through the Punisher team up issue and see if I can't find any anti-black messages if I look into it hard enough.

The writers of ASM can't get things past me, I see their neo conservative agenda!

*shakes fist*

[DeadXMan]

I don't think it's particularly controversial. I think it's sort of third grade humor, in that it's unthinkingly derogatory. Just doesn't work for me.

so your telling me you never dick around with your friends like that?

[Jim Thompson]

so your telling me you never dick around with your friends like that?Nope -- though there are many people around me who do.

[yadadaimhollaing]

You really think taking a shot at a man for having a boyfriend isn't somehow closet gay-bashing?

i dont hate gay people but i say jokes like that to my friends. its all just friendly ribbing and shit talking. hes just having fun with him and making a sarcastic remark.

[yadadaimhollaing]

Nope -- though there are many people around me who do.

i can see why it bothers you then. for me and a lot of others thats a conversation that is certainly believable to happen and thats why i can laugh about it.

[Matt Linton]

I can understand where Jim's coming from. One of my pet peeves is when people use "gay" and "retarded" to mean "stupid", so it would bug me if I saw it in a Spider-Man comic.

[Jim Thompson]

i dont hate gay people but i say jokes like that to my friends. its all just friendly ribbing and shit talking. hes just having fun with him and making a sarcastic remark.People used to do that with black people, too. :biggrin:

I'm sort of with Dennis Miller on this one: I don't really get hating people based on their race, sex, sexual preference or religious beliefs, because, when you take the time to really think about it, there are so many other reasons to hate one another.

[yadadaimhollaing]

People used to do that with black people, too.

I'm sort of with Dennis Miller on this one: I don't really get hating people based on their race, sex, sexual preference or religious beliefs, because, when you take the time to really think about it, there are so many other reasons to hate one another.


I can understand where Jim's coming from. One of my pet peeves is when people use "gay" and "retarded" to mean "stupid", so it would bug me if I saw it in a Spider-Man comic.


it doesnt bother me. the word bitch is supposed to be derogatory towards women. bitch is just treated like a cuss word. to me gay is kind of the same or retarded, its being used deragory but not towards mentally handicapped people or homo sexual people.

EDIT
for some strange reason im feeling this conversation will result in a thread drift :wink:

[DeadXMan]

ah the English language and it's many meanings


now excuse me while I light up a fag

(it means cigarette )

[Jim Thompson]

ah the English language and it's many meanings


now excuse me while I light up a fag

(it means cigarette )LOL! 'Bout fell out of my chair the first time I heard that one. :biggrin:

[Dr. Chaos]

ah the English language and it's many meanings


now excuse me while I light up a fag

(it means cigarette )
Can I have one of your retarded fags?

They may be gay for my health but I can't quite kick the habit.

[Bookem Danno]

gonna need to go back and re-read it for the exact wording but i read it as an honest question, not a pot shot.... Anyone got a scan?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PxotHw9e2Pw/SWZ90ENSl0I/AAAAAAAAAZs/MW6L9X61F2M/s1600-h/Harry0001.jpg

[DeadXMan]

Peter kinda walked himself into that one.

[Cody H]

it doesnt bother me. the word bitch is supposed to be derogatory towards women. bitch is just treated like a cuss word. to me gay is kind of the same or retarded, its being used deragory but not towards mentally handicapped people or homo sexual people.But isn't using the term gay (which refers to somebody's sexual orientation) as synonymous with stupid or bad (or however it's commonly used) inherently deragatory. I mean, if gay = stupid/bad then it's basically like saying you're sexual orientation is stupid/bad. I don't think most people intend to use it as derogatory but I don't believe you can get around it if you really think about its usage in that manner.

[DeadXMan]

gay means happy, not you like the same sex

so who were the ones to change it's meaning first?

it's only fair that we get to change it's meaning as well
:rolleyes:

so hows about we stop acting like a bunch of window lickers and discuss the bloddy book.

[Cody H]

gay means happy, not you like the same sexIt means both, doesn't it?
so who were the ones to change it's meaning first?Don't know.

it's only fair that we get to change it's meaning as well
:rolleyes:I'm not arguing about fairness. Saying it's hard not to look at it as derogatory when you really think about it.
http://www.randomsmiley.com/images/sleepy/171331.gif (http://www.randomsmiley.com)

Sorry, thought we were ending our posts with random smileys now.

[DeadXMan]

Sorry, thought we were ending our posts with random smileys now.

you don't want to go there cody

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/DXM616/ymca.gif

[Jim Thompson]

you don't want to go there cody

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/DXM616/ymca.gifWhere do y'all get these things from?

[Cody H]

you don't want to go there cody

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/DXM616/ymca.gifhttp://www.randomsmiley.com/images/confused/177141.gif (http://www.randomsmiley.com)

[DeadXMan]

simple Grafix forum

it a photoshop sig and art place

http://simplegfx.net

[yadadaimhollaing]

But isn't using the term gay (which refers to somebody's sexual orientation) as synonymous with stupid or bad (or however it's commonly used) inherently deragatory. I mean, if gay = stupid/bad then it's basically like saying you're sexual orientation is stupid/bad. I don't think most people intend to use it as derogatory but I don't believe you can get around it if you really think about its usage in that manner.

basically im saying that using the term gay meaning something stupid and nothing about sexual preferance can be like calling somebody a bitch (asshole) without meaning woman.+

http://www.golfdiscussions.com/yabbse/Smileys/default/robot.gif

http://www.golfdiscussions.com/yabbse/Smileys/default/slow_jc.gif

[Cody H]

basically im saying that using the term gay meaning something stupid and nothing about sexual preferance can be like calling somebody a bitch (asshole) without meaning woman.I agree that it's pretty similar. I think the only difference there is that the term bitch, by definition, is almost always associated with a negative connotation whereas outside of its slang usage, the term gay isn't.

http://img3.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/characters/character0027.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-aim-smileys.php)

[DeadXMan]

you are using one of the meanings of bitch right now

To complian. {bitching}


http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/DXM616/nutkick.gif

[Cody H]

you are using one of the meanings of bitch right now

To complian. {bitching}


http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/DXM616/nutkick.gifBitching can mean complaining, yes, but it too has a negative connotation. Who likes to be told they're "bitching?" I'm not really complaining though, I'm simply having a discussion about term usage and its implications.

http://img3.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/characters/character0060.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

[DeadXMan]

but we have realize that English is an ever changing Language
hell the word nice was once considered an insult.

don't be so imbecilic on triva stuff

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a384/themarbleintheoatmeal/smilies/party0010.gif

[Cody H]

but we have realize that English is an ever changing Language
hell the word nice was once considered an insult.That's absolutely true, english is an ever-changing language. We do have a choice in how we use it though.

don't be so imbecilic on triva stuff

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a384/themarbleintheoatmeal/smilies/party0010.gifI'm not sure how I'm being imbecilic about it, I'm actually trying to be logical about the term's usage. And as far a trivial goes, I try to put myself in somebody elses' shoes in terms of how they might take term's usage. If I were gay and I heard the term used in its slang meaning, I'd probably be kinda offended. I just prefer not to offend people if I can is all.

http://img3.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/characters/character0024.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-adult-smileys.php)

[Dr. Chaos]

Thread drift: Are Peter and Harry a bunch of dirty homophobes? The truth behind Harry's loathing of Spider-Man revealed.

[yadadaimhollaing]

WELL now that some of our terms have been discussed im gonna enjoy http://www.golfdiscussions.com/yabbse/Smileys/default/popcorn2.gif
while mets goes through this thread because http://www.golfdiscussions.com/yabbse/Smileys/default/offtopic1.gif

http://www.golfdiscussions.com/yabbse/Smileys/default/shark.gif

[DeadXMan]

Thread drift: Are Peter and Harry a bunch of dirty homophobes? The truth behind Harry's loathing of Spider-Man revealed.

and DXM's smiley massacrehttp://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn178/keehl801/Killthatwithfire.gif

[yadadaimhollaing]

and a bunch of idiots smiley massacrehttp://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn178/keehl801/Killthatwithfire.gif

that would be more like it with the smileys me, you, and cody have been adding in http://hfboards.com/images/smilies/teacher3.gif

[Cody H]

http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-character-smileys-753.gif (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/Free-Character-Smileys/) = World's most badass smiley. I'm done now.

[DeadXMan]

i can top that
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r246/psychochickashley/721112658_m.gif

[Dr. Chaos]

i can top that
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r246/psychochickashley/721112658_m.gif
Ahh! Kill it! http://planetsmilies.net/star-wars-smiley-5472.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

[Don't pee in the (Dead)pool]

Que Queen song...

Either:"Another One Bites The Dust" or "I Want To Break Free".

Definitely Not: "Don't Stop Me Now", "A Kind Of Magic" or "Fat Bottomed Girls".:biggrin:

[spiderman_rj]

Around here in brazil we use the term gay for lots of things that are not considered heterosexual,but not really in a derigatory way towards homosexuals, like say you see a very colorfull sneaker, and say wow that sneaker is gay.
But as you know we latinos are very machistas.

[Mister Mets]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PxotHw9e2Pw/SWZ90ENSl0I/AAAAAAAAAZs/MW6L9X61F2M/s1600/Harry0001.jpg

Seems like the type of jokes young guys would make. I've got no objection this.

It's a legitimately funny exchange.

[BlackToe]

PC :rolleyes:

But c'mon...this is nothing.

[Jim Thompson]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PxotHw9e2Pw/SWZ90ENSl0I/AAAAAAAAAZs/MW6L9X61F2M/s1600/Harry0001.jpg

Seems like the type of jokes young guys would make. I've got no objection this.

It's a legitimately funny exchange.You'd have made a great young guy in the 1870s, Mets. :biggrin:

[Gilda Dent]

But isn't using the term gay (which refers to somebody's sexual orientation) as synonymous with stupid or bad (or however it's commonly used) inherently deragatory. I mean, if gay = stupid/bad then it's basically like saying you're sexual orientation is stupid/bad. I don't think most people intend to use it as derogatory but I don't believe you can get around it if you really think about its usage in that manner.

Exactly.


gay means happy, not you like the same sex

so who were the ones to change it's meaning first?

it's only fair that we get to change it's meaning as well
:rolleyes:

so hows about we stop acting like a bunch of window lickers and discuss the bloddy book.

Who changed it first? Sexually conservative mainstream heterosexuals.

The use of "gay" to mean "homosexual" had its germination in the late 1800s. Are you familiar with the term "the gay '90s"? It wasn't mean to be complimentary. It described sexual immorality in any form. As time passed, the generalized usage as a codeword for sexual immorality narrowed to become a codeword for male homosexuality. It would have been considered impolite to use the word "homosexual" in most contexts--describing things with negative connotations generally required the use of euphemisms, or nicer-sounding codewords. "Gay" gave the "good people" of the world a codeword with positive associations that they could use to describe and discuss a subject they could not discuss openly.

By the mid 20th century, the gay community began to embrace the word and use it for self-identification, and by the time we reached the last third of that century it had become a generally positive or at least a neutral descriptor.

The more recent usage meaning "something that is stupid, immoral, of little value, unacceptable, or of which I otherwise disapprove for any reason" is a generalized usage originating in homophobic usage.

"Gay" hasn't had the primary meaning of "cheerful" or "happy" in a few generations now, and the change started among mainstream heterosxuals well over a century ago.

All of which is to say that, even if the intent isn't to be critical of homosexuals, that is the effect.


basically im saying that using the term gay meaning something stupid and nothing about sexual preferance can be like calling somebody a bitch (asshole) without meaning woman.+

A generalized usage of "bitch" has problems as well, though it's more misogynistic than homophobic.

As a parallel, let's look at the word "jew". Notice the lowercase "j" there. When used as a verb, the word "jew" means to negotiate enthusiastically. It isn't specifically referring to Jews, the people, but to a behavior or attitude generally associated with Jewish people, specifically greed. It is, on its face, anti-Semitic, even if the person using the word in this way feels no hostility towards Jews.

The usage is insulting and perpetuates a negative stereotype of the group being used as an insult, regardless of the intent of the speaker.

All that said, I have no problem with the scene in question. It seems like the sort of thing young men that age might say.

[Patrick Hultquist]

The humor is inherent in Harry knowing that Peter isn't actually gay. It doesn't mean that either one of them are homophobic. In fact, I know of gay friends who make fun of others in their immediate circle for acting too butch, in much the same fashion that Harry is busting Peter's chops. Jokingly questioning someone else's orientation isn't homophobic unless you yourself are being judgmental. But I didn't see anything judgmental come across there.
:smile:
I do smilies old school style.

[CyberHubbs]

The humor is inherent in Harry knowing that Peter isn't actually gay. It doesn't mean that either one of them are homophobic. In fact, I know of gay friends who make fun of others in their immediate circle for acting too butch, in much the same fashion that Harry is busting Peter's chops. Jokingly questioning someone else's orientation isn't homophobic unless you yourself are being judgmental. But I didn't see anything judgmental come across there.
:smile:
I do smilies old school style.

As Shaggy pointed out -- I think it was him -- Peter walked into it, too. I can imagine his voice being...odd, distant or wistful as he explained his relationship with Spider-Man.

[CyberHubbs]

http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-character-smileys-753.gif (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/Free-Character-Smileys/) = World's most badass smiley. I'm done now.

There's a great smiley somewhere out there in the interweb. Its the 'awesome' smiley holding up a shield to deflect a rain of arrows, ala 300.

But since I can't find that one, I'll instead present: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y196/CyberHubbs/doom.gif

[Cody H]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y196/CyberHubbs/doom.gifCurse you, Richards!

[Stephen Moreno]

If Peter was gay...that would explain why he's not dating women. It's not gay bashing, stop being over sensitive.

[BlackToe]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y196/CyberHubbs/doom.gif

c'mooooon 7...doomie needs a new pair of doh ray me

[Flâneur]

it doesnt bother me. the word bitch is supposed to be derogatory towards women. bitch is just treated like a cuss word. to me gay is kind of the same or retarded, its being used deragory but not towards mentally handicapped people or homo sexual people.

EDIT
for some strange reason im feeling this conversation will result in a thread drift :wink:

RE: Harry and Spiderman's comments. They're not at all homophobic. Honestly, as kids we do that with boys and girls for most of primary and highschool. 'Oooooh, look who has a girlfriend' and so on.

Your comments are stupid though. It is disrespectful to use the word retarded as a way of deriding something. It is disrespectful to use the word gay as a way of deriding something. It is disrespectful to use the word spastic as a way of deriding something and so on. And frankly, it doesn't matter if it bothers you. You're the perp, not the target.

The way gay is used is directly derived from the way some people spat people's orientation in their face as a way to villify them for their 'deviance'. You queer, you fag, you disgusting gay cunt and so on and so forth. It's a derogatory usage which spread to other objects so that people don't use 'like a' or any other qualifier. You're using it in a way which comes directly out of the most homophobic conditions and you don't have any standing in the world to say 'that's so gay'. Go around saying 'that's as fucked up as a nigger', and tell people it's ok to say because you think so.

It's also completely and utterly needless to say those kinds of things. I haven't even used the word retarded as a negative adjective since I was like, eight. It hasn't required much, if any, deliberate restraint either because there is no point in saying it and it just makes the user look stupid, base and uncouth.

[DeadXMan]

http://gi69.photobucket.com/groups/i41/739YBGBTIR/goyang.gif enough of what word means what.

It has retarded our smiley war

[steveg887]

I'm surprised people actually are worked up over this. It's just guys being guys. No malice was present.

I mean, it's understandable that an actual gay person might be offended, but honestly, it seems that, these days, any time someone opens their mouth, they run the risk of offending somebody.

But it's just how our culture is now. We make fun of everybody for everything. Watch an episode of South Park, and you'll see what I mean.

[BlackToe]

http://gi69.photobucket.com/groups/i41/739YBGBTIR/goyang.gif enough of what word means what.

It has retarded our smiley war

We must make sacrifices!

[Jim Thompson]

Watch an episode of South Park, and you'll see what I mean.Ah yes -- I forgot about South Park, the very height of humanity's cultural sophistication (followed quickly by The Family Guy.) If it is done there, it must be okay! :biggrin:

[steveg887]

Ah yes -- I forgot about South Park, the very height of humanity's cultural sophistication (followed quickly by The Family Guy.) If it is done there, it must be okay! :biggrin:

Have you really watched the show? It might not be sophisticated, but the show more often than not has a very clear (and insightful) moral to it. The show, believe it or not, is about accepting people for who they are.

[Regulus B.]

I really don't think it was that malicious. It was teasing in a "this would explain" sort of way. I've been in similar exchanges myself in college and none of it was malicious, made me feel bad, or suspect homophobia; and I don't see any of that in this exchange either, to be honest.

[Jim Thompson]

Couple o' other things:

1.) Really hate the title of this thread, as it introduced gay-bashing into the conversation, which wasn't what I was talking about. I'll say again, if a thread drift is being considered, I think it'd be nice for the administrator to contact the thread's originator, or the person who started the thought that generated the proposed thread drift, to make sure he's stayed accurate to the original thought.

2.) Judging from much of the response here, it is the height of comedic genius to imply that one of your friends is gay. :biggrin:

[Jim Thompson]

Have you really watched the show? It might not be sophisticated, but the show more often than not has a very clear (and insightful) moral to it. The show, believe it or not, is about accepting people for who they are.Watch it all the time (since the original Jesus versus Santa webisode) -- and find at least some of what you say to be true.

[Jim Thompson]

I really don't think it was that malicious. It was teasing in a "this would explain" sort of way. I've been in similar exchanges myself in college and none of it was malicious, made me feel bad, or suspect homophobia; and I don't see any of that in this exchange either, to be honest.I don't think it was malicious, either -- merely revealing.

[Regulus B.]

2.) Judging from much of the response here, it is the height of comedic genius to imply that one of your friends is gay. :biggrin:


Nah, the height of comedic genius is fart jokes. :tongue:

I wouldn't say it was particularly funny in a laugh out loud way, more like a regular conversation they might have; but I wouldn't say it was homophobic or anything either. If it's revealing to you, I guess it could be taken that way, but that seems like a bit of a reach to me.

[Jim Thompson]

Nah, the height of comedic genius is fart jokes. :tongue: Dick and fart jokes -- be accurate! :tongue:


I wouldn't say it was particularly funny in a laugh out loud way, more like a regular conversation they might have; but I wouldn't say it was homophobic or anything either.That's why I think I found it to be revealing: Just a regular conversation with nothing meant by it -- just like people used to talk about blacks, or the Japanese during WWII, etc. etc.

[DeadXMan]

Dick and fart jokes -- be accurate! :tongue:

]

but don't combine the two, otherwise we're back to wear we started

[BlackToe]

That's why I think I found it to be revealing: Just a regular conversation with nothing meant by it -- just like people used to talk about blacks, or the Japanese during WWII, etc. etc.

Must...keep out...of this!....

gak

[Jim Thompson]

Must...keep out...of this!....

gakWell -- I'm hopeful President Elect Obama opens people's minds to this. And there is sign of it, as there are reports he's looking to revisit the gays in the military issue.

[DeadXMan]

you ever seen the Mexican?

Julia Roberts gets James Gandolfini to admits he gay in a similar manner.

it one of the best scenes in the movie.

[Regulus B.]

That's why I think I found it to be revealing: Just a regular conversation with nothing meant by it -- just like people used to talk about blacks, or the Japanese during WWII, etc. etc.

Maybe it's offhand, casual degradation (and I'm sure you're not alone in suggesting that), but I didn't read that much into it.

[Jim Thompson]

you ever seen the Mexican?

Julia Roberts gets James Gandolfini to admits he gay in a similar manner.

it one of the best scenes in the movie.I haven't seen that movie (I can't stand Roberts). Having said that -- that's a justification? As long as the ribbing turns out to be true, it's all right?

[DeadXMan]

Well -- I'm hopeful President Elect Obama opens people's minds to this. And there is sign of it, as there are reports he's looking to revisit the gays in the military issue.

I'll believe that when I see it.

after all it was the sectary of state's Husband that established Don't ask don't tell.

frankly I don't care about someone's preference as long as they kill as many godless SOBs that have the stuipdity to threaten our nation.

[Jim Thompson]

Maybe it's offhand, casual degradation (and I'm sure you're not alone in suggesting that), but I didn't read that much into it.Again, that's the revealing part for me: I'm pretty certain most people, when they truly stop to think about such things, are willing to acknowledge what lies at the base of such comments is a sort of casual degradation -- but I think that degradation has become so accepted in our current society most people don't even notice it anymore.

Anyway, that's why I didn't find it all that amusing. Obviously, once again, I'm in the minority.

[Jim Thompson]

I'll believe that when I see it.

after all it was the sectary of state's Husband that established Don't ask don't tell.

frankly I don't care about someone's preference as long as they kill as many godless SOBs that have the stuipdity to threaten our nation.They're not Godless -- just seems they are supporting the wrong God.

BTW -- you do know I was being facetious with the comment you were responding to, right?

[DeadXMan]

here's the thing everyone is Gay, racist , and sexiest to certain extent. They are to uptight to admit so they go on this PC war path(waiting for the irony) just so they can feel better.


How do you know that all are enemies are not godless

that stereotyping, I am offended by your lack of openness to the threat this nation faces

but nooo you can't see past a turban

well guess what


They are not worshiping a wrong god

the three major religions worship the same god

we're bitching about who the right messenger is

not to mention the Jews and Muslim confect can boil down to a sybling rivalry

[Jim Thompson]

Here's the thing everyone is gay, racist , and sexist to certain extent. They are too uptight to admit so they go on this PC war path(waiting for the irony) just so they can feel better.How would you go about getting people to acknowledge the issue and move toward changing themselves for the better?

[Regulus B.]

Again, that's the revealing part for me: I'm pretty certain most people, when they truly stop to think about such things, are willing to acknowledge what lies at the base of such comments is a sort of casual degradation -- but I think that degradation has become so accepted in our current society most people don't even notice it anymore.

Anyway, that's why I didn't find it all that amusing. Obviously, once again, I'm in the minority.

I suppose you could claim that there's an inherent implication of lessened worth in the masculine subculture by suggesting that it's true when Harry knows (probably) that it's not but implying it might be as a way of creating humor through Peter's discomfort at the label (at least that's what I would say if I were doing this for a paper). And maybe that's all sorts of wrong.

But it's hard to escape one's cultural milieu and (hopefully without endorsing subtle homophobia) it made for a natural scene to me since it is observable in the culture and it would make sense of them to behave that way, at this moment in time. And you might say that same degradation lies at the base of a lot of jokes (per the Avenue Q song, we're all "a little bit racist" but it doesn't mean we "go around committing hate crimes"). I don't think any actual malice accompanies the sentiment but if it's an inherently destructive sentiment - I don't really know what to say to that except that a lot of humor takes jabs at groups and that will probably never go away, but it doesn't mean that the same kinds of laws that were around in the 40s to accompany the humor should be in place.

And on that note, do we know Hollister's political affiliation? Or Harry's for that matter (apart from 'whatever my dad supports, I'm against')?

[DeadXMan]

How would you go about getting people to acknowledge the issue and move toward changing themselves for the better?

simple just fuck relax and rip them back and let the karma of the universe do it's job.

For example look at OJ

[Jim Thompson]

I suppose you could claim that there's an inherent implication of lessened worth in the masculine subculture by suggesting that it's true when Harry knows (probably) that it's not but implying it might be as a way of creating humor through Peter's discomfort at the label (at least that's what I would say if I were doing this for a paper). And maybe that's all sorts of wrong.

But it's hard to escape one's cultural milieu and (hopefully without endorsing subtle homophobia) it made for a natural scene to me since it is observable in the culture and it would make sense of them to behave that way, at this moment in time. And you might say that same degradation lies at the base of a lot of jokes (per the Avenue Q song, we're all "a little bit racist" but it doesn't mean we "go around committing hate crimes"). I don't think any actual malice accompanies the sentiment but if it's an inherently destructive sentiment - I don't really know what to say to that except that a lot of humor takes jabs at groups and that will probably never go away, but it doesn't mean that the same kinds of laws that were around in the 40s to accompany the humor should be in place.

And on that note, do we know Hollister's political affiliation? Or Harry's for that matter (apart from 'whatever my dad supports, I'm against')?Well, part of the reason I so dislike the name of this thread drift is because I think it makes it easy for a reader to infer that somehow I think the scene should have been done away with, when in fact I don't. I agree with several people here in that the scene seems a very natural, plausible one. I was just explaining why it didn't work for me, and all of a sudden I've got the term "gay-bashing" associated with it.

[Jim Thompson]

simple just fuck relax and rip them back and let the karma of the universe do it's job.

For example look at OJWho changed an attitude as a result of what happened to Simpson?

[DeadXMan]

jim, quite looking at things and start looking at what they are.

[DeadXMan]

jim, double post

when the day OJ got away with murder

I saw how people were worked up

on both sides

I wondered why are they celbrating/ pissed off about.

He gonna Mess up sooner or later.

the universe proved me right.

[Jim Thompson]

looking[/I] at what they are.Sure -- because everyone knows your worldview is the correct, completely objective way of exploring issues and the world around us.

If you truly feel as you say you do -- why does this discussion seem to bother you so? Why not just let karma take care of it?

[DeadXMan]

I'm not saying I'm correct

I just don't give a damn.

[Jim Thompson]

I'm not saying I'm correct

I just don't give a damn.All evidence to the contrary! :biggrin:

[DeadXMan]

there you go again reading what is said but not what isn't

[Jim Thompson]

Pity you seemed inclined to (concentrate on) what is and what isn't being said -- cause my underlying thought has been "why worry about the little stuff?"True -- but that skipped right over what others might see as being "little stuff." You seem to have made the assumption your view of what, and isn't, "little stuff" is universal. I don't believe it is.

Also, the fact you're still engaged in this discussion may show it's not as "little" as you're saying it is -- at least to you.

[Jim Thompson]

there you go again reading what is said but not what isn'tHonestly, I'm only human. I can only read what you've written (said). :biggrin:

[DeadXMan]

in the universe everything is little stuff, my friend.

but you can't see past the trees....

[Jim Thompson]

In the universe everything is little stuff, my friend.

But you can't see past the trees....Be more accurate to say in your universe everything is little stuff.

In others it's just as possible everything is big stuff. :biggrin:

[DeadXMan]

your look at is written I look at how it is written.

[DeadXMan]

Be more accurate to say in your universe everything is little stuff.

In others it's just as possible everything is big stuff. :biggrin:



no man is an island Jim.

[Jim Thompson]

your look at is written I look at how it is written.Help! I'm going to need a translation for this one!

[Jim Thompson]

No man is an island, Jim.That's one way of looking at it.

[DeadXMan]

why should tell you answers you already know?

[Jim Thompson]

why should tell you answers you already know?I'm assuming this is meant to be insulting -- but your grammar and syntax have lapsed to the point where I'm having trouble understanding what points you're trying to make. That's why I asked for help.

[DeadXMan]

Mocking, now?

Jim, you are above such fallacies.

[Jim Thompson]

Mocking, now?

Jim, you are above such fallacies.No, I'm honestly not trying to mock you. I literally can't decipher some of what you are writing.

[DeadXMan]

it's all there plan as day.

Just open your eyes, and look at it.

[steveg887]

I have no idea what's going on in this thread, and yet I can't stop reading.

[Jim Thompson]

It's all there plain as day.

Just open your eyes, and look at it.I'm truly sorry, but stuff like this --

your look at is written I look at how it is written. -- just isn't plain as day to me.

[Jim Thompson]

I have no idea what's going on in this thread, and yet I can't stop reading.I know the feeling! :biggrin:

[DeadXMan]

ah. Now you are looking at how it is writen.

Good.

[Jim Thompson]

Ah. Now you are looking at how it is written.

Good.:confused:

[steveg887]

ah. Now you are looking at how it is writen.

Good.

I'm wondering when you're going to start calling Jim "grasshopper."

[Jim Thompson]

I'm wondering when you're going to start calling Jim "grasshopper."Me too! :biggrin:

[Alan2099]

Why do some people go out of there way to find things to get pissed off about?

Also

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/308/jollyjamesonct9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Jim Thompson]

Why do some people go out of there way to find things to get pissed off about? Again, I think this thread-drift title is working against me. Why would you assume I'm P.O.ed? I was just explaining why a scene didn't work for me.

(BTW -- I'm starting to think that ought to sound like Dante in Clerks when he says "I'm not even supposed to be here today!") :biggrin:

[DeadXMan]

Me too! :biggrin:

you must first emerge from the larva stage.

[Jim Thompson]

you must first emerge from the larva stage.Working on that one -- but I'm a bear of little brain (obviously).

[DeadXMan]

A bear knows when to catch the trout.

you have yet to find the river.

[Jim Thompson]

A bear knows when to catch the trout.

you have yet to find the river.Well -- opinions vary. :biggrin:

[DeadXMan]

opinion are like colons

if you don't remove the crap you'll die of cancer

and right now the world's colon is vary full

[Jim Thompson]

opinion are like colons

if you don't remove the crap you'll die of cancer

and right now the world's colon is vary fullWell, in this we are somewhat in agreement.

[CyberHubbs]

Dick and fart jokes -- be accurate! :tongue:

That's why I think I found it to be revealing: Just a regular conversation with nothing meant by it -- just like people used to talk about blacks, or the Japanese during WWII, etc. etc.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'? Good gravy...

You do realize that Harry was making fun of Spider-Man waaaaaay more than he was making fun of an entire race of people, or sexual orientation, right? It's not like Harry was saying, "Hur hur, you're such a faggot, Peter Parker. Hur hur."

Ah, screw it. I'm bowing out of this. I'm sorry, Jim. I usually have no problem with you, but you escalating this to how people treated blacks and the Japanese in internment camps back in the day is just way too much. Have fun, guys.

[Jim Thompson]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'? Good gravy...

You do realize that Harry was making fun of Spider-Man waaaaaay more than he was making fun of an entire race of people, or sexual orientation, right? It's not like Harry was saying, "Hur hur, you're such a faggot, Peter Parker. Hur hur."

Ah, screw it. I'm bowing out of this. I'm sorry, Jim. I usually have no problem with you, but you escalating this to how people treated blacks and the Japanese in internment camps back in the day is just way too much. Have fun, guys.Actually, I think other people took care of escalating this discussion (part of the reason I disliked the title of this thread drift). I was just saying why the scene didn't work for me.

[Jim Thompson]

--and the Japanese in internment camps back in the day --I just noticed you've attributed something to me I didn't actually say, too. I was thinking about the propaganda campaign the US Government and Hollywood mounted in the 1930 and 40s, and how it led to a generally accepted derogatory view of the Japanese.

Reason I mention this is just to point out how out of context a lot of this discussion seems to be getting taken.

[Alan2099]

Why would you assume I'm P.O.ed?
Because if it wasn't a big deal for you, you wouldn't have gone on for dozens of posts telling people why you din't care for it.

[Jim Thompson]

Because if it wasn't a big deal for you, you wouldn't have gone on for dozens of posts telling people why you didn't care for it.I'd recommend you go back and read my posts. Nowhere in there did I ever say I didn't care about what I was talking about -- but being interested in the subject is not synonymous with being P.O.ed about the subject.

[Mister Mets]

Ah yes -- I forgot about South Park, the very height of humanity's cultural sophistication (followed quickly by The Family Guy.) If it is done there, it must be okay! :biggrin: Hey, South Park is brilliant cultural commentary.


Couple o' other things:

1.) Really hate the title of this thread, as it introduced gay-bashing into the conversation, which wasn't what I was talking about. I'll say again, if a thread drift is being considered, I think it'd be nice for the administrator to contact the thread's originator, or the person who started the thought that generated the proposed thread drift, to make sure he's stayed accurate to the original thought.

2.) Judging from much of the response here, it is the height of comedic genius to imply that one of your friends is gay. :biggrin:
1) In many cases, the title of the thread drift will be about what the off-topic conversation is about as opposed to the initial post. And you brought up "closet gay-bashing" in the third post.

2) Eh, it's something a lot of normal guys do. I crack jokes about it with some of my friends and my brothers.

[Matt Linton]

I find that very...revealing.

:)

[Mister Mets]

RE: Harry and Spiderman's comments. They're not at all homophobic. Honestly, as kids we do that with boys and girls for most of primary and highschool. 'Oooooh, look who has a girlfriend' and so on.

Your comments are stupid though. It is disrespectful to use the word retarded as a way of deriding something. It is disrespectful to use the word gay as a way of deriding something. It is disrespectful to use the word spastic as a way of deriding something and so on. And frankly, it doesn't matter if it bothers you. You're the perp, not the target.

The way gay is used is directly derived from the way some people spat people's orientation in their face as a way to villify them for their 'deviance'. You queer, you fag, you disgusting gay cunt and so on and so forth. It's a derogatory usage which spread to other objects so that people don't use 'like a' or any other qualifier. You're using it in a way which comes directly out of the most homophobic conditions and you don't have any standing in the world to say 'that's so gay'. Go around saying 'that's as fucked up as a nigger', and tell people it's ok to say because you think so.

It's also completely and utterly needless to say those kinds of things. I haven't even used the word retarded as a negative adjective since I was like, eight. It hasn't required much, if any, deliberate restraint either because there is no point in saying it and it just makes the user look stupid, base and uncouth.
Looking back at the original panels (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PxotHw9e2Pw/SWZ90ENSl0I/AAAAAAAAAZs/MW6L9X61F2M/s1600-h/Harry0001.jpg) it's worth recalling a few things

1) Harry Osborn and not Spider-Man's the one making the jokes (although Spidey did ask about a wrestler's husband in the movie.)

2) Nowhere do you see any derogatory terms against gays, or any social group. Harry's just busting Peter's chops about his relationship with Spider-Man.

[Don't pee in the (Dead)pool]

I find that very...revealing.

:)

It is, isn't it?LOL!:biggrin:

[Patrick Hultquist]

That's why I think I found it to be revealing: Just a regular conversation with nothing meant by it -- just like people used to talk about blacks, or the Japanese during WWII, etc. etc.


Again, that's the revealing part for me: I'm pretty certain most people, when they truly stop to think about such things, are willing to acknowledge what lies at the base of such comments is a sort of casual degradation -- but I think that degradation has become so accepted in our current society most people don't even notice it anymore.

Anyway, that's why I didn't find it all that amusing. Obviously, once again, I'm in the minority.


Well, part of the reason I so dislike the name of this thread drift is because I think it makes it easy for a reader to infer that somehow I think the scene should have been done away with, when in fact I don't. I agree with several people here in that the scene seems a very natural, plausible one. I was just explaining why it didn't work for me, and all of a sudden I've got the term "gay-bashing" associated with it.




Jim, I think you need to reread that page. Nowhere on it was Harry or Peter saying anything remotely derogatory to gays. Merely questioning someone's orientation, be it serious or joking, isn't an admission of prejudice. Unless on the next page Harry says he hates gays, then there's nothing more to this conversation as written.
I can see why you're uncomfortable with it, as my guess is that you're worried others may see this as an opportunity to gay-bash, as someone may feel validated in their beliefs by Harry Osborn's joke. But honestly Jim, anyone that messed up who needs validation from a fictional character is someone who will find that validation one way or another. I don't think this issue of ASM really set back the gay right's movement at all.

[Jim Thompson]

Jim, I think you need to reread that page. Nowhere on it was Harry or Peter saying anything remotely derogatory to gays. Merely questioning someone's orientation, be it serious or joking, isn't an admission of prejudice. Unless on the next page Harry says he hates gays, then there's nothing more to this conversation as written.
I can see why you're uncomfortable with it, as my guess is that you're worried others may see this as an opportunity to gay-bash, as someone may feel validated in their beliefs by Harry Osborn's joke. But honestly Jim, anyone that messed up who needs validation from a fictional character is someone who will find that validation one way or another. I don't think this issue of ASM really set back the gay right's movement at all.Once again -- I'm simply explaining why the scene didn't work for me. I don't think it will set back the gay right's movement or anything like that. I think it (as well as a ton of responses to my thought) reveal a societal under-current of equating "gay" with "bad" -- which is why the scene wasn't all that funny for me.

[Mister Mets]

Yeah, you're right -- Spider-Man and his supporting cast have always been closet gay bashers. :rolleyes:
How should I have interpreted this comment?

[Jim Thompson]

How should I have interpreted this comment?Balanced against the other 95 percent of what I wrote, I would hope. You didn't even include my original comment in the thread in reference to what was being discussed.

[yadadaimhollaing]

Ah yes -- I forgot about South Park, the very height of humanity's cultural sophistication (followed quickly by The Family Guy.) If it is done there, it must be okay! :biggrin:

Family guy is shit. South park is hilarious though :smile:

[RDMacQ]

Hey, South Park is brilliant cultural commentary.

................

Sure, Mets, whatever you say.

[yadadaimhollaing]

Actually, I think other people took care of escalating this discussion (part of the reason I disliked the title of this thread drift). I was just saying why the scene didn't work for me.

I got villified much worse then you did. I got quoted for my post about retarded and gay just being a cuss word to me. Anyways for the most part people didn't get too upset or worked up for anything said so its no big deal.

[Patrick Hultquist]

Once again -- I'm simply explaining why the scene didn't work for me. I don't think it will set back the gay right's movement or anything like that. I think it (as well as a ton of responses to my thought) reveal a societal under-current of equating "gay" with "bad" -- which is why the scene wasn't all that funny for me.

Well, the whole setting back the movement was just a little hyperbole on my part. :redface:

But what I'm saying is that what you're perceiving as being revealing in that exchange, I know I never saw. I understand how you saw that, but I think you're reading too much into it. Of course, while I can say I don't see it as insensitive, it doesn't matter, because I'm not gay. It would be interesting to see what a gay reader would have to say about it.

[DeadXMan]

Family guy is shit. South park is hilarious though :smile:

damn straight

they make fun of everyone equally.

[yadadaimhollaing]

damn straight

they make fun of everyone equally.

Unless you're barbara streisand :wink:
Son of a bitch barbara streisand were the words used to defeat saddam husein and the devil.

[RDMacQ]

I personally prefer Family Guy, and American Dad. They're more focused on being funny and entertaining. South Park I feel tends to criticize everyone and everything, and sometimes forgets to be entertaining. I don't laugh as much watching South Park anymore. I'm more put off by the gross out humor and the nasty underlying attitudes present in the shows.

I laugh a hell of a lot more at Family Guy and American Dad than I do with South Park. Plus any show that can have Adam West trick Alex Trebeck back into the 5th dimension, or give Patrick Stuart a two hour banjo session is OK in my books. Plus there's the Star Wars specials, which highlight things that I never though of before, but now watching the older movies again seem incredibly obvious now that Family Guy pointed them out.

[Flâneur]

Actually, I think other people took care of escalating this discussion (part of the reason I disliked the title of this thread drift). I was just saying why the scene didn't work for me.

You can change the title, you realise. Just go to advanced edit in the first post of the thread (yours) and rename it.

[Jim Thompson]

You can change the title, you realise. Just go to advanced edit in the first post of the thread (yours) and rename it.Actually, I can't, because I didn't start the thread -- otherwise I would have done that this morning.

[Mister Mets]

Actually, I can't, because I didn't start the thread -- otherwise I would have done that this morning. What title would you prefer?

[yadadaimhollaing]

I personally prefer Family Guy, and American Dad. They're more focused on being funny and entertaining. South Park I feel tends to criticize everyone and everything, and sometimes forgets to be entertaining. I don't laugh as much watching South Park anymore. I'm more put off by the gross out humor and the nasty underlying attitudes present in the shows.

I laugh a hell of a lot more at Family Guy and American Dad than I do with South Park. Plus any show that can have Adam West trick Alex Trebeck back into the 5th dimension, or give Patrick Stuart a two hour banjo session is OK in my books. Plus there's the Star Wars specials, which highlight things that I never though of before, but now watching the older movies again seem incredibly obvious now that Family Guy pointed them out.

Family guy is just boring and predictable. I laugh maybe one time during a half hour show. I loved south park because it would make fun of an issue that is supposed to be so taboo. They would just go overboard with the sarcasm and it worked out great.

[RDMacQ]

Family guy is just boring and predictable. I laugh maybe one time during a half hour show. I loved south park because it would make fun of an issue that is supposed to be so taboo. They would just go overboard with the sarcasm and it worked out great.

Well, to each his own. Family Guy isn't perfect by any means. I like it because it shares my type of humor. Not all shows are going to be great, and I think a lot of momentum that Family Guy was building was ruined because it was yanked off the air for years.

For South Park, I get the respect people have for its audacious nature. But I feel that it spends too much time trying to shock people and very few episodes at least trying to be entertaining. And with all shock tactics, people aren't always going to be shocked by the same thing. So things have to get more and more audacious. And if all you are doing is trying to provoke a reaction, then you're not spending time where you should in entertaining people. Look at entertainers like Marilyn Manson and Eminem. After their shock tactics wear off, people grow bored and indifferent with their antics. What was taboo one day just seems like childish behavior the next. And I feat thats the path South Park has already ventured down.

[BlackToe]

Family guy is just boring and predictable. I laugh maybe one time during a half hour show. I loved south park because it would make fun of an issue that is supposed to be so taboo. They would just go overboard with the sarcasm and it worked out great.

Famliy Guy is ok when they have a good episode and none of McFarlanes political opinion shoved down our throats. ie: Bush, gays, war, religion etc

[Dr. Chaos]

Family guy is shit. South park is hilarious though :smile:
Eh. Family Guy used to be pretty solid before it came back from cancellation.

Now, it's just lost heart and revels in itself.

It's still entertaining but just not the same.

It's Family Guy with a busted leg.

[Dr. Chaos]

On the other hand, I will say American Dad is excellent nine times out of ten

We need more gold turd interludes though.

[CyberHubbs]

Thread's been culled.

[Mister Mets]

Thread's been culled.
Yeah, seven posts were deleted.

One guy went way too far. This thread should not be taken as an opportunity to bash gays.

[Flâneur]

Looking back at the original panels (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PxotHw9e2Pw/SWZ90ENSl0I/AAAAAAAAAZs/MW6L9X61F2M/s1600-h/Harry0001.jpg) it's worth recalling a few things

1) Harry Osborn and not Spider-Man's the one making the jokes (although Spidey did ask about a wrestler's husband in the movie.)

2) Nowhere do you see any derogatory terms against gays, or any social group. Harry's just busting Peter's chops about his relationship with Spider-Man.

Ah, I have no problem with what happened in Spiderman and made that clear in my post (I'm unsure why you quoted me if you wished to make such a point about Spiderman?). Instead I stated my problem with the poster's view that using gay and retarded in a derogatory fashion is ok.

[Joe Acro]

You can change the title, you realise. Just go to advanced edit in the first post of the thread (yours) and rename it.
Actually, I don't believe that'll change the title of the thread, just the title of the first post. At least, that's what happened the last time I tried it.

{goes back into hole}

[yadadaimhollaing]

Were the posts that got deleted created today? I never saw any gay bashing type of posts unless they were later in the day.

[Flâneur]

Were the posts that got deleted created today? I never saw any gay bashing type of posts unless they were later in the day.

Oui.


Actually, I don't believe that'll change the title of the thread, just the title of the first post. At least, that's what happened the last time I tried it.
Ah, it works for me most of the time.

[worstblogever]

Spidey's one to talk... (http://superdickery.com/index.php?view=article&catid=32%3Aseduction-index&id=341%3Asuper-fisting-ouch&option=com_content&Itemid=24)

[Mister Mets]

Were the posts that got deleted created today? I never saw any gay bashing type of posts unless they were later in the day.Those posts were deleted within an hour.

[Jim Thompson]

Were the posts that got deleted created today? I never saw any gay bashing type of posts unless they were later in the day.I really didn't either -- and I was in that thread off and on all day. Must have happened really quick!

Thanks for changing the thread's title, too, Mets!

[Endless Flight]

Much better thread title.

[Jim Thompson]

Much better thread title.Considerably. Thanks again, Mets! :biggrin:

[TheComet]

Coming in to this a bit late but...

I don't see the humor as gay bashing. The humor is based off Peter having sex with with someone he wouldn't want to. As a heterosexual male another man would fit the bill and then some. The same joke would work just as well if it was a significantly older woman. Or an ugly one. Or someone with serious personality problems. Also if you're going to have a problem with that particular joke you'd have to have a problem with almost every comedy made in the past couple of decades. That kind of humor is really common.

[David Walton]

Coming in to this a bit late but...

I don't see the humor as gay bashing. The humor is based off Peter having sex with with someone he wouldn't want to. As a heterosexual male another man would fit the bill and then some. The same joke would work just as well if it was a significantly older woman. Or an ugly one. Or someone with serious personality problems. Also if you're going to have a problem with that particular joke you'd have to have a problem with almost every comedy made in the past couple of decades. That kind of humor is really common.

If it is a concern, though, shouldn't that common usage be addressed rather than excused? Because it's the common things that get recycled so often that we become desensitized to the implications. When criticism is aimed at an individual it's easier to address the problem. When it's spread across a culture, not so much.

[ShaggyB]

I still feel it was not meant to offend, nor do i feel it was unrealistic chatter between friends.

[Jim Thompson]

If it is a concern, though, shouldn't that common usage be addressed rather than excused? Because it's the common things that get recycled so often that we become desensitized to the implications. When criticism is aimed at an individual it's easier to address the problem. When it's spread across a culture, not so much.Exactly! :biggrin:

[yadadaimhollaing]

Those posts were deleted within an hour.

Gotcha. I'm glad the origional posts didn't get taken as bashing.

[Jim Thompson]

I still feel it was not meant to offend, nor do i feel it was unrealistic chatter between friends.I don't think it was written to offend, either.

[David Walton]

I still feel it was not meant to offend, nor do i feel it was unrealistic chatter between friends.

I don't feel there was any intentional slight in the least. As for whether it was realistic I'd say that you raise a valid point. Certainly writers can't be held accountable for everything that passes through their character's mouths and they do have to let the characters speak for themselves. As a reader, I wouldn't want restrictions imposed on what characters would and wouldn't say on the basis of offense.

That said, I suppose writers should balance the integrity of a scene with other considerations that could arise. You could ask questions like, "Is this the absolute logical conclusion of what's come before, or is it a throwaway bit?"

If it's a throway bit that doesn't add much insight into the characters other than interchangable buddy banter, I'd say the cultural considerations win out.

But this is an opportunity to discuss a cultural consideration and how certain harmful attitudes might be subtly distilled across thousands and thousands of other similiar bits, not a criticism of Slott.

It's just that the conversation about what does and doesn't promote harmful attitudes has to start somewhere. And full disclosure, I have joked in a similar light with friends. So I don't want to make it seem as though we should scrutinize and pick apart writers for everything they put out in the public, because it takes guts to be a writer.

[Jim Thompson]

I don't feel there was any intentional slight in the least. As for whether it was realistic I'd say that you raise a valid point. Certainly writers can't be held accountable for everything that passes through their character's mouths and they do have to let the characters speak for themselves. As a reader, I wouldn't want restrictions imposed on what characters would and wouldn't say on the basis of offense.

That said, I suppose writers should balance the integrity of a scene with other considerations that could arise. You could ask questions like, "Is this the absolute logical conclusion of what's come before, or is it a throwaway bit?"

If it's a throway bit that doesn't add much insight into the characters other than interchangable buddy banter, I'd say the cultural considerations win out.

But this is an opportunity to discuss a cultural consideration and how certain harmful attitudes might be subtly distilled across thousands and thousands of other similiar bits, not a criticism of Slott.

It's just that the conversation about what does and doesn't promote harmful attitudes has to start somewhere. And full disclosure, I have joked in a similar light with friends. So I don't want to make it seem as though we should scrutinize and pick apart writers for everything they put out in the public, because it takes guts to be a writer.Very much agreed. I don't think this should turn into a condemnation of Slott. I do think he wrote a very realistic scene -- and it was the realism of the scene that, in a strange way, kept it from being funny for me.

[oldschool]

I know I am late on this whole discussion but after reading the issue and digesting it, I have to say I am a little taken aback by all the sturm und drang over this scene which did not strike me as so terribly out of place or unrealistic. I certainly would have felt differently had the scene depicting Harry calling Peter a "tinkerbell" or some equally offensive homosexual stereotype. But a buddy just busting chops (and in a fairly innocuous manner at that) to me does not justify raised eyebrows and comparisons of this sort of ribbing to racism that have been brought up in this thread.

It is correct that latent phobias are often defended by "just kidding" but sometimes "just kidding" is......just kidding. Otherwise, where does it end? Spidey can't call Ock pudgy? A 20-something best pal can't tease his best bud about having a secret relationship with a costumer who wears tights? C'mon. Again, had Harry made some other type of ignorantly stereotypical remark, I would feel differently but, in this context, much ado about nothing methinks.

[James Conniff]

It is correct that latent phobias are often defended by "just kidding" but sometimes "just kidding" is......just kidding. Otherwise, where does it end? Spidey can't call Ock pudgy? A 20-something best pal can't tease his best bud about having a secret relationship with a costumer who wears tights? C'mon. Again, had Harry made some other type of ignorantly stereotypical remark, I would feel differently but, in this context, much ado about nothing methinks.

I agree with you here, sir. I read the scene as something I would say to my friends, or something they would say to me. I give two of my friends crap all the time saying they are dating because they live together and have known each other for years and are genuinely very close, which normally ends with one of the two saying something along the lines of "See you back at home babe" or " What, jealous? "

[oldschool]

I agree with you here, sir. I read the scene as something I would say to my friends, or something they would say to me. I give two of my friends crap all the time saying they are dating because they live together and have known each other for years and are genuinely very close, which normally ends with one of the two saying something along the lines of "See you back at home babe" or " What, jealous? "

Yeah, same here. I also notice that there are plenty of gay characters now on TV that rib each other and joke in a similar fashion and sometimes even in the reverse manner by mocking a straight male friend's bad fashion sense or something similar. Is it knee-slapping humor? No. Is it high-brow humor? No. Is it worthy of note because of some hidden subtext that may lead to societal problems? Uh, no.

[spiderman_rj]

You really think taking a shot at a man for having a boyfriend isn't somehow closet gay-bashing?

No, i think its a honest question.But if it was a joke, it was a joke among two friends, the kind of thing i used to do a lot in my teen days.

i dont think i ever offended my other friend who was gay or bi,but never showed any discontent.

[Jim Thompson]

I know I am late on this whole discussion but after reading the issue and digesting it, I have to say I am a little taken aback by all the sturm und drang over this scene which did not strike me as so terribly out of place or unrealistic. I certainly would have felt differently had the scene depicting Harry calling Peter a "tinkerbell" or some equally offensive homosexual stereotype. But a buddy just busting chops (and in a fairly innocuous manner at that) to me does not justify raised eyebrows and comparisons of this sort of ribbing to racism that have been brought up in this thread.

It is correct that latent phobias are often defended by "just kidding" but sometimes "just kidding" is......just kidding. Otherwise, where does it end? Spidey can't call Ock pudgy? A 20-something best pal can't tease his best bud about having a secret relationship with a costumer who wears tights? C'mon. Again, had Harry made some other type of ignorantly stereotypical remark, I would feel differently but, in this context, much ado about nothing methinks.Just a quick rip on someone for potentially being gay, right? :biggrin:

[RDMacQ]

Just a quick rip on someone for potentially being gay, right?

Yeah, Pete's been getting that a lot lately, from a lot of different creators. "Pete has so many relationship problems. I wonder if he's gay???"

Yeah, a guy who's had a steady stream of girlfriends ever since High School, ALL of them drop dead gorgeous in one way or another. AND he's been in a committed relationship with a beautiful redhead for years. Yeah, this strikes me as a guy who's in the closet.

How come nobody brings up the fact that a woman he was close to was brutally murdered? One might think THAT'S a reason Pete could be having relationship problems, because he doesn't want to let anybody get too close after Gwen died.

When you think about it, it does seem a little juvenile AND close minded that writers would look at Peter Parker relationship problems and imply that the reason for them is that he may be in the closet. I think it says more about the person making the assumption than the person its targeted to.

I kid you not on this, but twice in a one year period, I got someone trying to tell me Spider-Man's gay. Happened at my job. Once when I started, my boss came over to shoot the breeze with me, find out a little bit about me. He started asking me about comics, and which hero I liked. I casually said I liked Spider-Man. Out of nowhere, one of my co-workers said to me "You know he's gay, you know. It's been proven" I of course, was dumbfounded. For one, I was pretty sure I knew Spider-Man better than this guy, and second, I don't know what reaction he was looking to illicit. I think he was more trying to get me to flip out, so he could laugh at me and my reactions. But it says a lot about a person that they assume someone would think that calling someone's favorite superhero gay is an insult. Thankfully, that coworker is no longer there. But wouldn't you know it, a few weeks ago, another coworker was asking me about my favorite superhero to which I had the same response. And again, she told me "you know he's gay right?"

...................

I really don't know what to say at this point. I am just dumbfounded that homosexuality can still be used as a slight against someone or something, looking to illicit a negative reaction. I hoped that we were moving beyond that, but I can still see we have a long way to go.

[Endless Flight]

Hey, they just means that he's happy. Yeah, that's it. :biggrin:

[BlackToe]

I really don't know what to say at this point. I am just dumbfounded that homosexuality can still be used as a slight against someone or something, looking to illicit a negative reaction. I hoped that we were moving beyond that, but I can still see we have a long way to go.

Well, why cant it be used as a rip on someone?

[JamesOliva]

Well, why cant it be used as a rip on someone?

Because it's non-PC and offensive to those who are gay and heaven forbid people get offended and forced to develop thick skin.

[Gilda Dent]

Well, why cant it be used as a rip on someone?

It can. That's part of the problem. It's a form of bigotry that's still socially acceptable in contexts where racism or sexism wouldn't be.

[BlackToe]

Because it's non-PC and offensive to those who are gay and heaven forbid people get offended and forced to develop thick skin.

No kidding. People are too soft nowadays. Fuck PC.

Hell, even Halloween got changed to "Black and Orange" Day somewhere in the east prairies because of some uppity "witches". :rolleyes:

[BlackToe]

It can. That's part of the problem. It's a form of bigotry that's still socially acceptable in contexts where racism or sexism wouldn't be.

Part of the problem??? Get real. Hypocritical PC'ness is the problem in my opinion. Everything should be free game.

[Gilda Dent]

Part of the problem??? Get real. Hypocritical PC'ness is the problem in my opinion. Everything should be free game.

With which part of my post do you take issue? It's difficult for me to tell from what you write here.

[BlackToe]

With which part of my post do you take issue? It's difficult for me to tell from what you write here.

That depends on what your stance is, on PC. I think we're misunderstanding each other now.

[RDMacQ]

Well, why cant it be used as a rip on someone?

Well, because it implies that being gay IS something to be ashamed of. That being a homosexual is somehow detrimental to your character.

Homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of. But a lot of people have lost touch with their families, their former lives, have had their lives threatened both verbally and physically all for the simple fact that they love someone of the same sex. All because they have accepted who they are and have chosen not to live a lie. And that's not counting all those who stayed in the closet, sometimes their entire lives, all because they were afraid to be true to themselves for fear of reprisal.

Sure, we can say its just riffing. People need to grow a thick skin. Its just a little un-PC humor, and we need to grow up. But the thing is, what is just a little harmless riffing one day becomes horribly taboo the next. When someone is being ignored, its no longer OK to say "hey, what am I, black?" Or to boast that you got a good deal on something by saying you "jewed the guy down." Or say that you "rikey something very much." These could've been passed off as just "kidding around" back in the day, but now these are HORRIBLE things to say.

Times change, cultures change. What is OK one day is no longer acceptable the next. We need to be careful what we say, because what we merely take as harmless kidding around could be seen as very insensitive and ignorant by future generations.

[Gilda Dent]

Well, because it implies that being gay IS something to be ashamed of. That being a homosexual is somehow detrimental to your character.

Homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of. But a lot of people have lost touch with their families, their former lives, have had their lives threatened both verbally and physically all for the simple fact that they love someone of the same sex. All because they have accepted who they are and have chosen not to live a lie. And that's not counting all those who stayed in the closet, sometimes their entire lives, all because they were afraid to be true to themselves for fear of reprisal.

Sure, we can say its just riffing. People need to grow a thick skin. Its just a little un-PC humor, and we need to grow up. But the thing is, what is just a little harmless riffing one day becomes horribly taboo the next. When someone is being ignored, its no longer OK to say "hey, what am I, black?" Or to boast that you got a good deal on something by saying you "jewed the guy down." Or say that you "rikey something very much." These could've been passed off as just "kidding around" back in the day, but now these are HORRIBLE things to say.

Times change, cultures change. What is OK one day is no longer acceptable the next. We need to be careful what we say, because what we merely take as harmless kidding around could be seen as very insensitive and ignorant by future generations.

I love you.

[Gilda Dent]

That depends on what your stance is, on PC. I think we're misunderstanding each other now.

I don't know what you mean by "hypocritical PCness" being the problem.

My position, in case it wasn't clear the first time, is that homophobia, or at least homophobic language, is still socially acceptable in contexts in which racism or sexism would not be, and this is a problem. It is a good thing, in my opinion, that it's socially unacceptable in most contexts to make casual racist or anti-Semitic remarks, to demean others based on their status without having anything of substance to say about them.

[BlackToe]

Well, because it implies that being gay IS something to be ashamed of. That being a homosexual is somehow detrimental to your character.

So? Where's my free card about being blonde and white growing up and living in a native neighborhood and metis family? Why is saying anything not remotely positive about being gay taboo? Everything should be free game. If not, nothing should be. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.


Homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of. But a lot of people have lost touch with their families, their former lives, have had their lives threatened both verbally and physically all for the simple fact that they love someone of the same sex. All because they have accepted who they are and have chosen not to live a lie. And that's not counting all those who stayed in the closet, sometimes their entire lives, all because they were afraid to be true to themselves for fear of reprisal.

Not everybody is a winner. Alot of people have problems. That doesnt mean society should issue out immunity cards because somebodies feelings would get hurt.


Sure, we can say its just riffing. People need to grow a thick skin. Its just a little un-PC humor, and we need to grow up. But the thing is, what is just a little harmless riffing one day becomes horribly taboo the next. When someone is being ignored, its no longer OK to say "hey, what am I, black?" Or to boast that you got a good deal on something by saying you "jewed the guy down." Or say that you "rikey something very much." These could've been passed off as just "kidding around" back in the day, but now these are HORRIBLE things to say.

No longer according to you. To me I dont care. I have said racial remarks and will continue to say whatever I want to say in the future. Everybody does, I'm just a person that admits it. A uptight hypocritical PC US society is not my problem. It hasnt proved to be a problem in the past, even got some laughs, but why would it be a problem now?


Times change, cultures change. What is OK one day is no longer acceptable the next. We need to be careful what we say, because what we merely take as harmless kidding around could be seen as very insensitive and ignorant by future generations.

You're worried about offending the future?!? My god...how PC can you get???

[Flâneur]

So? Where's my free card about being blonde and white growing up and living in a native neighborhood and metis family? Why is saying anything not remotely positive about being gay taboo? Everything should be free game. If not, nothing should be. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.



Not everybody is a winner. Alot of people have problems. That doesnt mean society should issue out immunity cards because somebodies feelings would get hurt.



No longer according to you. To me I dont care. I have said racial remarks and will continue to say whatever I want to say in the future. Everybody does, I'm just a person that admits it. A uptight hypocritical PC US society is not my problem. It hasnt proved to be a problem in the past, even got some laughs, but why would it be a problem now?



You're worried about offending the future?!? My god...how PC can you get???
I'm confused, why is being offensive and re-enforcing the embedded assumptions that LGBT persons should be ashamed of something to be proud of? It takes zero effort not to do it to someone. Also, the idea of PC is propaganda created by the conservatives to deride people who weren't using racist, misogynistic or homophobic terms. It doesn't mean what you think it means nor does it come from the place you think.

And there is no hypocrisy. To be respectful of and promote equality for any group, even in a linguistic sense, something positive. There's no hypocrisy if you're helping to create an equitable situation.

[BlackToe]

I don't know what you mean by "hypocritical PCness" being the problem.

My position, in case it wasn't clear the first time, is that homophobia, or at least homophobic language, is still socially acceptable in contexts in which racism or sexism would not be, and this is a problem. It is a good thing, in my opinion, that it's socially unacceptable in most contexts to make casual racist or anti-Semitic remarks, to demean others based on their status without having anything of substance to say about those others.

I say hypocritical PC'ness, because thats exactly what it is. It champions that everybody is equal when they are clearly not. Even the action of Political Correctness is hypocritical as it shoots down and ridiculous ANYBODY that doesnt conform to it. A risk of offending somebody indeed... :rolleyes:

Why should someone have to like something or someone when they themselves feel that they dont? Because "modern" society might be angry?

[Flâneur]

I say hypocritical PC'ness, because thats exactly what it is. It champions that everybody is equal when they are clearly not. Even the action of Political Correctness is hypocritical as it shoots down and ridiculous ANYBODY that doesnt conform to it. A risk of offending somebody indeed... :rolleyes:
That's like saying a law against murder is hypocritical because it only targets murderers. The notion of being considerate applies to all.

It also should be noted that holding an unpopular opinion is very different from being a minority. It's an individual thing which is fair game, as you'd put it, while being LGBT, of another race, another gender, whatever, is not. 'PC' is nothing if not consistent.



Why should someone have to like something or someone when they themselves feel that they dont? Because "modern" society might be angry?
Because LGBT people as a whole aren't 'someone'. You can dislike whoever you like based on them as an individual ... an entire minority? Not so much.

[BlackToe]

I'm confused, why is being offensive and re-enforcing the embedded assumptions that LGBT persons should be ashamed of something to be proud of? It takes zero effort not to do it to someone. Also, the idea of PC is propaganda created by the conservatives to deride people who weren't using racist, misogynistic or homophobic terms. It doesn't mean what you think it means nor does it come from the place you think.

Because thats just how the world operates. The world isnt fair. Being gay should'nt mean a automatic immunity to anything in my opinion, like me being white and blonde.

It doesnt matter what the origins were to PC'ness. That became irrelevant when political groups were using that as ammunition because they were offended by such and such.


And there is no hypocrisy. To be respectful of and promote equality for any group, even in a linguistic sense, something positive. There's no hypocrisy if you're helping to create an equitable situation.

And yet if somebody has a different opinion or outlook on life?

[Gilda Dent]

I say hypocritical PC'ness, because thats exactly what it is.

It's PC because it's PC. Got it.


It champions that everybody is equal when they are clearly not. Even the action of Political Correctness is hypocritical as it shoots down and ridiculous ANYBODY that doesnt conform to it. A risk of offending somebody indeed... :rolleyes:

Why should someone have to like something or someone when they themselves feel that they dont? Because "modern" society might be angry?

Did I advocate forcing someone to adopt a specific set of beliefs? I don't think I did. Outside of equal treatment under the law, including employment, housing, and access to public facilities, nobody should be forced to accept others if they don't want to do so.

This does not, however, mean that we (as a society) should sit back and let intolerance go unchallenged. Ideally I would want people to be free to believe and say what they want--I'm a big supporter of the first amendment--while at the same time such behaviors would be made socially unacceptable and marginalized as much as possible, as has been done with the use of racial and anti-Semitic slurs.

[Mister Mets]

Yeah, Pete's been getting that a lot lately, from a lot of different creators. "Pete has so many relationship problems. I wonder if he's gay???"

Yeah, a guy who's had a steady stream of girlfriends ever since High School, ALL of them drop dead gorgeous in one way or another. AND he's been in a committed relationship with a beautiful redhead for years. Yeah, this strikes me as a guy who's in the closet.

How come nobody brings up the fact that a woman he was close to was brutally murdered? One might think THAT'S a reason Pete could be having relationship problems, because he doesn't want to let anybody get too close after Gwen died.

When you think about it, it does seem a little juvenile AND close minded that writers would look at Peter Parker relationship problems and imply that the reason for them is that he may be in the closet. I think it says more about the person making the assumption than the person its targeted to.

I kid you not on this, but twice in a one year period, I got someone trying to tell me Spider-Man's gay. Happened at my job. Once when I started, my boss came over to shoot the breeze with me, find out a little bit about me. He started asking me about comics, and which hero I liked. I casually said I liked Spider-Man. Out of nowhere, one of my co-workers said to me "You know he's gay, you know. It's been proven" I of course, was dumbfounded. For one, I was pretty sure I knew Spider-Man better than this guy, and second, I don't know what reaction he was looking to illicit. I think he was more trying to get me to flip out, so he could laugh at me and my reactions. But it says a lot about a person that they assume someone would think that calling someone's favorite superhero gay is an insult. Thankfully, that coworker is no longer there. But wouldn't you know it, a few weeks ago, another coworker was asking me about my favorite superhero to which I had the same response. And again, she told me "you know he's gay right?"

...................

I really don't know what to say at this point. I am just dumbfounded that homosexuality can still be used as a slight against someone or something, looking to illicit a negative reaction. I hoped that we were moving beyond that, but I can still see we have a long way to go.I can only think of one other instance in which anyone in the comics made a comment about Peter possibly being in the closet. And in this case, Peter made the mistake of saying "What I have with Spider-Man? Honestly? That's something else." So Harry responded in kind.

There's no indication that Harry believes that Peter's gay. He's just riffing on his friend for something he knows isn't true. If Peter ever were to say "What I have with Hillary Clinton? Honestly? That' something else" Harry would respond in a similar way.

[BlackToe]

It's PC because it's PC. Got it.

Well, what do you really think it is? I call it completely hypocritical and detrimental to society. I also call it forced censorship.


Did I advocate forcing someone to abide by a certain standard of conduct? I don't think I did. Outside of equal treatment under the law, including employment, housing, and access to public facilities, nobody should be forced to accept others if they don't want to do so.

No, but teaching respective tolerance is better than teaching PC'ness. You're right, nobody should be forced to accept others if they dont want to do so. Judging people of their character is more important than lumping political agendas or groups or people.

For instance, what classification is this; I like black people, but hate niggers. I like white people, but hate useless white trash. I like homosexuals, but hate fags etc

(Somebody actually even gave me PC shit on here because I said hate nazi scum. :confused: )


This does not, however, mean that we (as a society) should sit back and let intolerance go unchallenged. Ideally I would want people to be free to believe and say what they want--I'm a big supporter of the first amendment--while at the same time such behaviors would be made socially unacceptable and marginalized as much as possible, as has been done with the use of racial and anti-Semitic slurs.

See, that is a example of hypocrisy I was referring to in my opinion.

Fighting intolerance where its needed is good, but fighting every single little thing is going overboard.

[Mister Mets]

I'm confused, why is being offensive and re-enforcing the embedded assumptions that LGBT persons should be ashamed of something to be proud of? It takes zero effort not to do it to someone. Also, the idea of PC is propaganda created by the conservatives to deride people who weren't using racist, misogynistic or homophobic terms. It doesn't mean what you think it means nor does it come from the place you think.

And there is no hypocrisy. To be respectful of and promote equality for any group, even in a linguistic sense, something positive. There's no hypocrisy if you're helping to create an equitable situation.While the idea of Political Correctness is often used to excuse awful behavior, it's not just conservative propaganda (unless Bill Maher and George Carlin were Republicans). It has often gone overboard, as perfectly acceptable terms become sanitized (IE- "shell shock" becoming "post traumatic stress disorder") other words start to lose their meaning (IE- "special") and some individuals take offense for ridiculous reasons (see the wikipedia article "Uses of the word nigardly" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22) and sometimes contribute to situations in which the great maxim "Truth is a bar absolute" does not apply.

[Mister Mets]

Well, what do you really think it is? I call it completely hypocritical and detrimental to society. I also call it forced censorship.



No, but teaching respective tolerance is better than teaching PC'ness. You're right, nobody should be forced to accept others if they dont want to do so. Judging people of their character is more important than lumping political agendas or groups or people.

For instance, what classification is this; I like black people, but hate niggers. I like white people, but hate useless white trash. I like homosexuals, but hate fags etc

(Somebody actually even gave me PC shit on here because I said hate nazi scum. :confused: )



See, that is a example of hypocrisy I was referring to in my opinion.

Fighting intolerance where its needed is good, but fighting every single little thing is going overboard.If you wish to continue a general conversation on Political Correctness, I recommend the "You'll All Be Sorry" forum or the community forum.

This is the flipside of the political correctness debate, as you can say something outrageous and stupid and try to use backlash against Political Correctness as a shield. In this case, not everyone has the same definition of certain words that you do. For example: "white trash."

Words take a very different meanings if they can be associated with violence (Let's beat the fag!) or lost economic opportunities (I'm not selling this house to a kike. I'm not hiring a nigger.) These words have mostly negative connotations, and can represent unambiguous harm to certain people.

While I get upset when Political Correctness is used as an excuse to censor what may be the truth, those instances shouldn't be used as an excuse to be intentionally offensive, or willfully ignorant.

[Gilda Dent]

Well, what do you really think it is? I call it completely hypocritical and detrimental to society. I also call it forced censorship.

I was making a joke. Saying something is PC because it is PC is a circular argument, and thus, meaningless.

Let me try one more time. When you say something is "hypocritical PC'ness", I don't know what that means. Could you try explaining without using the term "PC"?


No, but teaching respective tolerance is better than teaching PC'ness.


You're right, nobody should be forced to accept others if they dont want to do so. Judging people of their character is more important than lumping political agendas or groups or people.

I agree re: judging people by their character as individuals first. This is why bigotry is a problem that should be made socially unacceptable. Bigotry, bigoted language, is judging people based on status rather than as individuals and serves as a barrier to understanding others as individuals.


For instance, what classification is this; I like black people, but hate niggers. I like white people, but hate useless white trash. I like homosexuals, but hate fags etc

I'd classify the first as a Chris Rock quote. I'd need clarification as to what you meant by the second statement before I'd be able to make a fair appraisal. It's a term sometimes used to group all poor white people into a single stereotype, and when used in that manner is unfairly prejudicial. As for the third, I can't conceive of any circumstance in which the statement "I hate fags" would be one that I would find anything less than repugnant. There may be one, and I'd be interested to hear what the speaker saw as the difference between homosexual men and fags and why it's acceptable to hate the latter, but right now I can't think of an explanation that wouldn't lead me to the conclusion that this person was homophobic.


See, that is a example of hypocrisy I was referring to in my opinion.

If that's hypocrisy, I'm more than happy to join Voltaire among the ranks of hypocrites. I don't think either one of us is a hypocrite, however. Being in favor of a person's right to say or do something and simultaneously disapproving of their actions carries with it no contradiction.


Fighting intolerance where its needed is good, but fighting every single little thing is going overboard.

I agree. It's a matter of where we draw the lines. Nobody here is arguing for abolition of insensitive language, but those using such language should be aware of the effect that it has on others when they're using it.

The word "fag" is going to carry more weight to someone who has been targeted by that word on a regular basis, sometimes accompanied by acts of violence or vandalism, who has seen people she cared about hospitalized by people for whom using it was no big deal.

When that has been your experience, you see the issue differently. Words do matter.

[Flâneur]

While the idea of Political Correctness is often used to excuse awful behavior, it's not just conservative propaganda (unless Bill Maher and George Carlin were Republicans). It has often gone overboard, as perfectly acceptable terms become sanitized (IE- "shell shock" becoming "post traumatic stress disorder") other words start to lose their meaning (IE- "special") and some individuals take offense for ridiculous reasons (see the wikipedia article "Uses of the word nigardly" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22) and sometimes contribute to situations in which the great maxim "Truth is a bar absolute" does not apply.

Actually, I think the term itself 'political correctness' was used as rhetoric by the right wing within parliament to vilify even the basic restraint used by the left back in the day. The left then appropriated it ironically. It's origins are why it's so easily lent to the cause of justifying offensive behaviour with the whole PC is evil and oppressing me line. It's almost exactly what it was designed for.

While the term may have found common usage amongst the public, partly thanks to the backlash, as the neutering of linguistic meaning, it's still something of a misappropriation of what the term is about, IMO. It's similar to how most reference Jesus' birth as an immaculate conception or the way supercilious seems to now mean something else entirely according to most people.

[ZeoVGM]

Okay, late to this thread, and I haven't read most of it, but seriously Jim?

Lighten up.

Seriously? GAY BASHING? I showed it to three gay friends of mine, all males, and they thought it was funny.

Yes, he was poking fun at him, as if he had a boyfriend. Why? Because he's straight. Yes, that is what he was doing. And it's okay. Because it's a joke. He didn't say "Hey, so Peter, looks like you're a faggot." Yet you acted like that's what happened.

It wasn't gay bashing. Jesus. It's crap like this that is bringing the world down into the horrific pool of political correctness.

The worst part about this is that you're trying to act above it all, by saying you never talk like that.

At one point, in your life, you have said something that another sex, sexuality, race, or whatever, would find offensive. That is a fact. Every one of us has done it and will do it again.

And that's okay. As long as it's not from HATE, and it's just a joke, that's OKAY.

If it sounds as if I'm mad or annoyed at this, don't be mistaken. I am. People need to relax and not be offended by such small little things, then reading into them far too much. Just chill.

[BlackToe]

If you wish to continue a general conversation on Political Correctness, I recommend the "You'll All Be Sorry" forum or the community forum.

This is the flipside of the political correctness debate, as you can say something outrageous and stupid and try to use backlash against Political Correctness as a shield. In this case, not everyone has the same definition of certain words that you do. For example: "white trash."

I was thinking on the fly. I could'nt decide if I wanted to use cracker or local lingo. It doesnt matter anyways. It wasnt personal opinion as it was more of a purposeful rhetorical comment intended to bring out my point. I think people got the jist of it.

Those were examples for a larger point I was trying to make. Much like the word and usage of "punk", stereotypes and racial slurs have found balance with their usage in society weither people want to believe it or not. That was what I was getting at with that example comment. I'm not going to apologize for saying anything, but it is going largely off-topic so I dont intend to pursue this particular subject branch here.


Words take a very different meanings if they can be associated with violence (Let's beat the fag!) or lost economic opportunities (I'm not selling this house to a kike. I'm not hiring a nigger.) These words have mostly negative connotations, and can represent unambiguous harm to certain people.

Everything is going to be different when its associated with violence and economic discrimination though. They dont need a set list of reasons. Those things just happen and will continue to happen weither people like it or not until the human race is gone. People may want stamp it out, but things like that are almost genetic. I can accept it and move on, its not a big deal for me. And I've been the victim of both.


While I get upset when Political Correctness is used as an excuse to censor what may be the truth, those instances shouldn't be used as an excuse to be intentionally offensive, or willfully ignorant.

I agree, but when it gets continually used in a irritating hypocritical manner, much like how its been doing for the past 10 years or so? It starts losing its luster and makes people want to speak out and speak their opinion no matter how offensive it might be. (Within common reason)


I was making a joke. Saying something is PC because it is PC is a circular argument, and thus, meaningless.

Let me try one more time. When you say something is "hypocritical PC'ness", I don't know what that means. Could you try explaining without using the term "PC"?

Then I have been reading you wrong. I apologize.

By "Hypocritical PC'ness" is a term I coined because in my opinion, thats what it is now. Political correctness was intended to promote a balance for tolerance in society. But when it starts doubling over on itself, abused and literally being hypocritical, then its made into a farce. With every little person that feels offended over such meaningless things (ie: Halloween, saying "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays", and changing "Christmas tree" into "Holiday tree" or "Red and Green tree" or smoking), it changes for the majority and doesnt help at all.

I mean we all, if not most, laugh at racial humor. Even our own races, it is quite funny sometimes. But if certain groups have their way, they wouldnt have any of that. And that would be hypocritical, because they would just be using it has a form of agenda driven censorship.


I agree re: judging people by their character as individuals first. This is why bigotry is a problem that should be made socially unacceptable. Bigotry, bigoted language, is judging people based on status rather than as individuals and serves as a barrier to understanding others as individuals.

But you cant stamp out bigotry. Thats what I'm trying to get at here. Its always going to be there in some form or another. We just have to adapt to it. If somebody asks you certain particular questions right at this moment. You could find you yourself a bigot as well as I or anyone else here

All those things you mentioned are in the world and have been in the world as long as humans were humans. (Maybe even before if you think about it. When protohumans were still somewhat tribal.) Its never going to go away. Its the reality of the situation.


I'd classify the first as a Chris Rock quote. I'd need clarification as to what you meant by the second statement before I'd be able to make a fair appraisal. It's a term sometimes used to group all poor white people into a single stereotype, and when used in that manner is unfairly prejudicial. As for the third, I can't conceive of any circumstance in which the statement "I hate fags" would be one that I would find anything less than repugnant. There may be one, and I'd be interested to hear what the speaker saw as the difference between homosexual men and fags and why it's acceptable to hate the latter, but right now I can't think of an explanation that wouldn't lead me to the conclusion that this person was homophobic.

Those were just random as I was trying to make a larger point as I explained above. It didnt matter specifically what each said as it was rhetorical.



I agree. It's a matter of where we draw the lines. Nobody here is arguing for abolition of insensitive language, but those using such language should be aware of the effect that it has on others when they're using it.

The word "fag" is going to carry more weight to someone who has been targeted by that word on a regular basis, sometimes accompanied by acts of violence or vandalism, who has seen people she cared about hospitalized by people for whom using it was no big deal.

When that has been your experience, you see the issue differently. Words do matter.

Words do matter, but thats up to the person receiving them in my opinion. It shouldnt be forced programmed into society to make certain words taboo. Mainly because its a futile measure. If its not this, it will be that and so on. And what we're going to be left with is a big mess, because it also opens the door for anybody who has a gripe with a certain word or terminology. As well as it toughens ones skin so to speak and brings a sense of reality. I hate to admit it, but its somewhat a necessary evil so to speak. Its just something you have to learn to deal with in life.

I say just let things happen and let things be up to you if you make the right decision or not. Karma is a bitch. :smile:

[Jim Thompson]

My position, in case it wasn't clear the first time, is that homophobia, or at least homophobic language, is still socially acceptable in contexts in which racism or sexism would not be, and this is a problem. It is a good thing, in my opinion, that it's socially unacceptable in most contexts to make casual racist or anti-Semitic remarks, to demean others based on their status without having anything of substance to say about them.Good post! I completely agree with this thought. It's what drove my thinking when I posed the original thought, and it's why the scene at the end of #582 doesn't work for me.

[Jim Thompson]

The worst part about this is that you're trying to act above it all, by saying you never talk like that.

At one point, in your life, you have said something that another sex, sexuality, race, or whatever, would find offensive. That is a fact. Every one of us has done it and will do it again.Your point seems not to argue the rightness or wrongness of such actions, but instead says since it's a foregone conclusion in your mind it will happen anyway, why bother to try and change the behavior. How far would you extend this logic? To all areas of human behavior? Where's your cut off point?

BTW -- just because some people act in a certain way, it's not a given all people act in that way.


And that's okay. As long as it's not from HATE, and it's just a joke, that's OKAY.Perhaps for the individual who told the joke (particularly if they are speaking from ignorance), as he or she doesn't think they have the potential to be hurt by the remark.

[Jim Thompson]

It champions that everybody is equal when they are clearly not. I agree -- but would also point out people's lack of equality really doesn't have anything to do with their sexual preferences -- until a society decides it should be held against them.

Did I advocate forcing someone to adopt a specific set of beliefs? I don't think I did. Outside of equal treatment under the law, including employment, housing, and access to public facilities, nobody should be forced to accept others if they don't want to do so.

This does not, however, mean that we (as a society) should sit back and let intolerance go unchallenged. Ideally I would want people to be free to believe and say what they want--I'm a big supporter of the first amendment--while at the same time such behaviors would be made socially unacceptable and marginalized as much as possible, as has been done with the use of racial and anti-Semitic slurs.Agreed.

[Jim Thompson]

This is the flipside of the political correctness debate, as you can say something outrageous and stupid and try to use backlash against Political Correctness as a shield.

While I get upset when Political Correctness is used as an excuse to censor what may be the truth, those instances shouldn't be used as an excuse to be intentionally offensive, or willfully ignorant.Very much agreed. Well said, sir!

[ZeoVGM]

Your point seems not to argue the rightness or wrongness of such actions, but instead says since it's a foregone conclusion in your mind it will happen anyway, why bother to try and change the behavior. How far would you extend this logic? To all areas of human behavior? Where's your cut off point?

Nah, you're exaggerating. I'm speaking clearly and definitively about something simple as this: quick little side remarks.


BTW -- just because some people act in a certain way, it's not a given all people act in that way.

I'm not talking about people who "act" that way. I'm talking about, again, quick little side remarks, like the remark this thread is about.

And everyone has done one, relating to sexual orientation, gender, race, wealth, whatever it may be. You have said something someone could find offensive in your life. As have I. And you will again. And I will again. That's how humans are.

Because when it comes down to it, most of us don't say it out of hate. I truly believe if the end of this issue made you UPSET, you need to perhaps lighten up about things. Because you are in a very VERY small minority. And should comedy be censored because someone might be offended? ABSOLUTELY not.

[JamesOliva]

No kidding. People are too soft nowadays. Fuck PC.

Hell, even Halloween got changed to "Black and Orange" Day somewhere in the east prairies because of some uppity "witches". :rolleyes:

for real? Jeez...

[ShaggyB]

for real? Jeez...

yep hes not lie'n. I remember reading that and going WTF?

People are too worried about offending people now. If I said Merry Christmas to you and you were not a Christian, did i truly offend you? Its like saying have a nice day, week, month....

Some people need to lighten up.

[Jim Thompson]

Nah, you're exaggerating. I'm speaking clearly and definitively about something simple as this: quick little side remarks.



I'm not talking about people who "act" that way. I'm talking about, again, quick little side remarks, like the remark this thread is about.

And everyone has done one, relating to sexual orientation, gender, race, wealth, whatever it may be. You have said something someone could find offensive in your life. As have I. And you will again. And I will again. That's how humans are.

Because when it comes down to it, most of us don't say it out of hate. I truly believe if the end of this issue made you UPSET, you need to perhaps lighten up about things. Because you are in a very VERY small minority. And should comedy be censored because someone might be offended? ABSOLUTELY not.Well, the first thing I'd say is just repeating something I've reiterated throughout this thread: I wasn't upset by the discussion at the end of the issue -- I said that the nature of it kept the exchange from being funny for me (or working for me).

As to your other thoughts:

Making quick little side remarks is taking an action. It might mean nothing to the person taking the action, but it is still an action, and, because you are human as you say, it will always be revealing. You say that's putting too much weight on something; I say it's a matter of perspective. Lot of people discussing this in this thread, for example, have no problem with the comment, but take the suggestion it might be in any way revealing of something fairly unflattering very seriously. Which one becomes important is more a matter of worldview and the individual's willingness to try and look outside whatever their worldview is than anything else, I think.

I don't disagree that people will say offensive things, but I think a difference in what's being argued as acceptable has emerged here. I think if something is said in true ignorance there is nothing that can be done about that; it will, as you say happen. But that's really not what people are arguing in a lot of cases here. The argument here seems to be the comment could potentially be taken as being demeaning, but people just need to get over that. And I would say that's an attitude that, historically, has been around forever. But it doesn't mean people have to be accepting of it.

Couple of people here seem to get what I was driving at and why the end of the book just didn't work for me, while some others seemed to get really upset I even pointed out the possibility for that scene exposing a deeper social issue and attitude. For me, the phrase, "well I didn't mean to hurt you," is too often a code for, "Well, I didn't want to take the time to consider if what I'm saying will potentially hurt someone (or is derogatory in some way)."

As always, I remain a bear of little brain, so I hope this makes some sense, y'all! I'm off in search of honey. :biggrin:

[David Walton]

And that's okay. As long as it's not from HATE, and it's just a joke, that's OKAY.

Sometimes, as the saying goes, we hurt the ones we love.

Point being that if you were to add it all up, quite a bit of human suffering comes from people who never meant to cause harm.

Because this is the Spider-Man thread, let's put it like this. Peter didn't let the burglar pass by because he secretly resented Ben Parker, but as a result of his actions, people he loved were hurt.

By the way, Zeo, you make some compelling arguments as to why this situation isn't that serious (your friends who weren't offended). I'm not sure I'm convinced but it's a good argument. I'm open to it.

But I think we move into dangerous territory when we start to judge the merits of an action by intent alone.

[Jim Thompson]

for real? Jeez...For real -- just like one school's parents got in an uproar at Thanksgiving for having children dressed up as Indians, which they saw as being derogatory to native Americans.

[oldschool]

Sometimes, as the saying goes, we hurt the ones we love.

Point being that if you were to add it all up, quite a bit of human suffering comes from people who never meant to cause harm.

Because this is the Spider-Man thread, let's put it like this. Peter didn't let the burglar pass by because he secretly resented Ben Parker, but as a result of his actions, people he loved were hurt.

By the way, Zeo, you make some compelling arguments as to why this situation isn't that serious (your friends who weren't offended). I'm not sure I'm convinced but it's a good argument. I'm open to it.

But I think we move into dangerous territory when we start to judge the merits of an action by intent alone.

Theo, that is a good post and I especially agree with your last line. However (and I posted something similar earlier), I would agree more with the sentiment that this could be construed as offensive if the comments were more insensitive. Harry did not accuse Peter of being a "tinkerbell" or anything ignorant like that.....he didn't say if he was gay, that would be a bad thing. No, he just joked that he and Spidey seem to be very close and maybe you prefer men over women. Little elbow to the ribs, ha ha, end of story.

If we are going to get worked up over this, I guess we should take exception also the dozens of "shorty" jokes thrown Wolverine's way. Or the dozens of "fatso" cracks Spidey has laid on Kingpin (and, to a lesser extent, Doc Ock).
What's the difference and when do we just say "Ah, it's a joke. not one I found particularly funny, but no harm, no foul"? :confused:

[Jim Thompson]

Theo, that is a good post and I especially agree with your last line. However (and I posted something similar earlier), I would agree more with the sentiment that this could be construed as offensive if the comments were more insensitive. Harry did not accuse Peter of being a "tinkerbell" or anything ignorant like that.....he didn't say if he was gay, that would be a bad thing. No, he just joked that he and Spidey seem to be very close and maybe you prefer men over women. Little elbow to the ribs, ha ha, end of story.

If we are going to get worked up over this, I guess we should take exception also the dozens of "shorty" jokes thrown Wolverine's way. Or the dozens of "fatso" cracks Spidey has laid on Kingpin (and, to a lesser extent, Doc Ock).
What's the difference and when do we just say "Ah, it's a joke. not one I found particularly funny, but no harm, no foul"? :confused:This is the "It's a matter of degree" argument -- by which every action and behavior we have is defined as being excusable, dependent on circumstance.

It's a legitimate argument/philosophy -- just not one I happen to agree with.

[Joe Rice]

My God. Spider-fans will argue about ANYTHING. FOREVER.

[Jim Thompson]

My God. Spider-fans will argue about ANYTHING. FOREVER.Sure -- as will anyone, given their level of interest. Could be worse -- we could be talking politics and/or religion. :biggrin:

[David Walton]

Theo, that is a good post and I especially agree with your last line. However (and I posted something similar earlier), I would agree more with the sentiment that this could be construed as offensive if the comments were more insensitive.

I think you're right that this isn't especially offensive. I think it is a good opportunity to discuss whether all things considered it would be better not to include humor along these lines.


Harry did not accuse Peter of being a "tinkerbell" or anything ignorant like that.....he didn't say if he was gay, that would be a bad thing. No, he just joked that he and Spidey seem to be very close and maybe you prefer men over women. Little elbow to the ribs, ha ha, end of story.

I actually think that having Harry be homophobic would be potentially less offensive down the line. Given Norman's emphasis on strength and masculinity, and Harry's comparatively effeminate nature, it makes sense that Harry would react against homosexuality. If it's expanded on as a character flaw and not a throwaway bit it makes more sense.

I'd actually argue that if Harry was revealed as such the humor of that line might have flowed better.


If we are going to get worked up over this, I guess we should take exception also the dozens of "shorty" jokes thrown Wolverine's way. Or the dozens of "fatso" cracks Spidey has laid on Kingpin (and, to a lesser extent, Doc Ock).
What's the difference and when do we just say "Ah, it's a joke. not one I found particularly funny, but no harm, no foul"? :confused:

It's a tough question because so much of humor is essentially mean-spirited.

I think part of the problem lies in how alienated a particular culture feels. There are jokes that are taken in good spirit now (say Chris Rock) because the civil rights movement was successful for African-Americans (which isn't to say it's finished by any means). At this point I think gay rights are still at a more sensitive stage, but I could be wrong. I'm no expert.

And I'm going to sound cheesy here, but I miss the old 80s sitcoms because generally speaking, the humor was less mean-spirited than something along the lines of "Two and a Half Men." I think we ought to promote good natured humor to the extent that it's possible.

As an example of how you can kind of have your cake and eat it, too, I'd put forward "The Big Bang Theory." It's essentially an extended "comic book geeks are pathetic" gag, but really, it's not. Why? Because the writers clearly respect the comic/video game/university culture, flesh out the characters, and know the lingo. Maybe that's just an odd thought, I don't know.

[Jim Thompson]

I actually think that having Harry be homophobic would be potentially less offensive down the line. Given Norman's emphasis on strength and masculinity, and Harry's comparatively effeminate nature, it makes sense that Harry would react against homosexuality. If it's expanded on as a character flaw and not a throwaway bit it makes more sense.

I'd actually argue that if Harry was revealed as such the humor of that line might have flowed better. That's a pretty good idea, I think. Makes sense to me, anyway.

[oldschool]

That's a pretty good idea, I think. Makes sense to me, anyway.


I thought so too and was about to post the same.....

[David Walton]

And it would seem to gel with Harry's playboy personality--an extreme attempt to flaunt his masculinity by going through several wives and girlfriends.

[oldschool]

And it would seem to gel with Harry's playboy personality--an extreme attempt to flaunt his masculinity by going through several wives and girlfriends.

Hmmmmm.....the ASM writers could certainly do worse than to pick up on that notion going forward.....

[David Walton]

Hmmmmm.....the ASM writers could certainly do worse than to pick up on that notion going forward.....

Well if they do react to that comment we'll either see it in the fourth ASM Extra special or sometime in 2012...

[Jim Thompson]

Hmmmmm.....the ASM writers could certainly do worse than to pick up on that notion going forward.....Maybe -- though I suspect there would be at least some fan resistance to the idea. Personally, I think Theo's on to something with that.

[Jim Thompson]

Well if they do react to that comment we'll either see it in the fourth ASM Extra special or sometime in 2012...Which would be retconned out in 2013! :biggrin:

[oldschool]

I think you're right that this isn't especially offensive. I think it is a good opportunity to discuss whether all things considered it would be better not to include humor along these lines.



I actually think that having Harry be homophobic would be potentially less offensive down the line. Given Norman's emphasis on strength and masculinity, and Harry's comparatively effeminate nature, it makes sense that Harry would react against homosexuality. If it's expanded on as a character flaw and not a throwaway bit it makes more sense.

I'd actually argue that if Harry was revealed as such the humor of that line might have flowed better.



It's a tough question because so much of humor is essentially mean-spirited.

I think part of the problem lies in how alienated a particular culture feels. There are jokes that are taken in good spirit now (say Chris Rock) because the civil rights movement was successful for African-Americans (which isn't to say it's finished by any means). At this point I think gay rights are still at a more sensitive stage, but I could be wrong. I'm no expert.

And I'm going to sound cheesy here, but I miss the old 80s sitcoms because generally speaking, the humor was less mean-spirited than something along the lines of "Two and a Half Men." I think we ought to promote good natured humor to the extent that it's possible.

As an example of how you can kind of have your cake and eat it, too, I'd put forward "The Big Bang Theory." It's essentially an extended "comic book geeks are pathetic" gag, but really, it's not. Why? Because the writers clearly respect the comic/video game/university culture, flesh out the characters, and know the lingo. Maybe that's just an odd thought, I don't know.

Back to the other point about fat jokes, short jokes, etc.----you mention (correctly, I believe) that it all depends on how alienated a particular culture feels. Well, there are organizations for large people, short people, people of all types that fight constantly against insensitive/ignorant portrayals in media.

This goes back (at least!!) to "The Honeymooners" where Alice constantly made fat jokes at Ralph's expense. I don't believe anyone for a minute thought they were really mean and somehow made other large people appear lesser by any means.

I guess I don't want to be the guy who says "relax and lighten up" because I do think that some humor, left unchecked, can spread into more ignorant and hurtful forms. But I do think that this scene was just a legitimately realistic scene between two twenty-something guys and, having been one, the ball-busting that goes along with it. I found this no different than if Harry told Peter "hey, you better cut back on the carbs there, buddy!" if Peter suddenly showed up sporting a gut. (Now there's a new story that can be told!!) :biggrin:

[Jim Thompson]

I guess I don't want to be the guy who says "relax and lighten up" because I do think that some humor, left unchecked, can spread into more ignorant and hurtful forms. But I do think that this scene was just a legitimately realistic scene between two twenty-something guys and, having been one, the ball-busting that goes along with it. I found this no different than if Harry told Peter "hey, you better cut back on the carbs there, buddy!" if Peter suddenly showed up sporting a gut. (Now there's a new story that can be told!!) :biggrin:I've read this several times throughout this thread, about how the scene is realistic and the question that keeps popping into my head is, has someone here suggested otherwise?

[oldschool]

I've read this several times throughout this thread, about how the scene is realistic and the question that keeps popping into my head is, has someone here suggested otherwise?


Well, you certainly have not and you have also stated that you don't believe it was meant offensively (agreed). But you did state several times that you thought it "revealed" something. I suggest that it did not in fact reveal any latent homophobia (not saying you made that accusation) or that it revealed anything else alarming, at least not to me; it was just "realistic". Again, I found this to be about the same as any other dick/fart joke.....not a knee-slapper but also not anything that raised my particular antennae about the fall of whatever little American culture we have....

[ShaggyB]

Sure -- as will anyone, given their level of interest. Could be worse -- we could be talking politics and/or religion. :biggrin:

lol dont we do that too??? :wink:

[ShaggyB]

Well, you certainly have not and you have also stated that you don't believe it was meant offensively (agreed). But you did state several times that you thought it "revealed" something. I suggest that it did not in fact reveal any latent homophobia (not saying you made that accusation) or that it revealed anything else alarming, at least not to me; it was just "realistic". Again, I found this to be about the same as any other dick/fart joke.....not a knee-slapper but also not anything that raised my particular antennae about the fall of whatever little American culture we have....

bingo.....

what theo is saying could be an underside to the character, if marvel took it there, but as it stands now..... I doubt harry or pete are bashing the gay community. More over i feel harry is poking at pete for not explaining his relation with spider-man to him....

PS. im just jumping in and i realize you quoted jim.....

[Jim Thompson]

Well, you certainly have not and you have also stated that you don't believe it was meant offensively (agreed). But you did state several times that you thought it "revealed" something. I suggest that it did not in fact reveal any latent homophobia (not saying you made that accusation) or that it revealed anything else alarming, at least not to me; it was just "realistic". Again, I found this to be about the same as any other dick/fart joke.....not a knee-slapper but also not anything that raised my particular antennae about the fall of whatever little American culture we have....I don't think it reveals a latent homophobia as much as it reveals how we use language to potentially degrade one another, in this case using a subset of our culture as a way of basically calling someone weird. It's nothing Earth-shattering, true, but as you have noted -- I think it's sort of revealing about the culture.

Now, if you really want to strain your noodle, explain to me what's the difference between being gay and being a lesbian -- and when the distinction started filtering into common language ("Gays and lesbians marched on Washington D.C. today...") :biggrin:

[ShaggyB]

I don't think it reveals a latent homophobia as much as it reveals how we use language to potentially degrade one another, in this case using a subset of our culture as a way of basically calling someone weird. It's nothing Earth-shattering, true, but as you have noted -- I think it's sort of revealing about the culture.

Now, if you really want to strain your noodle, explain to me what's the difference between being gay and being a lesbian -- and when the distinction started filtering into common language ("Gays and lesbians marched on Washington D.C. today...") :biggrin:

Gay use to mean happy, now it refers to sexuality. An in bashing terms the use of the word gay does mean weird, strange or not right.... I feel for people learning english sometimes......

oh and the difference is that the terms mean the same thing but one is now exclusive for males while the other is female only.

[Jim Thompson]

oh and the difference is that the terms mean the same thing but one is now exclusive for males while the other is female only.I'd also suggest that it is very slowly coming to be used to mean "bad" and "good", too.

[ShaggyB]

I'd also suggest that it is very slowly coming to be used to mean "bad" and "good", too.

i follow you, that was the 80s btw, least thats when i first heard... "thats gay" being uttered in a reference to something being bad.

Lesbian though.... i wouldnt say thats considered good universally. (how much are we really allowed to say without offending or being banned for this topic?)

[Jim Thompson]

(how much are we really allowed to say without offending or being banned for this topic?)Probably have taken this about as far as it should be taken at this point. For the most part, people are starting to repeat themselves in reference to the question about the issue anyway.

[StoneGold]

[COLOR=Sienna][FONT=System]People used to do that with black people, too. :biggrin:


People asked if their friends were black?

[Jim Thompson]

People asked if their friends were black?That'd be cute if it had been in reference to the comment I was responding to. :tongue:

[James Conniff]

People asked if their friends were black?

Just Steven Colbert.

[yadadaimhollaing]

My God. Spider-fans will argue about ANYTHING. FOREVER.

at least this thread isnt about the deal with the devil for a change :eek: :biggrin:

[yadadaimhollaing]

Originally Posted by Jim Thompson
Sure -- as will anyone, given their level of interest. Could be worse -- we could be talking politics and/or religion. :biggrin:
Originally Posted by shaggy
lol dont we do that too??? :wink:


thankfully no, mets does a great job with the politics. posts on politics dont get moved they get deleted :smile:

[Jim Thompson]

at least this thread isnt about the deal with the devil for a change :eek: :biggrin:Speaking of which --

-- just kidding! :tongue:

[RDMacQ]

Speaking of which --

-- just kidding!

Also, why did Peter have to be single in order for Harry to make a gay joke about him and Spider-Man???

Y'know, while we're playing with fire and all.....

[Muscles Coleman]

I mentioned it in the thread for 583... but did you see that Bert and Ernie comment this week? Total gay bashing... Marvel is on a hate-roll.