# Conan makes a whoopsie



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 11, 2013)

Linky-dinky

Apparently everything is sacred in today's world.  Sometimes a joke is just a joke.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 11, 2013)

A joke that isn't funny by Conan O'Boring? A regular day, in other words. Nothing to see here.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 11, 2013)

That's what you think.  The Legion of Offended happen to think otherwise.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 11, 2013)

I'm offended to see his ginger face on tv.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 11, 2013)

Me too.  That's neither here nor there, however.  Hmm ... maybe there.  A little.


----------



## Dog Moon (Nov 11, 2013)

What I don't get is why it's considered 'racist'.  Muslims are a part of a Religion, just like Christians are a part of their Religion.  If I make a joke about Christians, it isn't a racist joke... so why is making a joke about Muslims considered a racist joke?


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 11, 2013)

Dog Moon said:


> What I don't get is why it's considered 'racist'.  Muslims are a part of a Religion, just like Christians are a part of their Religion.  If I make a joke about Christians, it isn't a racist joke... so why is making a joke about Muslims considered a racist joke?



Are you christian? I'm not a fan of "you can't say that cause you not part of that group", but it is true that sometimes people are not familiar with what is offensive for another group. Is this the case? I do not care, but it is always good to change the group involved with Jews to see if suddenly it becomes unacceptable. 

Personally, I just want that giant unfunny ginger head to be gone. /weaps


----------



## Lwaxy (Nov 11, 2013)

Dog Moon said:


> What I don't get is why it's considered 'racist'.  Muslims are a part of a Religion, just like Christians are a part of their Religion.  If I make a joke about Christians, it isn't a racist joke... so why is making a joke about Muslims considered a racist joke?




It isn't, it is, if such a word exists, religionist. Because such a word does not exist it's considered racist because obviously, most Muslims are of Arab or African or Asian heritage. 

That this view is, to a Caucasian Muslim, equally racist is typically ignored. Way of the world. 

In any case, religion is not a topic for EN World, neither is racism unless it is in connection to gaming matters.


----------



## Dog Moon (Nov 12, 2013)

I wasn't trying to start anything racial or religionist... I just noticed that the article mentioned the joke to be racist.  That's why I like the word 'prejudice' because it isn't specific.

And no I'm not Christian, that was just the first Religion I could think of besides Islam to use for my example.


----------



## Dog Moon (Nov 12, 2013)

I did notice that there was mention in that link to Jimmy Kimmel regarding Chinese people.  I don't know what surprised me more: that a little child would say we should just kill all Chinese people or that it managed to make it onto the air....


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 12, 2013)

Dog Moon said:


> I did notice that there was mention in that link to Jimmy Kimmel regarding Chinese people.  I don't know what surprised me more: that a little child would say we should just kill all Chinese people or that it managed to make it onto the air....



This kid responded to this question: 







> The comment was made by a young boy during an unscripted segment called "Kids' Table," after Kimmel asked a roundtable of children how the United States should repay its $1.3 trillion debt to China. Both ABC and Kimmel have since apologized for the comment, and are no longer airing "Kids' Table."



I think racism should not be swept under the rug.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer (Nov 12, 2013)

I thought you were talking about Conan The Harbarian. I require all relevant information in the thread title.


----------



## Dog Moon (Nov 12, 2013)

goldomark said:


> This kid responded to this question: I think racism should not be swept under the rug.




I get that.  I take it that segment is done live instead of recorded beforehand?


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 12, 2013)

Doesn't matter.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Nov 12, 2013)

sanishiver said:


> I thought you were talking about Conan The Harbarian. I require all relevant information in the thread title.




Me too.

Damn, I really must remember this place has changed since the OTTers came over.


----------



## Lwaxy (Nov 12, 2013)

This places changes a little with every new poster. It would even change without new posters over time. The posting habits of some people may not be to everyone's liking, however complaining about a thread title borders on the ridiculous.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Nov 12, 2013)

Lwaxy said:


> This places changes a little with every new poster. It would even change without new posters over time. The posting habits of some people may not be to everyone's liking, however complaining about a thread title borders on the ridiculous.




Really?

Actually, new blood is welcome. New blood that keeps on with their posts about race, religion and politics - you know, the topics that have been banned here since the site first began - are not. 

It wasn't the title that bothered me. It was that, once again, an OTTer was deliberately ignoring the no race, no religion and no politics rule. Now, I realise you are a mod and so you will probably tell me to report posts. I do. And then I place the poster on my ignore list. Just as I am doing in this instance.

Seriously, no race, no religion and no politics is a pretty simple rule.


----------



## Lwaxy (Nov 12, 2013)

The thread title isn't violating any rules though. 

And great, if more people would use the ignore function less issues would arise


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 12, 2013)

Dog Moon said:


> I did notice that there was mention in that link to Jimmy Kimmel regarding Chinese people.  I don't know what surprised me more: that a little child would say we should just kill all Chinese people or that it managed to make it onto the air....




I thought the Jimmy Kimmel show was live, and the Kids Table section was unscripted. That would explain how it got to air.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 12, 2013)

Dog Moon said:


> I did notice that there was mention in that link to Jimmy Kimmel regarding Chinese people.  I don't know what surprised me more: that a little child would say we should just kill all Chinese people or that it managed to make it onto the air....




I'm always surprised when people say they're surprised some kid said something silly.  I mean, Bill Cosby had a show called 'Kids Say the Darndest Things' for a raeson, yanno?  

It made it onto the air because most people understood it was totally harmless.  The reason it was let go was _precicely because _it was ludicrous.  The kid was being a ham for the camera as kids are wont to do.  It's kind of the bit, I imagine.  I've never watched Kimmel myself (not since The Man Show anyway) but I can take a good guess as to why they used kids in a segment like that.



sanishiver said:


> I thought you were talking about Conan The Harbarian. I require all relevant information in the thread title.




Do I really need to explain which Conan I'm talking about especially considering the fact that Conan O'Brien has been in the news of late while Conan the Barbarian (an admittedly superior subject) has not?  Really?  

If this was a joke, well, I like it.  



Scrivener of Doom said:


> Really?
> 
> Actually, new blood is welcome. New blood that keeps on with their posts about race, religion and politics - you know, the topics that have been banned here since the site first began - are not.
> 
> ...




*ahem*

Know what bothers me?  People who make baseless assumptions and then act all high and mighty about their position even though it's based upon a complete fabrication.  I'm also bothered by people who want to talk about me but refuse to address me directly - either via PM or right here in the thread.  Where I come from, _that's _poor form.  Very poor form.

Anyhoo, as I'm the one who started the thread I'm pretty confident that I can address the why behind it a hell of a lot better than you can.  And your why is completely wrong.  Notice, if you will, that my post mentioned nothing about racism, religion or politics.  Nothing at all, as a matter of fact.  I avoided those topics where some others (*cough* you *cough*) chose not to.  I was talking about the humor aspect and how today quite a few people don't understand the difference between something intended as a joke and something downright mean.  I was _hoping _to start a conversation about that - humor as it's taken of late - because it's sort of tangentially related to the way some see us here.  So yeah, you're wrong.  Totes wrong.

It's unfortunate you chose to ignore me before actually talking to me because maybe you'd have seen how wrong your assumptions were.  Wait ... no it isn't.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 12, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> Seriously, no race, no religion and no politics is a pretty simple rule.




"No race" has never been one of the rules.

The rule is: no real-world religion or politics.  Discussions of race often stray into politics, as do discussions of gender equality.  When they do, they have to be dealt with.

I note also that we were loosening up a bit well before the OTTers came around, to allow discussions of sexism and racism _within the gaming community_.  And still, we watch those to make sure they stay short of the politics line, and will close them or moderate folks who become too vehement in their delivery.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 12, 2013)

It occurs to me that I should talk a little about *why* the rules are what they are, as that feeds into what the OP intended to speak about.

Take, as granted, that EN World's basic mission is to be a place where folks talk about RPGs, with a secondary mission to hang out, socialize, and discuss geeky stuff that aren't RPGs, specifically.

Again, take as granted, that the Internet is a wild and woolly place, where a lot of people feel very strongly about a great many things.  Also, in text, our ability to express nuance and the parts of human communication that come with body language and vocal tone is extremely limited.  And finally, internet pseudo-anonymity brings a great many people on the internet to behave badly, and to care little about their audience.

The rules are there to support EN World in its basic mission.  Rule #1 is "Keep it civil" - if discussion ceases to be civil, discussion stops altogether, and the mission fails.  The bans on politics and religion are because, on the whole, the internet has proven a really bad place to have civil conversations about those topics.  Too many people feel too strongly about them, and they general devolve into name-calling and acrimony.  Since most of the time those topics have squat-all to do with RPGs, eliminating them loses us very little, and makes for a handy shortcut to Rule #1.

Now, let's talk about humor for a minute. It is an easily demonstrable fact that beyond some very basic bits (body humor and slapstick, for instance) humor has never been universal among humans.  Humor is, instead, context and audience dependent.

So, while I know some folks would prefer that everyone else accept their humor as humor, that is an unrealistic expectation.  Then add in the "wild and woolly place with strong feelings" issues, and you start seeing the problem - there's no way you can expect everyone to think what you're saying is a joke, and they are apt to feel very strongly about it if you are trying to joke in the politics and religion (or race, or gender equality) areas.

Such joking may be acceptable among a small group of friends.  And sure, you could get an audience for George Carlin, Dennis Leary, Margaret Cho, or Richard Pryor who will accept such a joke, but they are self-selected when they come to watch the show.  EN Wold users are *not* selected to all agree on such jokes.  So, you can expect them to be an issue.  I recommend you use them sparingly, or not at all.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 12, 2013)

Now _that's _more like it.  First, let me explain that the no religion/politics thing is something very easy to understand.  Now that that's out of the way, we can talk about humor.  It's pretty apparent that the toobz make it difficult to obviously convey a joking tone - that's something that can only happen with familiarity.  It's also pretty apparent that different people will have different tastes and that the net is a place where many, many different people gather.  With all of that said, though, I think it's also pretty apparent that we need to keep in mind that people do, in fact, joke around even on the ol' webby.  Assuming the worst right off the bat isn't a practical or fair approach.  That's not to say that offense should not be voiced, of course, but it is important to understand that people aren't always trying to offend.  Sometimes a joke is just a joke.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 12, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Assuming the worst right off the bat isn't a practical or fair approach.




Well, it is not fair for folks to still be suffering under the various -isms, but they still have to.  In terms of comparing unfairness, "I got pigeonholed as a jerk on one internet discussion board," is kind of small change, isn't it?  

As for practicality - I return to the point of the internet being a wild and woolly place, with lots of people who *are* looking to give offense, or who really just dont' care about others.   In terms of risk management, assuming the worst off the bat may well be more practical than you imagine.  



> That's not to say that offense should not be voiced, of course, but it is important to understand that people aren't always trying to offend.  Sometimes a joke is just a joke.




In the 70s and 80s, the big battles were against issues of racism and sexism and such that were overt and intended.  Having had some (but not complete) success on that front, folks have also started considering and confronting the cases where the issues are not overt and intended, but present regardless.  I mean, I can cause you monetary loss without intending to.  I can break your nose without intending to.  So, we can expect that you can do other harm without intending to.  

Sometimes, a joke was intended as a joke, sure.  But sometimes I was only just swinging the wiffle bat around for fun, and I still whacked you in the eye.  The question then becomes - how much leeway should one be given?  It certainly isn't a question with a clear-cut answer.  Some will say that really, you should be allowed to swing the bat around to the fully length of your arms, and anyone in the way should just watch out for themselves.  Others will say that this really should be a "no wild swinging" zone.  There will be some who figure that, whatever the explicit rules, as a mature adult, you should know better from the start, and be careful until you figure out the local tolerance for things.

So, again, I think we are in the zone where you cannot reasonably expect everyone to take things the same way.  All you can expect (around here) is that, however they take it, they keep their responses basically civil.  They get to think what they want, in the end.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 12, 2013)

Dog Moon said:


> What I don't get is why it's considered 'racist'.  Muslims are a part of a Religion, just like Christians are a part of their Religion.  If I make a joke about Christians, it isn't a racist joke... so why is making a joke about Muslims considered a racist joke?




While you are correct that jokes about religion are not always racist, this one actually is.  The joke was about Ms. Marvel being a polygamist (even though she's actually a 16 year old Jersey girl).  The joke was basically saying that since she's Muslim, she must fit the funny stereotypes of those brown people from the other side of the world.  That's racist, both by assuming her racial and cultural heritage based off of her religion, and by laughing at that culture.

There are actually a lot of connections between religion and race.  Some religions are extremely racially diverse, while others are extremely uniform.  By making assumptions about racial and religious connections, it's pretty easy to jump from racist to religionist and back again without much effort.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 12, 2013)

Kimmel's problem is that they should have known better.  Either they should have been running with a delay, if live, to prevent "unfortunate events" from hitting the airwaves, or they aired a segment they edited and reviewed.  They'll take a hit, and deserved,y so, the only question is how much.

As for this:



> It made it onto the air because most people understood it was totally harmless. The reason it was let go was precicely because it was ludicrous. The kid was being a ham for the camera as kids are wont to do. It's kind of the bit, I imagine. I've never watched Kimmel myself (not since The Man Show anyway) but I can take a good guess as to why they used kids in a segment like that.




I've seen enough neo-Nazi/klan, racist, gay bashing, etc. kids on the news to not take it as given that the kid in question was not espousing the kind of stuff he hears at home as opposed to merely being a doofus.  So I can't just give them a pass, here.

It should not have aired.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 12, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Well, it is not fair for folks to still be suffering under the various -isms, but they still have to.  In terms of comparing unfairness, "I got pigeonholed as a jerk on one internet discussion board," is kind of small change, isn't it?




Yes, but it's also a largely avoidable thing.  I'm not attempting to compare racism and internet morons, either.  



> As for practicality - I return to the point of the internet being a wild and woolly place, with lots of people who *are* looking to give offense, or who really just dont' care about others.   In terms of risk management, assuming the worst off the bat may well be more practical than you imagine.




If one truly desires a place of civil discourse then one should probably not advise assuming the worst - practical or not.  One of the sacrifices civility requires is that those expecting it must also display it.  If one's first interaction is to be branded a jerkwad for something they said in jest and to have that label placed on them because of an assumption that was made about them then it's hard to see why they'd believe that the place in question was one where civility was truly the goal, no?

Basically, I understand the reason to assume the worst of people.  What the people that do assume the worst of people need to understand is that that assumption says quite a bit about them, too, and that what it says is most certainly not 'I'm all about civil discourse'.  

Oh, one more thing: When you assume the worst and the person you make that assumption about wasn't intending the worst you place upon them a certain expectation.  That label begins to define them and, after some time struggling against a stigma they didn't earn, it's not uncommon for them to become what you said they were.  You really can create your own monsters.



> In the 70s and 80s, the big battles were against issues of racism and sexism and such that were overt and intended.  Having had some (but not complete) success on that front, folks have also started considering and confronting the cases where the issues are not overt and intended, but present regardless.  I mean, I can cause you monetary loss without intending to.  I can break your nose without intending to.  So, we can expect that you can do other harm without intending to.
> 
> Sometimes, a joke was intended as a joke, sure.  But sometimes I was only just swinging the wiffle bat around for fun, and I still whacked you in the eye.  The question then becomes - how much leeway should one be given?  It certainly isn't a question with a clear-cut answer.  Some will say that really, you should be allowed to swing the bat around to the fully length of your arms, and anyone in the way should just watch out for themselves.  Others will say that this really should be a "no wild swinging" zone.  There will be some who figure that, whatever the explicit rules, as a mature adult, you should know better from the start, and be careful until you figure out the local tolerance for things.
> 
> So, again, I think we are in the zone where you cannot reasonably expect everyone to take things the same way.  All you can expect (around here) is that, however they take it, they keep their responses basically civil.  They get to think what they want, in the end.




Oh, I would never suggest you can expect people to take things the same way.  What I think you can expect - or should be able to, at least - in a place of civil discourse is to not have people immediately assume the worst.  

And people do get to think what they want.  Unfortunately what I've seen so far has indicated that they tend to think something, refuse to verify their assumption and then put you on ignore.  Not ... civil.  At all.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I've seen enough neo-Nazi/klan, racist, gay bashing, etc. kids on the news to not take it as given that the kid in question was not espousing the kind of stuff he hears at home as opposed to merely being a doofus.  So I can't just give them a pass, here.
> 
> It should not have aired.




So now since some people are racist everyone has to be racist?  Can't you see how that's unfair to that kid?  I guess it doesn't matter, though.  He's just some scumbag raised by scumbags ... that you never met.

Part of the problems we see today, IMO, are that people take every damned thing - especially about themselves - waaaay the bleep too seriously.  We all need to get over ourselves.  We'd all be a lot happier if we did.  Think about it: Some kid says something dumb (again, the entire premise of a massively popular television show) and there's actual protests about it.  Actual feet in the street over it.  Seriously.  People are demanding another man be fired over this.  Something stupid a kid said.  And they didn't stop there, did they?  They also march with pictures comparing the man who's show the joke aired on to _Adolph Bleeping Hitler_.  Nobody's complaining about that, though.  Nobody has a problem withthat _actual defamation_, though.  Meh, get over yourselves - everyone.  Me too.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 12, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Yes, but it's also a largely avoidable thing.




Sorry, I don't think I sufficiently connected the dots.  

Could they, in theory, avoid the unfairness on you?  Yes.  But, as a practical matter, attempting to do so may not be in their best interests.  If there are enough jerks, or the jerks are really bad, then taking the time to determine each and every case becomes a losing proposition.  Then, it is not irrational or impractical to expect folks to have to demonstrate a certain level of goodwill before cutting them slack.

Basically, jerks in the world have taught people to be pretty wary.  If, in practice, 90% (or some high percentage) of the time people who start out like jerks turn out to actually be jerks, they'll have learned to not bother with the 10%.  They are unlikely to change just because you feel it is unfair.  

And to be honest, we get new users all the time who have no problem quickly coming to terms with how EN World works.  You guys are kind of an anomaly in that regard, and I suspect your unity of identity as OTTers actually worked against you in this.



> If one's first interaction is to be branded a jerkwad for something they said in jest and to have that label placed on them because of an assumption that was made about them then it's hard to see why they'd believe that the place in question was one where civility was truly the goal, no?




Well, here we get to a pertinent point - how much do they care what you think?  See above - yes, they may be branding a decent person as a jerk.  But, if the odds are against that, then they won't be too worried about it.



> What the people that do assume the worst of people need to understand is that that assumption says quite a bit about them, too, and that what it says is most certainly not 'I'm all about civil discourse'.




If you really are all about fairness - If how you behave doesn't say what they think it does, it probably follows that how they behave doesn't necessarily say what you think it does, either.  Two way street, and all that.

You tell us what it doesn't say, to you.  You don't tell us what it does say, to you.  That's leaving things open to interpretation, you know.  Given the context, is that what you really want to do?

I posit that what it really says is that they've been burned too often and too badly before to make being open to such initial salvos seem reasonable, to them.  That's not inconsistent with being about civility, it simply means they have a higher burden-of-proof threshold than you'd like.



> Unfortunately what I've seen so far has indicated that they tend to think something, refuse to verify their assumption and then put you on ignore.  Not ... civil.  At all.




Dude, do note we have *thousands* of users.  How many have actually done this?  Are you sure you're not painting with too broad a brush.

In addition, while you may not like it, there's nothing uncivil about choosing who you want to talk to, based on your own reasons.  If they find your style unpleasant, for whatever reason, they don't owe it to you to talk with you.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 12, 2013)

Deset Gled said:


> While you are correct that jokes about religion are not always racist, this one actually is.  The joke was about Ms. Marvel being a polygamist (even though she's actually a 16 year old Jersey girl).  The joke was basically saying that since she's Muslim, she must fit the funny stereotypes of those brown people from the other side of the world.  That's racist, both by assuming her racial and cultural heritage based off of her religion, and by laughing at that culture.




I am not sure this is the case though. I do agree a lot of people carry ethnic assumptions when it comes to Islam, but Conan O'brien really doesn't strike me as the sort who does and i didn't see that at work here. I didnt get the impression that he was making any assumptions about her race, so much as he was making assumptions about her marital practices based on her religion. I think it is comparable to a joke about mormon polygamists. In both Islam and Mormonism, polygyny is rare but does (or has) occur (ed) and is accociated with the faiths. In islam it tends to vary considerably by region. There are definitely a ton of incorrect assumptions about this aspect of Islam. Whether targeting a religion for humor is appropriate is another question. Personally, i don't like to belittle peoples' beliefs or lack of beliefs, but i also think it is important that religion be subject to the same criticism and freedom of expression as other institutions. I am always a bit wary though when folks clamp down on comedians for tackling religion for that reason or when they say religion is off limits for critique or humor. I think if you go there, then you potentially lose great works like Life of Brian. At the end of the day though, whether or not the joke was offensive, i think it just wasn't funny and felt like a real lazy effort. It was about as clever as a fart joke.

i cannot speak for muslims. My guess is some will take offense, and some will not. I did study Islam in college as part of my middle east history focus and its a much more complex and interesting faith than many people realize (and a lot of what you see in places like Saudi Arabia are actually newer developments in the religion). One of the good things that these sorts of controversies lead to is an opportunity for people to learn more.  



> There are actually a lot of connections between religion and race.  Some religions are extremely racially diverse, while others are extremely uniform.  By making assumptions about racial and religious connections, it's pretty easy to jump from racist to religionist and back again without much effort.




It is worth pointing out that Islam is a racially and ethnically diverse religion. It is also a huge faith that spans much of the globe. It is not limited to the middle east and north africa.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 12, 2013)

Umbran, this is probably a incredibly stupid question, but what is an OTTer?


----------



## Darkness (Nov 12, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Umbran, this is probably a incredibly stupid question, but what is an OTTer?




http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?347920-Ask-an-OTTer&p=6213185&viewfull=1#post6213185

(Also, it's not a stupid question.)


----------



## billd91 (Nov 12, 2013)

Deset Gled said:


> While you are correct that jokes about religion are not always racist, this one actually is.  The joke was about Ms. Marvel being a polygamist (even though she's actually a 16 year old Jersey girl).  The joke was basically saying that since she's Muslim, she must fit the funny stereotypes of those brown people from the other side of the world.  That's racist, both by assuming her racial and cultural heritage based off of her religion, and by laughing at that culture.
> 
> There are actually a lot of connections between religion and race.  Some religions are extremely racially diverse, while others are extremely uniform.  By making assumptions about racial and religious connections, it's pretty easy to jump from racist to religionist and back again without much effort.




I am unconvinced it was a racist joke. The same could pretty much have been applied if the character in question was publicized as a Mormon. Would that have made it racist too? Or would that have been waved off the racist label because the vast majority of Mormons are, understandably given the church's own racist history, Caucasian?

I do think that jokes aimed at Islam do run the risk of being viewed as racist more than jokes aimed at any other religion for one understandable reason - so many of the tenets of Islam, particularly the behavioral and legal aspects, are directly inherited from Arab culture. But I don't think that's an ideal approach since it runs the risk of immunizing Islam from criticism through playing the racism card. I'm not going to say that Conan O'Brien was engaging in any high falutin' criticism of Islam's views on women, but I do think there are issues for which a barbed joke like that could and should stick.

Edit: And it appears that I've been ninjaed. Darn you, ninjas!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 12, 2013)

Darkness said:


> http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?347920-Ask-an-OTTer&p=6213185&viewfull=1#post6213185
> 
> (Also, it's not a stupid question.)




Thanks Darkness, i don't think I ever would have figured that out on my own (google just brought up a bunch of pages on sea otters).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 12, 2013)

> So now since some people are racist everyone has to be racist? Can't you see how that's unfair to that kid? I guess it doesn't matter, though. He's just some scumbag raised by scumbags ... that you never met.



No.  What I'm saying is that TV companies have certain responsibilities to the viewing public.  It's part of their licensing agreement form the government.  And airing something that is arguably racist- even if done in total innocence- is contrary to their obligations.

It is also not cute: what's more unfair, that this could have been kept off the air, or that this kid may face backlash over his commentary?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 12, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Sorry, I don't think I sufficiently connected the dots.
> 
> Could they, in theory, avoid the unfairness on you?  Yes.  But, as a practical matter, attempting to do so may not be in their best interests.  If there are enough jerks, or the jerks are really bad, then taking the time to determine each and every case becomes a losing proposition.  Then, it is not irrational or impractical to expect folks to have to demonstrate a certain level of goodwill before cutting them slack.
> 
> ...




Again, that's all well and good.  It does have some issues as a practice, however - especially when civility is something that's constantly preached.  I'm not arguing with the practicality of the solution, I'm simply saying the solution leads to issues all its own.  Basically it's not civil to assume the worst of someone and treat them accordingly based on that assumption.  It's easy as hell, sure, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.



> Well, here we get to a pertinent point - how much do they care what you think?  See above - yes, they may be branding a decent person as a jerk.  But, if the odds are against that, then they won't be too worried about it.




And that's fine.  Of course, that makes _them _a jerk - and not one unfairly branded.  Actions have consequences no matter how practical they are.

At any rate, the point is that if you're truly after civil discourse it helps to behave in a civil manner (again, plenty here do).  When you assume the worst and then ignore someone or say nasty things about them and then ignore them, well, you're not behaving civilly.  So what is it I'm to assume, then?  People keep telling me about how civility is the goal here and then some of them act quite differently with nary a peep from those preaching civil action to be heard.



> If you really are all about fairness - If how you behave doesn't say what they think it does, it probably follows that how they behave doesn't necessarily say what you think it does, either.  Two way street, and all that.




Sorry to parse so much here but I think each of these li'l 'graphs raises a point worth addressing individually.

Anyhoo, this is correct.  However, what's being said here is civility and the actions don't mirror the words.  That's my problem.



> You tell us what it doesn't say, to you.  You don't tell us what it does say, to you.  That's leaving things open to interpretation, you know.  Given the context, is that what you really want to do?




Unfortunately without directly addressing specific people and instances I cannot really say what I think it says.  As we're supposed to be civil that's what I'm attempting by speaking in general and admittedly less than precise terms.  I am actively seeking not to offend.  



> I posit that what it really says is that they've been burned too often and too badly before to make being open to such initial salvos seem reasonable, to them.  That's not inconsistent with being about civility, it simply means they have a higher burden-of-proof threshold than you'd like.




And that's my fault how, exactly?  What you're saying here is that it's ok for them to act less civilly to me because of what some other people have done - maybe not even here.  That's not right.  

If you're gonna behave civilly it means you need to be open minded.  Making up your mind about someone because of, in no small part, what others have done is not in line with that.  Again, practical, sensible - whatever.  It don't make it right.



> Dude, do note we have *thousands* of users.  How many have actually done this?  Are you sure you're not painting with too broad a brush.




I'm painting with a brush this size of this specific forum.  I've not interacted anywhere else and I don't presume to label people I haven't talked to.  I'm only speaking to what I've actually been seen or told by those that say they know.  For example, I've been told that members here have chosen to just ignore anyone associated with OTTers in an effort to get the OTTers to either leave through loneliness or implode and be expelled.  That happened and it happened here.  Obviously I haven't interacted with those folks but, well, that's because they chose not to interact with me without giving me a chance.  So I do speak about them as well as those that have directly behaved in the way I've spoken about. 



> In addition, while you may not like it, there's nothing uncivil about choosing who you want to talk to, based on your own reasons.  If they find your style unpleasant, for whatever reason, they don't owe it to you to talk with you.




True, they don't owe me that.  If the goal were actually civil discourse, though, they'd give me a chance.  Hell, right here in this thread there's evidence of someone making an assumption about me, attacking my character publicly and then putting me on ignore _without giving me a chance to respond_.  Now that's certainly within their right but it also certainly ain't civil.  If you think it is, please explain why.  I'd love to hear it.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 12, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No.  What I'm saying is that TV companies have certain responsibilities to the viewing public.  It's part of their licensing agreement form the government.  And airing something that is arguably racist- even if done in total innocence- is contrary to their obligations.




I suppose we'll see what the FCC has to say on the matter, then?

And you're again making an unfair assumption - just like all of those Kimmel-Hitler poster holders.  Why's it gotta be racist?  Why?  The question was specifically about China.  There's no evidence whatsoever that the kid targeted Chinese for his 'genocidal delusions'.  Remember, he was led to the Chinese.  



> It is also not cute: what's more unfair, that this could have been kept off the air, or that this kid may face backlash over his commentary?




It's unfair that people would see fit to give a child any backlash about this at all.  This was a child on TV hamming it up and led to talk about the Chinese.  It's unfair that people don't bother to consider any of that when they decide to call someone a racist.  It's unfair that people would put that on a kid at all.  They don't know the kid but somehow they're gonna give him poo for being a racist?  That's what's unfair.

Oh, and why'd you not bother to talk about the other stuff I wrote?  Why nothing about how Kimmel is being compared to Hitler?  Why nothing about the people trying to get him fired?  The people assassinating his character over this?  Why doesn't that merit discussion in your eyes?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 12, 2013)

> Why's it gotta be racist? Why? The question was specifically about China. There's no evidence whatsoever that the kid targeted Chinese for his 'genocidal delusions'. Remember, he was led to the Chinese.




A fair reading of any genocidal statement is probably going to conclude that it is racist.  That's par for the course.

Did the kid mean it that way?  Probably not.  _But that is no excuse for the broadcaster to air it._



> It's unfair that people would see git to give a child any backlash about this at all




So, you think his classmates will let this slide?  They're kids, too, with the same impulse control issues as any others his age.  Odd are good there will be a schoolyard fight over this.

Had the adults in control actually acted with prudence & judgement, this wouldn't have even been an issue for him in all probability.



> Why nothing about how Kimmel is being compared to Hitler? Why nothing about the people trying to get him fired? The people assassinating his character over this? Why doesn't that merit discussion in your eyes?




OK.

1) The "Hitler" thing is ridiculous, but it has become commonplace in discussions of outrage in the USA.  So I usually ignore it and dismiss those making the comparison as being hyperbolic and rhetorically bankrupt.

2) clamoring for a firing is a standard tactic of attacking media/entertainment figures who misstep.  As such, I don't see it as intrinsically unjust, it is case dependent.  Personally, I think a sincere apology is sufficient, assuming there is no demonstrable pattern of racism or lazy broadcasting/editing practices.

3) the potential for character assassination is part of the curse of being a public figure.  If you can't handle it, stay out of the limelight.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 12, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> It made it onto the air because most people understood it was totally harmless.  The reason it was let go was _precicely because _it was ludicrous.  The kid was being a ham for the camera as kids are wont to do.  It's kind of the bit, I imagine.  I've never watched Kimmel myself (not since The Man Show anyway) but I can take a good guess as to why they used kids in a segment like that.




Or, it made it onto the air because they like it when kids say controversial things and miscalculated the intensity of the reaction. Given Kimmel's history in low-brow and manipulative/shock comedy, I think that's much more likely than thinking it was totally harmless. Swallowing a little pride and apologizing is the right thing to do in his case. 




Zombie_Babies said:


> Do I really need to explain which Conan I'm talking about especially considering the fact that Conan O'Brien has been in the news of late while Conan the Barbarian (an admittedly superior subject) has not?  Really?




Fantasy role playing site, duh. Of course people initially thought Conan the Barbarian. If I posted a thread titled "Iron Man video", are you expecting to see someone swimming, biking, or running in the video or are you expecting the superhero? 

It's not a big deal either way, but a little more than just a link in the initial post + cryptic commentary is helpful, particularly if you check the tooltip before entering the thread. Right now, so many of the threads in the media forum have just a link in the initial post that a quick review of the tooltips is relatively useless. If the link text had the headline or title of the page linked to, even that would be of more use than "Linky-dinky".


----------



## Umbran (Nov 12, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Of course, that makes _them _a jerk - and not one unfairly branded.




You, of course, are allowed your opinions.



> And that's my fault how, exactly?




Where did I imply it was your fault?  I am not trying to find fault or place blame.  I'm merely noting some realities that may not be obvious to you, so you can make informed choices.



> If you're gonna behave civilly it means you need to be open minded.




No, it doesn't, at least not as we mean it here.  We have moderators, not thought police.  Behaving civilly is a lot easier if you have an open mind, but they can be close-minded pre-judging boneheads, so long as they keep what they say polite.  



> If the goal were actually civil discourse, though, they'd give me a chance.




There is a point where being exclusive isn't civil.  But an individual choosing to not engage with you doesn't cross that line.  Nor does reporting what they personally feel is inappropriate behavior.  

And some rhetorical questions for you to ponder: How many people have actually done this?  A handful?  With the hundreds and thousands of other visitors to the boards each day, do these few really matter?  



> Hell, right here in this thread there's evidence of someone making an assumption about me, attacking my character publicly and then putting me on ignore _without giving me a chance to respond_.  Now that's certainly within their right but it also certainly ain't civil.




If you feel it is outside the bounds, you can report the post - click the icon that is an exclamation point in a yellow triangle at the bottom of the post - and moderators will review it.  If you don't report it, we'll generally take that to mean that you didn't feel it was particularly problematic.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 12, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> A fair reading of any genocidal statement is probably going to conclude that it is racist.  That's par for the course.
> 
> Did the kid mean it that way?  Probably not.  _But that is no excuse for the broadcaster to air it._




It was a child.  This wasn't a head of state or even a drunken frat boy - it was a child.  Anyone thinking it was a genuine genocidal statement is a [redacted].  That or they're looking to be offended.



> So, you think his classmates will let this slide?  They're kids, too, with the same impulse control issues as any others his age.  Odd are good there will be a schoolyard fight over this.




Irrelevant.  I said it wouldn't be fair to judge this child and this is an example of unfair judgement.  



> Had the adults in control actually acted with prudence & judgement, this wouldn't have even been an issue for him in all probability.




Yeah, that's true.  Oh wait, you meant Kimmel.  See, I thought you meant all of the people protesting this.  Whoops.  



> 1) The "Hitler" thing is ridiculous, but it has become commonplace in discussions of outrage in the USA.  So I usually ignore it and dismiss those making the comparison as being hyperbolic and rhetorically bankrupt.




Fair.



> 2) clamoring for a firing is a standard tactic of attacking media/entertainment figures who misstep.  As such, I don't see it as intrinsically unjust, it is case dependent.  Personally, I think a sincere apology is sufficient, assuming there is no demonstrable pattern of racism or lazy broadcasting/editing practices.




Meh, I do see it as unjust in this case.  There wasn't any hate here and that's the disconnect.  Overall we're on the same page about this, though.



> 3) the potential for character assassination is part of the curse of being a public figure.  If you can't handle it, stay out of the limelight.




This is a situation where it wasn't warranted.  Again, they're calling him Hitler.



billd91 said:


> Or, it made it onto the air because they like it when kids say controversial things and miscalculated the intensity of the reaction. Given Kimmel's history in low-brow and manipulative/shock comedy, I think that's much more likely than thinking it was totally harmless. Swallowing a little pride and apologizing is the right thing to do in his case.




Thing is, it _was _harmless.  I don't see even an apology as warranted here and, unfortunately, that'll hardly be enough for the people protesting.



> Fantasy role playing site, duh. Of course people initially thought Conan the Barbarian. If I posted a thread titled "Iron Man video", are you expecting to see someone swimming, biking, or running in the video or are you expecting the superhero?




I suppose my 'duh' in response is that even RPG players are aware of news outside of the genre.

In fairness I would assume an Iron Man video would be something about Iron Man.  To be fair to me, though, I would do so because, in part, Thor is in the news lately and they're mentioning The Avengers.  That said, once I saw that the video was about an Iron Man competition I wouldn't be bothered enough to ask that the OP clarify what he meant when he said Iron Man.  Cuz both things?  Yeah, 'Iron Man' is an accurate description.  Kinda like Conan.



> It's not a big deal either way, but a little more than just a link in the initial post + cryptic commentary is helpful, particularly if you check the tooltip before entering the thread. Right now, so many of the threads in the media forum have just a link in the initial post that a quick review of the tooltips is relatively useless. If the link text had the headline or title of the page linked to, even that would be of more use than "Linky-dinky".




I try not to get too specific with the initial post because I don't want to steer the discussion.  I know what I think, I want to know what _you _think.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 12, 2013)

Umbran said:


> You, of course, are allowed your opinions.




I believe that this is more than an opinion - but you, of course, are allowed yours.



> Where did I imply it was your fault?  I am not trying to find fault or place blame.  I'm merely noting some realities that may not be obvious to you, so you can make informed choices.




Yeah, the point is that it isn't my fault so there's no need for them to take whatever someone else did to them out on me.  That's not civil.



> No, it doesn't, at least not as we mean it here.  We have moderators, not thought police.  Behaving civilly is a lot easier if you have an open mind, but they can be close-minded pre-judging boneheads, so long as they keep what they say polite.




Fair enough.



> There is a point where being exclusive isn't civil.  But an individual choosing to not engage with you doesn't cross that line.  Nor does reporting what they personally feel is inappropriate behavior.




Well I suppose that's technically accurate.  However, that sort of behavior is something I'd not define as indicative of an environment where civil discourse is the goal.  Shunning people is not civil.  



> And some rhetorical questions for you to ponder: How many people have actually done this?  A handful?  With the hundreds and thousands of other visitors to the boards each day, do these few really matter?




Interestingly enough, I have answers for you: Enough have done it, obviously, to have colored my perception of this place especially in light of what some of the members have said about their expectations of behavior as these two experiences are contradictory.  I don't care about the other hundreds and thousands of people who visit this site as I have already explained that I do not interact with them.  These few matter precisely because they are the few that I _do _interact with.

You've seen it.  Tell me, does what you've seen strike you as civil?  



> If you feel it is outside the bounds, you can report the post - click the icon that is an exclamation point in a yellow triangle at the bottom of the post - and moderators will review it.  If you don't report it, we'll generally take that to mean that you didn't feel it was particularly problematic.




Reporting posts isn't my style - and yes, I understand what that means for me.  I'd much rather, I dunno, have a conversation about what's bugging whoever's got the problem.  It is literally impossible to have civil discourse without the discourse, after all.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 12, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> It was a child.  This wasn't a head of state or even a drunken frat boy - it was a child.  Anyone thinking it was a genuine genocidal statement is a [redacted].  That or they're looking to be offended.




And that doesn't change the fact that the broadcaster and show producers aired an inflammatory clip in pursuit of ratings, without heed for the backlash that could occur on the (probably) innocent statement maker.  They failed in their duties,



> Irrelevant.  I said it wouldn't be fair to judge this child and this is an example of unfair judgement.




Kids do unfair & idiotic things all the time.  They're kids.  I don't hold them to the same standards as adults.  Correct them, yes, when needed.

Here, _adults_ left the kid open to backlash because their thought it was cute/shocking and would get them ratings.  That is wrong.  IOW, I'm judging the adults, not the kid who made the statement, nor those kids who may initiate a fight with the kid over what he said.



> Yeah, that's true.  Oh wait, you meant Kimmel.  See, I thought you meant all of the people protesting this.  Whoops.



I don't think they're so much pissed at the kid as at Kimmel & the higher-ups, and I think justifiably so.



> Meh, I do see it as unjust in this case.  There wasn't any hate here and that's the disconnect.  Overall we're on the same page about this, though.



Its not hate, but callousness and disregard for the child's well-being.  IMHO, they acted irresponsibly in airing the clip.



> This is a situation where it wasn't warranted.  Again, they're calling him Hitler.



Again, I think the protest is justified, though not the vitriol in the rhetoric.




> Thing is, it _was _harmless.  I don't see even an apology as warranted here and, unfortunately, that'll hardly be enough for the people protesting.



I disagree that it was harmless or that apologies are not needed, but I do agree that you're probably right that- for a vocal minority at the very least- an apology will not be sufficient,


----------



## Janx (Nov 12, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> h have done it, obviously, to have colored my perception of this place especially in light of what some of the members have said about their expectations of behavior as these two experiences are contradictory.  I don't care about the other hundreds and thousands of people who visit this site as I have already explained that I do not interact with them.  These few matter precisely because they are the few that I _do _interact with.
> 
> You've seen it.  Tell me, does what you've seen strike you as civil?




Some things to consider as you have been working on improving relations:

while some people HAVE chosen to block all or some of the newcomers, take note of WHO is still talking to you.  that says those people have not closed the door.

Now for folks who choose to not talk to others, being uncivil?  I see it as choosing to remove oneself from recurring collisions of personality which would lead to more dramatic uncivility.  I guess that's like changing the channel whenever that guy comes on the TV to talk about whatever thing you always disagree with that makes you mad.

From my own observation and personal practice, most folks only use Ignore for the people who they always get into bad arguments with.  So having a very short or empty Ignore list is seen as a positive.

The danger of Ignore lists is that sometimes you do miss when an occupant actually does change their ways.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 12, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And that doesn't change the fact that the broadcaster and show producers aired an inflammatory clip in pursuit of ratings, without heed for the backlash that could occur on the (probably) innocent statement maker.  They failed in their duties,




I don't know that they honestly thought it would be so inflammatory.  There's a real chance they could lose sponsors or may have to toss Kimmel - and he makes them a lot of money.  The thought that they honestly believed people would take what a kid said in a joke bit this far seems a little too out there to me.  I think they really felt that this would be nothing.

That said, we're both guessing.  The odds are equal, IMO, that either one of us is right.  Oh well, that's why it's so fun!  



> Kids do unfair & idiotic things all the time.  They're kids.  I don't hold them to the same standards as adults.  Correct them, yes, when needed.
> 
> Here, _adults_ left the kid open to backlash because their thought it was cute/shocking and would get them ratings.  That is wrong.  IOW, I'm judging the adults, not the kid who made the statement, nor those kids who may initiate a fight with the kid over what he said.




The kids being kids thing is fair.  Where I disagree is that I don't think that adults left the kid open to the backlash.  I fault the people who are giving the backlash because, as I've said, this was just a kid hamming it up for the camera.  We need some perspective here and these folks refuse to take a step back and look.



> I don't think they're so much pissed at the kid as at Kimmel, and I think justifiably so.




And I don't.  I think it's selective outrage and that disgusts me.  It's manufactured anger.



> Its not hate, but callousness and disregard for the child's well-being.  IMHO, they acted irresponsibly in airing the clip.




I don't think they thought anything would happen to the kid - as explained above.  And we're both still guessing.  

I also believe that anyone giving the kid any crap has far more callousness and disregard for the kid than Kimmel.  After all, they're the ones who've decided to take something a kid said and go after him as though he were an adult saying it seriously.



> Again, I think the protest is justified, though not the vitriol in the rhetoric.




Disagree but what-evs.  One of them things we'll never agree on.  Movin' on ...



> I disagree that it was harmless or that apologies are not needed, but I do agree that you're probably right that- for a vocal minority at the very least- an apology will not be sufficient,




And that's a shame.  Let's look at what happened: Nothing.  That's an awful little to demand a man's job over.

Meh, I'm all sorts of for as free speech as possible.  This kind of crap really gets on my nerves.  He's an entertainer who was trying to entertain.  If we can't separate that in our own minds we don't even deserve words at all.  Context.  Nobody cares about context anymore.  It's all about whining as loudly as possible so someone out there will listen to us.  BS.  We want to matter so badly that we take things that don't matter as far as we can and then some in order to try and be heard.  I'm sure that's indicative of something very dangerous sociologically but I can't say what.

Look, we've got news agencies lying to us.  We've got them adding a 'super' in front of every damned thing in order to get ratings cuz they make their money the same way South Park does - ad revenue.  And _this _is what we care about?  A joke that fell flat?  _That's _what's wrong with television today?  Distraction.  Pure and simple misdirection.  And we'll eat it up, too.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 12, 2013)

Janx said:


> Some things to consider as you have been working on improving relations:




Thanks!    Er, for the compliment and for the notes.  



> while some people HAVE chosen to block all or some of the newcomers, take note of WHO is still talking to you.  that says those people have not closed the door.




Right - and those people are folks I don't have any problem with for the most part.  I appreciate that they have given at least me a chance and enjoy the conversations I've had with them so far.  Whatever I say here is _not _about them.  Not in the least.



> Now for folks who choose to not talk to others, being uncivil?  I see it as choosing to remove oneself from recurring collisions of personality which would lead to more dramatic uncivility.  I guess that's like changing the channel whenever that guy comes on the TV to talk about whatever thing you always disagree with that makes you mad.




There's merit to that thought however I've also seen people make baseless assumptions, attack me because of those assumptions and then tell me they've placed me on Ignore.  Now how can I defend myself?  How was that fair or civil?

As for the folks that went to Ignore without engaging at all, well, I still see that as uncivil.  You're not even giving me a chance.  I'm 99% certain I had less than 50 posts here when I was told people were ignoring me.  Yeah.  And then there's that whole thing where I was told that people put me and the rest on Ignore in an attempt to get us to leave or isolate us so that we would attack each other, report and be booted.  Not. Civil.



> From my own observation and personal practice, most folks only use Ignore for the people who they always get into bad arguments with.  So having a very short or empty Ignore list is seen as a positive.
> 
> The danger of Ignore lists is that sometimes you do miss when an occupant actually does change their ways.




Both fair points.  I try not to put anyone on ignore.  I don't need a forum function to help me keep myself in check.  I appreciate that some do find benefit in it and, honestly, I'd rather be put on ignore than stalked and reported - not something that's happened here, of course, I do want to make that clear.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 12, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And that doesn't change the fact that the broadcaster and show producers aired an inflammatory clip in pursuit of ratings, without heed for the backlash that could occur on the (probably) innocent statement maker.  They failed in their duties,




Having seen the clip, it's not super-inflammatory. And I think Kimmel does a reasonable job of deflecting any appropriateness away from the suggestion. That said, they should have looked at the segment and said - "Yeah, not really a good result for the show" and moved on. 

Now that they've run it and gotten the reaction, I think the apology was right in order. I also think that this article is correct that the ongoing hub-bub is overblown. Enough Is Enough


----------



## Lwaxy (Nov 12, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> It's unfair that people would see fit to give a child any backlash about this at all.





"The world isn't fair, Calwin." - Calwin's Mom


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 12, 2013)

Lwaxy said:


> "The world isn't fair, Calwin." - Calwin's Mom




"And nor should it be."- Robin Hoodlum


----------



## billd91 (Nov 12, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> The kids being kids thing is fair.  Where I disagree is that I don't think that adults left the kid open to the backlash.  I fault the people who are giving the backlash because, as I've said, this was just a kid hamming it up for the camera.  We need some perspective here and these folks refuse to take a step back and look.




More on the kids topic... In today's computer media world, whatever is posted with a kid or by a kid sticks around. This applies to potentially embarrassing videos like Halloween candy pranks too. Parents and other adults really need to take more responsibility for the stuff that goes up with kids that may come back to haunt them, rightfully or not. How many of the Halloween candy kids will, as teens, feel mortified they bawled or otherwise list their  and now can't get those videos out of bully hands? Kids may say the darnedest things, but the adults are supposed to be the ones showing good judgment.


----------



## Lwaxy (Nov 12, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Having seen the clip, it's not super-inflammatory.




Certain types of media (or "interest groups") blow everything out of proportion if they can get  higher ratings. This kid parroting what he heard somewhere, the noise  people made about celebs or those who are considered such put on  supposedly offensive Halloween costumes... etc etc. All designed to  elicit a response from the masses. That's not going to change anytime  soon.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 12, 2013)

billd91 said:


> More on the kids topic... In today's computer media world, whatever is posted with a kid or by a kid sticks around. This applies to potentially embarrassing videos like Halloween candy pranks too. Parents and other adults really need to take more responsibility for the stuff that goes up with kids that may come back to haunt them, rightfully or not. How many of the Halloween candy kids will, as teens, feel mortified they bawled or otherwise list their  and now can't get those videos out of bully hands? Kids may say the darnedest things, but the adults are supposed to be the ones showing good judgment.



Parents aren't omniscient. If the kid just said that because he heard it at school or just because he came to that conclusion by watching Marvel movies, it is hardly their responsability. It does becomes their responsability after he said that, to understand where the kid got that and maybe have a talk about what is racism and genocide.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 12, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> I didnt get the impression that he was making any assumptions about her race, so much as he was making assumptions about her marital practices based on her religion.
> 
> ...
> 
> It is worth pointing out that Islam is a racially and ethnically diverse religion. It is also a huge faith that spans much of the globe. It is not limited to the middle east and north africa.




This is exactly why I think the joke has a racist element.  I believe the "marital practices" that you are referencing are ethnic traditions, not simply religious ones.  Islam does not inherently promote polygyny (some Islamic countries actually ban polygyny on religious grounds), but certain Islamic ethnicities do.  The joke enforces the incorrect belief that all Muslims are members of an ethnicity that promotes polygyny.  Furthermore, the humor of the joke is based specifically off of the ethnic marriage traditions (not the religion itself), which is what makes it racist.



			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> The same could pretty much have been applied if the character in question was publicized as a Mormon. Would that have made it racist too? Or would that have been waved off the racist label because the vast majority of Mormons are, understandably given the church's own racist history, Caucasian?




At the risk of breaking too far into a religious discussion, Islam and Mormonism have very different relationships with polygamy.  While Islam does not inherently promote polygamy, the history of the LDS Church has much more direct ties to it.  A joke about Mormons does not have to reach outside of purely religious aspects to reference polygamy, so that joke would be purely religionist.

FWIW, I'm not trying to condemn Conan here.  Whether the joke is racist or religionist is a purely academic matter.  I can appreciate offensive humor as long as the amount of humor is greater than the amount to offensiveness.  This joke failed not because it was particularly offensive, but because it was not particularly funny.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 12, 2013)

Deset Gled said:


> This joke failed not because it was particularly offensive, but because it was not particularly funny.




That's my take as well.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 12, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Parents aren't omniscient. If the kid just said that because he heard it at school or just because he came to that conclusion by watching Marvel movies, it is hardly their responsability. It does becomes their responsability after he said that, to understand where the kid got that and maybe have a talk about what is racism and genocide.




Parents and other adults don't have to be omniscient. They just have to show some judgment in what they decide to put out there on a wide, persistent forum. And a discussion with 1st graders that goes into killing everyone kind of cries out for a little more judgment.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 12, 2013)

Deset Gled said:


> This is exactly why I think the joke has a racist element.  I believe the "marital practices" that you are referencing are ethnic traditions, not simply religious ones.  Islam does not inherently promote polygyny (some Islamic countries actually ban polygyny on religious grounds), but certain Islamic ethnicities do.  The joke enforces the incorrect belief that all Muslims are members of an ethnicity that promotes polygyny.  Furthermore, the humor of the joke is based specifically off of the ethnic marriage traditions (not the religion itself), which is what makes it racist.
> 
> .



Again, I disagree with this reasoning. I understand what you are saying, but don't find your argument convincing, and do not wish to debate the issue (though polygyny in Islam is certainly an interesting topic) because I think it would quickly violate the ban against political discussions.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 12, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Parents and other adults don't have to be omniscient. They just have to show some judgment in what they decide to put out there on a wide, persistent forum. And a discussion with 1st graders that goes into killing everyone kind of cries out for a little more judgment.



First off, you are blowing things out of proportions. He did not go into killing everyone. That is an exageration (and probably would have been more acceptable as it doesn't single out a nation). And it was funny that a kid came up with that to solve a debt issue. Says a lot about his environment. Maybe

Secondly, not really. It is a 1st grader. Who will remember that in a year? Who will remember his face? Was his whole name even mentioned? The funny thing is that people are prolonging the life of the segment by drawing attention to it. 

And if in 10 years someone brings this up, the kid should should shrug and say, rightfully at that, that he was a 1st grader and kids do not always realize what they say. Assuming he doesn't advocate genocide to solve debt issues anymore.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 12, 2013)

The actual segment.

<object classid="clsid<img src=" http:="" www.enworld.org="" forum="" images="" smilies="" biggrin.png"="" border="0" alt="" title="Big Grin" smilieid="4" class="inlineimg">
<embed src="https://static.movideo.com/flash/movideo_player.swf" quality="high" bgcolor="#000000" width="512" height="288" name="player-element" align="middle" play="true" loop="false" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer" flashvars="apiKey=movideoScmp&alias=SCMPflash&playerId=movideoScmp_SCMPflash_1384298883113&mediaId=576491"></object>


----------



## Lwaxy (Nov 13, 2013)

Oh my dear gods. 

I have to disagree that this was anywhere approaching racism. Kids say those things because they are absurd and they probably find the question itself outlandish. What does this boy know about paying back debts? He said the first weird thing in his mind. Does the kid even know where China is? 

I said a similar thing that age. At school out loud because the situation was going over my head and on my nerves and an answer was expected from me. This looks very much the same. And neither me, nor any of my family save a distant relative everyone else avoided has ever been racist or any other ism (at least that I know of). I got the desired effect - I shocked the teacher, made her leave me alone for now and so got out of an uncomfortable situation. The boy on the shows seems to have done just the same. L

Luckily for me, it was not broadcasted. My parents got a call and told the teacher where to stick it. End of story. 

I really don't want to be a kid these days.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 13, 2013)

I have to agree. The kid wanted attention, period. Kimmel saw it too andplayed with it. I'd be willing to bet a lot of people who commented on it didn't even see it. Like me, at first.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer (Nov 13, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> If this was a joke, well, I like it.



all in good jest, rest assured.

I think O'Brian is awesome (though I may have just misspelled his lat name). It's just that whenever I see "Conan" absent anything else, I think death-dealing Cimmerian. Right after, I think Conan The Librarian.

The gangly comedian is a distant third, followed by unlikely pet names.


----------



## Dog Moon (Nov 13, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I'm always surprised when people say they're surprised some kid said something silly.  I mean, Bill Cosby had a show called 'Kids Say the Darndest Things' for a raeson, yanno?




No, I get that and I know my daughter says some hilarious things every once in a while... but I've never heard her say anything remotely like "Let's kill all of group 'x'".  That just seems a little worse than "The Darnedest Thing" to me.

But even thow I don't think it should be showed, I don't think it's necessarily racist.  Does a 1st grader really know enough to be truly racist?

And I think comparing to Kimmel to Hitler and making all those signs is a little extreme.  If Kimmel himself had said it, then maybe they would be more justified, but not the kid,


----------



## Dog Moon (Nov 13, 2013)

Deset Gled said:


> While you are correct that jokes about religion are not always racist, this one actually is.  The joke was about Ms. Marvel being a polygamist (even though she's actually a 16 year old Jersey girl).  The joke was basically saying that since she's Muslim, she must fit the funny stereotypes of those brown people from the other side of the world.  That's racist, both by assuming her racial and cultural heritage based off of her religion, and by laughing at that culture.
> 
> There are actually a lot of connections between religion and race.  Some religions are extremely racially diverse, while others are extremely uniform.  By making assumptions about racial and religious connections, it's pretty easy to jump from racist to religionist and back again without much effort.




Being polygamist is something that is a part of the Religion, not the race.  You just don't see it as much in our sections of world because, from my understanding, the cost of living here is so high that more than one wife can't be afforded.  But regardless of the reason, for whatever it is, it just isn't as common here.

Islam itself allows for up to 4 wives and whatever race people belong to, they can't bypass that number and still be claiming to be completely following the RELIGION.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Nov 13, 2013)

Umbran said:


> "No race" has never been one of the rules.
> 
> The rule is: no real-world religion or politics.  Discussions of race often stray into politics, as do discussions of gender equality.  When they do, they have to be dealt with.
> 
> I note also that we were loosening up a bit well before the OTTers came around, to allow discussions of sexism and racism _within the gaming community_.  And still, we watch those to make sure they stay short of the politics line, and will close them or moderate folks who become too vehement in their delivery.




Considering that race is so firmly tied with politics for so many on these boards, I am surprised that you chose that nit to pick.

Anyway, if the mods want the OTTers to keep testing the boundaries then that's your collective choice. I can appreciate the desire for more traffic and more users but I suppose after being here since the very first board, I've come to appreciate the no race (yeah, I still think it's a rule), no religion, no politics and the Eric's grandmother rules. I've got lots of other places for those more heated discussions.


----------



## Dog Moon (Nov 13, 2013)

I have to admit though that there is a little piece of me that is racist... I absolutely DESTEST...

Kender.

Most terrible race ever.


----------



## Lwaxy (Nov 13, 2013)

Nono, that would be _speciesism_.


----------



## The_Silversword (Nov 13, 2013)

I didnt think the joke was all that bad, it could also work with Mormons, anyways, I really think that if the main selling point of your comic character is their race, religion, or sexual orientation then youre doing it all wrong.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 13, 2013)

Dog Moon said:


> Being polygamist is something that is a part of the Religion, not the race.  You just don't see it as much in our sections of world because, from my understanding, the cost of living here is so high that more than one wife can't be afforded.  But regardless of the reason, for whatever it is, it just isn't as common here.
> 
> Islam itself allows for up to 4 wives and whatever race people belong to, they can't bypass that number and still be claiming to be completely following the RELIGION.




I don't really want to get into this, but I think this needs some clarification. polygyny is very, very rare among Muslims (well under 10%). It is also debated within the religion itself and some schools of thought argue it is actually not permitted by the quran (the quran explicitly mentions having up to four wives, i believe it does so once) but the argument is this was an effort to phase out polygamy by placing restrictions on it, and its intention was to eliminate the practice. Not everyone shares this view but some Muslim countries have banned the practice on those grounds. Still it is defended as being supported by the quran by others. There are other religious arguments against polygyny based onfthe quran and hadith as well. Its a religion of the book like christianity and judaism, so like those faiths, it is often more complicated than finding one passage that supports an idea, they do comparative analysis with other suras on love, marriage, children, etc, even if those don't exlkicitly mention how many wives you can have. I still think conan's joke was religious and not racial, but this is a pretty involved topic.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 13, 2013)

billd91 said:


> More on the kids topic... In today's computer media world, whatever is posted with a kid or by a kid sticks around. This applies to potentially embarrassing videos like Halloween candy pranks too. Parents and other adults really need to take more responsibility for the stuff that goes up with kids that may come back to haunt them, rightfully or not. How many of the Halloween candy kids will, as teens, feel mortified they bawled or otherwise list their  and now can't get those videos out of bully hands? Kids may say the darnedest things, but the adults are supposed to be the ones showing good judgment.




Every kid everywhere has done something embarrassing and been made fun of about it.  My mother showed nekkid baby pictures of me to my girlfriends long before there was a Facebook.  

Meh, if this kid eats any crap when he's older for this we're livin' in one messed up ass world.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 13, 2013)

sanishiver said:


> all in good jest, rest assured.
> 
> I think O'Brian is awesome (though I may have just misspelled his lat name). It's just that whenever I see "Conan" absent anything else, I think death-dealing Cimmerian. Right after, I think Conan The Librarian.
> 
> The gangly comedian is a distant third, followed by unlikely pet names.




Well, like I said, I like it.    That's fun to me - fo' realski, though I suspect you had a suspicion.  

I'm not terribly impressed with Conan the Non-Barbarian and I absolutely detest Team Coco or whatever.  He's quirky and that means pretty niche as far as his humor goes.  I'm not in that niche for the most part though I did chuckle at the joke ... which is not something I imagine he'd say on his show.

Conan the Barbarian, though?  Pwns.  Always has, always will.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 13, 2013)

Dog Moon said:


> No, I get that and I know my daughter says some hilarious things every once in a while... but I've never heard her say anything remotely like "Let's kill all of group 'x'".  That just seems a little worse than "The Darnedest Thing" to me.
> 
> But even thow I don't think it should be showed, I don't think it's necessarily racist.  Does a 1st grader really know enough to be truly racist?
> 
> And I think comparing to Kimmel to Hitler and making all those signs is a little extreme.  If Kimmel himself had said it, then maybe they would be more justified, but not the kid,




Does a first grader really know what 'kill all the Chinese' means?  It was just a stunt performed by a child - a demographic known for risk taking and attention seeking.  I doubt seriously that the child actually thought his suggested solution was a workable one.  We have to stop judging him as though he did.  Context: It's important.  Humor: Not everything someone says is something the mean 100% - _especially _if it's said for the sake of humor.

And if Kimmel said it marching with posters depicting him as Hitler would _most certainly not _be ok ... unless he actually meant it.  See, Hitler didn't _joke _(important word) about genocide, he actually tried it.  That's what some may consider an important difference.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 13, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Conan the Barbarian, though?  Pwns.  Always has, always will.




Unless you're talking about the movies. In that case only the first one rule. The second one was terrible, and the remake was meh. It could have been better, but it felt as if they cut scenes out and rushed it.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 13, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Unless you're talking about the movies. In that case only the first one rule. The second one was terrible, and the remake was meh. It could have been better, but it felt as if they cut scenes out and rushed it.




Shhh!  I'm trying to get along!!  

But yeah, only the first one is good.  Red Sonja is sorta ok and you're right about the remake.  It really did have potential.  It's sad that it ended up the way it did.  And what's the deal with casting Rose McGowan in order to ugly her up?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 13, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Shhh!  I'm trying to get along!!
> 
> But yeah, only the first one is good.  Red Sonja is sorta ok and you're right about the remake.  It really did have potential.  It's sad that it ended up the way it did.  And what's the deal with casting Rose McGowan in order to ugly her up?





the first one is one of the greatest fantasy movies of all time. I liked the destroyer but no match for the first. red sonja never really did it for me. But the new one I rather liked, and i thought rose mcgowan was quite good (i was kind of glad they did sucg an extreme make up job on her, it just seemed to work).


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 13, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> the first one is one of the greatest fantasy movies of all time. I liked the destroyer but no match for the first. red sonja never really did it for me. But the new one I rather liked, and i thought rose mcgowan was quite good (i was kind of glad they did sucg an extreme make up job on her, it just seemed to work).




I just think she's too hawt to not be hawt, yanno?  

Overall I did like the new one but it was edited so, so badly that it ruined it.  I think the script was ok enough that it could have really lived up to its namesake but that they tossed half the movie on the cutting room floor and made it too choppy to really work.  It jumped all over the place and lost a lot of structure because of it.  To me, it looks like they had about 2 to 3 movies worth of material that they tried to cram into one.  The editing process really let it down and it's a shame.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 13, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I just think she's too hawt to not be hawt, yanno?
> 
> Overall I did like the new one but it was edited so, so badly that it ruined it.  I think the script was ok enough that it could have really lived up to its namesake but that they tossed half the movie on the cutting room floor and made it too choppy to really work.  It jumped all over the place and lost a lot of structure because of it.  To me, it looks like they had about 2 to 3 movies worth of material that they tried to cram into one.  The editing process really let it down and it's a shame.




i can't say i noticed the editing issue. But i am sure there is a director's cut out there somewhere, so there may be a version available that fits your expectations more. I wouldv't say it was the greatest film ever, but it was a good fantasy movie.

with mcgowan, i found her very charismatic in that role, just a great villain. Up there with helen mirren from excaliber.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 13, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Unless you're talking about the movies. In that case only the first one rule. The second one was terrible, and the remake was meh. It could have been better, but it felt as if they cut scenes out and rushed it.




I think the latest version started out pretty good, had a decent buildup, but then kind of got goofy as it reached the end.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 13, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Does a first grader really know what 'kill all the Chinese' means?  It was just a stunt performed by a child - a demographic known for risk taking and attention seeking.  I doubt seriously that the child actually thought his suggested solution was a workable one.  We have to stop judging him as though he did.  Context: It's important.  Humor: Not everything someone says is something the mean 100% - _especially _if it's said for the sake of humor.




I agree that the kid almost certainly doesn't understand the ramifications of genocide or mean that we really should kill all the Chinese. But it's an unfortunate direction for the topic to go. It's kind of hard to make something really funny once the awkwardness of mass death comes up.


----------



## Dog Moon (Nov 14, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't really want to get into this, but I think this needs some clarification. polygyny is very, very rare among Muslims (well under 10%). It is also debated within the religion itself and some schools of thought argue it is actually not permitted by the quran (the quran explicitly mentions having up to four wives, i believe it does so once) but the argument is this was an effort to phase out polygamy by placing restrictions on it, and its intention was to eliminate the practice. Not everyone shares this view but some Muslim countries have banned the practice on those grounds. Still it is defended as being supported by the quran by others. There are other religious arguments against polygyny based onfthe quran and hadith as well. Its a religion of the book like christianity and judaism, so like those faiths, it is often more complicated than finding one passage that supports an idea, they do comparative analysis with other suras on love, marriage, children, etc, even if those don't exlkicitly mention how many wives you can have. I still think conan's joke was religious and not racial, but this is a pretty involved topic.




The Quran does specify that you can have up to four wives.  Approximately "have two or three or four wives but if you cannot treat them equally then have only one."

I have never heard anyone arguing that the Quran or Hadith say anything against having more than one wife, except that you should not have more than one if you cannot take care of them equally.


----------



## Dog Moon (Nov 14, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Does a first grader really know what 'kill all the Chinese' means?  It was just a stunt performed by a child - a demographic known for risk taking and attention seeking.  I doubt seriously that the child actually thought his suggested solution was a workable one.  We have to stop judging him as though he did.  Context: It's important.  Humor: Not everything someone says is something the mean 100% - _especially _if it's said for the sake of humor.
> 
> And if Kimmel said it marching with posters depicting him as Hitler would _most certainly not _be ok ... unless he actually meant it.  See, Hitler didn't _joke _(important word) about genocide, he actually tried it.  That's what some may consider an important difference.




I feel like you basically just agreed with me for the most part.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 14, 2013)

Dog Moon said:


> The Quran does specify that you can have up to four wives.  Approximately "have two or three or four wives but if you cannot treat them equally then have only one."
> 
> I have never heard anyone arguing that the Quran or Hadith say anything against having more than one wife, except that you should not have more than one if you cannot take care of them equally.




I never said it didn't and i don't necessarily disagree with you (my original post on the subject was in disagreement with the same post you were responding to). I just think it is more nuanced than yuo presented it. Muslims not practicing polygyny isn't merely about not having the resources to support mutliple wives, there are religious grounds for being against it as well. One of the common arguments is that the quran's limit of no more than four wives was part of an effort to eventually eradicate the practice. This is an argument some muslims make. Another is (usually made citing other references to love and marriage in the quran) is that it is impossible to deal justly with more than one wife (and thatis one of the requirements placed on husbands in the passage dealing with having one to four wives. The argument is that because it is basically impossible to deal justly with more than one wife, the passage is actually against polygyny. There are a lot of different schools of thonght around these subjects in islam. That said many believe the limits placed on polygyny in the quran are just that, limits, an 1-4 wives is the correct number allowabl. My point was the religion is not monolothic, and there are differing interpretations of that passage.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 14, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> i can't say i noticed the editing issue. But i am sure there is a director's cut out there somewhere, so there may be a version available that fits your expectations more. I wouldv't say it was the greatest film ever, but it was a good fantasy movie.
> 
> with mcgowan, i found her very charismatic in that role, just a great villain. Up there with helen mirren from excaliber.




The most glaring example I can think of was when he went to see that super thief or whatever.  They talked about it and then it immediately happened.  There was just a jump from idea to instance that was too jarring.  It's been a long time, though, so I can't really remember more.  I _do _remember the beginning as being pretty awesome, though.

As for Rose, well, they could have kept the character's personality without trashing her hawtness.  



billd91 said:


> I agree that the kid almost certainly doesn't understand the ramifications of genocide or mean that we really should kill all the Chinese. But it's an unfortunate direction for the topic to go. It's kind of hard to make something really funny once the awkwardness of mass death comes up.




Black Comedy would like to object.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 14, 2013)

Dog Moon said:


> I feel like you basically just agreed with me for the most part.




... I don't think so but ok?


----------



## Dog Moon (Nov 15, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> ... I don't think so but ok?




Well, we both seemed to say that a 1st grader WOULDN'T know how to be racist or what "killing them all" truly means.

And we both seemed to say that the Hitler thing was basically not cool.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 15, 2013)

Dog Moon said:


> Well, we both seemed to say that a 1st grader WOULDN'T know how to be racist or what "killing them all" truly means.
> 
> And we both seemed to say that the Hitler thing was basically not cool.



It's good you both agree on that. Now if someone could tell me how many eight year olds watch Jimmy Kimmel?


----------

