nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

People being offended by fictional characters

[Deleted User]

When I was a kid we’d often be told that what we watched on TV wasn’t real, not to be taken seriously. I think it was good advice and even before I was ten I could see the sense in it.

Nowadays it’s way different. Pepsi got slated for having an ad that was apparently offensive, people weren’t angry enough in it. Eoghan McDermott wants Fairytale of New York censored, fictional character makes inappropriate remark, Friends is offensive because Chandler was uncomfortable with his father coming out as gay and dressing in drag.

When did people stop having the sense to not be offended by fiction? Could there be a return to sense following the backlash against McDermott yesterday?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Yer Da sells Avon

After Hours - the forum for people who get offended by the idea of others getting offended.

Noveight

The push back against the eternally offended has begun. People are sick of walking on eggshells just to appease the minority of idiots.

Just give it time.

Raheem Euro

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

After Hours - the forum for people who get offended by the idea of others getting offended.

What an offensive remark to make ya bdstard.

mammajamma

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

After Hours - the forum for people who get offended by the idea of others getting offended.

Its not just this section of a this website, its everywhere. I come across it all the time in real life now, people expressing their dislike for being told what is and isn't acceptable, what song they are allowed listen too (no, it doesn't count that you can listen to it in private), what films are "problematic", what characters are "questionable", what words are "offensive", what places are "belittling", what signs are "discriminatory" and so bleedin' on!

Its puritanical bullshaisse.

On the one hand it can be described on a surface level as "offended being offended by offended being offended", laugh out loud kinda thing.

The fact of the matter is that these people who originate these ideas are quite literally trying to thought-police everyone else, and these lunatics have now moved into the area of altering history to suit their moans. See the latest micro version on songs being pulled from playlists. They want to revise history and shape the future entirely around their astoundingly stupid "ideas", despite it being glaringly obvious that the vast majority of people do not in any way agree with them.

It is quite boring to see and hear over and over, but that only demonstrates just how sick people are becoming of these revisionists and complainers.

You want rid of it, get rid of the people creating it, not the increasing amount of people reacting negatively (and rightly so)

Assetbacked

I Am Not Your Villain

The British Film Institute has made a decision to no longer offer funding to movies who have a villain with scars on their face.

Yes, this is correct. There is no world where I could stomach people who pander to this nonsense.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/nov/29/bfi-to-refuse-funding-for-films-with-facially-scarred-villains

ToddyDoody

Stop being so goddamn superficial.

RobbingBandit

James Bond a Scottish English secret agent, **** off that's not possible

God all powerful super being that made everything you have ever heard of yet he waited a very long time to send his only son to save mankind, **** trees nature animals elements etc etc that he created his son is here to save only one tiny part of everything **** off with that ****e will ya

TheValeyard

RobbingBandit wrote: »

James Bond a Scottish English secret agent, **** off that's not possible

God all powerful super being that made everything you have ever heard of yet he waited a very long time to send his only son to save mankind, **** trees nature animals elements etc etc that he created his son is here to save only one tiny part of everything **** off with that ****e will ya

I bet you're not even a Robbing Bandit.

BadTurtle

There was some backlash recently against the writer of Harry Potter because she wrote in a female character that will eventually turn into a snake owned by some other character.
And people were offended because the woman was Asian and it supposedly implies slavery. One thing though: it's Harry ****ing Potter. It's elves and goblins and magic and gibberish. Who ****ing cares if an Asian girl is a snake any more than a Welsh guy is a sheep? Actually, that would be more offensive surely? There's no history of people relating Asians to snakes in my recollection anyway.

buried

I think reality TV and its huge mainstream following for the last 20 years right up until now has a lot to do with this. Some of the generation brought up watching it can no longer tell the difference between people portrayed as the villains of the piece in those reality TV shows and the fictional ones written by writers in the arts. On the reality TV shows the characters that are disliked are booted out the show by the audience votes, technically they are banned by the will of the audience, booted out and booed offstage and never seen again.

Only the squeaky clean hero who offended or upset nobody in the show will win those reality TV competitions. Now it seems that some people, and to my eyes a lot of these people were brought up during that Reality TV age, want to do the same thing to any other fictional character on the airwaves they don't like.

Now that's just my theory on it, I could be completely wrong, because I don't understand why anybody could be offended by a fictional artistic work, especially younger people, but they do seem to be the most vocal about being offended and they did grow up in the age of reality televisions huge following.

padd b1975

BadTurtle wrote: »

There was some backlash recently against the writer of Harry Potter because she wrote in a female character that will eventually turn into a snake owned by some other character.
And people were offended because the woman was Asian and it supposedly implies slavery. One thing though: it's Harry ****ing Potter. It's elves and goblins and magic and gibberish. Who ****ing cares if an Asian girl is a snake any more than a Welsh guy is a sheep? Actually, that would be more offensive surely? There's no history of people relating Asians to snakes in my recollection anyway.

J.K. Rowling intentionally linking women to slavery?

Not in this lifetime!

RobbingBandit

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

I bet you're not even a Robbing Bandit.

Name was inspired by Bertie so I'm as much a RobbingBandit as he was btw I prefer Grim Fandango

BadTurtle

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Name was inspired by Bertie so I'm as much a RobbingBandit as he was btw I prefer Grim Fandango

You've offended me. Although I never got past that bit with the beavers in GF so I didn't get the whole experience.

jonnny68

millennial snowflakes are a curse on society, there's something seriously wrong with these nutters, imagine spending so much of your sad lives getting offended by absolutely ridiculous things, freaks.

Society...where has it all gone wrong.

nlrkjos

bit like the boy who cried wolf...eventually something will actually offend, they'll highlight it and people will just go "yeah, him/her again". For years we had severe censorship in Ireland, by the catholic church and section 31, now the very people/groups who were censored are trying to censor, songs...characters...words.

TheValeyard

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Name was inspired by Bertie so I'm as much a RobbingBandit as he was btw I prefer Grim Fandango

Great game

The Rape of Lucretia

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

When did people stop having the sense to not be offended by fiction?

When the snowflake generation started to turn 18, but hadnt really grown up, and realising they were unfit for the adult world, started to take offence at everything that clashed with their child level view.

nlrkjos

they'll be wanting to put a pair of underpants on Michaelangelo's "David" next!!!

pgj2015

I remember reading about the guy who played richard hillman in coronation street (he murdered people on the show)

he couldn't walk down the street because people were attacking him because of the character he played, its really funny when you think about it, how thick can some people be?

The Rape of Lucretia

nlrkjos wrote: »

they'll be wanting to put a pair of underpants on Michaelangelo's "David" next!!!

No way. You arent thinking of the child labour that made them in a sweatshop in Bangladesh for €1/month.
The correct way would be organic fig leaves.
Anyway, the whole David story promotes discrimination of giants, so the statue should be removed and crushed. Michaelangelo on a black list.

Rubberchikken

people have lost their sense of humour.
humourless liberal pains are to be ignored at all cost.
life is way too short to listen to or even adhere to their mindless dribble.

Yer Da sells Avon

Rubberchikken wrote: »

people have lost their sense of humour.
humourless liberal pains are to be ignored at all cost.
life is way too short to listen to or even adhere to their mindless dribble.

I've found that the people who moan most vocally (and let's make no bones about this - quite tiresomely) about 'liberals', and spend their time looking for 'PC-gone-mad' stuff to get offended about, are rarely a barrel of laughs.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

When I was a kid we’d often be told that what we watched on TV wasn’t real, not to be taken seriously. I think it was good advice and even before I was ten I could see the sense in it.

Nowadays it’s way different. Pepsi got slated for having an ad that was apparently offensive, people weren’t angry enough in it. Eoghan McDermott wants Fairytale of New York censored, fictional character makes inappropriate remark, Friends is offensive because Chandler was uncomfortable with his father coming out as gay and dressing in drag.

When did people stop having the sense to not be offended by fiction? Could there be a return to sense following the backlash against McDermott yesterday?

About 2.14 Eastern time on August 29th, 1997.

RobbingBandit

Maggie Simpson is over 30 years old

Poor Uncle Tom

nlrkjos wrote: »

they'll be wanting to put a pair of underpants on Michaelangelo's "David" next!!!

The Catholic church brought in the bronze fig leaf to give some modesty to David when they introduced censorship of the classical arts around 1580.

Just as the public turn their backs on Catholic doctrine they find ways to get triggered and morally offended by the very same objects, as the church they turned their backs on did 600 years ago. The irony really is funny.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

The Catholic church brought in the bronze fig leaf to give some modesty to David when they introduced censorship of the classical arts around 1580.

Just as the public turn their backs on Catholic doctrine they find ways to get triggered and morally offended by the very same objects, as the church they turned their backs on did 600 years ago. The irony really is funny.

People don't like to think for themselves. They like to let someone else do it for them, but in such a way that they think it's their own minds. They also like to be told who to be outraged by.

The church did a very good job of this before it started to decline, but then left a void. The void was filled first by the tabloids and later by social media.

dr.fuzzenstein

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

About 2.14 Eastern time on August 29th, 1997.

Wish I could thank that twice.

Well, it's a coin with two sides. There are the perpetually offended who would take exception at celery being depicted in a racist fashion in a school play and there are those who give them validation by seeking out their bullsh*t and giving it exposure by having a bit of a tirade about it.
We've all been guilty of it I'm sure, I know I have.

harr

Was watching Kevin Bridges on TV tonight , his new stand up show and he makes very good points on how the whole social media phenomena has ****ed up a generation of kids..
I agree completely...if one so called influencer says something is offensive then that snowballs and you have a lot of people agreeing without looking at the alleged offending material or person.. kids grow up in a huge bubble of misinformation and not experiencing the real world away from phones and the web.

An example would be , I was getting train up to city last week when I was speaking to an old school friend who was putting her 17 year old son on the train ...he never lifted his head from his phone once to say hello or engage in face to face conversation. The mother was very worried he was going to the city on his own at 17 and was giving a step by step guide of what to do.
The young lad just grunted.
I was traveling up to Dublin at 14 most Saturdays and without a phone or google maps and I just told parents what train I was getting home and I had no contact with home for the day.

Kids ( adults) need to understand that nasty people exist in the real world, racists , sexual predators and con men ( women) real people that the world can’t censor.
If all the badness is taken from books , movies and songs how are children going to learn and understand that the world isn’t a happy clappy place all the time . Not good for any generation to grown up in a sterile censored world.

leggo

It’s funny how people act like this is new. I remember TV shows back in the 90’s looking at old TV shows like “this was all a bit mad eh??” with talking heads. My da used to constantly be watching them.

But I think that was alright then because boardsies here were young and with it. Now they’re old and they changed what ‘it’ was. Now what they’re with isn’t ‘it’ anymore and what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary.

touts

"Generation Offended" are just the latest in a long line of religious zealots. From the Spanish Inquisition through Puritans and on to ISIL, fanatics in a faith will always seek to out do each other in the expression of that faith usually by destroying "evil doers" in more extravagant ways. In this case the faith is totalitarian liberalism expressed through taking offence. Instagram/pinterest are the new bibles and Twitter/WhatsApp the pulpit.

Sadly these sort of events last years, often several generations, so things aren't looking good for for those of us older than "generation offended". Our best bet is to go underground and practice our faith of "balanced reason" in secret while outwardly appearing to take offence at everything. But we need to hold onto the fact that history also shows that eventually these fanatics lose and society returns to balanced reason.