Zoolander 2 deemed “transphobic”

22-11-2015 02:24PM

People need to bear in mind intent. If something is intended to take a malicious dig at a group then I can see why people would be upset, but 99% of the time (or so it seems), it's just intended to be funny or irreverent, or even just neutral.

If everyone desperate to take offence simply accepted that none is intended like adults - in every area of life not just things like the OP - life would be so much easier.

I don't believe a character in Zoolander 2 was intended to target and ridicule or humiliate any group.

Fleawuss · 22-11-2015 02:38PM

I'll see the movie eventually somewhere. The only one ever really humiliated in a Ben Stiller movie is Ben Stiller imho. I find him seriously unfunny. But then he's laughing all the way to the bank so good luck.
PS I wonder would he play the anti Semitic card fairly quickly if someone made fun of an ultra orthodox circumcision ritual?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618

Son Of A Vidic · 22-11-2015 02:54PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Can you imagine the faux outrage and PC whinging if Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles was released today! The PC Brigade would have a meltdown.

Mel Brooks a comic genius who just happens to be Jewish. He'd probably get life in prison for this today.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJP5mf8Q4Tw

seamus · 22-11-2015 03:00PM

The problem is not that someone's offended by this. People have been offended by stuff since day dot.

The problem is that any idiot can set up an online petition and any other idiot who complains about the "PC brigade" can use this inconsequential petition as proof of "PC gone mad"

One eyed Jack · 22-11-2015 03:38PM

Fleawuss wrote: »

I'll see the movie eventually somewhere. The only one ever really humiliated in a Ben Stiller movie is Ben Stiller imho. I find him seriously unfunny. But then he's laughing all the way to the bank so good luck.
PS I wonder would he play the anti Semitic card fairly quickly if someone made fun of an ultra orthodox circumcision ritual?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618

What, you mean like the scene in "Meet the Fokkers" where they did exactly that, with the flying foreskin?

I guess there's your answer - he didn't.

I agree with seamus on this one. Any idiot can set up a change.org petition, and there's no shortage of idiots will jump on anything just to say how 'outraged' they are, and this in turn gives other idiots yet another opportunity to be 'outraged'.

Personally, I find it all a bit embarrassing the whole idea of people claiming that because they identify as part of such and such a group, that they assume authority to speak for or to represent the interests of that whole group or whatever.

I despise the word 'retard', but when the whole 'outrage' kicked off on social media about Robert Downey Jnr. suggesting to Ben Stiller (playing a failed actor), "You never go full retard", you have to consider the context. Neither of them in character were the sharpest pencil in the box, and I found the irony and the intentional parody in that scene hilarious, because it wasn't intended to be malicious, and in the context of the film as a whole, it was apt, appropriate, it wasn't just gratuitous or whatever else.

I watched Wayne's World the other night, and anyone who's seen it will know the filing clerk with the two different coloured eyes, and the two lads Wayne and Garth, again playing not the sharpest pencils in the box, the whole scene where they were unintentionally mentioning the eye and trying not to make eye contact reminded me so much of people I meet all the time who are afraid to mention anything like common phrases like "dot the i's and cross the t's" :pac:

I really do wish some people wouldn't take themselves so seriously, give other people the benefit of the doubt and trust that not everyone is out to be malicious and make jokes at their expense. If people could learn to laugh at themselves, it would make their lives a hell of a lot easier. Not everyone is a malicious ballbag ffs! :rolleyes:

I'd say to the idiot, to any idiot actually, that gets their knickers in a twist about the slightest little thing that they perceive to be an insult directed at them -

"Get some perspective, and pick your battles, not everything is about you!"

Fleawuss · 22-11-2015 04:43PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What, you mean like the scene in "Meet the Fokkers" where they did exactly that, with the flying foreskin?

I guess there's your answer - he didn't.

I agree with seamus on this one. Any idiot can set up a change.org petition, and there's no shortage of idiots will jump on anything just to say how 'outraged' they are, and this in turn gives other idiots yet another opportunity to be 'outraged'.

Personally, I find it all a bit embarrassing the whole idea of people claiming that because they identify as part of such and such a group, that they assume authority to speak for or to represent the interests of that whole group or whatever.

I despise the word 'retard', but when the whole 'outrage' kicked off on social media about Robert Downey Jnr. suggesting to Ben Stiller (playing a failed actor), "You never go full retard", you have to consider the context. Neither of them in character were the sharpest pencil in the box, and I found the irony and the intentional parody in that scene hilarious, because it wasn't intended to be malicious, and in the context of the film as a whole, it was apt, appropriate, it wasn't just gratuitous or whatever else.

I watched Wayne's World the other night, and anyone who's seen it will know the filing clerk with the two different coloured eyes, and the two lads Wayne and Garth, again playing not the sharpest pencils in the box, the whole scene where they were unintentionally mentioning the eye and trying not to make eye contact reminded me so much of people I meet all the time who are afraid to mention anything like common phrases like "dot the i's and cross the t's" :pac:

I really do wish some people wouldn't take themselves so seriously, give other people the benefit of the doubt and trust that not everyone is out to be malicious and make jokes at their expense. If people could learn to laugh at themselves, it would make their lives a hell of a lot easier. Not everyone is a malicious ballbag ffs! :rolleyes:

I'd say to the idiot, to any idiot actually, that gets their knickers in a twist about the slightest little thing that they perceive to be an insult directed at them -

"Get some perspective, and pick your battles, not everything is about you!"

Haven't seen those Fokkers so I'll take your word for it. I'm sure some idiot would take offense though.

Wabbit Ears · 22-11-2015 04:53PM

Reminds me of the Blumia slagging from the first one

"you can read minds"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG6Jg17Ouus

MilesMorales1 · 22-11-2015 07:16PM

Yawnnnnnn. People getting offended at something on the internet, again. Move along, not much going on here.

Bio Mech · 22-11-2015 07:19PM

Wow 7000 whole signatures? That could sink the entire movie business.

Paramite Pie · 22-11-2015 07:55PM

But why transgender models??

smash · 23-11-2015 09:29AM

I hate the use of term "cis" or "cisgender". This shit needs to stop.

RWCNT · 23-11-2015 09:31AM

smash wrote: »

I hate the use of term "cis" or "cisgender". This shit needs to stop.

Why?

strelok · 23-11-2015 09:33AM

RWCNT wrote: »

Why?

do we have a word for people who aren't albino?

RWCNT · 23-11-2015 09:38AM

strelok wrote: »

do we have a word for people who aren't albino?

I don't know, perhaps? How do you feel about the word "straight"?

One eyed Jack · 23-11-2015 09:52AM

RWCNT wrote: »

Why?

Because it's nonsense.

That's why.

Azalea · 23-11-2015 09:53AM

RWCNT wrote: »

Why?

I dunno. I mean, why is it so embraced only in the last couple of years? It seems... forced or something. And it always seems to be used in the context of how sh-t straight men are.

Cee-Jay-Cee · 23-11-2015 10:01AM

The whole thing more than likely started with one sad little lonely ****wit who is probably in his mid 40's, lives at home with his mother, has no social life or skills and sits at home writing blogs on **** he sees on tv/cinema. Like minded ****wits jumped on his silly little bandwagon and now over 7000 of them are in a silly little crusade to ban the film. The cinema going population of the US/world is considerably bigger and the figure probably only represents a minuscule % and so will be largely ignored and proper order too.

One eyed Jack · 23-11-2015 10:02AM

Azalea wrote: »

I dunno. I mean, why is it so embraced only in the last couple of years? It seems... forced or something. And it always seems to be used in the context of how sh-t straight men are.

When I see it used in an article, nine times out of ten it's heterosexual men the term is being applied to, closely followed by the word "privilege". I do wonder is it used as some sort of pseudoscientific label to lend some authority to an article's usually outlandish claims, to cover for the lack of any actual evidence.

Or is it just another attempt at identity policing politics. I think it is.

Gazzmonkey · 23-11-2015 10:16AM

J. Marston wrote: »

Non-binary? That's a new one.

Same here...

So if Binary is having a zero or a one,

Then non-binary is having both a zero and a one?

One eyed Jack · 23-11-2015 10:23AM

Gazzmonkey wrote: »

Same here...

So if Binary is having a zero or a one,

Then non-binary is having both a zero and a one?

Not necessarily. It's anything basically that for the person themselves falls outside the 'social construct' of the zero/one binary gender classification system.

In Germany they recognise a third sex - intersex, but I'm not too sure how they classify gender, or is there a word in German for some of these terms, or any other languages besides US English!

smash · 23-11-2015 10:27AM

RWCNT wrote: »

Why?

Because it's nonsense. Why are regular people being labelled just for being... well, regular?

Why has the trans community insisted that those who are not trans must be labelled? And worse than that, why have the media entertained it?

We had male, female, trans. And then there's sexuality too. But no, this wasn't good enough... now you have all this:

Genetically male but identify as gay female
Genetically male but identify as a straight female
Genetically female but identify as gay male
Genetically female but identify as straight male
Cisgender straight male
Cisgender gay male
Cisgender female
Cisgender gay female
Genetically cis male donkey who identifies as a female walrus.

I don't even know what binary has to do with it but like I said, this shit needs to stop.

Jelle1880 · 23-11-2015 10:28AM

Azalea wrote: »

Why is offence only being taken about such characters now? They've appeared in a number of films and television shows down through the years. "Phobic" in this case means there's an intention to be hateful - that's hardly the case here.

Ever heard of SJW ?

That's why.

seamus · 23-11-2015 10:37AM

smash wrote: »

Because it's nonsense. Why are regular people being labelled just for being... well, regular?

Because irregular people are labelled as irregular.

I don't like it myself, but I do understand the logic. In the same way that you have "gay" and "straight", you have "trans" and....what? "normal"?
"Straight" has become accepted over common usage, but its origins infer that being gay is a perversion - bent, as opposed to straight.

I guess this is what trans people are attempting to bypass with the "cis" word, so that in a discussion on trans topics you don't have to use "non-trans" or "normal". The former can be confusing - when you say "non-trans" are you referring to someone who hasn't transitioned, someone who's not "out", etc etc etc? And using "normal" implies that being trans is wrong or perverted.

So while I dislike it, I can understand why it has come about and where it can be useful as a non-implicating descriptor for "the rest of us". But only in relevant conversations. It's not something that needs to be used outside of conversations dealing with trans-specific issues.

That is, if we're discussing gender related issues, then someone being trans is somewhat irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you're a cis or trans woman, you're a woman.

"Non-binary" refers to people who don't identify as either male or female solely. The bisexuals of the gender world. But again, it's not a term that needs to be used outside of relevant discussions, and anyone who does is usually trying to grind some axe. Apparently the term "androgynous" isn't liked because some people don't consider themselves in possession of any masculine or feminine characteristics. Maybe they're furries or something, I don't know.

Sh1tbag OToole · 23-11-2015 10:37AM

'Transphobic' should have been named word of the year instead of that silly crying smiley

suicide_circus · 23-11-2015 10:40AM

The sooner we move away from ridiculous labels and just live our lives the better. Just get on with it. Stop seeking public validation of your private eccentricities otherwise people may mistake you for an attention seeking navel gazer.

smash · 23-11-2015 10:44AM

with

seamus wrote: »

I don't like it myself, but I do understand the logic. In the same way that you have "gay" and "straight", you have "trans" and....what? "normal"?
"Straight" has become accepted over common usage, but its origins infer that being gay is a perversion - bent, as opposed to straight.

Why the need for the opposite though? he's trans, he's not. Simple as that. You don't always need an opposite.

seamus wrote: »

So while I dislike it, I can understand why it has come about and where it can be useful as a non-implicating descriptor for "the rest of us". But only in relevant conversations. It's not something that needs to be used outside of conversations dealing with trans-specific issues.

It's a phrase that has been coined with the purpose of being able to beat people with a stick. I have already seen it being used multiple times as a 'dirty' word, so to speak. It's sole purpose is to describe people who are not ''with us" so immediately therefore they are "against us".

seamus wrote: »

That is, if we're discussing gender related issues, then someone being trans is somewhat irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you're a cis or trans woman, you're a woman.

Then why oh why are there LGBT groups and not just an LGB group with trans as a completely separate entity.

homerjay2005 · 23-11-2015 10:46AM

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

People must have very little going on in their lives if this offends them.

The queue of people getting more and more offended on behalf of other people is bigger than its ever been.

It's got to a stage now where you can't say one negative word about certain things cos If you do you are going to get accosted for it.

Sad times.

23-11-2015 10:56AM

smash wrote: »

with
Why the need for the opposite though? he's trans, he's not. Simple as that. You don't always need an opposite.

Apparently people who are "different" shouldn't be labelled as "different". They're all delicate flowers who need people like us to be SJWs and defend them. For example, I have asthma, anyone who doesn't shouldn't be considered just "normal", let's call them asthma-lacking. But then I suppose "lacking" would suggest something is missing from the majority of the population so that's no good. Or someone who is not bald, let's call them "haired".

VinLieger · 23-11-2015 11:05AM

Ugh fvcking SJW's looking for their next outrage cus they have nothing better to do with their time

One eyed Jack · 23-11-2015 11:06AM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

The queue of people getting more and more offended on behalf of other people is bigger than its ever been.

It's got to a stage now where you can't say one negative word about certain things cos If you do you are going to get accosted for it.

Sad times.

You can't say something negative about something because someone else will pull you up on it?

Jaysus, that's terrible...

:pac:

Zoolander 2 deemed “transphobic”

Comments