Red Mosquito

durdencommatyler wrote:

turned2black wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Thing is, neither of those shows are one thing. I've probably seen less South Park than most South Park fans because the episodes I've seen have been less than endearing to me, and at times juvenile and/or offensive to my sensibility.

Some of you guys are probably in the same boat, you just replace the words "South" "Park" in my statement with the words "Family" "Guy."

And, yeah, I think Family Guy can be meaner than South Park. And I think Family Guy has lost a lot recently because they default to excessive violence and that's not my thing at all.

But South Park has similar flaws.

South Park is consistently clever and the comedy is always in context of the story. The storylines are always relevant and timely. They attack all sides of the issue and point out the ridiculousness of a subject regardless of sensitivities. They "get away with it" because it's well done and usually in context of a moral.

South Park is satire. FG is gutter humor for the sake of gutter humor.

I feel rewarded at the end of a South Park episode. My senses are assault, but then the cleverness reveals itself. FG is just all assault without the reward.

But, again, how much Family Guy do you watch? I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything. But Family Guy is all of those things as well. There are countless examples of attacking all sides, of being relevant and timely.

It seems to me (and this is anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt) people who say FG is just gutter humor aren't watching a lot of Family Guy.

I make a point to watch it once or twice a year, so I can stoke the fire of hatred for Seth.

durdencommatyler wrote:People see things differently.

This is what it all comes down to, and it's something I've been struggling with for the last couple of days. Interestingly, the Oscars (and specifically the Onion controversy) threw me into this little existential crisis where I was peering into the walls of my own perception. I was trying to understand why these people were so angry, and why I couldn't relate to them, and why I myself got so angry at their outrage. I consider myself a reasonable, compassionate person with an understanding of how the world works, so why was I unable to empathize with their calls of racism and misogyny? And then I started thinking of experiential perception, and how I'm a white(ish), straight, cisgendered male of some privilege. And I got really frustrated, because I was faced with the prospect of my opinions being hopelessly colored by that experience, and I really wanted them to be my own, and I wanted them to be irrevocably correct. Not tied to who I am, what I've seen, and systems of control I will never fully understand. I came to realize that an intellectual understanding of the situation doesn't entail an emotional understanding, and there are no "irrevocable truths" when it comes to these issues, no hard rules-- there are greys, inconsistencies and confusion. The best I can do is to navigate these greys with compassion, while staying true to my own convictions as an intellectual being who is bound to his own understanding.

This really has nothing to do with your own opinions or with this conversation about the Oscars, it's just something that's been floating around in the walls of my brain for the last few days and I was finally able to externalize.

turned2black wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

turned2black wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Thing is, neither of those shows are one thing. I've probably seen less South Park than most South Park fans because the episodes I've seen have been less than endearing to me, and at times juvenile and/or offensive to my sensibility.

Some of you guys are probably in the same boat, you just replace the words "South" "Park" in my statement with the words "Family" "Guy."

And, yeah, I think Family Guy can be meaner than South Park. And I think Family Guy has lost a lot recently because they default to excessive violence and that's not my thing at all.

But South Park has similar flaws.

South Park is consistently clever and the comedy is always in context of the story. The storylines are always relevant and timely. They attack all sides of the issue and point out the ridiculousness of a subject regardless of sensitivities. They "get away with it" because it's well done and usually in context of a moral.

South Park is satire. FG is gutter humor for the sake of gutter humor.

I feel rewarded at the end of a South Park episode. My senses are assault, but then the cleverness reveals itself. FG is just all assault without the reward.

But, again, how much Family Guy do you watch? I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything. But Family Guy is all of those things as well. There are countless examples of attacking all sides, of being relevant and timely.

It seems to me (and this is anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt) people who say FG is just gutter humor aren't watching a lot of Family Guy.

I make a point to watch it once or twice a year, so I can stoke the fire of hatred for Seth.

Fair enough.

theplatypus wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:People see things differently.

This is what it all comes down to, and it's something I've been struggling with for the last couple of days. Interestingly, the Oscars (and specifically the Onion controversy) threw me into this little existential crisis where I was peering into the walls of my own perception. I was trying to understand why these people were so angry, and why I couldn't relate to them, and why I myself got so angry at their outrage. I consider myself a reasonable, compassionate person with an understanding of how the world works, so why was I unable to empathize with their calls of racism and misogyny? And then I started thinking of experiential perception, and how I'm a white(ish), straight, cisgendered male of some privilege. And I got really frustrated, because I was faced with the prospect of my opinions being hopelessly colored by that experience, and I really wanted them to be my own, and I wanted them to be irrevocably correct. Not tied to who I am, what I've seen, and systems of control I will never fully understand. I came to realize that an intellectual understanding of the situation doesn't entail an emotional understanding, and there are no "irrevocable truths" when it comes to these issues, no hard rules-- there are greys, inconsistencies and confusion. The best I can do is to navigate these greys with compassion, while staying true to my own convictions as an intellectual being who is bound to his own understanding.

This really has nothing to do with your own opinions or with this conversation about the Oscars, it's just something that's been floating around in the walls of my brain for the last few days and I was finally able to externalize.

your such a nice person.

theplatypus wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:People see things differently.

This is what it all comes down to, and it's something I've been struggling with for the last couple of days. Interestingly, the Oscars (and specifically the Onion controversy) threw me into this little existential crisis where I was peering into the walls of my own perception. I was trying to understand why these people were so angry, and why I couldn't relate to them, and why I myself got so angry at their outrage. I consider myself a reasonable, compassionate person with an understanding of how the world works, so why was I unable to empathize with their calls of racism and misogyny? And then I started thinking of experiential perception, and how I'm a white(ish), straight, cisgendered male of some privilege. And I got really frustrated, because I was faced with the prospect of my opinions being hopelessly colored by that experience, and I really wanted them to be my own, and I wanted them to be irrevocably correct. Not tied to who I am, what I've seen, and systems of control I will never fully understand. I came to realize that an intellectual understanding of the situation doesn't entail an emotional understanding, and there are no "irrevocable truths" when it comes to these issues, no hard rules-- there are greys, inconsistencies and confusion. The best I can do is to navigate these greys with compassion, while staying true to my own convictions as an intellectual being who is bound to his own understanding.

This really has nothing to do with your own opinions or with this conversation about the Oscars, it's just something that's been floating around in the walls of my brain for the last few days and I was finally able to externalize.

Phenomenal post. And you're absolutely right.

Your opinions must be colored by experience (and privilege or lack thereof). There's no way around that. It is a struggle. And for what it's worth, I think you do an exemplary job at navigating those choppy waters.

VinylGuy wrote:your such a nice person.

This is the part where Jorge does this: *you're.

And back to the Oscars, the NY Times review is more where I'm at with the whole thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/movie ... .html?_r=0

turned2black wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:your such a nice person.

This is the part where Jorge does this: *you're.

Hey, I don't poke fun at my fellow ESL peeps. Solidarity above all.

Seriously, guys, thank you for this discussion. This was outstanding.

I have to admit, I didn't know about the Onion controversy until this thread brought it up. I had to research it. Having a fair amount of disconnect from the internet and the online community can be such a good thing.

My mother was/is an activist and always worked in women's groups, including being Vice President of Planned Parenthood of West Texas. At that job she dodged rocks, took a punch and received daily death threats. She didn't have a problem with Seth at the Oscars. But then again, she's getting soft (and smelly) in her old age.

turned2black wrote:My mother was/is an activist and always worked in women's groups, including being Vice President of Planned Parenthood of West Texas. At that job she dodged rocks, took a punch and received daily death threats. She didn't have a problem with Seth at the Oscars. But then again, she's getting soft (and smelly) in her old age.

I see this kind of thing all the time. People who have no experience making a big deal out of nothing, while those who really understand the reality of the situation and the dregs of the issue, are able to appreciate and/or look past the fervor.

Not necessarily saying that's what's happening in the New Yorker article or other places. Just that I've seen that kind of thing in other places and it colors how I view situations similar to these.

Doesn't invalidate anyone's opinion. Just an observation.

I really want to be clear that I'm not being a dick and saying that I think that what I'm talking about in my previous post is what's happening in this overall discussion. My previous comment was tangential and exploratory not accusatory.

People a lot smarter than me understand the nuances of these social paradigms much better than I do. And I'm not speaking from any kind of position of authority.

YOU'RE BEING A TOTAL DICK

I just think PSH should have won.

Harry Lime wrote:I just think PSH should have won.

I haven't seen either performance, but I agree.

But then we wouldn't have gotten that awesome acceptance speech.

That was a pretty great speech.

Made me like the guy a lot more, actually.

Well, yeah, there is no one more likable than Waltz. I just wanted a win for Master.