This 'spastic' debacle (redux)

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:49 am

Ok I think I understand your point a bit better now.

That being said, I agree that if a term is generally used as a derogatory term, than it is prickish to use that against someone. However, people really need to develop a thicker skin about some things. I recall some pretty wicked "anti-ginger" sentiment around here (the transfans board) and Jessy thought it was hillarious (even when some folks said that gingers smelled like piss).

Now that we are on the same page, you have to admit that no matter what, someone is going to be offended by anything you say. You could say "I like green shrubbery" and there will be someone who lost their family to a rabid koala covered in green shrubbery and flips out. So lets all just have a beer and not pet the sweaty things.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Sun Dec 05, 2010 6:35 pm

Jack Cade wrote:On the last point, I might be wrong, but I think it was Germaine Greer herself who first pointed this out. Certainly, she and other feminists make a point of favouring 'c*nt' over 'vagina'.

Oh I hope you're right. I've a lot of time for GG. Met her once, she's fantastic.

Jack Cade wrote:Imagine if they called a serious illness 'prat syndrome'.

I think that's pretty much what they did...except they used latin and greek to make it sound clever.

Jack Cade wrote:So it still depends, for me, on whether patients identify with the word at all.

Fair enough, though tbh (and I work in medicine) I think the term dropped out of common medical use about the same time the Spastics Society decided to change to Scope, so it's pretty much a generational thing. I think (in the UK at least) the word will drop out of use altogether in another 20 years or so because if it's not being used in medicine and it's not being used as an insult it really won't have the linguistic currency anymore. Maybe it'll just go back to the old adjective form, sit in the dictionary and get occasional use in novels. I'd kinda like that.

Jack Cade · Post by **Jack Cade** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:05 am

Optimus Prime Rib wrote:Now that we are on the same page, you have to admit that no matter what, someone is going to be offended by anything you say.

Yeah, broadly, I agree with that. That's why I'm not so interested in whether something is 'offensive' or not (in fact, 'offensive' comedy is often the best). I think it's kind of a separate issue to whether something is genuinely harmful. Offence just seems to be wrapped up in etiquette and stuff like that.

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:14 pm

On the subject of controversy: see my post on the Bayverse twins.

http://forum.idwpublishing.com/viewtopi ... 0ee07b81a8

Post by **Best First** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:56 pm

you are spot on mate.

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:48 pm

Yeah. Why are people wrong on the Internet anyway?

Optimus Prime Rib · Post by **Optimus Prime Rib** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:30 am

Ok, two things. The twins not being able to read the language of the Primes wasn't because they're illiterate. Wheelie even says so in the movie that there are very few, if any, that can read the language of the Primes. So I didn't take that line as a joke or poking fun at illiterate people. And I think people that did are looking to hard to find something to hate on.

And there were many people who found the twins funny. Imagine that, some people liked it, some were offended, such is the nature of comedy. Someone is always going to feel slighted if they feel a joke is aimed at them and Bay certainly isn't the only person who makes a living off of comedy.

Since I am not allowed on those forums yet, could someone post my thoughts?

1. Not only are there many who found the twins funny, there are also many who think that Megan Fox is a great actress. This does not make them correct. At least one gives you something to focus on in the movie that isn't hideous.
2. Michael Bay does not make money off of comedy. He does not make money off of good writing. He does not make money off of good cinematography. He makes money off of explosions.

Jack Cade · Post by **Jack Cade** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:34 pm

Good post, Bumblemus!

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Optimus Prime Rib wrote:1. Not only are there many who found the twins funny, there are also many who think that Megan Fox is a great actress.

Humour changes from person to person. Talent is static. You can re-educate people on what constitutes a good actress by expanding their frame of reference... similar behaviour is unlikely to work where comedy is concerned.

To expand - you can show somebody dozens of films to purge the idea from their mind that Jennifer Garner is in anyway quantifiable as being able to act. But nothing on this earth will make me find Harry Hill even remotely amusing.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:54 pm

That's the first time I've ever been on the IDW boards...

Wow. Some of them seem seem 'happy' with a TF product regardless of it's actual qualities.

It reminds me why I rarely venture into the comment section on newspaper websites. The views some people have are downright painful.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:58 pm

Karl wrote:That's the first time I've ever been on the IDW boards...

Wow. Some of them seem seem 'happy' with a TF product regardless of it's actual qualities.

Oh yes Mr Editor sir you are ever so kind to even be making this comic for us, they're mean and selfish to even consider criticising the product, please will you let me have a job inking or writing or cleaning up your knob cheese for you?

Post by **Kaylee** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:04 pm

I see that.

Reminds me of people who 'believe' in Apple/Steve Jobs: they're not your buddy! They're a company out to make money! Stop defending them like they're you're best bud forever

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:09 pm

Did you know if you post ANYTHING with the words "Steve Jobs" on Twitter, there is "SteveJobsBot" that retweets it? I'm trying to find out if the thing is for him or against him.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:13 pm

bumblemusprime wrote:Did you know if you post ANYTHING with the words "Steve Jobs" on Twitter, there is "SteveJobsBot" that retweets it? I'm trying to find out if the thing is for him or against him.

Maybe it is him!

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:00 am

Brendocon wrote:To expand - you can show somebody dozens of films to purge the idea from their mind that Jennifer Garner is in anyway quantifiable as being able to act. But nothing on this earth will make me find Harry Hill even remotely amusing.

That's not entirely fair, I saw Harry Hill doing standup in Leicester in 1998 and he was at least moderately amusing.

saysadie · Post by **saysadie** » Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:54 pm

Karl wrote:
bumblemusprime wrote:Did you know if you post ANYTHING with the words "Steve Jobs" on Twitter, there is "SteveJobsBot" that retweets it? I'm trying to find out if the thing is for him or against him.
Maybe it is him!

Post by **Best First** » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:44 pm

Karl wrote:I see that.

Reminds me of people who 'believe' in Apple/Steve Jobs: they're not your buddy! They're a company out to make money! Stop defending them like they're you're best bud forever

The best one was a guy, who is constantly bashing people who have the wit to discern that the book is deeply average on its best day, who actually complained IN PUBLIC!! that he was not getting enough credit from IDW for sticking up for them.

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:52 pm

Nice, nice

That's the sort of chump money can't buy!

Sheba · Post by **Sheba** » Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:05 am

What I find interesting is, I was told (by Blueshift, but this was on the Allspark boards where a similar debate was raging) that "spastic" is on par with the c-word (see you next tuesday). Which, oddly enough, I don't find that word offensive at all. Just like I LMAO at the word "cracker".

It's often hard for people to get their heads around the idea that a word is offensive if in their particular experience and usage, it isn't. It's just as simple as that.

However when I think of the word "spastic" the images it brings up is the people who have a particular form of mental and physical handicap that causes their arm to be held in an almost arthritic rigidness across their chest, where it may or may not be moved back and forth towards the chest, with wrist curled downward, also in a quasi-arthritic manner. Which, may or may not be cerebral palsy.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:03 am

First difference that springs to mind is that there isn't an identifiable group of people who were once collectively referred to as "c*nts".

[is prepared to be proven horribly wrong once MV/Karl/Rebis wander into the thread again]

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:53 am

I have a T-shirt that reads "I'm a C*nt" if that helps.

I dunno, this whole thing reminds me of a letter in Viz a while back:

Dear Sir,

I note with disgust that young people have corrupted the perfectly good English word "gay" with a vile new meaning. In my day it was a common term used to mean nothing more offensive than "homosexual", but I understand that the youth of today use it to mean "a bit rubbish".
This is a perversion of the English language and one we should stamp out.

Yours,
So-and-so
Retired hairdresser.

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:06 pm

I understand the **** section of society are also known as "Management".

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:26 pm

Didn't "gay" mean "happy" in the first place?

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:45 pm

Unfortunately its new meaning of 'crap' IMO still has a direct link to its previous meaning of homosexual. I was there when the connection was madeamongst young people at school a few years ago:

Gay people are really bad. You don't want to be gay.
Something crap can be defined as gay, since bad = gay
It also has the benefit of sounding unPC in a 'politically correct world'.

I fully accept I'm in the minority it seems in thinking that gay as a derogatory term is thoroughly uncouth and is as acceptable as calling someone a Jew (which was also big as an insult a few years back).

I just don't buy this 'same word new meaning' line. I see all too easy a connection: same word, same meaning.

Meh.

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Wed Dec 15, 2010 8:29 pm

Linguistic reclamation doesn't ever quite work--imagine a Middle Eastern terrorist group called "The Ragheads."

(a derogatory term for Middle Easterners used by a lot of US military personnel, btw)

inflatable dalek · Post by **inflatable dalek** » Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:11 pm

Back when my cousins were wee school kids I actually found their use of gay as an insult rather sweet as it generally went along the lines of "You fancy that girl? That's so gay that is".

Slight tangent: Currently watching the A-Team on DVD and hugely enjoying it. And those of you who remember what dear old Dirk Benedict came out with about Starbuck being a woman in the new Battlestar Galactica will hardly be surprised to know he's frequently gone on about what a manly manish mans show The A-Team was. And how any remake would ruin it by toning down the manliness to the point it would have to be called (and these are his words) "The Gay Team". [All of this was before the actual remake, no idea what his thoughts on that are. Though as he wasn't the original Face anyway he can hardly complain of the evils of recasting there].

What's made me smile whilst rewatching is that he's clearly in cloud cuckoo land as the original show is even more homoerotic than a series about four men who hang out all the time handling their weapons should be.

Especially Hannibal, so far the incredibly camp old ham has pretended to be a gay hairdresser for no real reason, dressed as an old woman (mistaken for Face's new lover) and, in the biggest clue of all, when confronted with a possible female love interest he locked her in the closet and went to hang out with some half naked bikers instead.

Throw in Murdoch tricking a male gangster into marrying him, BA being constantly placated for flying by either a white sticky drink or a little prick, Face being ever so slightly unconvincing whenever he tries to chat up women and them getting chuck of Amy and The Other One as quickly as they could and they're all desperate closet cases.

Slightly topic related, one thing that shows how attitudes have changed over time is Hannibal's funny foreigner disguises would never be gotten away with on TV today. I suppose the "Ah, So!" comedy Mr. Lee might be some sort of misguided homage to Breakfast at Tiffany's, but the one where he applies lots of boot polish and a dodgy accent to become a black man that fools everyone despite looking like a black and white minstrel is fairly staggering as something that was seen as OK for TV not long after I was born. With extra daft point for him removing all the polish by rubbing his face once with a towel.

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:37 pm

Sadly my rose-tinted spectacles of youth made the A-Team so much better than it actually was

Sheba · Post by **Sheba** » Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:46 pm

Brendocon wrote:First difference that springs to mind is that there isn't an identifiable group of people who were once collectively referred to as "c*nts".

[is prepared to be proven horribly wrong once MV/Karl/Rebis wander into the thread again]

Well, the equivalency was explained to me in the rage it induces in people who hear it, not in the "identifiable group" aspect.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:53 pm

inflatable dalek wrote:Back when my cousins were wee school kids I actually found their use of gay as an insult rather sweet as it generally went along the lines of "You fancy that girl? That's so gay that is".

That's almost exactly how I use it - I was thinking about this the other day, and the last three times I used the word "gay" in a derogatory way were:
1) to describe the obligatory scene in every episode of Castle where he shares a "bonding moment" with his daughter
2) to describe the invasion of the dancefloor (at a party mostly full of homosexual men) by a bunch of heterosexual women dancing around their handbags
3) to deride my best friend when he told me his girlfriend was pregnant

None of which makes any connection between being a bit rubbish and being homosexual - in fact at that party I went and hung out with the homosexual men because the heterosexual women were far too "gay". Then again, I describe my tight-fisted housemate as "Jewish" despite having so many Jewish friends that they renamed me Rabbi Levi Jonestein.

I think I probably just like being childish and offensive, tbh. On a related note, you're all spastics.

Post by **Kaylee** » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:06 pm

Two examples of dramatic irony and one to describe a situation you think, presumably, a bit naff (women dancing in a silly way) and observing you like being un-PC correlates pretty well with what I said, I think, regardless whether it [being silly/using gay in that way] appeals to you?