 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 16, 2008 - 4:33 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
TominAtl
(Member)
|
I really don't want to comment on this, but I sort of have to.
There are many such 'satire' shows all over the world that poke fun at certain attitudes etc.. (Well, maybe not EVERYWHERE: Jay Leno wouldn't count as satire in Europe: he's FAR too obvious).
It's a shame to have to spell these things out, but that sketch (not the most brilliantly executed, mind you) is taking no sides: it's simply inviting the audience to laugh at a phenomenon. You all leap to the assumption that this is 'gay-bashing' when it's really a poke at macho attitudes.
What would you folk all have made of old British shows like 'Not the Nine O'Clock News', where Pamela Stevenson sang her seductive pop song, 'Ayatollah, Don't Khomeini Closer' back in the '80s etc.?
Really gentlemen ... some maturing of attitudes is necessary here. There's no corpse, there's been no murder. Woody Allen has lived in vain, it would seem.
While this may be satire(and I have my serious doubts), the problem stems in that those who view it, on a whole, won't see it as satire, just as those who have been offended and outraged by the recent cover of the "The New Yorker".
Sure, maybe both of these are actually poking fun at those who view gays and Barack and his wife, but it is obvious that the vast majority would see it as "Hey, that is cool and funny as shit!". And you have to remember to which this show was being focused at. I mean, it's call "The MANSHOW" for Gods sake.
Yes, satire is a wonderful way of showing some of society's pitfalls and prejudices. But one never knows when true satire and true bigotry begins. It takes an artist to do it right, I feel, and this dumb, cheap ass episode was as clumsy as it was stupid. And yet it still gets laughs and I am certain that it's "message" was totally missed by the vast majority of those who see it and its makers could hardly care less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 16, 2008 - 4:36 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
joan hue
(Member)
|
You are right, Eric. I don't chime in when people attack your particular
form of religion which is narrow-minded and intolerant; I never will support
such religious views.
You know, Eric, I seem to really tick you off. I ignore a lot of your thrashings
until I can't stomach it anymore, but you fling your bile at me ALL the time.
Why don't you, as supposedly a decent man, attack the ugliness of the
above youtube video instead of jumping me for hating a "hate video?"
Why aren't you offended by the Gaybuster video? Why haven't you
mentioned that video?
I've decided what the problem it. I think you are secretly (and maybe with
shame) in love with me. Yep, really, I think you are. Please realize, dearie,
the I am MUCH older than you, have grown children, am not a Cougar female,
am happily married, and am not interested in a narrow-minded boy toy.
Move on to Raquel, who is a little older than I am. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 16, 2008 - 4:53 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Eric Paddon
(Member)
|
You are right, Eric. I don't chime in when people attack your particular
form of religion which is narrow-minded and intolerant; I never will support
such religious views.
Since my particular form of religion is part of the mainstream Christian tradition as opposed to yours which subordinates the Gospel of Christ to the Social Gospel and solidarity with secular Leftism, that says plenty for what your "particular form of religion" represents to me.
You know, Eric, I seem to really tick you off.
Because anyone who invokes the "rules" as a way of protecting only one group of people but who has a rap sheet of not wanting to do so for those with views you have an obtuse hatred of, is a hypocrite. I believe in an equal standard for all of us, and would prefer not to have to call attention to my own viewpoints, but often I find that the only reason why I must ever say anything is because the people you sit on your hands for and look the other way about, abuse that regard for "the rules" you now want to invoke on your hypocrtically selective basis.
***Why don't you, as supposedly a decent man, attack the ugliness of the above youtube video****
Because (1) I'm not going to see it and (2)this particular subject matter is something I have no desire to talk about. Given that I have no great regard for ANY of the material that is passed off as "satire" in present day popular culture, and that I would note includes the things that are described as "equal opportunity offenders" like "South Park", I know that what I would see would not be something I'd like on general principle regarding my low opinion of present day popular culture. But I would note that such kinds of "satire" generally is objected to only when the target is one particular group but similar satire aimed at those the PC brigade hate, would be applauded. I at least, prefer to maintain an equal standard where I think the whole thing is bad and part of a broader problem.
I've decided what the problem it. I think you are secretly (and maybe with
shame) in love with me.
It figures that since you are devoid of an intellectually defensible argument in regards to your track record of silence regarding attacks on Christianity in general that came from the man of many IDs before he was banned, you then have to go off into this silly little realm.
Move on to Raquel, who is a little older than I am.
Tsk, tsk, we are getting catty, aren't we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric, old son, a society without satire is a dangerous one. You'll find satire even in the Old and New Testaments if you look for it. What do you think JC was doing when he cracked with the crowds about the Pharisees who 'strain out a gnat and swallow a camel'? And apparently the crowds loved it. What do you think Elijah was doing when he asked the prophets of Baal if Baal had gone on vacation?
This forum doesn't like either political or religious threads. That's a good and fair decision.
The original video is satire ... not very good satire, as Tallguy has said, but certainly that was the intention, and the target was a certain sort of macho young Norwegian male. It's self-parody. (I can't speak for the poster's intent though.) So this argument is all baseless anyway, but it has opened a raw spark in two people and that IS the intent of satire ... to spark debate. To that extent it has worked, albeit in the wrong place!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have to have at least some skill to be a satirist otherwise you could chop off your own toes, as the New Yorker is currently learning.
That clip was junk because it had no context. It actually might be an attack on homophobia by gay or liberal programme makers. But, because of its shallowness and ineptitude, legions of homophobes would jump up, using it to fuel their own pathetic agendas.
We had this sort of shit in Britain in the 70s when the sitcom Til Death Do Us Part, about a "funny" racist bigot, was used by real racists and the far right to further their beliefs. The show hit a disturbing nerve in the UK and coincided, not entirely by accident, with a gigantic rise in the popularity of ultra-right parties. The sitcom's author was in fact a socialist who intended to satirise racism! The show's star was a Jewish actor playing an English gentile bigot. But all of this was lost on 80% of the viewers who instead took the character's extreme views as gospel. That is a documented fact.
The Obama/New Yorker thing is going the same way. When a purportedly liberal journal actually ends up reinforcing the target of its satire then you know it's probably time to fire your staff and hire some intelligent satirists
TIL DEATH DO US PART was adapted in the States as ALL IN THE FAMILY and ran from 1971-79. It was a huge hit. I don't think Archie Bunker was quite as extreme or hateful as Alf Garnett. Anyway, I adored our version of it because it was honestly funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truly! 
