Judging from my observations on "offensive" limericks on OEDILF, I am much less offended about remarks than others are. I suppose this means I am not very politically correct, which of course could be a problem. Would you find this cartoon offensive?

In the Sunday's "Boondocks" comic strip, which I don't normally read, there was one panel with 3 characters and 2 words. Two of McGruder's (author of the comic strip) young black protagonists, Huey and Caesar, are shown bundled up against the cold and on a winter walk. They glower in the direction of a lightly clad, huffing and puffing, blond jogger, who has just run past them. Says Huey, "White people." Of course the unspoken words are "Who can figure them out?!"

In today's Chicago Tribune, the public editor (who happens to be black) says they received lots of complaints and apologized for it. He says, "If young Mr. McGruder is going to make his living trading on the always touchy issue of race, he needs to be always on, always sensitive to tones and overtones. I don't think he was this time."

I thought it was funny.

I wouldn't be offended, but I'm not easily offended anyway.

Out of curiosity, do you happen to know whether:

1. the complaints came from black or white people;
2. Mr McGruder is black or white?

I am so glad I cannot find my soap box! This is the worst kind of PC crap. There are many issues which are so important, such as avoiding obvious sexism, racially charged material that is a slur, etc. And this was actually quite funny. It is along the lines of "White men can't jump." The cartoonist owes no one an apology; his editors or managers owe him an apology for even suggesting that he does.

quote:

---

Out of curiosity, do you happen to know whether the complaints came from black or white people; Mr McGruder is black or white?

---

McGruder is black.

I wonder just how many complaints is "lots".

Arnie, I am thinking the complaints came from whites, and Richard, he didn't report the number of complaints. I am thinking in the hundreds, but I don't know. Still, that wouldn't be many.

Just for the record: I find Boondocks one of the better American cartoons these days. McGruder can be a bit touchy, too, but his cartoons are tops.

The cartoon in question is similar in theme to one of the funnier Calvin and Hobbes stips of bygone days, but no mention of race was in it. It was adults/children instead. No kids wrote in and complained about Calvin!

Change that guy's title from "editor" to "editurd."

But...if the cartoon showed two white joggers, looking at a black dude hanging on a street corner, in large jeans, a doo rag, and unlaced shoes, thinking:

"Black people". (Who can figure them out?)

Wouldn't THAT produce a lot of controversy and calls to the editor?

Saying "White men can't jump.." is tantamount to saying only black people can be real athletes... which is where Jimmy the Greek went wrong!

I'm going to crawl into a hole somewhere until it all blows over. All these people need to quit going to sensitivity classes... Jeez.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KHC:
But...if the cartoon showed two white joggers, looking at a black dude hanging on a street corner, in large jeans, a doo rag, and unlaced shoes, thinking:

"Black people". (Who can figure them out?)

Wouldn't THAT produce a lot of controversy and calls to the editor?

---

Not worth a response.

Change that guy's title from "editor" to "editurd."

To be fair, Asa, I know you well enough to think you would like this editor very much. He always has a very balanced view of the news and sometimes goes against the views of the more conservative editors. I love the way he analyzes the position the Chicago Tribune took in certain situations, and often he even talks about where they went wrong. I have learned a lot about the sociopolitical aspects of journalism from his columns.

In this particular case, though, I am afraid the editor was speaking the company line.

The difference, KHC, to me would be that jogging is a healthy activity that often middle and higher classed people take up. You don't often, for example, see a homeless guy jogging. In your example, the situation is reversed. His shoes are untied, he's "hanging" around. I could legitimately see blacks would be offended by that example.

Quote "...I am thinking in the hundreds, but I don't know...."

Of course, we're all guessing but I would doubt hundreds. The Beeb received many hundreds of complaints about the Jerry Springer opera but that was from a potential audience of 50 million and a TV audience to boot. And that was an exceptional number.

Actually the BBC received 15 thousand complaints about Jerry Springer:The Opera. It was the largest number they have ever received about any single program. (So they said on one of the TV discussion programs anyway.) Even in the heyday of arch-puritan Mary Whitehouse and her unlamented National Viewers And Listeners Association they hadn't had as many.

The interesting thing was that the majority of these (more than 80% I believe) were received before transmission from people who had never seen the show.

I saw one of the complainants interviewed and she admitted she hadn't seen it but insisted that it was obscene and blasphemous and that its broadcast was an affront to her and everyone else.
When pressed as to how she knew she said that "everyone" was saying so.

When it was pointed out that the "everyone" in question also hadn't seen it she said that if everyone knew it then it must be true.

The interviewer wisely left it there and allowed her own words to hang her as a fool.

Incidentally I did the maths on the often repeated claim that the two hour show contained 8000 obscenties.
That's a little more than one obscenity every second for the whole show. Makes me wonder where they managed to find time to fit in the blasphemy as well.

One newspaper claimed ten thousand obscenities, almost two a second. And the fifteen thousand complainants presumably believe this rubbish.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

I read that they arrived at the number of obscenities by counting up in every part. Therefore if the chorus sang a swear word it was counted as 50 obscenities (or however many people were in the chorus) although it was heard only once.

This reminds me of the big Harry Potter scare - all those people who had never read the books, convinced that HP was going to draw their children into demon worship.

I didn't watch the programme as I have seen, and don't much care for, Jerry Springer. Did anyone watch it and was it worth watching?

Actually this furore reminds me of that which arose over the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" which many leading religious figures condemned as blasphemous, again without having seen it. That I did watch and, although I didn't much care for the film, could not see that it was blasphemous - except insofar as it suggested that Jesus was a human being (so?) with human urges and frailties (really?)

Of course, we're all guessing but I would doubt hundreds. The Beeb received many hundreds of complaints about the Jerry Springer opera but that was from a potential audience of 50 million and a TV audience to boot. And that was an exceptional number.

On the other hand, Richard, it was obviously a lot more than normal. After all, he doesn't write an editorial explanation very often, and this paper has columns, comic strips, etc., every single day. Further, I think for everyone who does take the time to write, there are many more who think that way, but don't write. I could be wrong, of course.

The interesting thing was that the majority of these (more than 80% I believe) were received before transmission from people who had never seen the show.

It reminds me of a time when I made a very foolish statement to my sister. She was talking about how popular Taco Bell is in Phoenix where she lives, and I went into a tirade about how awful their food is, not genuine Mexican, unhealthy, blah, blah, blah. Then, I sheepishly added, "Of course, I have never eaten there." My sister just sat there after my know-it-all serman, looking shocked, and said, "You've never eaten there?" I was more than a little embarrassed!

Kalleh, thank you for bringing this up:

[rant]

It's amazing to me how many people just do not getBoondocks. The guy is hilarious and brilliant, but a lot of his comics seem to just fly over people's heads. Kalleh - I think you're right to have laughed at what was a very funny strip, and you really ought to read it more often. McGruder is all about being politically incorrect - that's the point of the strip, and I don't understand why people can't seem to see that.

Here in Raleigh, the public editor of our newspaper spends a lot of time explaining the strip - too many people interpret the comic as either:

1. Racist against blacks
2. Racist against whites

When they don't realize that the author (black) is satirizing society's views of himself. He's not racist against anyone, and a proper view of the comic recognizes the very strong message of how ridiculous racism is...

[/rant]

Sorry for all that, but it's a real pet peeve that makes me feel like I live in a backwater sometimes.

Loudnotes, I'm a South Carolina native myself, with relatives in both NC and SC. Glad to see you aboard!

Here in Portland, Oregon, we have a very politically incorrect quadraplegic cartoonist (Callahanonline.com) whose cartoons skewer stereotypes of all types. I suppose that IF you're disabled, or IF you're black, or IF you're of some other group that society identifies, rightly or wrongly, as "different," you can get away with more than we fully-functional Anglos can. Bill Maher faces occasional opprobrium for his funny stuff, I think, BECAUSE he's not a minority. I still think he's pretty good, though!

I wish we could embrace all cultures and would stop worrying about the exterior and cultural differences of people. On that note, I will never forget a comment made by my very naive 8-year-old (at the time) son. We do live in a rather white area of Chicago, though I thought we had given our kids a diverse upbringing. Not the case, I guess. My son had been watching a TV report highlighting racism of whites against blacks. My very cute son said, "I don't know why anyone would say things against the blacks. My two very best friends are black." Shu and I looked at each other, quite perplexed, since the only black family in our school had daughters. We asked him who they were, and he identified two of his friends, one was Asyrian boy and the other was Chinese!

LoudNotes, I really wish there were [rant][/rant] devices on these boards! Arnie, let's ask for that on our next board improvement.

If we had ranting devices, we'd end up using them often, wouldn't we? What do you think they'd do to the text? Would they require that you had your sound turned on so you could hear them, like the "howlers" that Rowling talks about in the Harry Potter books?

Actually, CW, I don't think we'd use them too much. We all rant once in awhile, and we recognize when we do that. For example, I get on my soapbox about the cigarette companies and can rant forever!

I don't know what it would look like, but a significant amount of noise should accompany it!

(Quote) Actually this furore reminds me of that which arose over the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" which many leading religious figures condemned as blasphemous, again without having seen it.


I've never seen that film at all but I do recall the outrage that followed the release of Monty Python's 'Life of Brian'. I recall the controversy very clearly but despite its comic element I actually thought it raised a number of perfectly valid philosophical points.

It seems to me that the need to be 'politically correct' is out of control and has been for some time. It doesn't ensure that minority groups are treated equally so much as it persecutes majority groups. The complaints made to the BBC about the screening of 'Jerry Springer - The Opera' is a very good example. They received thousands of complaints from Christians but broadcast anyway. If they had received less than 100 complaints because it offended the Islamic faith (as a random example) I am sure it would have been axed immediately. Surely, if we are to be just to all members of society we need to also be even handed. Of course, it also occurs to me that for many people a sense of humour would go a long way.

Having seen The Last Temptation of Christ, The Passion (mainly to hear Aramaic and see how badly they flubbed the Latin), and The Life of Brian, I can easily say that The Life of Brian was funnier than the other two.

I've never been too bothered by politcal correctness, as I have always seen it as politeness ad absurdum. It seems to me that if some group doesn't want to be called something that they find offensive, the least I can do is to not offend them. Others who assume it's their divinely granted privilege to call somebody something offensive, either to their face or behind their back, are usually the ones who offend me though. Sigh.

There are very few populations left that it is still acceptable to offend in public. Middle-aged white males . . . Christians . . . and hillbillies are among the few.

I agree, though. I think a sense of humor would be a good idea. If we could can it and sell it, we'd make a fortune.

You forgot lawyers, CW .

Seriously though, I think Doad makes a good point about being consistent. If we ban broadcasts because they offend people of a certain religion, then we should ban ALL such programmes, no matter what religious group they happen to offend. Or we should ban none at all. I don't belong to a particular religion so I have no axe to grind, but I do believe in fairness and consistency.

quote:

Cat: If we ban broadcasts because they offend people of a certain religion, then we should ban ALL such programmes, no matter what religious group they happen to offend.

And how wonderful that we instead ban none.

T-shirt sold at library conferences:

My library has something to offend everyone!

Middle-aged white males . . . Christians . . . and hillbillies are among the few.

I disagree. These people have attitude and get awfully angry if somebody outside their group makes an un-PC comment about them. I spent one Thanksgiving at a friend's parent's once. They were both from Arkansas. The mother had quite a few opinions about African-Americans, except that was nowhere near the term she used continually through the evening. I said that when I was growing up there was really only two groups in our town that ethnic slurs were used against: Mexicans and Oakies. My friend's mother and I nearly came to blows. And she wasn't from Oklahoma. I made it out alive, but neither did I hear any racial epithets again that evening. I was not invited back.

I agree with you, jheem, about hillbillies. Loved your story! It also isn't politically correct, at least where I have been, to offend Christians. As for middle-aged white men, I really have heard any politically incorrect remarks against them, so I can't comment on that.

However...lawyers? They are up for grabs!

I could not agree more with Shufitz's earlier comment. No ban at all is better than any ban. The problem with suppression is that once it is started it gets easier to find justification for further suppression. I truly hate the idea of KKK marches; yet when I allow them to be banned it makes it that much easier to disallow my atheist group from meeting in a publicly owned building. Forbidding Jews from lighting a menorah makes it that much easier to ban Tet celebrations. I much prefer a wide open society. Sadly, America is going in the opposite direction, as I can testify to personally with more than a few illustrations.

quote:

Originally posted by jheem:
Having seen The Last Temptation of Christ, The Passion (mainly to hear Aramaic and see how badly they flubbed the Latin)

I have question about that: shouldn't they have been speaking Greek? Wasn't Greek the common language at the time? The Septuagint was Greek; the New Testament was, apparently, written in Greek. Weren't the Roman soldiers largely Greek-speakers from the provinces by this point?

quote:

However...lawyers? They are up for grabs!

You go ahead and grab your lawyer, Kalleh! Can I watch? LOL

How about estate agents and double glazing salespeople and my own favourite, politicians.

As for middle-aged white men, I really have heard any politically incorrect remarks against them, so I can't comment on that.

Yes, years ago I used to tell people a WASP joke, whenever this topic came up.

This WASP walks into Brooks Brothers. One of the people who works there comes over and asks if he can help the WASP. He says "Yes, indeed. I need a suit." The other man asks if he wants a blue suit or a grey one. He says grey. The other man asks if he wants one or two pairs of pants. Two. He is fitted and told he can pick up the suit in four days. He thanks the clerk and leaves.

I would end the "joke", look at the person I was telling it to expectantly, and then burst into laughter. Then I'd say that's way nobody tells WASP jokes.

I have question about that: shouldn't they have been speaking Greek? Wasn't Greek the common language at the time? The Septuagint was Greek; the New Testament was, apparently, written in Greek. Weren't the Roman soldiers largely Greek-speakers from the provinces by this point?

Yes, you're right. The Roman Empire's business was conducted in Koine Greek in the Eastern half of the empire. Also, most of Pilate's troops would've been Syrian and would have spoken Aramaic and some minimal amount of Koine. (There are some military roll-call sheets from the area, and most of the names are definitely Semitic. Pilate and his wife, and, perhaps, his lieutenants might've spoken Latin amongst themselves. Gibson was aware of this, but wanted them to speak Latin. Everybody pretty much uses the anachronistic Ecclesiastical/Italian pronunciation, too.

quote:

Originally posted by Caterwauller:
T-shirt sold at library conferences:

My library has something to offend everyone!

I love that, CW!

reviving a thread...

Apparently it is now incorrect to say you are "unemployed," or at least for white collar workers. The terms now are "in transition" or engaged in a "job search."

Or as we say in London, "On the rock and roll"

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
reviving a thread...

Apparently it is now incorrect to say you are "unemployed," or at least for white collar workers. The terms now are "in transition" or engaged in a "job search."

Just who makes up this crap? I suppose that if one becomes unemployed from a white collar job instead of a menial one, one is unemployed at a higher level, ( ) but one is STILL UNEMPLOYED!!!

Asa the marginally employed curmudgeon

I agree, Asa, that it hardly makes sense.

I forgot the best one...and this comes from Harvard: Guess what they are now calling a career coach (I thought that was bad enough!)? A "transition accelerant." I'd be embarrassed to call myself that!

The following was sent in to the Empress:

The term beachbum's no longer PC
So if you're referring to me,
I'm a "sun-rich downscale
Underprivileged male
Free air oceanfront self-employee."

She didn't care for it but it seemed to fit here. (I recycle aluminum, plastic, and limericks.)

OMG! It's a limerick for Jerry! Fabulous! Except there isn't a line about him being cute!

I have found that the dear Empress and I don't agree on our taste in limericks. I love that one!

I am in Baltimore at a conference, and before I run back in to another session, I thought of all of you when I heard these terms. When faculty members (particularly women because nursing is 92% female) "bully" one another, it can be called:

"Emotional violence"
"Relation aggression"
"Mean girl games" (my personal favorite!)

Unfortunately I missed 3 more. Any ideas?

I call it just plain being "Bitchy"...but then I suppose that's not politically correct!

[With apologies to those who truly are being violated emotionally. I realize that it does happen.]