--- In [email protected], anon_couscous_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], anon_couscous_ff <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > First, I don't think a comedy that features a > > particular minority-type character with flaws can > > really be said to be attributing the flaws to the > > minority as a whole, especially if the character > > is a sympathetic one. > > Some of the examples do this, some don't.
As I said, I haven't seen all the shows. > > And if it's a group being demeaned, but at the same > > time the members of the group featured in the comedy > > are also shown to have attractive characteristics, > > it also falls short of the kind of thing I think is > > offensive. > > Some of the examples do this, some don't. As I said, I haven't seen all the shows. > > At any rate, the shows you mention, partly because > > they're *shows*, are all in pretty much a different > > category than a piece of writing in which a group is > > demeaned without ever showing the group's positive side. > > Well South Park -- from what I have seen of it, pretty much demans > everyone -- does not show a positive side when doing so -- and is > hilarious. I don't watch "South Park," but I don't have any argument with your thesis that if a comedy demeans *everybody*, it's not bigoted. But that is a different point than the one I was making. > > One other point: When the unattractive characteristic > > is actually harmful, there's a lot more basis for > > holding it up to ridicule. The caste system in > > India is clearly harmful. I've heard the veneration of > > cows criticized as harmful--can't recall the reasons--but > > among the world's evils, it doesn't seem like such a > > big deal. And what on earth is harmful about cooking > > over a fire? > > > > Those two were just plain gratuitous, suggesting that > > Indians are basically uncivilized. Of course these > > things would be harmful *on a plane*, but nobody actually > > brings cows on a plane or tries to do their cooking over > > a fire on a plane. > > > > If they'd wanted to keep it consistent and inoffensive > > while still criticizing the caste system, they'd have > > thought of something that lower-caste people tend to > > do on planes that *isn't* harmful but is disdained by > > the higher castes, so that the criticism remained > > focused on those who are scornful of the lower castes, > > not those who are the object of the scorn. > > I think its pretty clear (to me) that if you tried your hand at > writing comedy, it would be political correct, inoffensive, and not > funny. I don't think I ever claimed to be a comedy writer, actually. But if a good comedy writer attempted what I suggested, I suspect the result could very well be inoffensive but quite funny (maybe not politically correct--that's a whole 'nother can of worms). > > I'm sure it wasn't intended to be bigoted, it was just > > not well thought out. > > My take on the two lines you found offensive in the piece are > different from yours. Why you don't find the satire (I didn't say > high satire) in the piece -- ridiculing stereotypes -- by making > such extreme and silly, is a bit mystifying. Where exactly did I say I didn't find the satire in the piece? I said to the contrary several times. I laughed out loud at the burlap bag bit. I can't see where you actually addressed the points I made regarding those two lines and why they stuck out from the rest of the piece. Instead you set up a couple of straw men to knock down. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
