Apu is offensive!

[Munch]

He means the generation of today full of SJW's that cry and moan at everything. This is very different from other generations because they literately get pissy from something like the color blue.

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/06/11/why-is-everyone-getting-offended-all-the-time-this-explains-it/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kGBQSXX_GU&t=650s

[Munch]

Obviously. That's why we are 70-something posts in, and the majority of the posts haven't even been by people who find him offensive.

looking back though, seems your the only one here getting offended for others, to the point of looking to buzzfeed for sources of those offended by a cartoon.

[Shiranu]

No where in the OP did it ever call for any action to be taken against the Simpsons; no one is calling for it to be boycotted, no one is calling for the show to be removed from television, no one is saying the government needs to ban it, no one is even calling for Apu to be removed.

All that has been said from the Indian perspectives in this thread is that from their perspective the character is offensive. That is it.

Think about the diversity of character traits white characters get. Now think of the diversity of character traits Indian characters are given. Do you really think they are remotely equal? What, exactly, is so offensive to point out that PoC in media are portrayed in a much more limited role than white actors? Why do white people get so fussy over the suggestion that PoC should be given more diverse roles and characters other than just, "Gangbanger. 7/11 owner. Math nerd."?

And again, I more than realise there are characters of color who are written just as, if not even more, brilliantly than white characters... but for every T'Chala, Mindi Lahiri or Constance Wu... you have 500, "Tyrone the Gangster", Apu the Convience Store Owner or Raj from BBT, or "Ahmed the Terrorist". Or even worse, you have characters just completely whitewashed, with the go-to example being... *gag* ... Micky Rooney as fucking Mr. Yunoishi.   





Literally all that was said by OP and the Indians in my video was, "Yeah, it is kinda annoying that most of the representation of us is characters who portray a certain stereotype, it would be cool to see show writers portray people who look like me, or are from the same culture as me, as human beings and not just charactures to be either the villain or the comedic punching bag."

Again, why someone saying that is so damned shocking to yall is absolutely beyond me.

[Baruch]

Early SJW policy ... inventors of plant and animal domestication create unfair competition against hunter/gatherers.  It is necessary to shackle the agriculturalists in order to be fair to the cave men.

[Shiranu]

looking back though, seems your the only one here getting offended for others, to the point of looking to buzzfeed for sources of those offended by a cartoon.

You're right, not offensive... just incredibly defensive and demeaning that how dare someone have an opinion other than yall.

My mistake, two totally different things.

[Baruch]

So Indians aren't Indians...

Makes sense

Are you conscious of your stereotyping?  A major SJW sin, you must beat yourself off to Playgirl centerfolds until it hurts, in penance.

[Baruch]

No where in the OP did it ever call for any action to be taken against the Simpsons; no one is calling for it to be boycotted, no one is calling for the show to be removed from television, no one is saying the government needs to ban it, no one is even calling for Apu to be removed.

All that has been said from the Indian perspectives in this thread is that from their perspective the character is offensive. That is it.

Think about the diversity of character traits white characters get. Now think of the diversity of character traits Indian characters are given. Do you really think they are remotely equal? What, exactly, is so offensive to point out that PoC in media are portrayed in a much more limited role than white actors? Why do white people get so fussy over the suggestion that PoC should be given more diverse roles and characters other than just, "Gangbanger. 7/11 owner. Math nerd."?

And again, I more than realise there are characters of color who are written just as, if not even more, brilliantly than white characters... but for every T'Chala, Mindi Lahiri or Constance Wu... you have 500, "Tyrone the Gangster", Apu the Convience Store Owner or Raj from BBT, or "Ahmed the Terrorist". Or even worse, you have characters just completely whitewashed, with the go-to example being... *gag* ... Micky Rooney as fucking Mr. Yunoishi.   





Literally all that was said by OP and the Indians in my video was, "Yeah, it is kinda annoying that most of the representation of us is characters who portray a certain stereotype, it would be cool to see show writers portray people who look like me, or are from the same culture as me, as human beings and not just charactures to be either the villain or the comedic punching bag."

Again, why someone saying that is so damned shocking to yall is absolutely beyond me.

How about an actual woman author, Indian-American (aka from Asia), who wrote a fun novel, about her own subculture in Cali?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/287873.Goddess_for_Hire  I really enjoyed this when it came out ;-)  And no, convenience stores don't figure prominently.

[Baruch]

You're right, not offensive... just incredibly defensive and demeaning that how dare someone have an opinion other than yall.

My mistake, two totally different things.

Don't get too pissy, unless you are near a bathroom.

[PickelledEggs]

He means the generation of today full of SJW's that cry and moan at everything. This is very different from other generations because they literately get pissy from something like the color blue.

And as I've mentioned, it's the same shit;different underwear right now we have sjws, in the 60s we had hippies. Every generation has their own.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Draconic Aiur]

Did the Hippies go around breaking status because it offendd them? Did they shove their ideas down others throats and demand people to pick a side. No. They were more chill.

[Baruch]

Did the Hippies go around breaking status because it offendd them? Did they shove their ideas down others throats and demand people to pick a side. No. They were more chill.

Don't confuse yippies with hippies.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yippie

[Munch]

Did the Hippies go around breaking status because it offendd them? Did they shove their ideas down others throats and demand people to pick a side. No. They were more chill.

heres a good analogy of it on here.

https://www.quora.com/Are-social-justice-warriors-the-equivalent-of-1960s-hippies-Will-America-now-be-living-through-the-equivalent-of-1970s-counterculture-backlash-for-the-next-decade

No. Hippies thought modern society was bogus, and simply wanted to drop out.

Social justice warriors are the logical end result of a particular self-inflicted psychosis of our society.

Progressive theory sees society as a collection of groups: the rich, the poor, people of color, LGBTQ. People's individual interests are purely defined by the interest group or groups they happen to identify with.

In that system, every group oppressed except for white males of middle class or above, who are obviously the beneficiaries of said oppression. In the system of grievance and claims of oppression, no status is more more highly regarded than that of "victim".

It gets fun when groups start squabbling among themselves about which one can claim the highest degree of victimhood.

It's a sickness. Don't blame the hippies.

[Shiranu]

Edited for brevity...

I actually am prone to agree that SJW and hippies are completely different things and shouldn't really be compared. The hippies were a tangible group that had a clear set of ideological viewpoints, where as "SJW" to this day, 2 years after it's entrance into the public lexicon, still does not have any real unified meaning to it.

When you look at the term "SJW", you realise what a joke it is. It originated, literally, from men who were harassing women that pointed out sexism in video games, and then exploded into popularity with far-right wingers as a strawman against anyone who called them on their shit. Unfortunately it managed to make it's way into even moderate lexicon.


Vice's Alegra Ringo has a great quote on the concept of SJW, which is, "In other words, SJWs don't hold strong principles, but they pretend to. The problem is, that's not a real category of people. It's simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice.", and that is bang on. You see that every day on this forum, and you see it every day extending all the way up into elected officials.


If we want to compare it to words of the past, "SJW" would be analogous to "Commie" during the Red Scare; it's a catch-all slur you can use for anyone to the left of you, of anyone who has a progressive ideology that threatens your world view or even worse your political/social power, and in using it you can instead focus on the fact they are the boogieman instead of actually having to address what is being discussed.

[Shiranu]

heres a good analogy of it on here.

If by good, you mean inaccurate, then yes. He starts off with a blatantly wrong statement and just digs deeper.

No. Hippies thought modern society was bogus, and simply wanted to drop out.

The hippies did not "want to drop out". The hippies were heavily involved in the Civil Rights marches, were holding protests at universities over free speech (such as holding a police officer hostage for 32 hours at Berkley who had arrested a student calling for racial equality), were one of the most iconic symbols of the anti-Vietnam War movement and of course were a huge part of the Environmental movement and anti-Nuke movements.

To say they "wanted to drop out" of society shows a borderline complete lack of any American history knowledge.

Progressive theory sees society as a collection of group...

Yes, because that is how politics work. We don't live in a direct democracy; the very basis of all Western government is on forming groups to represent your interests. That is how it has worked for thousands of years, and for us in the West we can mostly thank the Romans for implementing it at the scale it has been done at.

Have you ever thought what the alternative to collectivism is? Individualism. As an individual, how much political power do you think you actually hold? How much political power do you think you hold compared to someone who makes 1000 times more money than you a year, or demographically outnumbers people who would share your interest 100-1? Do you really think a government focused on individual power rather than collective power to enact change would better represent your interests?

It's one of those things I have to just shake my head and wonder how people say it's "SJW" who are destroying Western culture, when they seem to not have even the most elementary of understanding what Western culture even is.

In that system, every group oppressed except for white males of middle class or above, who are obviously the beneficiaries of said oppression.

And here we go, the patented "victim card" that regressives want to use all the time.

Equality for women is not going to bring down men, it's going to help them.
Equality for the LGBT community is not going to hurt straight people, it's going to ultimately benefit them.
Equality for non-whites does not mean that white people will start to be treated like they have treated non-whites.
Fixing the economy for minorities will also fix the economy for lower-class whites.

Yes, many of these issues do focus on the people who need help, that is just common sense, but that doesn't mean it won't benefit the whole as well. To oppose these things is literally cutting your nose off to smite your own face.

Do you walk up to food banks and yell at them for being SJW cucks because they only feed the poor, and what about us middle class people you morons?

[PickelledEggs]

I just think it's interesting that people seek so hard to be virtuous that they would disregard the hard facts of reality to sound it.

"Apu is offensive! never mind that he actually represents a hefty portion of Indian immigrants that work convenience stores and have thick Indian accents! Forget all of that!"


My personal take on SJWs are not that they are in an actual "oppression Olympics", though it definitely comes off that way. They're in a "virtue olympics". The one that finds offense and tries to correct the most things is the most virtuous. Don't worry about if it's not even a thing that needs fixing, they're gonna want to fix it anyway.

And to a very slight point, it's nice. It's a great set of intentions. Some actual good things get done. But lets get real here. There is a metric shit ton of complaining about fixing things that don't need fixing and also without a clear plan on how to fix it. Just "fix it!". ... which goes back to the fact that a lot of the stuff being complained about doesn't need fixing.

I partially blame sensationalism.