Here we go again, Shiranu vs the world in this episode of "this is why I am the most virtuous"

*shrug*

I literally just posted Frank Oz's agreeing that this whole controversy was beneficial because it helped him understand the issue of representation, and that I respect him for that and don't see any further need for conflict. By all means if everyone else here wants to continue to debate the topic... have at it, but to me it has already been settled for both sides; both those pro-creator should respect that he agrees with the opposition, and those who don't think his opinion matters... well, his opinion doesn't matter, so who cares?

The only reason I am responding here is I don't see the need for a personal insult like that when it's bluntly wrong, and it's rather disappointing to see from someone I respect. I don't even mind the insult, I know particularly of late I have been more than happy to call people on their shit in an insulting way, just so long as it would have had some truth to it.

Sorry Shir, gotta take Munch's side on this issue. The creator of the character is the one who makes the decision, regardless of who does the actual writing.

My last couple of posts have all been on the creator's side though, and that's what is getting frustrating. Even when I agree with people, they want to tell me that they disagree with me. I don't care if people value the creator's opinion more or less... I personally don't, but that is purely subjective and not something I see even the slightest need to argue about.

And the thing is that's not what I have argued against. I have argued that the way he worded it was just... wrong... and he himself admitted that it was worded poorly and that the entire situation has made him think more about the issue and that he found the whole situation valuable. I have respect for that, and he seems like a great guy who never meant anything negative even if he inadvertently worded it negatively, even if he doesn't agree with me 100%.

It's a lose/lose situation; either I disagree and everyone is annoyed, or I agree and everyone is annoyed. Certain posters want to always talk about how I always disagree with them, that I am always opinionated, but what do you expect when even if I change my position, agree that they were right or at least we have enough common ground that I am more than happy to see eye to eye with you, I will still get attacked for it?

I am more than happy to concede when I am wrong, and on more than one occasion (this thread being a prime example of it) I have changed my position because the "other side" (Frank Oz, through his engagement with fans on twitter) showed me the same respect. But to people who will continue to attack me for being "the enemy", even when I change my position to be more inline with theirs because I found value in it, why should I be expected to be anything other than confrontational towards them?

If I make an effort to be open-minded, changing my position based on the facts, and continue to be attacked anyways... then why should I even bother being friendly? I bother changing my position for my sake or because it's right, but I sure as fuck will not change my position for someone who attacks me even when I agree with them because that proves to me they are only arguing for the sake of division and continuing a "us-vs-them" mentality. And particularly on this forum it has happened time and time and time again that certain posters, even when I directly agree with them, continue to attack me for being "wrong", and I never see them called out on it by "moderates" or whatever you want to call people in the middle who aren't leaning heavily one way or the other.


-------
Addressing the points in your post
--------


That's one reason I quite like your post is that you simply disagreed, and you gave good reasoning for it. I think the first issue is completely subjective and opinion based, and I respect that you feel that the character creator has that power even if I disagree with it. I don't see any point in arguing over that because... I mean, there is nothing to really argue other than, "This is my opinion!".


I also disagree with your last point in that I don't think acknowledging a homosexual relationship some how excludes bisexuals, but I will certainly agree that bisexualism is heavily under-acknowledged in the LGBT+ community, and even at times stigmatized by the LG community, which is absolutely mind blowing to me.

My first thought on hearing about this was "well, of course they are".  And when the writers (and I thought the designers, too) said they were gay settled it.  But what is all the hubbub all about?  So they were?  The Muppets Company tended to create some characters for everyone (though I think they avoided religion).  Or they were not and just Really Good Friends who slept in the same bed as children sometimes do to some point.

It could go either way, and I'm fine with that.  It's not like the Muppets are practical in any way.  Exactly what WOULD Kermit and Miss Piggy do in bed anyway, and they probably have the most "adultish" relationship among the Muppets.

If you really want to get into interpretations, how about the original opening sequences of 'Gunsmoke'?  IIRC (iffy on details), you saw 2 male feet at floor level and boots pulled on.  Then you saw Marshall Dillon and Miss Kitty sitting on a bed.  Hard to misinterpret that...

That's GREAT!  Cheers!!!

That's news to me. But then, I'm not everybody. I'm also criminally out of touch. When the paper lists celebrity birthdays, I rarely know who any of those people are.


I don't know. I've been walking more lately and a couple months ago as i walked I passed several pairs of young, college-aged people as they likewise enjoyed the early summer weather. As I passed them I caught snippets of the conversations they were having. Know what they were talking about? Relationship stuff. He said and she said and he feels this way about me but I don't feel that way about him, etc. Know what I thought after hearing this? Thank fucking christ that shit isn't a part of my life anymore. Holy shit, I didn't feel that much relief when the doctor told me it wasn't cancer.

It could just be that I'm old and sex and relationships are less important to me because I don't have either anymore, like when you cut out drinking Coca-Cola to lose weight and you aren't effected if the Coca-Cola Bottling Co raises the cost of a can of Coke by five cents. It could also be these people are just young and as such are ruled by their hormones or whatever to a degree that I, as an outside observer, think that they do not have to.

I don't know. I kind of view it like the fufferolla over the Ghostbusters remake a couple years ago. It became such a hot button of gender politics that no one seemed to notice or care that the movie wasn't funny.

At the end of the day, I don't think I care enough about the relationship between a couple of puppets to want to die on this hill. Especially when my position seems to be, re-reading what I wrote above, that dying on this hill is not worth it. You'd said that acknowledging sexuality is not the same as making it all about sexuality. But I'm not hearing much else.

Interesting thoughts, and I hope you post more often (obviously have in the past). 

I read the obituaries and think "who"?  I see celebs win awards and think "who"?  I see people both younger and older (not at the same time of course) on the TV and I don't know who they are. 

My friends always knew in Trivial Pursuit to ask me about "famous people", LOL!

...

Sorry, I lost track of the intent of your post.