Outrage Over Transgender Character in Zoolander 2

[Grimbold]

Yep, looks like another bunch of people with nothing better to do.

[zelticgar]

First, I'm looking forward to this movie. I liked the first Zoolander and expect this will be similar.

As I read this thread I think there is a whole middle ground here to work inside of. You cant deny that someone who is living as transgender might feel offense towards the portrayal in the trailer. I also think that there is danger in taking the stance that what is portrayed is worthy of outrage/boycott/etc. Comedy can be an important tool to open discussion. Even if what seems like on the surface as offensive can open up conversations that are beneficial.

Hell, over the years aside from the discussions I've had in Gen Chat my most powerful exposure to a gay couple that I connected with was through the Howard Stern show. Getting to know George Takei  and following his fight for equality allowed my views on gay marriage and equality to evolve pretty quickly (faster than Hilary!   ). During the course of those Stern shows there were plenty of times where the discussions probably stepped out of bounds. The key was that they stayed on the field and kept at it. In the end everyone was a winner because the boundaries were eventually established.

In my view the trans community has been so isolated any kind of exposure and chance to be discussed is probably a positive. Even if some of it may seem distasteful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Grimbold]

 

 You cant deny that someone who is living as transgender might feel offense towards the portrayal in the trailer.

Deny? No, but offense is subjective, personal, and what you or I may find offensive others may not, just as with a trans individual may find Zoolander's and Cumberbatch's portrayal of a trans outrageous, another may find it hilarious.

To take it one step further, quite if you ask me, and carry out boycott actions because something makes you upset opens up a dangerous precedent.

Whats next? We're gonna start making councils for every minority or, hell, any group that feels targeted that will in turn lay out ground rules by which we must all see to in order to be PC? Please...

To be offended is a choice. People need to get over themselves and move on.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Deny? No, but offense is subjective, personal, and what you or I may find offensive others may not, just as with a trans individual may find Zoolander's and Cumberbatch's portrayal of a trans outrageous, another may find it hilarious.

To take it one step further, quite if you ask me, and carry out boycott actions because something makes you upset opens up a dangerous precedent.

Whats next? We're gonna start making councils for every minority or, hell, any group that feels targeted that will in turn lay out ground rules by which we must all see to in order to be PC? Please...

To be offended is a choice. People need to get over themselves and move on.

People need to get over their smug feeling of superiority and the belief that if it doesn't affect them, it isn't a problem.

I'm guessing, from the way you write, that you are a white male from the US.  I see from your profile, you were born in 1987, so you have a good chance at being alive around 2040.  I wish you a long life past that point, so you can find out what it is like to be a member of a minority group. With luck, those who you hold in such low regard, will treat you better than you are willing to treat others.

Being offensive is a choice.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Deny? No, but offense is subjective, personal, and what you or I may find offensive others may not, just as with a trans individual may find Zoolander's and Cumberbatch's portrayal of a trans outrageous, another may find it hilarious.

To take it one step further, quite if you ask me, and carry out boycott actions because something makes you upset opens up a dangerous precedent.

Whats next? We're gonna start making councils for every minority or, hell, any group that feels targeted that will in turn lay out ground rules by which we must all see to in order to be PC? Please...

To be offended is a choice. People need to get over themselves and move on.

This whole narrative about what it means for something to be offensive or to have taken offense at something is deeply confused, and people are often just talking past each other.

When someone says that something is offensive, they might simply be saying that they feel personally affronted by it. And I agree that this isn't a terribly useful yardstick for measuring or analyzing anything. But I think it's far more often the case that when someone accuses something of being offensive that they are actually making truth-claims about the thing's content - that the content in some way constitutes an attack or affront, or that it is the type of thing that one can or should reasonably take offense to.

To collapse every discussion about whether something is or is not "offensive" into a conversation about some individual person's feelings is to completely miss the point. It's a deeply disingenuous and ignorant way of avoiding any kind of discussion or analysis of the behavior or portrayal in question, in light of basically just making fun of the person raising the issue. 

Any piece of media is subject to analysis, and we CAN and SHOULD ask questions like: 

- Does the portrayal engage in or contribute to stereotypes about a particular class of persons?

- What's the point of the character in the movie? Are they just a punch line? Does the punch line revolve entirely around a recognition of their difference? What's the perspective of the actual movie in regard to the character? Is the audience being invited to laugh at them solely because of this difference?

- How does this particular representation contribute to the overall representation of this class of persons in popular culture? For extremely marginalized groups, like transgender individuals, they may actually be represented in one or two or three mainstream movies in the entire year. Does it matter if one of those two or three representations is just pointing and laughing?

I don't get why people think that any form of media, even and especially comedies, should be immune from critical analysis. Comedies especially tell us a lot about perspective - who decides who is worthy of being laughed at or ridiculed and for what reasons  tells us a lot about the people these movies are made by and for. 

 

 

 

 

[Grimbold]

People need to get over their smug feeling of superiority and the belief that if it doesn't affect them, it isn't a problem.

I'm guessing, from the way you write, that you are a white male from the US.  I see from your profile, you were born in 1987, so you have a good chance at being alive around 2040.  I wish you a long life past that point, so you can find out what it is like to be a member of a minority group. With luck, those who you hold in such low regard, will treat you better than you are willing to treat others.

Being offensive is a choice.

Smug? Superiority? Sure, if you want see things through that perspective, yes, i would be labelled superior if im put next to someone who shares similar or identical belief as I do and he takes offense and i dont.

Why? Because i made the choice to not take it serious, be hurt or whatever you wanna call it when someone made an attack on a particular belief of mine, be that offense idiotic or plain criticism. On the first case, that person being an idiot towards me says more about them than it does about me and on the 2nd scenario, well, it's discussion, which in the context of the situation presented in this thread, would have an ill fate.

Those that i hold in low regard? Is there some sort of inferiorty complex going on here?

 

And yes i am a white male,European though, from more or less the middle of the Atlantic, just to clear that up.

[KiDisaster]

That part of the trailer definitely made a bad impression when I first saw it. I actually wanted to make a post about it in the LGBT thread but didn't as I figured my POV wasn't all that important as a cis guy. 

Shame, I actually liked the first movie. Probably won't bother with this one. 

All you 'being offended is a choice' people sure do seem offended by the idea of people choosing not to support something they don't like though. Weird that. 

[Grimbold]

This whole narrative about what it means for something to be offensive or to have taken offense at something is deeply confused, and people are often just talking past each other.

When someone says that something is offensive, they might simply be saying that they feel personally affronted by it. And I agree that this isn't a terribly useful yardstick for measuring or analyzing anything. But I think it's far more often the case that when someone accuses something of being offensive that they are actually making truth-claims about the thing's content - that the content in some way constitutes an attack or affront, or that it is the type of thing that one can or should reasonably take offense to.

To collapse every discussion about whether something is or is not "offensive" into a conversation about some individual person's feelings is to completely miss the point. It's a deeply disingenuous and ignorant way of avoiding any kind of discussion or analysis of the behavior or portrayal in question, in light of basically just making fun of the person raising the issue. 

I reckon the whole matter devolves into a mockery of the offended or that everything is offensive nowadays because the cases presented are often, well, silly.

I don't think either that the part of one's feelings on the matter is missing the point, on the contrary, it is the point cause you can't be offended without having your feelings, whatever they may be on the subject, hurt, and for that people often disregard the possibility of having a discussion cause its just that: feelings.

Someone thought that the portrayal of the trans character on the movie, excuse me, trailer, was over the top, negatively speaking. Well, in the context of the movie, a comedy and it being Zoolander specifically, that is the point: to exaggerate everything for comical relief. So that person and whole other bunch found it offensive. Alright, but what about everyone else who didn't?

Lets say for example, im an atheist and someone makes some form of media making criticism of atheists, be it comedy, drama whatever, and in thhat atheism is painted as a religious cult that only listens to reason and disregards everyone's else point (that can be a valid point in some cases).

For pete's sake, im not about to get my panties in a bunch and start sending out petitions to boycott the piece. You wanna discuss it? Sure lets go ahead and do that, but im not gonna be arrogant to the point of limiting someone else's freedom.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Smug? Superiority? Sure, if you want see things through that perspective, yes, i would be labelled superior if im put next to someone who shares similar or identical belief as I do and he takes offense and i dont.

Why? Because i made the choice to not take it serious, be hurt or whatever you wanna call it when someone made an attack on a particular belief of mine, be that offense idiotic or plain criticism. On the first case, that person being an idiot towards me says more about them than it does about me and on the 2nd scenario, well, it's discussion, which in the context of the situation presented in this thread, would have an ill fate.

Those that i hold in low regard? Is there some sort of inferiorty complex going on here?

 

And yes i am a while male,European though, from more or less the middle of the Atlantic, just to clear that up.

Well, I'm so glad to learn that you feel that people who are all too frequently, targets of ridicule, assault and murder because people made the choice to attack them, are fair game for those who made the choice to target them as the butt of a joke.

I reckon the whole matter devolves into a mockery of the offended or that everything is offensive nowadays because the cases presented are often, well, silly.

I don't think either that the part of one's feelings on the matter is missing the point, on the contrary, it is the point cause you can't be offended without having your feelings, whatever they may be on the subject, hurt, and for that people often disregard the possibility of having a discussion cause its just that: feelings.

Someone thought that the portrayal of the trans character on the movie, excuse me, trailer, was over the top, negatively speaking. Well, in the context of the movie, a comedy and it being Zoolander specifically, that is the point: to exaggerate everything for comical relief. So that person and whole other bunch found it offensive. Alright, but what about everyone else who didn't?

Lets say for example, im an atheist and someone makes some form of media making criticism of atheists, be it comedy, drama whatever, and in thhat atheism is painted as a religious cult that wants to only listens to reason and disregards everyone's else point (that can be a valid point in some cases).

For pete's sake, im not about to get my panties in a bunch and start sending out petitions to boycott the piece. You wanna discuss it? Sure lets go ahead and do that, but im not gonna be arrogant to the point of limiting someone else's freedom.

So you are okay with the choice to offend, but not the alleged choice to be offended, and you make the erroneous assumption that people's lives aren't impacted by the offense.  You want to do nothing to stop people from causing harm, but are opposed to people using one of the only effective means of protecting themselves from such harm.  Your logic is flawed and your empathy is absent.  I know where you stand and realize that nothing further I say will change that 

[Grimbold]

Well, I'm so glad to learn that you feel that people who are all too frequently, targets of ridicule, assault and murder because people made the choice to attack them, are fair game for those who made the choice to target them as the butt of a joke.

So you are okay with the choice to offend, but not the alleged choice to be offended, and you make the erroneous assumption that people's lives aren't impacted by the offense.  You want to do nothing to stop people from causing harm, but are opposed to people using one of the only effective means of protecting themselves from such harm.  Your logic is flawed and your empathy is absent.  I know where you stand and realize that nothing further I say will change that 

Did you just equate words with actions to try and prove your point? Because your equating a joke with murder or making fun of people gives them a free pass to physically hurt people.

Yes i am okay with the choice/right to offend, cause in my book freedom of speech gives an individual the right to spout whatever derogatory nonsense he wants. I may find it extremely annoying when some religious nut is spewing what I perceive to be drivle, but it's his right. 

But that same freedom grants me the right to engage the offender in a discussion and attempt to "destroy" his position. You, on the other hand, seem to want to eliminate this middle ground, if you wanna call it that, in an attempt to cover your sensibilities, that is to say, immediate punishment for the bullshitter.

You're taking this argument one step further and talking about people who act on their words, which this freedom does not cover.

 

You have all the right you want to be offended, by all means do it, but as i think we've established offense is subjective and as such i am within my right to find what gave you offense preposterous and, consequently, dismiss it's validity.

[Theda Baratheon]

I love when people say they believe in free speech to "say whatever derogatory nonsense" they want but get annoyed when others want to exersise THEIR right to free speech in order to call out them. 

[Grimbold]

I must've missed the part where i expressed my annoyance towards RoHH for the things she said.

I did question, however, her apparent attempt to justify the position of those who want to carry out the boycott, which, unless im misinterpreting, is acting on their word.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Did you just equate words with actions to try and prove your point? Because your equating a joke with murder or making fun of people gives them a free pass to physically hurt people.

Yes i am okay with the choice/right to offend, cause in my book freedom of speech gives an individual the right to spout whatever derogatory nonsense he wants. I may find it extremely annoying when some religious nut is spewing what I perceive to be drivle, but it's his right. 

But that same freedom grants me the right to engage the offender in a discussion and attempt to "destroy" his position. You, on the other hand, seem to want to eliminate this middle ground, if you wanna call it that, in an attempt to cover your sensibilities, that is to say, immediate punishment for the bullshitter.

You're taking this argument one step further and talking about people who act on their words, which this freedom does not cover.

 

You have all the right you want to be offended, by all means do it, but as i think we've established offense is subjective and as such i am within my right to find what gave you offense preposterous and, consequently, dismiss it's validity.

And I am within my right dismiss your arguments in their entirety. You deny that something causes harm, while championing the right to cause it.

[Theda Baratheon]

I must've missed the part where i expressed my annoyance towards RoHH for the things she said.

I did question, however, her apparent attempt to justify the position of those who want to carry out the boycott, which, unless im misinterpreting, is acting on their word.

You're denying that negative portrayal's in movies and tv shows can have a serious effect on real people when someone in this thread has already admitted how negative portrayals of trans characters hurt her. So...you're just denying and dismissing others who are contradicting you, maybe annoyances is the wrong word, but you certainly don't have the respect for all free speech you claim to have. You think it's okay to make offensive jokes but not for others to use their free speech to criticise problematic jokes and representations in comedy, which Nestor rightly pointed out, shouldn't be immune to people criticising it. 

[Grimbold]

 

And I am within my right dismiss your arguments in their entirety. You deny that something causes harm, while championing the right to cause it.

That is how these things work  

Hold on a minute, unless im forgetting my own words from an hour ago, that is not what i said. 

Yes i am defending your right to say things that others may perceive as harmful. You, on the other hand, were the one that to took it to the physical sphere. I never defended anyone's right to act on their words in order to cause physical pain.

To use this specific case, im not okay with someone making a trans joke going a step further and hitting a trans in the face. What i am agaisnt is putting in place forms of punishments agaisnt individuals because their words somehow offended someone else.

[Grimbold]

You're denying that negative portrayal's in movies and tv shows can have a serious effect on real people when someone in this thread has already admitted how negative portrayals of trans characters hurt her. So...you're just denying and dismissing others who are contradicting you, maybe annoyances is the wrong word, but you certainly don't have the respect for all free speech you claim to have. You think it's okay to make offensive jokes but not for others to use their free speech to criticise problematic jokes and representations in comedy, which Nestor rightly pointed out, shouldn't be immune to people criticising it. 

I read no such case of how someone was hurt by mediatic portrayals of whatever.

You keep insisting on this point. I believe i've made clear that whoever is on the other side of whatever is the matter of debate can say what they well please. Im just agaisnt applying forms of punishment for our thoughts and words.

[Theda Baratheon]

Even if the 'punishment' (as you call it) is just being told to think before you speak and not to make rude/offensive jokes in future? Lol - wow, such harsh punishment! Comedians are so persecuted

 

[Grimbold]

Even if the 'punishment' (as you call it) is just being told to think before you speak and not to make rude/offensive jokes in future? Lol - wow, such harsh punishment! Comedians are so persecuted

 

Then i believe we regress in our little debate to the point where we're back to what each finds or not offensive.

[Magnar of Skagos]

For what its worth I completely forgot the scene the minute the trailer ended up until I saw this forum post. Personally I doubt the character in the movie will effect my views on transgender people in any way.

[IamMe90]

I read no such case of how someone was hurt by mediatic portrayals of whatever.

You keep insisting on this point. I believe i've made clear that whoever is on the other side of whatever is the matter of debate can say what they well please. Im just agaisnt applying forms of punishment for our thoughts and words.

I don't know why you think that the someone organizing a boycott in any way infringes upon someone else's freedom of speech. It doesn't. It merely impacts someone's ability to profit from their speech. Which, if enough people don't like what someone is saying, is completely legitimate.