Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   CNN reviews are in - Wes Anderson: Don't be so quirky, Jon Stewart: Be more funny, Dave Chappelle: Don't do that   (cnn.com) divider line
    More: Amusing, Martin Scorsese, Comedy Central, Film director, Dave Chappelle special, Comedy, Half Baked, Wes Anderson, director Wes Anderson's latest star  
•       •       •

1100 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 25 Oct 2021 at 2:50 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



66 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-10-24 9:50:00 PM  
You should see the stuff I don't post...
 
2021-10-25 3:10:26 AM  

cretinbob: You should see the stuff I don't post...


We do, and the ponies wish you would stop that.  They're not into you or that sort of thing, Cretinbob
 
2021-10-25 3:30:13 AM  

cretinbob: You should see the stuff I don't post...


I'd rather not.
 
2021-10-25 3:37:30 AM  

Some Junkie Cosmonaut: cretinbob: You should see the stuff I don't post...
We do, and the ponies wish you would stop that.  They're not into you or that sort of thing, Cretinbob


I used to believe in ponies.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-10-25 3:55:22 AM  
My critique of the Chapelle comedy special was it just wasn't as funny as most of his other stuff.  It seemed more important to him that he get his point across than be funny.
 
2021-10-25 4:36:45 AM  
In Stewart's case, that meant turning his Apple series, "The Problem," into a more conventional newsmagazine that treats issues seriously and significantly downplays the humor.

That's not bad, necessarily, and reviews complaining about the lack of laughs missed the point, since the show doesn't really seek to elicit them. But a note might have been that Stewart could capitalize a bit more on his comedic gifts and still convey the message, as he did on "The Daily Show."


I disagree. It's a new show and I don't see why he should be constrained by a completely different show that he did before. Besides, it was clear from watching him then that he has some very serious criticisms of media presenting news as theatre and the disservice that does to the public who rely on them for information rather than drama.
 
2021-10-25 4:49:02 AM  
"There's a popular assumption that gifted artists, left to their own devices, will create their best work, and that the intrusion of network suits or studio bosses only mucks up the process."

Funny. I've seen the exact opposite. Movies, TV shows, paintings, music, etc. Put people between a rock and a hard place and they can create some amazing shiat. Let them do whatever they want and they put their heads up their own asses.
 
2021-10-25 4:49:53 AM  
I'm all for people changing their gender if they want, and I'm all for damning people who publicly try to harm or oppress transgender people, but there should be a line where simple disagreement is allowed. All I saw was the first few seconds of the clip, up to the point they cut away when he said "gender is a fact", so that's all the context I have on this, but doesn't seem to me like he said anything outrageous.

Gender is a fact, even for transgender people, if they feel they're in the wrong gender they can change it, and they are in fact a new gender. So isn't gender a fact?

If he said "gender is a fact, you must stick with what you are born with," then I'd disagree with him. Let people do whatever helps them most.

It's not like Putin coming out and saying teaching about trans people are a threat to society, or a "crime" I think he said, and him being in a position to directly control institutional oppression and violence directed towards these groups.

Forgive me if I am crossing a line myself, like I said my only context on this is that video that I watched 10 seconds of, but I generally consider myself sympathetic to all these groups, LGBTQ+ and opposed to any one doing anything that represses any minority or societal group, I just think saying something that one disagrees with shouldn't in and of itself be the point at which someone gets shouted down and cut off. A contrary opinion isn't yet an act of repression or persecution. Though I admit it is a fine line, and speaking out in direct opposition to groups is definitely something that can lead to those things, but not always. Sometimes it's dialogue, and can be constructive for both sides.
 
2021-10-25 5:17:16 AM  
Wes Anderson is taking heat? Did he forget to include the perfectly symmetrical shot of a Wilson brother staring disaffectedly into the camera while "House of the Rising Sun" plays in Farsi?
 
2021-10-25 5:44:16 AM  

lennavan: My critique of the Chapelle comedy special was it just wasn't as funny as most of his other stuff.  It seemed more important to him that he get his point across than be funny.


Truth.

It seems like everybody biatching about Chappelle didn't actually WATCH the farking thing.  And if they did, they didn't farking LISTEN.

He did not cross a single line.  People who whine about his special don't get his style of comedy.  He's not being SERIOUS, you dumb motherfarkers.

The problem with it was that it was more often than not, simply not funny, so people thought he was making a social commentary instead of a joke.  But he was ATTEMPTING to get a punch line, not trying to hate on people.
 
2021-10-25 6:08:17 AM  
The French Dispatch was great. Not as personal as his other films (which comes with the territory, since it's multiple short stories), but very funny.

\and it's cool that for the preshow the Drafthouse showed clips from the films his movie is paying homage to.
 
2021-10-25 6:26:00 AM  

stoli n coke: Wes Anderson is taking heat? Did he forget to include the perfectly symmetrical shot of a Wilson brother staring disaffectedly into the camera while "House of the Rising Sun" plays in Farsi?


Wes Anderson movies are much more enjoyable when you realize the director is a character in his movies, too. His style is so much a part of the story that it is inseparable. Long horizontal tracking shot, foreground characters moving into the background, symmetry ... it's completely the directors voice. It's a Wes Anderson movie.

Complaining Wes movies' are too quirky is missing the entire point.
 
2021-10-25 6:32:08 AM  

lennavan: My critique of the Chapelle comedy special was it just wasn't as funny as most of his other stuff.  It seemed more important to him that he get his point across than be funny.


Yes, he literally said he had a point/goal in the first 2 minutes. When I noticed his jokes rolled from one group of people to another, I saw what he was doing. Personally, I expected people to be upset about the Space Jew jokes.

Find out who you can't joke about and you know who is pulling the strings is an old adage.
 
2021-10-25 6:41:59 AM  

Slaxl: I'm all for people changing their gender if they want, and I'm all for damning people who publicly try to harm or oppress transgender people, but there should be a line where simple disagreement is allowed. All I saw was the first few seconds of the clip, up to the point they cut away when he said "gender is a fact", so that's all the context I have on this, but doesn't seem to me like he said anything outrageous.

Gender is a fact, even for transgender people, if they feel they're in the wrong gender they can change it, and they are in fact a new gender. So isn't gender a fact?

If he said "gender is a fact, you must stick with what you are born with," then I'd disagree with him. Let people do whatever helps them most.

It's not like Putin coming out and saying teaching about trans people are a threat to society, or a "crime" I think he said, and him being in a position to directly control institutional oppression and violence directed towards these groups.

Forgive me if I am crossing a line myself, like I said my only context on this is that video that I watched 10 seconds of, but I generally consider myself sympathetic to all these groups, LGBTQ+ and opposed to any one doing anything that represses any minority or societal group, I just think saying something that one disagrees with shouldn't in and of itself be the point at which someone gets shouted down and cut off. A contrary opinion isn't yet an act of repression or persecution. Though I admit it is a fine line, and speaking out in direct opposition to groups is definitely something that can lead to those things, but not always. Sometimes it's dialogue, and can be constructive for both sides.


Gender is not fact.

Biological sex is a fact.  You can have a Y chromosome and X chromosome, or 2 X chromosomes, or some other combination.  This determines your sex.

Gender is not sex, and is not determined by a Y or X chromosome. But I am pretty sure a it's a nature thing, not a nurture thing, and it doesn't match up with the person's sex 100 percent of the time.

The dilemma is that their are two major perspectives at play:

(1) God is perfect so everyone should work the "right" way because that's normal.  Anyone not normal is not natural because god is perfect.

And

(2) genetics is complex.  Let's not discriminate against people that don't conform to someone's idea of normal.


I'll let you guess which one would say something like "gender is fact"
 
2021-10-25 6:56:19 AM  

zeroman987: Slaxl: I'm all for people changing their gender if they want, and I'm all for damning people who publicly try to harm or oppress transgender people, but there should be a line where simple disagreement is allowed. All I saw was the first few seconds of the clip, up to the point they cut away when he said "gender is a fact", so that's all the context I have on this, but doesn't seem to me like he said anything outrageous.

Gender is a fact, even for transgender people, if they feel they're in the wrong gender they can change it, and they are in fact a new gender. So isn't gender a fact?

If he said "gender is a fact, you must stick with what you are born with," then I'd disagree with him. Let people do whatever helps them most.

It's not like Putin coming out and saying teaching about trans people are a threat to society, or a "crime" I think he said, and him being in a position to directly control institutional oppression and violence directed towards these groups.

Forgive me if I am crossing a line myself, like I said my only context on this is that video that I watched 10 seconds of, but I generally consider myself sympathetic to all these groups, LGBTQ+ and opposed to any one doing anything that represses any minority or societal group, I just think saying something that one disagrees with shouldn't in and of itself be the point at which someone gets shouted down and cut off. A contrary opinion isn't yet an act of repression or persecution. Though I admit it is a fine line, and speaking out in direct opposition to groups is definitely something that can lead to those things, but not always. Sometimes it's dialogue, and can be constructive for both sides.

Gender is not fact.

Biological sex is a fact.  You can have a Y chromosome and X chromosome, or 2 X chromosomes, or some other combination.  This determines your sex.

Gender is not sex, and is not determined by a Y or X chromosome. But I am pretty sure a it's a nature thing, not a nurture thing, and it doesn't match up with the person's sex 100 percent of the time.

The dilemma is that their are two major perspectives at play:

(1) God is perfect so everyone should work the "right" way because that's normal.  Anyone not normal is not natural because god is perfect.

And

(2) genetics is complex.  Let's not discriminate against people that don't conform to someone's idea of normal.


I'll let you guess which one would say something like "gender is fact"


Except that if you actually watched it, when he said "gender is fact", he was setting up a JOKE. It may not have landed, but that's what stand up comedians do.  All of them.  All the farking time.
 
2021-10-25 7:40:23 AM  

cretinbob: You should see the stuff I don't post...


Name checks out
 
2021-10-25 7:43:08 AM  

zeroman987: Slaxl: I'm all for people changing their gender if they want, and I'm all for damning people who publicly try to harm or oppress transgender people, but there should be a line where simple disagreement is allowed. All I saw was the first few seconds of the clip, up to the point they cut away when he said "gender is a fact", so that's all the context I have on this, but doesn't seem to me like he said anything outrageous.

Gender is a fact, even for transgender people, if they feel they're in the wrong gender they can change it, and they are in fact a new gender. So isn't gender a fact?

If he said "gender is a fact, you must stick with what you are born with," then I'd disagree with him. Let people do whatever helps them most.

It's not like Putin coming out and saying teaching about trans people are a threat to society, or a "crime" I think he said, and him being in a position to directly control institutional oppression and violence directed towards these groups.

Forgive me if I am crossing a line myself, like I said my only context on this is that video that I watched 10 seconds of, but I generally consider myself sympathetic to all these groups, LGBTQ+ and opposed to any one doing anything that represses any minority or societal group, I just think saying something that one disagrees with shouldn't in and of itself be the point at which someone gets shouted down and cut off. A contrary opinion isn't yet an act of repression or persecution. Though I admit it is a fine line, and speaking out in direct opposition to groups is definitely something that can lead to those things, but not always. Sometimes it's dialogue, and can be constructive for both sides.

Gender is not fact.

Biological sex is a fact.  You can have a Y chromosome and X chromosome, or 2 X chromosomes, or some other combination.  This determines your sex.

Gender is not sex, and is not determined by a Y or X chromosome. But I am pretty sure a it's a nature thing, not a nurture thing, and it doesn't match up with the person's sex 100 percent of the time.

The dilemma is that their are two major perspectives at play:

(1) God is perfect so everyone should work the "right" way because that's normal.  Anyone not normal is not natural because god is perfect.

And

(2) genetics is complex.  Let's not discriminate against people that don't conform to someone's idea of normal.


I'll let you guess which one would say something like "gender is fact"


Hitler?
 
2021-10-25 8:04:27 AM  

Wine Sipping Elitist: stoli n coke: Wes Anderson is taking heat? Did he forget to include the perfectly symmetrical shot of a Wilson brother staring disaffectedly into the camera while "House of the Rising Sun" plays in Farsi?

Wes Anderson movies are much more enjoyable when you realize the director is a character in his movies, too. His style is so much a part of the story that it is inseparable. Long horizontal tracking shot, foreground characters moving into the background, symmetry ... it's completely the directors voice. It's a Wes Anderson movie.

Complaining Wes movies' are too quirky is missing the entire point.


No, it's not. Some people are fine with self-indulgence. Others of us think that his entire style is just terrible and, more important, by now, completely unoriginal. Even Scorsese made films that don't have gangsters in them. Hitchcock made tense psychological dramas, action flicks, and comedies. Yet Anderson makes the same damn film over and over, both in style and substance. He clearly has talent, but he needs to do a Marvel movie or a bubbly rom-com or a slasher pic and move away from his comfort zone. Even his best film, "Fantastic Mr. Fox", is overloaded with twee, and he didn't even write it. If you've seen any film he made after "Rushmore", you've seen all of his movies.

oblig:
Wes Anderson Horror Trailer - SNL
Youtube gfDIAZCwHQE
 
2021-10-25 8:07:13 AM  
They just announced the name of Dave's next special. "Nazi Supermen are our Superiors".
 
2021-10-25 8:10:04 AM  
"There's a popular assumption that gifted artists, left to their own devices, will create their best work, and that the intrusion of network suits or studio bosses only mucks up the process."

I've never made that assumption.  The only space I'll give here is that a band will make a great record right after they get popular enough to do whatever they want.  For example, Beck did Odelay, the Beastie Boys did Paul's Boutique, and the White Stripes did Elephant right after a previous album was popular enough to give them the latitude to do whatever they wanted.
 
2021-10-25 8:12:46 AM  

Rapmaster2000: "There's a popular assumption that gifted artists, left to their own devices, will create their best work, and that the intrusion of network suits or studio bosses only mucks up the process."

I've never made that assumption.  The only space I'll give here is that a band will make a great record right after they get popular enough to do whatever they want.  For example, Beck did Odelay, the Beastie Boys did Paul's Boutique, and the White Stripes did Elephant right after a previous album was popular enough to give them the latitude to do whatever they wanted.


I remember when I first read the first Harry Potter, I thought "wow, there isn't one page that is unnecessary". And the more bloated the following books because, the more obvious it was that "protection from editor" is a bad thing.
 
2021-10-25 8:23:22 AM  

Eravior: "There's a popular assumption that gifted artists, left to their own devices, will create their best work, and that the intrusion of network suits or studio bosses only mucks up the process."

Funny. I've seen the exact opposite. Movies, TV shows, paintings, music, etc. Put people between a rock and a hard place and they can create some amazing shiat. Let them do whatever they want and they put their heads up their own asses.


I can't remember any vanity projects that turned out to be someone's masterwork.
 
2021-10-25 8:25:03 AM  

Wine Sipping Elitist: lennavan: My critique of the Chapelle comedy special was it just wasn't as funny as most of his other stuff.  It seemed more important to him that he get his point across than be funny.

Yes, he literally said he had a point/goal in the first 2 minutes. When I noticed his jokes rolled from one group of people to another, I saw what he was doing. Personally, I expected people to be upset about the Space Jew jokes.

Find out who you can't joke about and you know who is pulling the strings is an old adage.


Those goddamned crippled orphans have had it too easy for too long!
 
2021-10-25 8:26:19 AM  
Yet watching the Dave Chappelle special that has spurred controversy at Netflix

Oh CCN, so desperate for attention and yet so spineless at the same time.

Comedian ATTACKED by Protestors at Netflix Walkout
Youtube BRpjdrFCYT8
 
2021-10-25 8:35:30 AM  
I look forward to being whimsically bored viewing 'The French Dispatch' whilst sitting in my perfectly-symmetrical living-room full of kitsch paraphernalia.
A bad Wes Anderson film is ten-times better than any superhero dreck coming down the pipe.
*sniffs snobbishly whilst adjusting his ascot*
 
2021-10-25 8:38:38 AM  

Fano: Eravior: "There's a popular assumption that gifted artists, left to their own devices, will create their best work, and that the intrusion of network suits or studio bosses only mucks up the process."

Funny. I've seen the exact opposite. Movies, TV shows, paintings, music, etc. Put people between a rock and a hard place and they can create some amazing shiat. Let them do whatever they want and they put their heads up their own asses.

I can't remember any vanity projects that turned out to be someone's masterwork.


Dewey Cox's Band Quits!
Youtube f_1mxNtLCK0
50 000 didgeridoos
 
2021-10-25 8:55:46 AM  

frankb00th: Fano: Eravior: "There's a popular assumption that gifted artists, left to their own devices, will create their best work, and that the intrusion of network suits or studio bosses only mucks up the process."

Funny. I've seen the exact opposite. Movies, TV shows, paintings, music, etc. Put people between a rock and a hard place and they can create some amazing shiat. Let them do whatever they want and they put their heads up their own asses.

I can't remember any vanity projects that turned out to be someone's masterwork.

[YouTube video: Dewey Cox's Band Quits!]50 000 didgeridoos


Art Rock Suite - 1975 National Lampoon
Youtube SzIHT9gnZrM
 
2021-10-25 9:26:10 AM  

Slaxl: I'm all for people changing their gender if they want, and I'm all for damning people who publicly try to harm or oppress transgender people, but there should be a line where simple disagreement is allowed. All I saw was the first few seconds of the clip, up to the point they cut away when he said "gender is a fact", so that's all the context I have on this, but doesn't seem to me like he said anything outrageous.


He specifically talked about how many people only see clips out of context, and then feel like they have some special insight and ability to critique how wrong he is on things.
He spent the last 15 or 20 minutes talking about his TG friend who had committed suicide after the internet was outraged at her for defending Chapelle's comedy. He then talked about setting up a trust for his friend's daughter and ended the segment on the joke "i knew your father and he was a wonderful woman"

people just want to be outraged. f 'em.
 
2021-10-25 9:36:24 AM  

ThatGuyOverThere: Slaxl: I'm all for people changing their gender if they want, and I'm all for damning people who publicly try to harm or oppress transgender people, but there should be a line where simple disagreement is allowed. All I saw was the first few seconds of the clip, up to the point they cut away when he said "gender is a fact", so that's all the context I have on this, but doesn't seem to me like he said anything outrageous.

He specifically talked about how many people only see clips out of context, and then feel like they have some special insight and ability to critique how wrong he is on things.
He spent the last 15 or 20 minutes talking about his TG friend who had committed suicide after the internet was outraged at her for defending Chapelle's comedy. He then talked about setting up a trust for his friend's daughter and ended the segment on the joke "i knew your father and he was a wonderful woman"

people just want to be outraged. f 'em.


Trump didn't even do that for Ben Carson!
 
2021-10-25 10:04:52 AM  

Slaxl: I'm all for people changing their gender if they want, and I'm all for damning people who publicly try to harm or oppress transgender people, but there should be a line where simple disagreement is allowed. All I saw was the first few seconds of the clip, up to the point they cut away when he said "gender is a fact", so that's all the context I have on this, but doesn't seem to me like he said anything outrageous.

Gender is a fact, even for transgender people, if they feel they're in the wrong gender they can change it, and they are in fact a new gender. So isn't gender a fact?

If he said "gender is a fact, you must stick with what you are born with," then I'd disagree with him. Let people do whatever helps them most.

It's not like Putin coming out and saying teaching about trans people are a threat to society, or a "crime" I think he said, and him being in a position to directly control institutional oppression and violence directed towards these groups.

Forgive me if I am crossing a line myself, like I said my only context on this is that video that I watched 10 seconds of, but I generally consider myself sympathetic to all these groups, LGBTQ+ and opposed to any one doing anything that represses any minority or societal group, I just think saying something that one disagrees with shouldn't in and of itself be the point at which someone gets shouted down and cut off. A contrary opinion isn't yet an act of repression or persecution. Though I admit it is a fine line, and speaking out in direct opposition to groups is definitely something that can lead to those things, but not always. Sometimes it's dialogue, and can be constructive for both sides.


Trans people don't care what you think. We genuinely don't. I see these long ass screeds posted in every Chapelle argument and I'm not exactly sure what goes on in your mind that you think we're going to sit down and go "wow dude! You're right! My whole life and lived experience is a lie! Thanks cissy!"
 
2021-10-25 10:34:00 AM  

zeroman987: Slaxl: I'm all for people changing their gender if they want, and I'm all for damning people who publicly try to harm or oppress transgender people, but there should be a line where simple disagreement is allowed. All I saw was the first few seconds of the clip, up to the point they cut away when he said "gender is a fact", so that's all the context I have on this, but doesn't seem to me like he said anything outrageous.

Gender is a fact, even for transgender people, if they feel they're in the wrong gender they can change it, and they are in fact a new gender. So isn't gender a fact?

If he said "gender is a fact, you must stick with what you are born with," then I'd disagree with him. Let people do whatever helps them most.

It's not like Putin coming out and saying teaching about trans people are a threat to society, or a "crime" I think he said, and him being in a position to directly control institutional oppression and violence directed towards these groups.

Forgive me if I am crossing a line myself, like I said my only context on this is that video that I watched 10 seconds of, but I generally consider myself sympathetic to all these groups, LGBTQ+ and opposed to any one doing anything that represses any minority or societal group, I just think saying something that one disagrees with shouldn't in and of itself be the point at which someone gets shouted down and cut off. A contrary opinion isn't yet an act of repression or persecution. Though I admit it is a fine line, and speaking out in direct opposition to groups is definitely something that can lead to those things, but not always. Sometimes it's dialogue, and can be constructive for both sides.

Gender is not fact.

Biological sex is a fact.  You can have a Y chromosome and X chromosome, or 2 X chromosomes, or some other combination.  This determines your sex.

Gender is not sex, and is not determined by a Y or X chromosome. But I am pretty sure a it's a nature thing, not a nurture thing, and it doesn' ...


"gender is fantasy"
 
2021-10-25 10:37:38 AM  

zeroman987: Gender is not sex, and is not determined by a Y or X chromosome. But I am pretty sure a it's a nature thing, not a nurture thing, and it doesn't match up with the person's sex 100 percent of the time.


Then what is it? And include some documentation, like a peer-reviewed scientific study rather than saying "I'm pretty sure it's a nature thing."

As long as I can remember, "sex" and "gender" have been synonymous. Suddenly, a small group of angry people have declared a change of definition. But they haven't bothered to explain the source of this change. Instead, they respond with attempted condescension and sarcasm, or angrily attack the character of the questioner - two things people tend to do when they don't have a valid answer.

So...do you have a valid answer?
 
2021-10-25 10:38:54 AM  

Slaxl: I'm all for people changing their gender if they want, and I'm all for damning people who publicly try to harm or oppress transgender people, but


but1
/bət/
conjunction
1.
used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned
 
2021-10-25 11:16:56 AM  
...are we seriously doing the thing where a bunch of white people criticize a black man's communications without a hint of shame or irony in the year 2021?

...seriously?
 
2021-10-25 11:23:22 AM  

Grimstrider: ...are we seriously doing the thing where a bunch of white people criticize a black man's communications without a hint of shame or irony in the year 2021?

...seriously?


You're trying to do a thing. That's cute.
 
2021-10-25 11:25:53 AM  

AteMyBrain: zeroman987: Gender is not sex, and is not determined by a Y or X chromosome. But I am pretty sure a it's a nature thing, not a nurture thing, and it doesn't match up with the person's sex 100 percent of the time.

Then what is it? And include some documentation, like a peer-reviewed scientific study rather than saying "I'm pretty sure it's a nature thing."

As long as I can remember, "sex" and "gender" have been synonymous. Suddenly, a small group of angry people have declared a change of definition. But they haven't bothered to explain the source of this change. Instead, they respond with attempted condescension and sarcasm, or angrily attack the character of the questioner - two things people tend to do when they don't have a valid answer.

So...do you have a valid answer?


Or -and here's a radical idea- you could just, you know, ASK a transgender person about it.  Just because some of them can't take a joke doesn't mean they're making shiat up.
 
2021-10-25 11:29:13 AM  
Huh.  Not to sideline but related - was just reading a thread that talked about George Lucas's wife and her editing on the first two original movies but not the 3rd resulting in a good 1st movie where she had a moderate of say, great second movie where my understanding she had more say (or fought more for her voice).

The power of the creative can be corrupt if not for the power of the realist to knock them back into the playing field of possibility.
 
2021-10-25 11:31:34 AM  

Eravior: "There's a popular assumption that gifted artists, left to their own devices, will create their best work, and that the intrusion of network suits or studio bosses only mucks up the process."

Funny. I've seen the exact opposite. Movies, TV shows, paintings, music, etc. Put people between a rock and a hard place and they can create some amazing shiat. Let them do whatever they want and they put their heads up their own asses.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-10-25 11:37:20 AM  

AteMyBrain: zeroman987: Gender is not sex, and is not determined by a Y or X chromosome. But I am pretty sure a it's a nature thing, not a nurture thing, and it doesn't match up with the person's sex 100 percent of the time.

Then what is it? And include some documentation, like a peer-reviewed scientific study rather than saying "I'm pretty sure it's a nature thing."

As long as I can remember, "sex" and "gender" have been synonymous. Suddenly, a small group of angry people have declared a change of definition. But they haven't bothered to explain the source of this change. Instead, they respond with attempted condescension and sarcasm, or angrily attack the character of the questioner - two things people tend to do when they don't have a valid answer.

So...do you have a valid answer?


As long as you can remember sex and gender have not been synonymous, though they were treated so sociologically in more modern times. Historically gender was and is used in romance languages to 'gender' items grammatically, and this used in sentence structure and conjugation. For example shoes may have the grammatical gender of male, but they aren't biological nor do they have penises. Gender was used to refer to object and behaviors as masculine and feminine unrelated to biology. If you've ever looked at a pink shirt for example and though, I wouldn't wear that, that's girly! You'd mean you consider that shirt to be too feminine for you to wear if you identified as male, even though the shirt itself is not biological, nor something that only someone with female sex organs could wear. In fact, pink used to be a masculine color, however the definition of what was masculine and what was feminine have changed over time.

Gender reassignment surgery history is likely older than you even. Not the first but the one at the time that was most publicized was Christine Jorgenson in the early 50's. Though it had been done in the 30s as well!

It might appear a 'small angry group' just changed the definition, but that's not the case. Reassignment surgery goes back a ways, but in the 60's with the women's right movement started studies about what it meant to be a woman sociologically which later also later created studies into gender identity as a whole. You probably think it's more recent as it was in the late 70s and early 80s gender dysphoria was acknowledged as people whose biological sex and mental gender identity conflicted. It was treated as a psychosexual disorder at the time. Since then there've been a lot of studies, like fMRI response to stimuli to see if there's a biological component, studies if there's a genetic component, you can always read the Wiki on causational studies.

So yeah, gender identity both individually and sociologically have existed for as long as people have. Gender and biological sex have been separate even if used interchangeably by some. Longer for sure than the technology you are using to type right now! And there's a wide range of how a person might identify. You can be a man but enjoy what are considered feminine traits but don't have gender dysphoria and vice versa. Humans are complex creatures with all sorts of chemicals that the slightest alterations can end in vast changes and we're still discovering more every day.

The reason for the angry responses are likely because anyone with a phone has the ability to educate themselves in this information, there've been a lot people who have explained this but people instist they have not, and it isn't the job of someone you don't understand to have to educate you when all they're asking for is to be treated decently.
 
2021-10-25 11:40:57 AM  

AntonChigger: Eravior: "There's a popular assumption that gifted artists, left to their own devices, will create their best work, and that the intrusion of network suits or studio bosses only mucks up the process."

Funny. I've seen the exact opposite. Movies, TV shows, paintings, music, etc. Put people between a rock and a hard place and they can create some amazing shiat. Let them do whatever they want and they put their heads up their own asses.

[Fark user image 425x595]


Lord of the Rings only exists because his publisher wanted a sequel and considered the Silmarillion was too lacking in hobbits
 
2021-10-25 11:44:49 AM  

Lumbar Puncture: AntonChigger: Eravior: "There's a popular assumption that gifted artists, left to their own devices, will create their best work, and that the intrusion of network suits or studio bosses only mucks up the process."

Funny. I've seen the exact opposite. Movies, TV shows, paintings, music, etc. Put people between a rock and a hard place and they can create some amazing shiat. Let them do whatever they want and they put their heads up their own asses.

[Fark user image 425x595]

Lord of the Rings only exists because his publisher wanted a sequel and considered the Silmarillion was too lacking in hobbits


I have no idea what you're on about. I was making the point that nobody stepped in to stop Peter Jackson during the making of the Hobbit movies after the incredible success of the LOTR movies and look what happened.
 
2021-10-25 11:46:35 AM  

AntonChigger: Lumbar Puncture: AntonChigger: Eravior: "There's a popular assumption that gifted artists, left to their own devices, will create their best work, and that the intrusion of network suits or studio bosses only mucks up the process."

Funny. I've seen the exact opposite. Movies, TV shows, paintings, music, etc. Put people between a rock and a hard place and they can create some amazing shiat. Let them do whatever they want and they put their heads up their own asses.

[Fark user image 425x595]

Lord of the Rings only exists because his publisher wanted a sequel and considered the Silmarillion was too lacking in hobbits

I have no idea what you're on about. I was making the point that nobody stepped in to stop Peter Jackson during the making of the Hobbit movies after the incredible success of the LOTR movies and look what happened.


Sorry, thought you meant the book. Should've seen the word trilogy on there.

But yeah, some times no one says no and it's bad as well. See also, Lucas.
 
2021-10-25 11:49:37 AM  

luidprand: Wine Sipping Elitist: stoli n coke: Wes Anderson is taking heat? Did he forget to include the perfectly symmetrical shot of a Wilson brother staring disaffectedly into the camera while "House of the Rising Sun" plays in Farsi?

Wes Anderson movies are much more enjoyable when you realize the director is a character in his movies, too. His style is so much a part of the story that it is inseparable. Long horizontal tracking shot, foreground characters moving into the background, symmetry ... it's completely the directors voice. It's a Wes Anderson movie.

Complaining Wes movies' are too quirky is missing the entire point.

No, it's not. Some people are fine with self-indulgence. Others of us think that his entire style is just terrible and, more important, by now, completely unoriginal. Even Scorsese made films that don't have gangsters in them. Hitchcock made tense psychological dramas, action flicks, and comedies. Yet Anderson makes the same damn film over and over, both in style and substance. He clearly has talent, but he needs to do a Marvel movie or a bubbly rom-com or a slasher pic and move away from his comfort zone. Even his best film, "Fantastic Mr. Fox", is overloaded with twee, and he didn't even write it. If you've seen any film he made after "Rushmore", you've seen all of his movies.

oblig:
[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/gfDIAZCw​HQE]



You're not wrong lol
 
2021-10-25 11:51:27 AM  

Fano: Wine Sipping Elitist: lennavan: My critique of the Chapelle comedy special was it just wasn't as funny as most of his other stuff.  It seemed more important to him that he get his point across than be funny.

Yes, he literally said he had a point/goal in the first 2 minutes. When I noticed his jokes rolled from one group of people to another, I saw what he was doing. Personally, I expected people to be upset about the Space Jew jokes.

Find out who you can't joke about and you know who is pulling the strings is an old adage.

Those goddamned crippled orphans have had it too easy for too long!


I know some children who could use a good punch to the face, but noooooooo Big Kid would cancel me.
 
2021-10-25 11:58:22 AM  

zjoik: zeroman987: Slaxl: I'm all for people changing their gender if they want, and I'm all for damning people who publicly try to harm or oppress transgender people, but there should be a line where simple disagreement is allowed. All I saw was the first few seconds of the clip, up to the point they cut away when he said "gender is a fact", so that's all the context I have on this, but doesn't seem to me like he said anything outrageous.

Gender is a fact, even for transgender people, if they feel they're in the wrong gender they can change it, and they are in fact a new gender. So isn't gender a fact?

If he said "gender is a fact, you must stick with what you are born with," then I'd disagree with him. Let people do whatever helps them most.

It's not like Putin coming out and saying teaching about trans people are a threat to society, or a "crime" I think he said, and him being in a position to directly control institutional oppression and violence directed towards these groups.

Forgive me if I am crossing a line myself, like I said my only context on this is that video that I watched 10 seconds of, but I generally consider myself sympathetic to all these groups, LGBTQ+ and opposed to any one doing anything that represses any minority or societal group, I just think saying something that one disagrees with shouldn't in and of itself be the point at which someone gets shouted down and cut off. A contrary opinion isn't yet an act of repression or persecution. Though I admit it is a fine line, and speaking out in direct opposition to groups is definitely something that can lead to those things, but not always. Sometimes it's dialogue, and can be constructive for both sides.

Gender is not fact.

Biological sex is a fact.  You can have a Y chromosome and X chromosome, or 2 X chromosomes, or some other combination.  This determines your sex.

Gender is not sex, and is not determined by a Y or X chromosome. But I am pretty sure a it's a nature thing, not a nurture thing, and it doesn't match up with the person's sex 100 percent of the time.

The dilemma is that their are two major perspectives at play:

(1) God is perfect so everyone should work the "right" way because that's normal.  Anyone not normal is not natural because god is perfect.

And

(2) genetics is complex.  Let's not discriminate against people that don't conform to someone's idea of normal.


I'll let you guess which one would say something like "gender is fact"

Hitler?


Clayton Bigsby?
 
2021-10-25 12:08:13 PM  

Hell Poodle: Slaxl: I'm all for people changing their gender if they want, and I'm all for damning people who publicly try to harm or oppress transgender people, but there should be a line where simple disagreement is allowed. All I saw was the first few seconds of the clip, up to the point they cut away when he said "gender is a fact", so that's all the context I have on this, but doesn't seem to me like he said anything outrageous.

Gender is a fact, even for transgender people, if they feel they're in the wrong gender they can change it, and they are in fact a new gender. So isn't gender a fact?

If he said "gender is a fact, you must stick with what you are born with," then I'd disagree with him. Let people do whatever helps them most.

It's not like Putin coming out and saying teaching about trans people are a threat to society, or a "crime" I think he said, and him being in a position to directly control institutional oppression and violence directed towards these groups.

Forgive me if I am crossing a line myself, like I said my only context on this is that video that I watched 10 seconds of, but I generally consider myself sympathetic to all these groups, LGBTQ+ and opposed to any one doing anything that represses any minority or societal group, I just think saying something that one disagrees with shouldn't in and of itself be the point at which someone gets shouted down and cut off. A contrary opinion isn't yet an act of repression or persecution. Though I admit it is a fine line, and speaking out in direct opposition to groups is definitely something that can lead to those things, but not always. Sometimes it's dialogue, and can be constructive for both sides.

Trans people don't care what you think. We genuinely don't. I see these long ass screeds posted in every Chapelle argument and I'm not exactly sure what goes on in your mind that you think we're going to sit down and go "wow dude! You're right! My whole life and lived experience is a lie! Thanks cissy!"


Lovely, just lovely. This right here is why many straight people don't like the term "cis". Thanks for showing your bigotry and hatred clear and plain to see.
 
2021-10-25 12:43:17 PM  

AntonChigger: Lumbar Puncture: AntonChigger: Eravior: "There's a popular assumption that gifted artists, left to their own devices, will create their best work, and that the intrusion of network suits or studio bosses only mucks up the process."

Funny. I've seen the exact opposite. Movies, TV shows, paintings, music, etc. Put people between a rock and a hard place and they can create some amazing shiat. Let them do whatever they want and they put their heads up their own asses.

[Fark user image 425x595]

Lord of the Rings only exists because his publisher wanted a sequel and considered the Silmarillion was too lacking in hobbits

I have no idea what you're on about. I was making the point that nobody stepped in to stop Peter Jackson during the making of the Hobbit movies after the incredible success of the LOTR movies and look what happened.


That Snyder zombie movie is another good example.
Good god that was bad.
 
2021-10-25 1:22:43 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: As long as you can remember sex and gender have not been synonymous, though they were treated so sociologically in more modern times. Historically gender was and is used in romance languages to 'gender' items grammatically, and this used in sentence structure and conjugation. For example shoes may have the grammatical gender of male, but they aren't biological nor do they have penises. Gender was used to refer to object and behaviors as masculine and feminine unrelated to biology. If you've ever looked at a pink shirt for example and though, I wouldn't wear that, that's girly! You'd mean you consider that shirt to be too feminine for you to wear if you identified as male, even though the shirt itself is not biological, nor something that only someone with female sex organs could wear. In fact, pink used to be a masculine color, however the definition of what was masculine and what was feminine have changed over time.

Gender reassignment surgery history is likely older than you even. Not the first but the one at the time that was most publicized was Christine Jorgenson in the early 50's. Though it had been done in the 30s as well!

It might appear a 'small angry group' just changed the definition, but that's not the case. Reassignment surgery goes back a ways, but in the 60's with the women's right movement started studies about what it meant to be a woman sociologically which later also later created studies into gender identity as a whole. You probably think it's more recent as it was in the late 70s and early 80s gender dysphoria was acknowledged as people whose biological sex and mental gender identity conflicted. It was treated as a psychosexual disorder at the time. Since then there've been a lot of studies, like fMRI response to stimuli to see if there's a biological component, studies if there's a genetic component, you can always read the Wiki on causational studies.

So yeah, gender identity both individually and sociologically have existed for as long as people have. Gender and biological sex have been separate even if used interchangeably by some. Longer for sure than the technology you are using to type right now! And there's a wide range of how a person might identify. You can be a man but enjoy what are considered feminine traits but don't have gender dysphoria and vice versa. Humans are complex creatures with all sorts of chemicals that the slightest alterations can end in vast changes and we're still discovering more every day.

The reason for the angry responses are likely because anyone with a phone has the ability to educate themselves in this information, there've been a lot people who have explained this but people instist they have not, and it isn't the job of someone you don't understand to have to educate you when all they're asking for is to be treated decently.


Nope.

First...you're (poorly) describing grammatical gender, which is simply a way some languages have of classifying nouns. It doesn't imply manly or womanly traits in the object, and isn't related to human gender in any way. For example, "Un T-shirt" is a masculine noun in French - regardless of whether the shirt is pink or blue.

As for your slightly condescending history lesson - I've been well aware, as have been most my age, that sex-change operations have existed for quite some time. We fully grasp the concept of transferring a human from one sex to the other. And I think you'd find surprisingly little resistance to this concept if you took the time to listen to the people you believe you're educating.

The mystery is in how you would perform surgery - a biological procedure - on gender, which is allegedly not biological. But I guess that would start with an actual, official definition of what gender supposedly is, which you've not provided.

And I also disagree with you about the reason behind the angry responses. I don't think it has anything to do with the frustration with people not doing the proper internet research. I believe it's the age-old tactic of offense being the best defense, so to speak. If you attack someone and accuse them and label them negatively, it will surely dissuade them from asking the questions you're not equipped to answer.

A simple question, like: "Can you show me the scientific definition of gender as something other than biological sex?"
 
2021-10-25 1:54:09 PM  

AteMyBrain: Lumbar Puncture: As long as you can remember sex and gender have not been synonymous, though they were treated so sociologically in more modern times. Historically gender was and is used in romance languages to 'gender' items grammatically, and this used in sentence structure and conjugation. For example shoes may have the grammatical gender of male, but they aren't biological nor do they have penises. Gender was used to refer to object and behaviors as masculine and feminine unrelated to biology. If you've ever looked at a pink shirt for example and though, I wouldn't wear that, that's girly! You'd mean you consider that shirt to be too feminine for you to wear if you identified as male, even though the shirt itself is not biological, nor something that only someone with female sex organs could wear. In fact, pink used to be a masculine color, however the definition of what was masculine and what was feminine have changed over time.

Gender reassignment surgery history is likely older than you even. Not the first but the one at the time that was most publicized was Christine Jorgenson in the early 50's. Though it had been done in the 30s as well!

It might appear a 'small angry group' just changed the definition, but that's not the case. Reassignment surgery goes back a ways, but in the 60's with the women's right movement started studies about what it meant to be a woman sociologically which later also later created studies into gender identity as a whole. You probably think it's more recent as it was in the late 70s and early 80s gender dysphoria was acknowledged as people whose biological sex and mental gender identity conflicted. It was treated as a psychosexual disorder at the time. Since then there've been a lot of studies, like fMRI response to stimuli to see if there's a biological component, studies if there's a genetic component, you can always read the Wiki on causational studies.

So yeah, gender identity both individually and sociologically have existed for as long as people have. Gender and biological sex have been separate even if used interchangeably by some. Longer for sure than the technology you are using to type right now! And there's a wide range of how a person might identify. You can be a man but enjoy what are considered feminine traits but don't have gender dysphoria and vice versa. Humans are complex creatures with all sorts of chemicals that the slightest alterations can end in vast changes and we're still discovering more every day.

The reason for the angry responses are likely because anyone with a phone has the ability to educate themselves in this information, there've been a lot people who have explained this but people instist they have not, and it isn't the job of someone you don't understand to have to educate you when all they're asking for is to be treated decently.

Nope.

First...you're (poorly) describing grammatical gender, which is simply a way some languages have of classifying nouns. It doesn't imply manly or womanly traits in the object, and isn't related to human gender in any way. For example, "Un T-shirt" is a masculine noun in French - regardless of whether the shirt is pink or blue.

As for your slightly condescending history lesson - I've been well aware, as have been most my age, that sex-change operations have existed for quite some time. We fully grasp the concept of transferring a human from one sex to the other. And I think you'd find surprisingly little resistance to this concept if you took the time to listen to the people you believe you're educating.

The mystery is in how you would perform surgery - a biological procedure - on gender, which is allegedly not biological. But I guess that would start with an actual, official definition of what gender supposedly is, which you've not provided.

And I also disagree with you about the reason behind the angry responses. I don't think it has anything to do with the frustration with people not doing the proper internet research. I believe it's the age-old tactic of offense being the best defense, so to speak. If you attack someone and accuse them and label them negatively, it will surely dissuade them from asking the questions you're not equipped to answer.

A simple question, like: "Can you show me the scientific definition of gender as something other than biological sex?"


Is the World Health Organization a good enough source for your question?

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gend​er#tab=tab_1

"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed.  This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."
 
2021-10-25 2:31:43 PM  

AteMyBrain: It doesn't imply manly or womanly traits in the object, and isn't related to human gender in any way. For example, "Un T-shirt" is a masculine noun in French - regardless of whether the shirt is pink or blue.


Congrats, you understood my point about how grammatical gender exists and is separate from human sex! And the feminine example I was using was the color not the object but you were close.

As for your slightly condescending history lesson - I've been well aware, as have been most my age, that sex-change operations have existed for quite some time. We fully grasp the concept of transferring a human from one sex to the other. And I think you'd find surprisingly little resistance to this concept if you took the time to listen to the people you believe you're educating.

As for your slightly condescending history lesson - I've been well aware, as have been most my age, that sex-change operations have existed for quite some time. We fully grasp the concept of transferring a human from one sex to the other. And I think you'd find surprisingly little resistance to this concept if you took the time to listen to the people you believe you're educating.

The mystery is in how you would perform surgery - a biological procedure - on gender, which is allegedly not biological. But I guess that would start with an actual, official definition of what gender supposedly is, which you've not provided.

I did though, it's the social concept of masculinity and femininity that changes over time and has existed throughout the ages, as you even agreed in your initial sentence. You even understand the surgery, a biological procedure, that you have no problem with and understand the history of, of biological sex. So you seem to understand that there is a surgical operation on biological sex and are asking for a surgical procedure on gender identity, which would imply you get that those are separate things? I too don't know how you would do a surgery on identity.

A simple question, like: "Can you show me the scientific definition of gender as something other than biological sex?"

Your said 'And include some documentation, like a peer-reviewed scientific study rather than saying "I'm pretty sure it's a nature thing' when someone gave you a simple answer. Now you're asking for a simple answer. Which leads me to think the derision you may face when 'just asking questions' appear to be related to people being frustrated that you don't really appear to want answers.

Anyway though, here you go

Maybe that's not enough though

Maybe this comprehensive one from the National Institute of Health

Or stated simply in the Oxford dictionary:
gen·der
/ˈjendər/
noun
1.
either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.