Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

BeastProwl wrote:Who exactly was offended by the twins? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but how does one go about being offended by them being all ghetto? I mean, I know SO many people who act that way, and they are all different colors, so this cant be a racist thing. It's the way they act. Any person of any color skin can act any way they want to, so to be offended by such a thing is just dumb.
I didn't hear ANYONE cry foul over how Jazz acted in the first movie. He was toned down in comparison, sure, but it's the same damn thing.

White people who pretend to care. Political correctness is a blight upon human civilization.

Burn wrote:

OptiMagnus wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:The twins where not stereotypes because they where not portraying a certain group of people.

That is completely true, unless there happen to be races of humans with neon green and reddish-brown and grey colored skin types that have been previously labelled with the same behaviors.

Tanorexic Kardashians.

Didn't think about that...but you're right.

BeastProwl wrote:Who exactly was offended by the twins? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but how does one go about being offended by them being all ghetto? I mean, I know SO many people who act that way, and they are all different colors, so this cant be a racist thing. It's the way they act. Any person of any color skin can act any way they want to, so to be offended by such a thing is just dumb.
I didn't hear ANYONE cry foul over how Jazz acted in the first movie. He was toned down in comparison, sure, but it's the same damn thing.

I agree 100% here. I know people of all different races who act like the twins. Yes, they may be "ghetto" stereotypes, but that doesn't imply one race over another. In fact, if one is offended by the twins being racist because of the way they act, they would first have to associate a certain race with their behavior. Therefore, it is actually racist to associate certain behaviors with one race, because it assumes EVERYONE, or the majority of a race acts the same way.
And calling Jazz racist is definitely a stretch. I haven't met any naturally silver-colored people yet.

OptiMagnus wrote:

Burn wrote:

OptiMagnus wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:The twins where not stereotypes because they where not portraying a certain group of people.

That is completely true, unless there happen to be races of humans with neon green and reddish-brown and grey colored skin types that have been previously labelled with the same behaviors.

Tanorexic Kardashians.

Didn't think about that...but you're right.

BeastProwl wrote:Who exactly was offended by the twins? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but how does one go about being offended by them being all ghetto? I mean, I know SO many people who act that way, and they are all different colors, so this cant be a racist thing. It's the way they act. Any person of any color skin can act any way they want to, so to be offended by such a thing is just dumb.
I didn't hear ANYONE cry foul over how Jazz acted in the first movie. He was toned down in comparison, sure, but it's the same damn thing.

I agree 100% here. I know people of all different races who act like the twins. Yes, they may be "ghetto" stereotypes, but that doesn't imply one race over another. In fact, if one is offended by the twins being racist because of the way they act, they would first have to associate a certain race with their behavior. Therefore, it is actually racist to associate certain behaviors with one race, because it assumes EVERYONE, or the majority of a race acts the same way.
And calling Jazz racist is definitely a stretch. I haven't met any naturally silver-colored people yet.

Pretty much this. People are quick to confuse culture with race. I also found the cries of antisemitism hilarious. To sum up that point some people believed the film was antisemitic because there was no mention of Israel or the Israeli army in the film's latter half. To that I pose a question:

Which is worse? To not mention a nation/group of people in the general area or for that group to DEMAND recognition, even when it may not be necessary?

I will put myself in the line of fire and say that no, Israel was not important enough to the overall events for them to get special mention just because they're in the general area. Egypt and Jordan were the two countries were these events took place, and that's all there is to it.

There's a term I use to describe these kinds of criticisms: Grasping at straws.

Capt.Failure wrote:

OptiMagnus wrote:

Burn wrote:

OptiMagnus wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:The twins where not stereotypes because they where not portraying a certain group of people.

That is completely true, unless there happen to be races of humans with neon green and reddish-brown and grey colored skin types that have been previously labelled with the same behaviors.

Tanorexic Kardashians.

Didn't think about that...but you're right.

BeastProwl wrote:Who exactly was offended by the twins? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but how does one go about being offended by them being all ghetto? I mean, I know SO many people who act that way, and they are all different colors, so this cant be a racist thing. It's the way they act. Any person of any color skin can act any way they want to, so to be offended by such a thing is just dumb.
I didn't hear ANYONE cry foul over how Jazz acted in the first movie. He was toned down in comparison, sure, but it's the same damn thing.

I agree 100% here. I know people of all different races who act like the twins. Yes, they may be "ghetto" stereotypes, but that doesn't imply one race over another. In fact, if one is offended by the twins being racist because of the way they act, they would first have to associate a certain race with their behavior. Therefore, it is actually racist to associate certain behaviors with one race, because it assumes EVERYONE, or the majority of a race acts the same way.
And calling Jazz racist is definitely a stretch. I haven't met any naturally silver-colored people yet.

Pretty much this. People are quick to confuse culture with race. I also found the cries of antisemitism hilarious. To sum up that point some people believed the film was antisemitic because there was no mention of Israel or the Israeli army in the film's latter half. To that I pose a question:

Which is worse? To not mention a nation/group of people in the general area or for that group to DEMAND recognition, even when it may not be necessary?

I will put myself in the line of fire and say that no, Israel was not important enough to the overall events for them to get special mention just because they're in the general area. Egypt and Jordan were the two countries were these events took place, and that's all there is to it.

There's a term I use to describe these kinds of criticisms: Grasping at straws.

careful you may incur the wrath of Rush Limbaugh's ghost!

njb902 wrote:careful you may incur the wrath of Rush Limbaugh's ghost!

He died? Damn, I had a bottle of very nice champagne to crack open for the occasion.

Capt.Failure wrote:

njb902 wrote:careful you may incur the wrath of Rush Limbaugh's ghost!

He died? Damn, I had a bottle of very nice champagne to crack open for the occasion.

No... http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/

He's still very much alive.

Capt.Failure wrote:Pretty much this. People are quick to confuse culture with race. I also found the cries of antisemitism hilarious. To sum up that point some people believed the film was antisemitic because there was no mention of Israel or the Israeli army in the film's latter half.

Wow, I remember the complaints about the first film about "the black robot died!" I thought the black robot was Ironhide?

As for Israel, I believe the reason people complained about that not because it's in the general area, but actually between Egypt and Jordan. So Sam's team must've passed through Israel in order to get from Giza to Petra. And since Jordan was mentioned in name and represented with a (pathetically small) air force, that gives Israel reason to want in.