What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

More Faux Outrage? (Seinfeld this time) (1 Viewer)

The fact that they don't link to any of the allegedly offended "critics," but do link to Fox News complaining about the offended people, tells you everything you need to know.

I clicked the Fox News link so you don't have to, though.  It's based on one blog post by one person on some listicle site, and she specifically explained that the idea is to show how much/quickly times have changed and how they couldn't get away with some of the jokes now :yawn:

 
I'd just like to point out that Millenials are 22-37 now. If your article is criticizing college students, please leave us out of it. If you don't like whatever trend the kids are into, please #### on them directly.

Thanks in advance!

Edit: But I don't know one Millenial (although my cohort is on the upper end of the range) that doesn't love Seinfeld. Most of us grew up watching re-runs on TBS. 

I'm offended that this article says we're offended.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was not repeated on NBC, but, it was shown in syndication afterwards. TBS definitely aired it in reruns years after.
Ok - I probably didn’t watch much anymore by the time it got to TBS. watched the initial run and then in syndication for years on WPIX Channel 11 in NY. 

 
In yet another episode, Jerry says he 'loves Chinese women'. When Elaine asks him 'isn’t that a little racist', Jerry replies 'If I like their race, how can that be racist?'
Referring to Chinese people as Chinese is now offensive??

 
The fact that they don't link to any of the allegedly offended "critics," but do link to Fox News complaining about the offended people, tells you everything you need to know.

I clicked the Fox News link so you don't have to, though.  It's based on one blog post by one person on some listicle site, and she specifically explained that the idea is to show how much/quickly times have changed and how they couldn't get away with some of the jokes now :yawn:
I believe this is the original article.

 
But this is all very stupid.  And the Dailymail and Dailywire "articles" just show you that most "news" published today is just rehashing crap that someone else posted.

 
Idiocy. The other side of the Trump coin. This kind of thinking counts on pressing the buttons of others for its survival. As soon as you indulge anyone who says you or 'this' has no right to think of or refer to others the way you please, say "idiocy' and walk away. People in the public eye don't have that right (which is the only way these issues gain traction), without great cost, because their efforts can lose sponsorship, but private citizens need not indulge this priggery. Idiocy, pure & simple.

 
But this is all very stupid.  And the Dailymail and Dailywire "articles" just show you that most "news" published today is just rehashing crap that someone else posted.
Ashe Scow is a legit journalist, though. Sad that this makes it through the muckwire.  

 
My take on these is almost always the same: it’s ok to be offended by something. It’s ok to write that you find something offensive. If one’s reaction to that is to then be outraged that someone was offended, remember you are behaving just like the originally offended party. 

 
Side note- the offensive phrase "Indian Giver" refers not to Native Americans but to European Americans after the Revolutionary War who would make agreements with Native Americans to acquire land from them, only to renege on those agreements when the land takeovers were complete.

Point being that phrase, while using antiquated verbage, was a slur against White Americans, not Native Americans, if taken in proper context.

Lesson over, carry on.

 
Rirruto said:
I'd just like to point out that Millenials are 22-37 now. If your article is criticizing college students, please leave us out of it. If you don't like whatever trend the kids are into, please #### on them directly.

Thanks in advance!

Edit: But I don't know one Millenial (although my cohort is on the upper end of the range) that doesn't love Seinfeld. Most of us grew up watching re-runs on TBS. 

I'm offended that this article says we're offended.
How like a millennial, always offended at something.

;)    :thumbup:

 
My take on these is almost always the same: it’s ok to be offended by something. It’s ok to write that you find something offensive. If one’s reaction to that is to then be outraged that someone was offended, remember you are behaving just like the originally offended party. 
Please add on:  But it's wrong for media outlets to base it off things like one person's blog post but then make it sound like they are reporting on widespread mainstream criticism.

 
wikkidpissah said:
Idiocy. The other side of the Trump coin. This kind of thinking counts on pressing the buttons of others for its survival. As soon as you indulge anyone who says you or 'this' has no right to think of or refer to others the way you please, say "idiocy' and walk away. People in the public eye don't have that right (which is the only way these issues gain traction), without great cost, because their efforts can lose sponsorship, but private citizens need not indulge this priggery. Idiocy, pure & simple.
Did you just call me fat?

 
Side note- the offensive phrase "Indian Giver" refers not to Native Americans but to European Americans after the Revolutionary War who would make agreements with Native Americans to acquire land from them, only to renege on those agreements when the land takeovers were complete.

Point being that phrase, while using antiquated verbage, was a slur against White Americans, not Native Americans, if taken in proper context.

Lesson over, carry on.
Actually, this is only partly correct! The phrase first appeared in 1765, when Massachusetts governor Thomas Hutchinson noted that the Indians tended to expect something in return for giving something to you.

By 1845 this concept had morphed from "get something back" to "get the original item back".

 
My take on these is almost always the same: it’s ok to be offended by something. It’s ok to write that you find something offensive. If one’s reaction to that is to then be outraged that someone was offended, remember you are behaving just like the originally offended party. 
I look at it differently. I look at it as an attempt to shape what is acceptable for humor or discourse. And to attempt to shape humor or discourse is in the hands of the powerful and the press. And it must be rebutted in all forms, at all times. Forget them.    

 
That's great. Straight face. Concept conveyed. Not so much on the humor or discourse front, though. Just another stand still, Bobby Sac.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My take on these is almost always the same: it’s ok to be offended by something. It’s ok to write that you find something offensive. If one’s reaction to that is to then be outraged that someone was offended, remember you are behaving just like the originally offended party. 
I look at it differently. I look at it as an attempt to shape what is acceptable for humor or discourse. And to attempt to shape humor or discourse is in the hands of the powerful and the press. And it must be rebutted in all forms, at all times. Forget them.    
In this case, "the press" is the entity which is attempting to shape humor by endorsing clumsy and crude jokes.

And so....you rebut that?

So....you think it's wrong to endorse those jokes?

 
In this case, "the press" is the entity which is attempting to shape humor by endorsing clumsy and crude jokes.

And so....you rebut that?

So....you think it's wrong to endorse those jokes?
I guess my thinking is that it's the press checking other parts of the press, if that makes sense. I don't like anybody's grievances, especially built around such faulty logic, if that makes sense.   

 
Hov34 said:
Besides, wasn't that the whole point of the show - that the main 3 (Jerry, George & Elanie) were all horrible people?
No, it's been widely established by writers and cast members alike, that the while point of the show was that there was no point of the show.

 
Here’s my take:

1) No one is actually outraged by these Seinfeld examples. 

2) Those few who do express outrage over these examples are either (a) social media posters seeking attention on line for a controversial (though not genuine) take; or (b) journalists/writers trying to generate clicks/coverage on line for a controversial (though not genuine) take.

3) Those who are complaining about our overly PC society using this Seinfeld issue as an example are grossly (and intentionally) overstating the pervasiveness of any such outrage for the purpose of advancing an agenda. 

 
I look at it differently. I look at it as an attempt to shape what is acceptable for humor or discourse. And to attempt to shape humor or discourse is in the hands of the powerful and the press. And it must be rebutted in all forms, at all times. Forget them.    
So is dismissing people if they express that they are offended by something. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top