Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

As far as I can tell the real problem with privatising trains is that you've basically giving whoever you're handing it to a monopoly over that service.  If you need to go from Birmingham to London on your morning commute, you don't really have much choice as to which train to take.  So a private company can set the price as high as they like and any benefits from competition are pretty much eradicated.

And oil is fundamentally running out.  There is a limited supply.  If people keep demanding it at the same rate (which of course they aren't - newly industrialised countries are massively increasing their demand) the price is gonna rise.  The cartel might worsen this somewhat but high oil prices is something that is going to happen.  Indeed, it's the only thing that's gonna force people to switch to stuff that isn't set to run virtually dry in 50 years.

The EU and United States are all suffering from uncontrollable price shocks to the oil supply. 

That war in Libya?  Yeah, having the 8th largest oil reserves in the world didn't factor in at all.

Y'know what?  I'm not sure it matters at all if oil was a concern.  The intervention simply wrecked some of a dictator's hardware before he had a chance to kill his own civilians with it.  It helped Libya overthrow a despot and at least stabilise somewhat.  Whether politicians wanted Libya to be stable for its own sake or for the sake of its oil is completely irrelevant.

[Nadaka]

The price of oil won't be coming down anytime soon! 

Strange how Libya all of a sudden turned into a humanitarian mission to save the people from an evil tyrant and dictator!

Yea, strange how mass executions, abducting random children in the night and returning their mutilated bodies and shelling your own people with artillery does that, eh?

[kaenneth]

The price of oil won't be coming down anytime soon! 

Strange how Libya all of a sudden turned into a humanitarian mission to save the people from an evil tyrant and dictator!

Yea, strange how mass executions, abducting random children in the night and returning their mutilated bodies and shelling your own people with artillery does that, eh?

Really you need both Economic and Humanitarian excuses for the US to go to war nowadays. Otherwise the other side will block the effort.

So if you have oil, treat your people right, or you'll get invaded.

North Korea; no economic reason to invade; Canada, no Humanitarian reason to invade, so they are safe... for now.

[MadocComadrin]

Really you need both Economic and Humanitarian excuses for the US to go to war nowadays. Otherwise the other side will block the effort.

This holds for any industrialized country really. An economic or military advantage justifies the cost, while a humanitarian or philosophical reason appeases the masses and reflects well on the country. Heck, sometimes people even actually fight for the philosophical cause instead.

[kaijyuu]

I never thought I'd post something relevant to this thread on this topic. I've been ranting a few other places, and I think it deserves some scrutiny from non-fans, as talking to them tends to devolve into talking about the fandom itself rather than the issue. Also do note that I'd be posting this here if something similar happened in anything else I was interested in.


The problem: Hasbro censored a handicapped pony in MLP:FiM. Unfortunate implications, ahoy.


History: In the very first episode, one of the background ponies used to fill space had an animation error: crossed eyes. The fandom latched on to this character, developed a personality, family, etc, with a common theme being her struggles with being accepted due to her handicapped eyes and clumsy nature. Over a year later, this character (dubbed Derpy) ascended into the show proper, given a 2 minute scene and actually being named.

Then a week later the new episode she was in was taken down.

Then a month later, the episode was re released, with the name removed, crossed eyes "fixed," and a new voice.


Comparison video of the modified scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKIqF_SoI9s

Official PR response:

The 'My Little Pony Friendship is Magic' series has always been about acceptance and inclusion, and the series strives to convey that through the playful antics of a diverse cast of characters," Hasbro spokeswoman Nicole Angello told us over email. "Some viewers felt that aspects of the episode 'The Last Roundup' did not stay true to the core message of friendship which is the heart and soul of the series. Hasbro Studios decided to make slight audio alterations to this single episode.

Facts:
- Curiously the response says nothing about the eyes and name, which were changed as well.
- It's hard to deny Derpy has a handicap with her eyes, but it's more ambiguous as to whether she has a mental handicap as well or just clumsy. Either way, her handicap(s) were played down.
- The name (which was removed) could potentially be construed as offensive, given its origin, but it's ambiguous whether that's the reason they changed it or some sort of issue trademarking it (popular character they could make a lot of money off of)
- Negative response among internet fans was minimal, so if viewer response really motivated the change, it was from the target audience's parents.
- Notably, networks outside the US have censored parts of the show in the past. Canada's Treehouse network censored the word "loser" from one of the earlier episodes, for example. Issues distributing this episode to squeamish networks very well could have played a part.



Now why I think it's bullshit:

First off, I don't really care about the character. She's been a fandom favorite I've mostly ignored over the past 8 months. Also, I actually like the new scene better; it's funnier and the new voice doesn't sound so stupid (figuratively and literally).

The problem is their reasons for the change. By doing this, they're saying a handicapped individual is inappropriate to show on screen. Positive discrimination at best, outright bigotry against handicapped individuals at worst. I'm going to assume positive discrimination because it's most likely and far less, well, evil.

So we have a character in a slapstick situation. Other characters in the show have been in similar situations in the past. The only difference is the eyes and voice. By removing the handicap from the character, they're saying it's inappropriate to put a handicapped character where any other character would fit just fine. Tiptoeing around minorities like this is offensive to everyone involved; you're saying the minority is "special" and needs to be treated "different," rather than you know, treating them like a human being (or pony, in this case). Placing minorities on pedestals and treating them like they're fundamentally different is the opposite of "friendship and inclusion," which is what the PR response says was somehow violated in Derpy's original scene.

This is additionally grating to me, because the fundamental heart and soul of the show according to the original creator is thus: There is more than one way to be a girl. By changing Derpy's scene, they're explicitly stating that there's a "wrong" way too: her original portrayal. Tell me, if a 6 year old handicapped girl saw the original scene, do you think they'd interpret Derpy as making fun of them, or would they interpret her as a funny character to relate to? I think the latter. Now, the new scene isn't going to change much; the target audience won't take away any of the unfortunate implications I've been talking about. But if they ever hear the history behind this, they will.



So then, what do you think? Original scene being a degrading stereotype, or just a handicapped character that happens to also be in a slapstick comedy situation? Would there be a better way to do that scene while keeping both the comedy and handicap? Should we tiptoe around minorities (handicapped people especially) in media, or should we treat them like anyone else? Are there character types that are "not allowed" for minorities but fine for others?

Also of course this isn't just about ponies; please do not bring up the pony fandom or their reaction(s). This is about treatment of minorities in media, and thus extends well beyond this one little scene. Feel free to bring up examples you think relevant from anywhere else.

[NobodyPro]

This is like when they banned the inclusion of cow udders in children's books. *shakes fist*

[scriver]

This is like when they banned the inclusion of cow udders in children's books. *shakes fist*

Citation needed.

[Rose]

c.) Can you take a train over there at a reasonable price? Because honestly we don't have many passenger trains in the US. Same thing with busses in a lot of areas even. Yes, you're implicitly paying for the cost of fuel in public transit, but due to greater division of costs and very possible public subsidies, it ends up being cheaper, at least traditionally.

Yes, oh yes, oh very yes.

900 mile train journey. second class AC sleeper, will cost you $50

Also the main reason for higher gas prices here is that it's taxed, unlike in the US.

(Also, I'm actually american living as an illegal immigrant in a country with better job prospects)

[G-Flex]

The problem is their reasons for the change. By doing this, they're saying a handicapped individual is inappropriate to show on screen. Positive discrimination at best, outright bigotry against handicapped individuals at worst. I'm going to assume positive discrimination because it's most likely and far less, well, evil.

I don't think that's their reason at all. I think it's because they interpreted it as a joke about handicapped people. Less them "tiptoeing around minorities" and more tiptoeing around what they perceived as a stereotype of one. I can definitely see how giving her a fucked-up voice and eyes and calling her "Derpy" of all things can be construed as more of an insensitive "retard joke" than any sort of real attempt to include a character with a handicap. Hell, it did start as a joke: A background character was drawn with screwy eyes, so fans started joking that she was mentally challenged and gave her a ridiculous name. That's not an even-handed portrayal of a character with a handicap; it's a caricature at best.

You talk about handicapped children watching the show, and what they'd interpret it as. How do you think they'd interpret "Well, a background character was drawn with screwy eyes, so people on the Internet started making fun of her, gave her a ridiculous name based on a word they use to make fun of things they find stupid, and assumed she was mentally challenged"?

So we have a character in a slapstick situation. Other characters in the show have been in similar situations in the past. The only difference is the eyes and voice.

And the clumsy, ridiculous ineptitude, judging by the scene. Or is every character in the show completely unaware and incompetent at all times?

You've got the screwy eyes (apparently signaling mental handicap in the first place, an unfortunate perception), the comic lack of self-awareness, clumsiness and ineptitude, and a bit of a speech impediment. Is there any trait of a stereotypical "retard" caricature that isn't being included here, and is the character developed past that simple caricature? I don't see it. I see that caricature, see it being named after a word that's used in offensive/insulting context to begin with (to refer to things people don't like or to insinuate that others are being stupid*), and see it being used for not much other than a cheap joke.


*Please don't try to tell me that the word "derp" isn't insulting to begin with. That's the only way it's ever used.

Also, this.


You talk about putting minorities "on pedestals" instead of "treating them like human beings", even though the origins and usage of this character are neither of those things; it's just one big juvenile retard joke. I wouldn't say that the people in charge of the show itself knowingly did anything wrong, but I can at least understand why it didn't go over very well and why they've changed it, and I find the fans' (including your) defense of it somewhat hypocritical, since you're talking about treating handicapped people with respect while naming a character with fucked-up eyes "Derpy" as a joke, assuming she's mentally challenged, and playing it up for laughs.


From what I know, they changed the voice, the name, and made her eyes less obviously screwed-up. Does that mean the character no longer comes off as mentally challenged? If so, the only indicators to begin with were the silly, superficial kind you'd find on a caricature of a mentally challenged person. And if not, it means that the character gets to portray a minority in a way that is less caricatured and demeaning. In either case, the change is a good thing.

[Ogdibus]

I never thought I'd post something relevant to this thread on this topic. I've been ranting a few other places, and I think it deserves some scrutiny from non-fans, as talking to them tends to devolve into talking about the fandom itself rather than the issue. Also do note that I'd be posting this here if something similar happened in anything else I was interested in.


The problem: Hasbro censored a handicapped pony in MLP:FiM. Unfortunate implications, ahoy.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

History: In the very first episode, one of the background ponies used to fill space had an animation error: crossed eyes. The fandom latched on to this character, developed a personality, family, etc, with a common theme being her struggles with being accepted due to her handicapped eyes and clumsy nature. Over a year later, this character (dubbed Derpy) ascended into the show proper, given a 2 minute scene and actually being named.

Then a week later the new episode she was in was taken down.

Then a month later, the episode was re released, with the name removed, crossed eyes "fixed," and a new voice.


Comparison video of the modified scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKIqF_SoI9s

Official PR response:

The 'My Little Pony Friendship is Magic' series has always been about acceptance and inclusion, and the series strives to convey that through the playful antics of a diverse cast of characters," Hasbro spokeswoman Nicole Angello told us over email. "Some viewers felt that aspects of the episode 'The Last Roundup' did not stay true to the core message of friendship which is the heart and soul of the series. Hasbro Studios decided to make slight audio alterations to this single episode.

Facts:
- Curiously the response says nothing about the eyes and name, which were changed as well.
- It's hard to deny Derpy has a handicap with her eyes, but it's more ambiguous as to whether she has a mental handicap as well or just clumsy. Either way, her handicap(s) were played down.
- The name (which was removed) could potentially be construed as offensive, given its origin, but it's ambiguous whether that's the reason they changed it or some sort of issue trademarking it (popular character they could make a lot of money off of)
- Negative response among internet fans was minimal, so if viewer response really motivated the change, it was from the target audience's parents.
- Notably, networks outside the US have censored parts of the show in the past. Canada's Treehouse network censored the word "loser" from one of the earlier episodes, for example. Issues distributing this episode to squeamish networks very well could have played a part.



Now why I think it's bullshit:

First off, I don't really care about the character. She's been a fandom favorite I've mostly ignored over the past 8 months. Also, I actually like the new scene better; it's funnier and the new voice doesn't sound so stupid (figuratively and literally).

The problem is their reasons for the change. By doing this, they're saying a handicapped individual is inappropriate to show on screen. Positive discrimination at best, outright bigotry against handicapped individuals at worst. I'm going to assume positive discrimination because it's most likely and far less, well, evil.

So we have a character in a slapstick situation. Other characters in the show have been in similar situations in the past. The only difference is the eyes and voice. By removing the handicap from the character, they're saying it's inappropriate to put a handicapped character where any other character would fit just fine. Tiptoeing around minorities like this is offensive to everyone involved; you're saying the minority is "special" and needs to be treated "different," rather than you know, treating them like a human being (or pony, in this case). Placing minorities on pedestals and treating them like they're fundamentally different is the opposite of "friendship and inclusion," which is what the PR response says was somehow violated in Derpy's original scene.

This is additionally grating to me, because the fundamental heart and soul of the show according to the original creator is thus: There is more than one way to be a girl. By changing Derpy's scene, they're explicitly stating that there's a "wrong" way too: her original portrayal. Tell me, if a 6 year old handicapped girl saw the original scene, do you think they'd interpret Derpy as making fun of them, or would they interpret her as a funny character to relate to? I think the latter. Now, the new scene isn't going to change much; the target audience won't take away any of the unfortunate implications I've been talking about. But if they ever hear the history behind this, they will.



So then, what do you think? Original scene being a degrading stereotype, or just a handicapped character that happens to also be in a slapstick comedy situation? Would there be a better way to do that scene while keeping both the comedy and handicap? Should we tiptoe around minorities (handicapped people especially) in media, or should we treat them like anyone else? Are there character types that are "not allowed" for minorities but fine for others?

Also of course this isn't just about ponies; please do not bring up the pony fandom or their reaction(s). This is about treatment of minorities in media, and thus extends well beyond this one little scene. Feel free to bring up examples you think relevant from anywhere else.

This sort of thing bugs me a lot too.  It's effectively trading an active form of persecution for passive one.  It's really tough to deal with, too.  Many people disagree on how to deal with things like this, but it's too taboo for conversation, so the difficulties are never resolved.  It just get's ignored while the problem worsens.

This is particularly hard on people who live with such issues.  They might get a few government services if they are lucky, but it won't make up for the damage caused by being shunned by society, or being encouraged to shun loved ones.

[SalmonGod]

Remember that little discussion we had a while back about boycotting corrupt businesses, and how difficult a proposition that actually is?

Was just linked to a good example of that.  Here's a list of food companies owned by Monsanto.  Good luck.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[G-Flex]

This sort of thing bugs me a lot too.  It's effectively trading an active form of persecution for passive one.

There's a difference between removing/altering a character because they came off as a minority, and removing/altering a character because they came off as an offensive caricature of that minority. From what I can tell, all they did was tone down (most of) the bits that made her look like a caricature in the first place.

Remember that little discussion we had a while back about boycotting corrupt businesses, and how difficult a proposition that actually is?

Was just linked to a good example of that.  Here's a list of food companies owned by Monsanto.  Good luck.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Are you sure that list is accurate? Kraft Foods, for example, is an independent publicly-traded corporation.

[LordNagash]

I never thought I'd post something relevant to this thread on this topic. I've been ranting a few other places, and I think it deserves some scrutiny from non-fans, as talking to them tends to devolve into talking about the fandom itself rather than the issue. Also do note that I'd be posting this here if something similar happened in anything else I was interested in.


The problem: Hasbro censored a handicapped pony in MLP:FiM. Unfortunate implications, ahoy.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

History: In the very first episode, one of the background ponies used to fill space had an animation error: crossed eyes. The fandom latched on to this character, developed a personality, family, etc, with a common theme being her struggles with being accepted due to her handicapped eyes and clumsy nature. Over a year later, this character (dubbed Derpy) ascended into the show proper, given a 2 minute scene and actually being named.

Then a week later the new episode she was in was taken down.

Then a month later, the episode was re released, with the name removed, crossed eyes "fixed," and a new voice.


Comparison video of the modified scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKIqF_SoI9s

Official PR response:

The 'My Little Pony Friendship is Magic' series has always been about acceptance and inclusion, and the series strives to convey that through the playful antics of a diverse cast of characters," Hasbro spokeswoman Nicole Angello told us over email. "Some viewers felt that aspects of the episode 'The Last Roundup' did not stay true to the core message of friendship which is the heart and soul of the series. Hasbro Studios decided to make slight audio alterations to this single episode.

Facts:
- Curiously the response says nothing about the eyes and name, which were changed as well.
- It's hard to deny Derpy has a handicap with her eyes, but it's more ambiguous as to whether she has a mental handicap as well or just clumsy. Either way, her handicap(s) were played down.
- The name (which was removed) could potentially be construed as offensive, given its origin, but it's ambiguous whether that's the reason they changed it or some sort of issue trademarking it (popular character they could make a lot of money off of)
- Negative response among internet fans was minimal, so if viewer response really motivated the change, it was from the target audience's parents.
- Notably, networks outside the US have censored parts of the show in the past. Canada's Treehouse network censored the word "loser" from one of the earlier episodes, for example. Issues distributing this episode to squeamish networks very well could have played a part.



Now why I think it's bullshit:

First off, I don't really care about the character. She's been a fandom favorite I've mostly ignored over the past 8 months. Also, I actually like the new scene better; it's funnier and the new voice doesn't sound so stupid (figuratively and literally).

The problem is their reasons for the change. By doing this, they're saying a handicapped individual is inappropriate to show on screen. Positive discrimination at best, outright bigotry against handicapped individuals at worst. I'm going to assume positive discrimination because it's most likely and far less, well, evil.

So we have a character in a slapstick situation. Other characters in the show have been in similar situations in the past. The only difference is the eyes and voice. By removing the handicap from the character, they're saying it's inappropriate to put a handicapped character where any other character would fit just fine. Tiptoeing around minorities like this is offensive to everyone involved; you're saying the minority is "special" and needs to be treated "different," rather than you know, treating them like a human being (or pony, in this case). Placing minorities on pedestals and treating them like they're fundamentally different is the opposite of "friendship and inclusion," which is what the PR response says was somehow violated in Derpy's original scene.

This is additionally grating to me, because the fundamental heart and soul of the show according to the original creator is thus: There is more than one way to be a girl. By changing Derpy's scene, they're explicitly stating that there's a "wrong" way too: her original portrayal. Tell me, if a 6 year old handicapped girl saw the original scene, do you think they'd interpret Derpy as making fun of them, or would they interpret her as a funny character to relate to? I think the latter. Now, the new scene isn't going to change much; the target audience won't take away any of the unfortunate implications I've been talking about. But if they ever hear the history behind this, they will.



So then, what do you think? Original scene being a degrading stereotype, or just a handicapped character that happens to also be in a slapstick comedy situation? Would there be a better way to do that scene while keeping both the comedy and handicap? Should we tiptoe around minorities (handicapped people especially) in media, or should we treat them like anyone else? Are there character types that are "not allowed" for minorities but fine for others?

Also of course this isn't just about ponies; please do not bring up the pony fandom or their reaction(s). This is about treatment of minorities in media, and thus extends well beyond this one little scene. Feel free to bring up examples you think relevant from anywhere else.

This sort of thing bugs me a lot too.  It's effectively trading an active form of persecution for passive one.  It's really tough to deal with, too.  Many people disagree on how to deal with things like this, but it's too taboo for conversation, so the difficulties are never resolved.  It just get's ignored while the problem worsens.

This is particularly hard on people who live with such issues.  They might get a few government services if they are lucky, but it won't make up for the damage caused by being shunned by society, or being encouraged to shun loved ones.

So you think it is better for handicapped people to be negatively portrayed by the media than not at all? Because make no mistake, this was a negative portrayal. I mean for gods sake, the character literally had the most stereotypical, offensive voice that someone making fun of the handicapped would use, and was called fucking Derpy

[SalmonGod]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Are you sure that list is accurate? Kraft Foods, for example, is an independent publicly-traded corporation.

You're right.  That list is garbage.  From a few minutes of searching, it looks like it originates from abovetopsecret.com... and who knows where they got it from.

This looks like a better list of brands owned by Monsanto.

Not quite sure yet, but it looks like Monsanto and Kraft have been part of the same corporate entity in the past, but not for a long time, which might be partially responsible for the confusion.

Kraft's list of owned brands is actually more impressive, though it probably has less significance.  Monsanto has its hands in how most of the ingredients in our foods are grown.  Kraft is more involved in the actual processing and final sale of those foods.

[G-Flex]

Corporate entities are sort of like slime monsters in video games, constantly dividing, combining, converging, and diverging, and it can be hard to keep track of who owns what.

Avoiding an agricultural company like Monsanto seems like it would be pretty difficult, although buying from locally-owned farms probably helps. Probably.