Print

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

[Ogdibus]

The one with the mustache is more honest, though.  The other one is just a Hitler that's saying he's not Hitler.  He knows you're onto him, so he'll hide his true intentions.

[Flying Dice]

Regarding Derpy:


The total sum of canon characterization consists of a throwaway line from Winter Wrap Up, in which she is one of several background characters who mess something up, and a brief (around 1 minute) scene in a more recent episode, which is the first and only time she has had lines. The eyes were not 'fixed', and an animator explicitly stated that they aren't going to be omitted from any future appearances. Derpy's only outward difference from the norm are her eyes, which may or may not be indicative of some sort of ocular handicap. She is never portrayed or stated to be mentally or physically handicapped. The voice change was very much a YMMV incident (as a note, I prefer the later voice because I feel it fits her better). All of the outrage came from people who were projecting onto her, either from their own lives or from fanon interpretations of her.

I've made this point elsewhere: If you take about a minute of screentime with dialogue from any of the characters of the show (or for that matter, pretty much any show at all), especially if it isn't exactly the character's finest hour, it is pretty easy to point out stuff and claim a character is a negative stereotype. Maybe if people had reacted reasonably and rationally, rather than with massive amounts of rage and fanwank (and in one or two cases, bomb and death threats that may or may not have been trolls), we would have seen more of the character and further development of her personality. But we won't, because the team and Hasbro don't want to risk this sort of explosion again, making the claims of stereotyping a self-fulfilling claim.

[G-Flex]

Derpy's only outward difference from the norm are her eyes, which may or may not be indicative of some sort of ocular handicap. She is never portrayed or stated to be mentally or physically handicapped. The voice change was very much a YMMV incident (as a note, I prefer the later voice because I feel it fits her better). All of the outrage came from people who were projecting onto her, either from their own lives or from fanon interpretations of her.

Except for the voice, the eyes, pretty much the entirety of her behavior, and the fact that she's named "Derpy", sure. In other words, except for basically everything.

[Descan]

I'm honestly curious, why did they change the eyes? The name, I can understand. It's a stupid name for even a secondary character. And the voice, yeah, I prefer the new one.

But if they're not gonna change the eyes in the future, why did they do it now?

[Andir]

On stigma of facial hair:

Which of these gentlemen would you vote for?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I suppose that brings a new meaning to "Reductio ad Hitlerum."

I'd vote for the stashless Hitler, because it doesn't remind me of Hitler as much as a mustachioed Hitler does.

The scary part (to me) of that is that the one without the mustache looks eerily like my one uncle in his younger years.

[RedKing]

On stigma of facial hair:

Which of these gentlemen would you vote for?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I suppose that brings a new meaning to "Reductio ad Hitlerum."

I'd vote for the stashless Hitler, because it doesn't remind me of Hitler as much as a mustachioed Hitler does.

The scary part (to me) of that is that the one without the mustache looks eerily like my one uncle in his younger years.

Henceforth, you will be known as "Hitler's Nephew". 

[Truean]

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/priest-denies-lesbian-communion-at-mothers-funeral

You know what's amazing? They'll give a convicted murderer last rights and other sacraments including communion in prison, but just cause she's gay.... Na. After all, that's a sin....

Really? That's just wonderful isn't it? And, for extra special awesomeness this was at the funeral for her mother, and this woman just happens to be gay. Her mom expressly chose her to give the eulogy, which ended up being pretty standard stuff. Nothing about being gay, nothing really controversial, except that the speaker just so happened to be gay. She was saying a final goodbye to her mom in the church her mom attended....

O isn't it odd too that once the public outcry happens then this is suddenly the act of a "rogue priest."
My, my once people call them on it, they don't endorse it, but something else does....

All those cotton polyester blends out there, let's burn the people wearing them alive for their sins....
Gets rid of the offending garment and the offending sinner. Burning people sinners: efficient.

[RedKing]

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/priest-denies-lesbian-communion-at-mothers-funeral

You know what's amazing? They'll give a convicted murderer last rights and other sacraments including communion in prison, but just cause she's gay.... Na. After all, that's a sin....

Really? That's just wonderful isn't it? And, for extra special awesomeness this was at the funeral for her mother, and this woman just happens to be gay. Her mom expressly chose her to give the eulogy, which ended up being pretty standard stuff. Nothing about being gay, nothing really controversial, except that the speaker just so happened to be gay. She was saying a final goodbye to her mom in the church her mom attended....

O isn't it odd too that once the public outcry happens then this is suddenly the act of a "rogue priest."
My, my once people call them on it, they don't endorse it, but something else does....

All those cotton polyester blends out there, let's burn the people wearing them alive for their sins....
Gets rid of the offending garment and the offending sinner. Burning people sinners: efficient.

I thought the DignityUSA response was actually quite profound for this bit:

Jesus' ministry, which so often showed an embrace of those on the margins and which regularly set aside the laws of ritual purity in order to attend to people's needs

I'd never thought about it that way, but the bit about throwing ritual purity out the window on a regular basis is dead on.

[Truean]

Dude hung out with whores and leapers and had the radical idea not to stone the whores to death.

That's the whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," bit.

[G-Flex]

You know what's amazing? They'll give a convicted murderer last rights and other sacraments including communion in prison, but just cause she's gay.... Na. After all, that's a sin....

This isn't really an issue of "they". This was one priest, who was then chewed out by church authorities for doing it.

All those cotton polyester blends out there, let's burn the people wearing them alive for their sins....
Gets rid of the offending garment and the offending sinner. Burning people sinners: efficient.

You're getting a bit too sensationalistic here. Most justification for treating homosexual behavior as a sin doesn't come from the Old Testament in the first place, but rather from passages in the New Testament, and in the case of Catholics, from some other stuff entirely. Not that I agree with their interpretations, or their attitudes, but it's still not entirely appropriate to make comparisons to other Old Testament teachings when it's not really Old Testament stuff you're dealing with.

[Truean]

You know what's amazing? They'll give a convicted murderer last rights and other sacraments including communion in prison, but just cause she's gay.... Na. After all, that's a sin....

This isn't really an issue of "they". This was one priest, who was then chewed out by church authorities for doing it.

All those cotton polyester blends out there, let's burn the people wearing them alive for their sins....
Gets rid of the offending garment and the offending sinner. Burning people sinners: efficient.

You're getting a bit too sensationalistic here. Most justification for treating homosexual behavior as a sin doesn't come from the Old Testament in the first place, but rather from passages in the New Testament, and in the case of Catholics, from some other stuff entirely. Not that I agree with their interpretations, or their attitudes, but it's still not entirely appropriate to make comparisons to other Old Testament teachings when it's not really Old Testament stuff you're dealing with.

I would've thought my sarcasm was obvious and dead on point here. The bible has some pretty terrible punishments set out in it man.... Stoning people to death is straight off the page and so is burning them in this instance. No really, that's what it says man, you're also supposed to burn witches too. Same thing with "putting to death" the gays. Yeah.... It isn't so much my sensationalism as it is the Bible's.... Pointing that out is pure satire with a point. Just because it says something doesn't mean it's right.

A.) It's about selectively ignoring some parts but not others.... B.) It doesn't matter which parts they are selectively ignoring or where they are located. The fact that they are ignoring them part is key. C.) What "New Testament stuff?" Especially what new testament stuff that isn't based upon old Testament stuff if there is any?

I've read that book cover to cover several times and know it pretty well, especially the parts about homosexuality. I absolutely can make comparisons, with relative ease in fact:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

We'll ignore the possible mistranslation of the greek arsenokoite meaning "male prostitute" rather than just plain old homosexual too).

In Genesis 19 God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah due to the extensive amount of sin and debauchery going on in the city. Some add homosexuality in with the sins being committed. Others say that it was not just blanket homosexuality being condemned but homosexual rape, meaning it is different from homosexual behavior in loving relationships.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are also debated among denominations and scholars.
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Romans 1 discusses how the people gave into their lust. Yet the meaning of the acts described are debated. Some see the passages as describing prostitution while others see it as a clear condemnation on homosexual behavior.

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

But really who cares? I really don't feel like debating religion, because it's pointless. Three issues:

1.) Communion given to a convicted serial killer in prison, but not to gay? The fact that it happened AT ALL in a large organization with well set rules....
2.) Selectively ignoring or focusing on certain passages in a book said to justify an exclusion of an entire class of people.
3.) The actions of the priest as condoned or not by the church. <--- This is admittedly debatable, but come on, saying the catholic church doesn't like gays isn't a controversial statement. Whether or not this guy acted too strongly on them not liking it might be fair game.

"The Archdiocese of Washington, DC, responded and called Fr. Guarnizo’s actions against Church policy. According to the Washington Post, the Archdiocese said:  'When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for communion,it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person.'"

Listen to what the Bishop said. He didn't say "it was wrong not to give her the communion." He said it was not the policy of the Archdiaocese to reprimand her "publicly."  Big difference. He's not staying he doesn't like the priest's actions. he's saying he shouldn't have done it where everyone can see. The reprimand was not for the conduct, but for doing it publicly....

[Flying Dice]

Derpy's only outward difference from the norm are her eyes, which may or may not be indicative of some sort of ocular handicap. She is never portrayed or stated to be mentally or physically handicapped. The voice change was very much a YMMV incident (as a note, I prefer the later voice because I feel it fits her better). All of the outrage came from people who were projecting onto her, either from their own lives or from fanon interpretations of her.

Except for the voice, the eyes, pretty much the entirety of her behavior, and the fact that she's named "Derpy", sure. In other words, except for basically everything.

Derpy: Awkward or embarrassing, especially pertaining to a person.

Derpy has wall-eyes, or strabismus. To quote myself from another place:

Oh, and in case anyone is interested, these are the main causes of strabismus (or, in layman's terms, wall-eyes) in adults:
-diabetes
-brain tumors
-stroke
-head trauma
-other diseases affecting the optic nerves

Now, if we assume that the same holds true for ponies (not entirely likely), we can begin to examine this. Brain tumors seem highly unlikely, given that there are a number of other outwardly visible symptoms, and that an advanced-stage brain tumor would likely have hospitalized her. Diabetes, while possible, seems unlikely, given that a large portion of pony diet is apparently composed of fruit (high in sugar) and baked goods (the same), and yet ponies apparently suffer no ill effects from it, apart from tummyaches. Stroke, while possible, seems unlikely, if the risk factors convert to their nearest equivalents, as I doubt that Derpy is an older male or a cocaine user, for example. I haven't investigated further diseases, and am going to apply Occam's Razor to the possible in-universe causes of Derpy's strabismus and conclude that it is likely due to some form of head trauma (remember, one scene has shown her moving heavy furniture and she is known to be clumsy), with a small possibility of it being due to diabetes.

So, most likely, her eyes are wonky because she fumbled a package or a crate full of furniture and took a nasty blow to the head. In addition to that, you might want to examine what you're saying.

"She has funny-looking eyes and a funny voice, and the two minutes or so we've seen her she has been clumsy. She must be retarded!"

How many people do you know who would fit that description? If you only saw them for a couple of minutes of their life, when they weren't at their best? I know it sure as hell would apply to me quite often. Assuming that someone is mentally impaired because their body, voice, and/or motor control aren't perfect is a rather nasty way to go about things.

[G-Flex]

I would've thought my sarcasm was obvious and dead on point here. The bible has some pretty terrible punishments set out in it man.... Stoning people to death is straight off the page and so is burning them in this instance. Yeah....

I know what kind of sarcasm you were going for because I've seen it a billion times.

A.) It's about selectively ignoring some parts but not others.... B.) It doesn't matter which parts they are selectively ignoring or where they are located. The fact that they are ignoring them part is key.

Actually, it does matter. Parts of the New Testament simply supersede parts of the Old Testament. There is a (legitimate enough) belief among most Christians that (related to concepts like the New Covenant and Old Covenant) that Mosaic Law was specific that that place/culture or has been at least partly abrogated by the New Covenant with Jesus Christ. It's complicated, but you can't just dismiss it as inconsistent theology, because it isn't necessarily so. For example, there are distinctions between different types of Old Testament law affecting whether or not they apply in a modern Christian context (for instance, ceremonial laws vs. moral laws). Honestly, it's obvious you just haven't researched this very thoroughly.

I definitely agree that many religious people arbitrarily pick-and-choose which tenets of their faith/holy book to follow, but this is a case much more complex than that.

C.) What "New Testament stuff?" Especially what new testament stuff that isn't based upon old Testament stuff if there is any?

There are several references in the New Testament which may or may not be taken to refer to homosexuality, depending on your interpretation/translation. You mention some yourself.

But really who cares? I really don't feel like debating religion, because it's pointless.

If you don't feel like debating religion, then don't bring up arguments about religion. You can't expect to make arguments for or against people's religion without expecting a response.

1.) Communion given to a convicted serial killer in prison, but not to gay? The fact that it happened AT ALL in a large organization with well set rules....

There are other factors here, such as whether or not the convicted killer is repentant. That makes a huge difference.

3.) The actions of the priest as condoned or not by the church. <--- This is admittedly debatable, but come on, saying the catholic church doesn't like gays isn't a controversial statement. Whether or not this guy acted too strongly on them not liking it might be fair game.

I agree that the Catholic Church is rather backward concerning any matter related to human sexuality. However, even in a highly regimented organization, you're still going to get some people who go against the grain or do things they aren't supposed to do.


Personally, I'm curious why a homosexual would want to take Communion in a Catholic church.

Derpy: Awkward or embarrassing, especially pertaining to a person.

You and I both know (and if you don't, that's a problem) that "derp(y)", in Internet parlance, has really heavy connotations of "stupid"/"idiotic"/"ridiculous" in addition to just "awkward".

So, most likely, her eyes are wonky because she fumbled a package or a crate full of furniture and took a nasty blow to the head. In addition to that, you might want to examine what you're saying.

Are you seriously armchair-diagnosing the cause of a rather vague (could be any number of things affecting the eyes) ocular condition of a barely-established character in a cartoon? Are you seriously doing that? Are you seriously playing House, M.D. so hard with a barely-established My Little Pony character that you've come to such a specific conclusion about why her eyes are messed up? Do I have to say why that's completely ridiculous? I sincerely doubt that any of that was behind the thought processes involved in ascribing her personality traits, either by the fandom or by the show's creators. Do you seriously think that's what they were going for?

"She has funny-looking eyes and a funny voice, and the two minutes or so we've seen her she has been clumsy. She must be retarded!"

Funny-looking eyes, a name based on an Internet slang term related to being idiotic, a stupid voice, a stark lack of self-awareness, and utter ineptitude when it comes to physical work and coordination. That's basically a recipe for a stereotypical portrayal of a mentally-challenged person.

If you only saw them for a couple of minutes of their life, when they weren't at their best? I know it sure as hell would apply to me quite often. Assuming that someone is mentally impaired because their body, voice, and/or motor control aren't perfect is a rather nasty way to go about things.

You say this as if we're talking about a real person, here. We're not. "When they weren't at their best" is a little silly when we're talking about the initial characterization of a fictional entity, which serves as the only possible basis for their character so far, which is something any writer knows and will pay attention to. First impressions matter in life and in fiction, and in fiction, writers know to use a first impression to establish the character's traits in general.

Assuming that anyone is anything because of superficial traits is silly, yes, but we're talking about a fictional character being portrayed as a stereotypical caricature of something. This is completely different. A character having impaired motor control, screwy eyes, a dopey-sounding voice, a generally high level of ineptitude, and a lack of awareness of what they're doing is a pretty solid combination for the stereotypical caricature of a mentally-disabled person, whether you would assume a person to be mentally disabled because of those traits in real life or not. Hell, of course it's silly to assume that someone is a certain thing just because they happen to fit a stereotypical portrayal of that thing, but basing a character on a stereotypical portrayal of that thing is still not a very good idea. Especially not when you name them after something already connected with that thing. Not that I think I'll ever be able to convince you that the word "derp" is at all connected with the concept of ridiculous stupidity, but the fact is that it is.

[scriver]

Personally, I'm curious why a homosexual would want to take Communion in a Catholic church.

Same reason atheists might still want to celebrate Christmas, tradition and custom.

What I don't get though, is why you, Truean, seems to be angry at the organisation, when in this case the organisation as far as I understand actually told the priest he did wrong.

[G-Flex]

Same reason atheists might still want to celebrate Christmas, tradition and custom.

The tradition and custom of engaging in a religious ritual from an organization that explicitly tells you you're going to Hell for what you're doing? I wouldn't want any part in that.

Christmas is a rather poor comparison, I believe, since it has enough of a secular element to be a recognizable holiday even if you excise anything religious.