Family Guy / Bad Joke

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:28 pm

Boycotting it now. That was horse****.
At least the people FG makes fun are typically people who're dead and don't give a damn, or people who can at least write a nasty letter to Seth MacFarlane.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:58 pm

Someone call the waahmbulance

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:12 pm

What joke is this? They have plenty of off-color jokes.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:35 pm

boycott?

lol, I never watch that show. Folks that DO watch it aren't going to care.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:13 pm

edit:
FULL EPISODE ON HULU!! GO GET IT!!!! Muahahhaha

SilverFJ wrote:Boycotting it now. That was horse****.
At least the people FG makes fun are typically people who're dead and don't give a damn, or people who can at least write a nasty letter to Seth MacFarlane.

...SilverFJ you wuss...

@snoopy
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/201 ... l?wprss=44

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:51 pm

Haha! Cartoons making people freak out in real life. Discussion;
South Park's Muhammad episode... strangely enough involving Family Guy.

Sincerely;
... Dirka, Dirka, Mohamed Jihad.

*Oh and edit;
If you Americans elect her I guarantee she will start a war because God told her to.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:18 pm

Canuck wrote: If you Americans elect her I guarantee she will start a war because God told her to.

"Don't'cha' know" it.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:28 pm

Here we see the self-perpetuating internet industry of offense at work.
(i'm not talking about family guy)

A) someone is offended by something.
B) they then blog about it, or tell people about it online, and/or upload it to their youtube account.
C) everyone they told about it can now watch it and also get offended.
D) word spreads, and eventually millions of people who would have never even seen it before are now comming to your youtube video JUST SO THEY CAN ALSO BE OFFENDED.

end result: millions of people who otherwise would not have even known this happened, and probably shouldn't have known this happened - now know this happened and get offended.

Thus - any chump in any backwater country in the whole world can say something stupid, and as long as someone is there to record it, it can now spread over the entire world who makes it their duty to go and check out every offensive thing they can possibly find. Why?

Here's a reality check people: the world is full of almost 7 billion people, every single one of them has done multiple highly offensive things in their lives. These offensive things are each normally witnessed by between 0-2 people. It happens. It happens constantly. This is reality. If you think you have the right to go through your day without being offended by something, congratulations - your sheer idiocy has just offended me.

inspired by the Andrew Olle media lecture 2009, by Julian Morrow of The Chaser's War on Everything.
15minute video preview:
Full transcript (the speech was over an hour long): http://www.chaser.com.au/component/cont ... cture-2009
Relevant Excerpt:

But while they’re nothing new, debates about taste and decency seem different now. And that’s because they are both amplified and distorted with startling efficiency thanks to the interaction of new and old media. Culturally, it’s a nuclear reaction.

Taste and decency debates in the broader community were easier to dismiss when technology was less advanced. Controversial content was hard to access, or re-access, so it was easy to argue that public debate was grounded in ignorance.
It’s useful here, indeed I think it’s important, to distinguish between what I call the primary audience and the secondary audience.

The primary audience is mainly people who want to watch a show or at least chose to for some reason or other. They come to content through the platforms of the original broadcaster, whether it’s TV or radio, or the various catch-up technologies. The primary audience at least approximates in some way the target audience for content.

By contrast, the secondary audience come to access controversial content because it’s controversial. The secondary audience is often tends to be the very opposite of the target audience.

Today, thanks to widespread broadband access and social media applications, in particular YouTube and Twitter, the secondary audience is now much bigger and much closer than it has ever been before ... it’s now easy for them to access controversial content online. And one of the problems with giving people the ability to make up their own minds is that they do.

Thanks to high speed internet, content which is noteworthy in any way– whether its cute, inspirations, original, or involves cats - spreads like wildfire, sometimes around the world. The effect of anything can be instantly magnified by an avalanche - of YouTube postings, streams from media websites, forwarded emails, reTweets – all of which pile almost instantaneously on top of good old-fashioned cultural ripple effects like the watercooler, the schoolyard, or the B.O. infested taxi.

It means we’ve built the fastest most complex, high-tech cross-platform global echo chamber in history. And the impact on “debates”, for want of a more accurate expression, about taste and decency is profound.

The dividing line between the primary audience and the secondary audience, where outrage blossoms, can often be observed via the timing of complaints. I first noticed it after The Chaser’s Eulogy Song aired on ABC TV. The song was a deliberately provocative, but in my view satirically accurate song about the affection we tend to grant to even unsavoury celebrities posthumously (a human trait, I might say, that I hope to be the beneficiary of, though I’m in no rush). When I came in to work the morning after the Eulogy Song, the production office voicemail had 9 complaints on it. But when the song was picked up by talkback radio mid-morning, the phone went beserk, and by lunch there were hundreds of abusive complaints, many of which proudly declared that they hadn’t actually heard the song.

My all time favourite voicemail complaint by the way was from an old woman who said in her message that our show was, and I quote, “filth – ★■◆●ing filth”.

The most dramatic example of outrage in the secondary audience is Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand in the UK. On 18 October 2008 they aired a tasteless but forgettable pre- recorded phone prank on BBC Radio 2. There were 2 complaints about it the next day. But when, 8 days later, the incident was reported in The Mail on Sunday, there were 1585 complaints the next day, sparking a media frenzy. Within 2 days there were 27,000 complaints.

I’ve got no doubt the sheer scale and intensity of these controversies now derives from how easy it is for controversial material to be accessed by the secondary audience. Email and the web also make it much easier to formalise a complaint as well.

By the way, the Make a Realistic Wish sketch tops the ABC complaints charts for 2009, with 4300 complaints. But to put this in perspective, while it’s in the ABC’s Hottest 100 of all time, it garnered roughly the same number of complaints as the decision in 2005 to cease production of George Negus Tonight. And both of them are more than a thousand behind the the most complained about thing the ABC’s ever done, the axing of The Glass House, which led to 5606 complaints.

I also note that in 2008, there were 2645 complaints about the introduction of ABC1 and 2 watermarks on ABCTV shows. So if there’s one bit of advice I’d give the ABC from all this, it’s that the ABC should never introduce new watermarks that offend community standards – that who really would melt the switchboards.

But is all this just a question of niche content versus “community standards”? I’m not convinced it’s a simple as that, which is something I’ll come back to.

For the moment though, it’s worth observing that while media technology is fanning the flames of taste and decency outrage, it also renders it impossible for censorship – which used to the goal of outrage - to be meaningfully carried out.

For example, the movie Ken Park, which was refused classification in Australia, can be downloaded from the internet at the address on your screen now.

The ABC famously decided a long time back not to broadcast John Safran’s pilot called “Media Tycoon” in which he rummaged through the rubbish of last year’s Olle lecturer. For many years that excellent piece of TV was practically impossible to see. Now it’s had thousands of views on YouTube.

By contrast, even though the ABC immediately withdrew the Make a Realistic Wish Foundation sketch from all its platforms, including the web, that sketch was practically impossible not to see. Much to our regret. Within minutes of its broadcast, it – like almost all TV content not - was digitally captured and posted on YouTube, in multitudinous acts of flagrant illegality that, as a copyright owner, I wholeheartedly endorse. Consumer-based video piracy has its upside. Banning content just ain’t what it used to be. Although in that particular case, I wish our geek fans had done us a favour and not helped that sketch find a larger audience.

But it was curious to hear some in the media, especially the likes of Steve Price and Ray Hadlee simultaneously shrieking about how harmful the content was and urging more and more people to watch it and be appalled. The argument that it “should never have been broadcast” takes on a certain irony in this context.

...

And I don’t believe there’s any convincing evidence, or even a theory, that taking steps to try and placate the secondary audience is prudent, or can be effective. I tend to think it only fuels the fire. But I recognise that’s just as hard, probably impossible, to prove too.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:54 pm

roid wrote:tldr

*applause*

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:10 pm

This thread offends me.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:20 pm

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:15 pm

Krom wrote:
roid wrote:tldr
*applause*

fair enough

TL;DR version is just what i typed (ignore what i quoted if it's tl;dr), plus this:

Offensive content has a Primary audience who actually watched the content happen live (ie: actually watch family guy on TV).
And a Secondary audience who are lead to the content by others who say "come watch this it's so offensive".
ie: everyone who came to that webpage and watched just that clip.

The numbers of secondary audience is vastly outstriping the numbers of primary audience.
What you are watching here, is a strange media industry who's sole purpose is to OFFENDING PEOPLE, to seek out offensive content from 3rd party sources wherever it is and use it to lure in viewership. You can prettymuch directly measure how well these industries are doing by how offended people are.
Sensationalism people. It's all about titilating you, you know what the media has discovered?
peopel actually enjoy being offended so much, that they will actually seek it out.

People loosing their monocles, has become the new orgasm.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be offended. Hell i'm obviously offended by something here. But we should not be surprised that we are offended.
If you're going to be a mindless rabid consumer of bread and circuses - at least try to keep it all in perspective. You saw a circus yesterday, chances are you'll see a circus tomorrow. And you can be damned well sure that there are hundreds of circuses going on at any one time all around the world, the only questions are how many of them will you see? and when will the freakshow finally bore you, when will you stop being surprised that the circus has elephants, or tigers? How many circues have you seen - Is it really that amazing anymore?

Shouldn't we all be familiar enough with and comfortable enough with ourselves, our positions, our ideals, that we can absorb new information from our environment without loosing our monocles. Without foaming from the mouth. Arn't we better than petty pavlov-like reactionism? Jumping from offensive topic to topic, from cause to cause, screaming as loud as we can in our neverending distress like an ADHD child. Our arms heavy with multitudes of those colour coded awareness bracelets, whatever cause in in style. What is it today, cancer? osteoporosis?

If you see something that concerns you, why don't you sit back, puff on your pipe for a few seconds. And then start a conversation about the greater issue, seek out likeminded peers, discus your ideas on the overarching concepts - causes ande effects involved. Discuss what you can collectively do about it, draw up a plan, put a longterm plan into action.
And most of all, be prepared for what you are going to do the next time some new piece of information comes you way. Instead of it again throwing you into a ruffle, it will now fit perfectly into your worldview and fit into your plans. You will not be surprised, you will not loose your monocle.
You'll be able to effect the world around you.

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:37 pm

IR see Circus right now

Satire shows poke fun...

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:04 pm

roid wrote:Here we see the self-perpetuating internet industry of offense at work.

well you can thank the PC crowd for that, we are taught in school and in our everyday lives, that anything anyone does or says in our society can be taken offense too.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:09 pm

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:26 pm

Family Guy is up there with Assy McGee & Xavier Renegade Angel…these programs are in my opinion “designed” to offend you, if you want some humor that offends, but is not its main intention, try some Simpsons or South Park.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:28 pm

A person with DS making fun of DS is like black people calling each other (n-word). It doesn't make it right.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:09 pm

...or maybe she just didn't understand she was the brunt of a joke and literally called a stupid whore in the episode. I'm no sissy, and it's pretty cowardly to crack on handicapped babies. It was low. A lot of FG is low but it's hilarious, because like I said in my original post, the person typically can at least sling ★■◆● back at MacFarlane. Not a defenseless child. It was sick and wrong and they lost at least one viewer.

Isaac wrote:...SilverFJ you wuss...

I'll just rest with the confidence I can go 8 seconds on most of 'em.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:39 pm

you remind me of PETA there FJ.

Flatlander · Post by **Flatlander** » Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:58 pm

If ya don't like it, don't watch it. Let the people that do like it, watch it... (and no, I'm not particularly a Family Guy fan myself).

d0ggY · Post by **d0ggY** » Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:14 pm

Regardless of the Fguy comment in general, Palin herself is one of the most hypocritical pieces of garbage out there. First of all, it's not OK to use the word \"retard\" at all. Then it's apparently ok for people to use \"retard\" if it's satirical. Then she fights Family Guy - and overall, the Fox Network on this latest incident yet she is working for them as a news contributor.

In other words, it's ok for Fox to support FGuy as long as she's getting a paycheck from them. And it's ok if you use the term \"retard\" if you are supportive of her political views and invite her on your show.

Hmmm???

Xamindar · Post by **Xamindar** » Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:31 pm

SilverFJ wrote:the person typically can at least sling ***** back at MacFarlane. Not a defenseless child. It was sick and wrong and they lost at least one viewer.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying people with DS are like defensive children? Seems pretty condescending about them to me. I don't think of all of them as little defensive children, I think of them as real, mature people. Did I misunderstand you?

d0ggY · Post by **d0ggY** » Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:07 pm

He may be referring to the fact that Palin's DS child is around 2 years old.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:54 am

d0ggY wrote:He may be referring to the fact that Palin's DS child is around 2 years old.

Once that kid grows up he can sling **** back... Once he/she is elected gov of Alaska.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:25 pm

Wow, Isaac, what an internet warrior you are. I'm so awed by your internet macho-ness.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:30 pm

Shhhh... It's ok. I'm joking and I thought you were too.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:50 pm

Naw, I wasn't meaning to say I was offended by the joke, just how I really look at the FG writers differently. They should've picked a less helpless target.

(And yes, a 2 year old is a defenseless child.)

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:15 pm

DS people get offended if you treat them as \"helpless\".

They also know if you're actually joking, they laugh.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:26 pm

I'm offended that so many people think this topic is worthwhile.

What is wrong with you losers? Don't you have something better to do than post on the descentBB?

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:48 pm

haha
The DBB is one of 3 websites I go to. It's good for discussing politics, mostly, something my buddies aren't into. It's also still a damn cold winter in Montana so I stick inside a lot.

Yes, we have better things to do. I hang out with the girlfriend, compete rodeo (saddle-bronc), I'm a huge local political activist, work...

What's got your little flowery pink panties in a bunch there, Lothar?

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:58 pm

Family Guy blows chunks anyway. I never watch it! Seth MacFarlane's humor is just plain crass.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:33 pm

I am offended at how many people are offended by the fact that I am offended by Family Guy.

Oh, and I'm also offended that Lothar is offended that I'm posting about how offended I am by how many people are offended because I am offended by Family Guy.

It's all just very... offensive.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:50 pm

Lothar wrote:What is wrong with you losers? Don't you have something better to do than post on the descentBB?

beats having a thumb up the arse

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:52 pm

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH

Kilarin wrote:this offends me
Lothar wrote:this offends me
Kilarin wrote:this offends me
Many people wrote:this offends me
Kilarin wrote:this offends me
Family Guy wrote:i'm offensive
Many people wrote:this offends me
Kilarin wrote:this offends me
Family Guy wrote:i'm offensive
Many people wrote:this offends me
Kilarin wrote:this offends me
Family Guy wrote:i'm offensive

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:35 am

Seth McFarlane wrote:Tough cookies

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:18 pm

Kilarin wrote:I am offended at how many people are offended by the fact that I am offended by Family Guy.

Oh, and I'm also offended that Lothar is offended that I'm posting about how offended I am by how many people are offended because I am offended by Family Guy.

It's all just very... offensive.

...o_0....

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:11 pm

roid wrote:AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH
Kilarin wrote:this offends me
Lothar wrote:this offends me
Kilarin wrote:this offends me
Many people wrote:this offends me
Kilarin wrote:this offends me
Family Guy wrote:i'm offensive
Many people wrote:this offends me
Kilarin wrote:this offends me
Family Guy wrote:i'm offensive
Many people wrote:this offends me
Kilarin wrote:this offends me
Family Guy wrote:i'm offensive

I IS OFFENDED BY UR SCREAMING! GET REDDY TO RIDE ON THE BANBULANCE!

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:12 pm

Immigration has banbulances.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:23 pm

Way to moderate.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:39 pm

Are we the same guy?

Family Guy / Bad Joke

Family Guy / Bad Joke

Re: Family Guy / Bad Joke

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: