|
LividLiquid posted:Being black is also unhealthy, medically. It opens one up to several conditions that aren't a problem for the rest of us. Still think this is a perfectly okay line of questioning? Another comedian made the joke that "if you could pick from before birth, no one would choose to be a woman over a man, because men have all the advantages." The same would apply with choosing to be black over being white, for the same reason, it's a matter of privilege. However, that statement works because it's actually an indictment of society creating privilege in the first place, as opposed to a diss on the race, as it's not something that cannot be accomplished in reality. When you try, you turn into Michael Jackson. It's an incomparable statement to, "if something about you makes you unhappy, change it," which is the statement that is made about fat people in that context. With a statement like that, a lot depends on context, the people involved, their personalities, etc. and it's a very touchy subject in general that doesn't have a blanket answer as to if/how/when this kind of statement can be made. There are circumstances where you can encourage a beloved overweight friend or family member to work out, and ways this encouragement can be given where it's not insulting, and that process in itself can improve mental health. There is no situation in reality where you can encourage a black person to bleach their skin or a short person to jam extensions in their legs. a) People can't realistically change those things, b) the process of becoming physically fit has side benefits in itself outside of pure social acceptance,which has no analogy in "racial change", and c) race is based -only- on arbitrary social acceptance about a thing that doesn't even exist (race isn't even a real thing outside of arbitrary social grouping), whereas weight is social acceptance tied into health issues. It's not an analogous statement. It's just a bad comparison. Darko fucked around with this message at 13:35 on May 14, 2014 |
#
¿
May 14, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
The issue with the rant is that it kept subject-jumping, making it hard to button down to a single thing that can be agreed with or not. As such, it is very real life rant-like, but it also means that some points may be more poignant than others. There is no singular point of the whole speech; it makes around 4 different statements in it; some better than others.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
King Vidiot posted:Well no, the speech wasn't solely about the different factors of attractiveness. There was also something in there about how women's sole worth as human beings is based on how physically attractive they are. That's why Louie felt he had to reassure Vanessa that she wasn't fat. He thought he was being kind, but what he was really saying was "Your body weight is the only measure of value as a person, because you're a woman". I didn't get that really. I figured she used Louie as a springboard for her rant. Basically that -he- was probably an alright guy but him saying "no you're not fat" was actually condescending to her because she knew she was fat, and thinking of that launched her into a bunch of semi-related topics about the double standard about male vs. female obesity and how it's viewed in society. The first part of what you're saying isn't really a universal. Only chummy male friends call each other fat - otherwise, yes, people sugarcoat other people's weight in conversation with the overweight person all the time, regardless of gender, unless they're being a jerk. It's not "saying anything" by default. People avoid saying negative things about anyone in general to avoid hurting them and to avoid confrontation. The second part is tied in another huge debate. There are differences in averages between the sexes in the focus of that attraction. Louie's weight doesn't matter as much because his success will override that with more women. If he was just an IT guy making 45k a year, on the other hand, his looks/weight would mean a whole lot more because the success wouldn't be as much of an overriding factor. Success is not as much of an attractor for most men, so that won't override the physical in the same manner. It's not "fair" or "even," but should it even be, really? Louie's execution of some of his societal points varies - this one was a pretty mixed bag because it wasn't focused enough, and half of the points were very arguable.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
No Wave posted:SA's a pretty stupid place for you to be. It's the only readable forum I know of where extended back-and-forth exchanges are possible. I know of others, but they tend to be more echo-chamber-y, with less diverse opinions. I actually prefer disagreements when they don't devolve into idiocy.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
massive spider posted:Remember, Louie is a comedian, it's demonstrated that she's pretty quick witted as well. Socially, you generally ignore people's physical deformities regardless of sex, though. I wouldn't joke about someone that is balding's lack of hair until I knew they had no problem being self depreciating about it, for instance. And people fake self depreciation constantly, so you generally have to be very careful about that kind of thing. The situation was kind of a weird framing device that undermined some of the points to some degree. edit for responses to other parts of the thread: Also, he wrote this especially SO that people would talk about it. Complaining that people are talking about it makes no sense.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:The story she tells details very explicitly that tons of guys are willing to have sex with her, but none of them are willing to admit it publicly. They like her. Everybody likes her. Louie likes her. But they're all unwilling to show this to the world, because they'll be mocked for loving a fat girl. Guys have sex with women they don't want to date, and vice versa. You can be attracted to someone enough to want to gently caress them, but not attracted enough to them to want to date them. And the reasons aren't entirely, always, or even normally, "what would other people think." I think that's something that you're missing here. Those kid of omissions made the rant feel more "real," as the poster above me said, but also not as poignant as it could have been if it were more perfectly manufactured, as a lot of the statements have caveats or differing perspectives.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
No Wave posted:I don't think this is a knock on the show at all though. Sarah isn't a stand-in for all fat girls - there are fat girls in relationships in America (duh). Louie's constantly about how Louie himself participates and exacerbates his own repetitive cycles of misery. She does the same thing - she goes after guys who aren't into her. There's a simple solution to her problem, but really, the inability to settle is almost every lonely single person's problem. I -think- what Louie was getting at was that a lot of "average"* men who will probably invariably end up with a chubby woman do not treat them in the same manner that they do women that they feel are out of their league in that interim period before they settle for whoever they want. They know the big woman is good for them, are relatively attracted to them, and realize it's about as good as they're going to do because they're the social equal to them. But they don't "claim" them in public or chase after them in the same way because they have dreams of getting "better" even though they don't merit it themselves. They want to be perceived as a top-level guy, but aren't, so they're extremely self conscious about being too close with the larger woman that they actually know they'll probably end up with and like well enough. This is different from the top tier guys, who might flirt with or have sex with a larger woman and not be bothered at all because they've been with enough "hot" women that outside perception doesn't matter. Someone can't look down at you for being around a big woman one day when you've also been with "hotter" women than they can ever dream of being with. When you've been with 100 women of all different types, having a large woman as part of that variety isn't going to mean much. If you've been with two, and both are large, it means something different. So there's a layer of confidence that comes with relative dating success on a superficial level that a lot of self conscious middling guys don't have, but "hotter" more experienced guys do. *a bunch of quotes added in to show that I'm talking about the wide ranging social views of attractiveness and tiers and not what I ascribe to on a personal level The problem is that, even on the show, Louie isn't really on that middling level, even if he presents himself as such. To make the living he makes, even in the context of the show, means that he'll be with "hot" women enough where he doesn't really fit into the general mold of what he's trying to portray at times. Entertainers that are good enough to make a living entertaining have a rather wide selection almost as a default. So there's a bit of a disconnect in what was portrayed as to what was intended there. And it has happened at other times as well. Sorry if I rambled there a bit - I hope it made sense. It's a hard concept to express without making it sound like personal judgments. Darko fucked around with this message at 16:30 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Bifner McDoogle posted:This is a really bizarre attitude to me that does not line up with my own experiences at all. I'm gay, though, is this really a common way that people think about women and relationships? My experience has more been more that men who are just loving around are shallow because they are not looking for a committed relationship, that they basically chase the hottest people available because they are looking for something shallow and temporary and are going to focus on it for that reason. Then when they go for a serious relationship the range of personalities they are looking after narrows and the range of body types they are into increases. The whole hierarchy you've set up here seems pretty out-there to me but I only understand shallow relationships between two men, not so much between men and women. From my experiences, and what I've seen in seeing the inner workings of dating sites and stats and such: Men typically have these kinds of categories: - not interested in any way - friend but not sexually attracted - friend and would have sex with - would have sex with, but wouldn't really want to be friends with - would have sex with and date - would have sex with and would marry/be long term with I wouldn't call any of that "shallow," it's just the differences in attraction levels, and the ability to separate sexual attraction from dating attraction and friendship attraction. Factors are dependent on personality, looks, compatibility, etc. That's also what causes a lot of dating issues, people often think there's in the final category of "would marry" when they're in one of the others (and it's often about how honest the two people are with each other). If a guy meets someone that he feels like he's maxed out with, he's going to date her, period, in most cases. Since most people want to end up being with someone, beggars/choosers comes into play, so where a person lies in these categories changes from person to person, and depends almost entirely on where that person sees themselves and who they think they can achieve. Louie approaches his dating/relationship writing from this general perspective, from my observations (as does Larry David in an extreme way); the issue being, as No Wave stated above me, that he sometimes writes himself as a "regular guy" when we have to remember that he's still a rather popular comedian that gets "hot" women from time to time in that universe. It's a weird disconnect. Larry David generally does a better job of writing that kind of thing, as he created multiple characters in Seinfeld with different demographics to cover the range (Jerry was famous enough for practically anyone, but extremely picky partially due to that, George had upper-middle struggles, etc.), or pretty much writes himself in his actual situation. I think Louie is a bit better when not writing specifically about relationships/dating, whereas Larry David (and Stephen Merchant/Ricky Gervais) are possibly at their strongest on those subjects.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:Yeah, but the different is that jerking off doesn't have all the baggage and consequences that comes with having sex with a real person that you're really not attracted to. Plus, if the person is gross, I don't think I'd be able to get it up no matter how good my imagination is. Gross is not the same as not attracted to. Real people often don't have baggage if you approach things maturely. Sex changes gradually in scope and importance as people age. There are variations based on experience, issues, etc., but shows like Seinfeld, Louie, and Curb are semi accurate when it comes to those things - sometimes you have sex with someone just because you just feel like having sex with someone. They don't make a big deal about it, you don't, it's just a one night excursion or a fling. A lot of Louie episodes have he or the lady in question doing just that.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 22:25
|
|