SNL pokes fun at Mark Zuckerberg “Autistic” traits

Post Reply New Topic

I had the impression that Will and Grace was hated by homoPHOBES and was lauded by homosexuals for making gays look normal.

Trying to get the government to censor other people's laughs needs to stop. If you want censorship, have the guts to try to implement it yourself by force.

It's just tv....entertainment. Yes we know that ASD is not the same thing as a sexual orientation. However gays have had to endure stereotypes. Watch Modern Family. I'm crazy about that gay couple on there. Their gayness is not even talked about or joked on. You don't think about it. All you see are two people that care about one another.

The columnist can say that type of humor needs to stop, or say the government should get involved or it is his first amendment right.
1. The columnist never advocated government involvement
2. Government involvement is most likely unconstitutional
2. If I physically try and force SNL to stop I should be arrested for assault.

What about what goes on with campuses and hate speech laws which force language? What is going on are a series of failures by authorities to protect constantutionally guarenteed free speech.

It anything it is more making fun of Tourett’s which is a co morbid of autism than autism itself.

I love Modern Family and I think the gay couple is really a cute couple.

Other than finding it a little graphic for my taste sometimes, I think it's pretty funny

I know what you mean. I was just curious about how the gay community views the shows that's all. I wasn't comparing the two types of people to each other. What we were talking about just struck my curiosity and I did not feel it was worth starting a new thread.

Skibum, Modern Family couple is very devoted. I'm a conservative Christian yet I can't help but like those two guys.

And I can say trying to get the government to censor other people’s laughs needs to stop. And people can and will keep making that type of humor.



So how else does he think he can make that type of humor stop?



Yet another reason why he won’t get his way.



I think it’s fundamentably debatabe whether you should be arrested. You might be arrested, and that’s a risk everyone has to take when they decide to take the law into their own hands to censor something that offends them. But they do it all the time anyway, at least if they feel confident in their physical ability to overpower the offender.



So? How does that disprove my point?

What else would you expect? All ideology is spastic , cause you know all shades have good ideas , better to be a "radical centrist "

How can we laugh at ourselves when we have no sense of humour to begin with ?

No offense I am sure you mean well by being a liberal .

We need to
1. Elect people that understand and are willing to enforce the right of free speech and free expression. That means people must and should consistently face legal consequences if they violently try to supress opinion.
2. We need to start teaching civics in schools again.
3. We need to start teaching the concept of respect of people. Because you can does not mean you should. Right now people are either super politically correct or offensive just to brag about how politically incorrect they are.
I do not know if the current trends can be reversed but if it is going to get better it is going to take a lot of time and get worse before it gets better.

Not really. It was a rhetorical question. People will simply not stop laughing at the expense of whomever they want, unless it’s someone they personally fear.



I think most people will never forgo the option of reäcting with physical violence to speech they don’t like. Free speech, but not without consequences, and the consequences may be that someone beats the hell out of you. If the government steps in and arrests them for their violence, well, that’ll only mean they’re showing even more courage by beating you up anyway, and they’ll thus be venerated as heroes in the fight for true freedom, which includes the freedom to settle matters by private force alone.



That’ll lead most people to rebel even more against civics whenever they can get away with it. Ironically, we autistics would probably be about the only people who benefitted from it, since we have a hard time learning what we’re not taught formally. This might even mean everyone else now has yet another reason to despise us.



I’m sure most people are well aware what respect is—they just know whom they need to respect and whom they can afford to abuse, and act accordingly.

I think most people if they know what respect is it is the lowest priority for them and this has changed to a large degree. It could change back maybe.

How are people going to be in favor of freedom of speech and expression if they do not know what is and why it came to be because they were never taught?.

Autistics do benefit from civics and respect for freedom of speech and expression because we are different but we are not the only ones. Every mainstream idea was at one time an outlier. Freedom of expression can help good outlier ideas become accepted. Knowlege of what freedom of speech and expression is and the acceptence of the idea that everything that offends you need not be shut down by any means neccessary forces you to restrain yourself. This makes one a less fragile and a more mature person. It may help one understand while the other person is mostly wrong he or she might have a good idea or two, god forbid. That would make politics less polarizing.

If the authorities actualy protect freedom of expression from the shut it down people, people will be less afraid to express ideas. Teaching and protecting freedom of expression might make martyrs of a few but that is not so different from now where the blowhards are the heroes.

Like I said in the other post there is a good chance am just an old guy whose quaint ideas have come and are long gone and are never coming back. But while I am still here and there is some freedom of speech left. I am going to advocate for them because I know that these things are possible because I lived in a time while far from perfect where political disagreement meant political disagreement not that the other person was evil, a moron, or brainwashed. People that were on opposite sides politically were good friends. This was not uncommon, imagine that. We were taught civics, coincedence?. I think not.