Big Night Tonight

Are we sure Amaury isn't secretly 12?
Seriously, there's nothing good on Disney Channel anymore. The last good live action ones were Wizards of Waverly Place and Good Luck Charlie.
Liv and Maddie is okay I guess.

The only time I turn on Disney Channel anymore is for Gravity Falls and if they're playing a good movie.

And don't even get me started on Nick. I'm still upset that they cancelled Victorious (though I love Sam & Cat) and Spongebob is a show that should have died back in 2004.

 

I typically like any sitcom like Austin & Ally, and I still like Nick despite that, it just frustrates me that they do that.

 

Girl Meets World was freakin' awkward. It has potential to be okay, but there's so much.... Crap. Also it has a whirlwind of pacing issues. And the lead boy is made of plastic.

Piss off with these same three gifs. Seriously. It's gotten old quickly

 

Everything about this makes it sound like it'll be ****. Shall we tally it up?

Dumb sounding title that's just a play on the original: +5
Sequel to a show that its target audience hasn't even heard of: +5
Disney Channel: +10

That's 20 shitpoints so far. We'll keep you posted as the show premieres.

This is a thread by a Amaury.

 

Anyways, what time is are the episodes set to actually air? does anyone know?

 

My tolerance for kids' TV shows is basically nonexistent. Way too many of them feature these insipid, misbehaved kids in ridiculous yet contrite situations. People call back to 90s cartoons but a lot of those were pretty **** as well.

idk. Watch Adventure Time. That's one of the few quality shows airing today.

 

****, I need to go finish Season 2 of Korra. Episode 3, let's do this.

 

All of it comes down to each individual's preference, of course, but for me personally, I think that and having idiot characters, like Dez in Austin & Ally, make the shows funny.

 

I'm not familiar with the show or character in question but it's pretty ableist to laugh at a character of low intelligence or who otherwise might have some kind of disorder. This always made me very uncomfortable about Full House -- DJ's friend was mocked for being "stupid" and her different life by not just the kids but the ADULTS. They never seemed to feel it necessary to defend the poor girl and even encouraged treating her that way. Way too many shows employ this and it's disgusting.

 

This should give you a general idea.

As for the Kimmy Gibbler character in Full House, I've been watching Full House on Nick's Nick at Nite block and have watched a lot of the show in general, and the worst I've seen the adults do is tell her to leave the house, so I'm probably missing something. However, I know the characters have apologized at times to her for treating her like she was stupid and the like.

I dunno. I guess that stuff doesn't really bother me because I know they're just characters and most of the time, it doesn't reflect who they are in real life. When there is similarity between the actor or actress and their character, it's always done positively and never mocked. For example, Bella Thorne from Shake It Up and her character, CeCe Jones, both have dyslexia, and it was never made fun of on the show. Bella Thorne grew up and learned to deal with it and is as good as someone without dyslexia, additionally.

 

Never mind. Not happening.

 

Isn't it also pretty ableist to assume that people who are extraordinarily stupid are disabled in some way? In Full House, Kimmy clearly isn't disabled. After all, she did well enough to graduate from high school in the era before the most common approach to learning disabilities in schools simply amounted to, "Make it easier for them." Kimmy's not disabled; she's just an idiot who gets up to mischief more often she should which makes her, from Danny's point of view, a bad influence on DJ.

My point is that sometimes a stupid character is just stupid, not disabled and certainly not a means of pushing some discriminatory agenda.

Also, the word "ableist" really shouldn't be used if you want to be taken seriously. It may be the best word for its meaning, but it belongs to the social justice warriors now and it's time to accept that.

 

I never said she was disabled, I said "or who otherwise might have some kind of disorder." The low intelligence bit was referring to characters like the one in Full House. But the words you are using -- stupid, idiot, etc. -- are all ableist in nature. They're used far more than something as clearly problematic as say "******ed," even by me I admit, but that doesn't mean they're okay either, and I do try to work them out of my speech. I won't stop using the word ableism to settle your conscious about the behavior on television or your fear of social justice. The words racism and sexism also belong to social justice movements -- that doesn't mean they're not applicable in situations. It's an extremely common word in my day to day life (on the internet, in activist circles, and I am studying education in college) so please don't tell me not to use it. I don't have any specific disabilities so I am by no means an authority on or mouthpiece for these issues, but I also don't have to be (and shouldn't be!) okay with them. It's dismissive to write off these issues and people who care about them as "social justice warriors," a term that I cannot believe has become derogatory.

The problem with these shows is that these characters are turned into the butt of jokes. An intellectual disability IS a disability. Danny didn't want DJ to hang out with Kimmy because she wasn't up to DJ's intellectual standards? How is that even slightly okay? As far as I remember, which I admit is limited because I don't exactly watch or remember much about Full House, Kimmy was otherwise a decent person, a loyal friend, and someone DJ really cared about. Kimmy got into trouble sometimes, and often roped DJ into it, but so did the other sisters. I seem to remember it being implied that Kimmy didn't have the most attentive parents or positive home environment It's ****ed up that DJ's family would verbally abuse a CHILD on the basis of her intelligence or even her quirkiness.

 

'Disabled' has a particular use. It applies to people who are not able to function normally in some area of life.

People who are extraordinarily stupid are disabled in areas where their stupidity will hold them back. Getting an official diagnosis does not make the stupidity worse or more inhibiting.

Are you implying that insulting people on the basis of being like a disabled person is okay?

Stupid was originally a word for someone who was 'touched in the head', just as retarded (Why is this blocked?) is now. The reason why we call stupid people stupid is not something that can be measured to exact labels. At the same time when this referred to mentally handicapped people, it also referred to people who were sedated, drunk, or otherwise had impaired judgment. Over time it has come to be understood that when someone is stupid, it describes the action more than the one who does it.

This makes sense. The only difference between 'disabled' and 'stupid' is what the system calls them. It's a matter of the severity of the handicap. There is not some switch that makes a disabled person somehow separate from someone with slightly higher intelligence.

It is not harmful to call people stupid because it insults people who are not stupid by choice, though that is insulting. It is harmful because no one chooses to be stupid, period. One may do something that is unintelligent but one may not choose to have more thinking ability than one does.

Do you have trouble taking it seriously?

 

Oh Adventure Time, you are practially one of the few reasons why I haven't turned my TV into a secondary monitor, let alone turn it on. c:

And yes I watch it on TV, to each their own, the Latin American dub is Godlike as well.

 

I would put Regular Show up there as well.
I didn't realize just how much of this was in the show till I got the first & second season (which i watch the hell out of. they stay playing), but the show deals a lot with having a healthy work ethic in any area of life. It's pretty much accepted, and explicitly stated at a few times, that Rigby is really, really dumb and dropped out of school in 3rd(? something absurdly early) grade and is stuck working at the park with Mordecai, whom Rigby is a negative influence on, where he is constantly under threat of losing his job since he never improves his work ethic, which the show always brings back to his lack of intelligence because he dropped out of school really early. It serves a purpose while being used to comedic effect, rather than it simply being something for the other characters to bounce jokes off of. It's also fun to note that the most common bumper I see while watching RS on CN is Rigby laying under a tree while Mordecai rakes leaves with the words "stay in school" on screen. neat.

 

I have nothing to say to any of you guys' other points because they're all very good points and you guys are so committed that I know I can't convince you of my position anyway.

No, they don't. They still mean what they're intended to mean both by definition and connotation. If a black man runs up to me and starts beating me with a baseball bat while shouting, "That's what you get for being white," I could describe the man as a racist and no reasonable person would argue. I could even press charges on it as a racist hate crime and probably win. The same would apply if I were attacked out of nowhere by a woman shouting about how she hates men. Naturally, the odds of an encounter like this are pretty low, but the point should be clear.

"Ableism," on the other hand, has become much too broad to mean anything anymore. I promote the use of cochlear implants? That's ableist against deaf people. Amaury says that old people shouldn't drive? That's ableist against those with an age-induced loss of mental acuity. Every joke involving Toph in Avatar: The Last Airbender? Ableist against blind people. You assume that I will understand your sarcasm? Ableist against some group somewhere for some reason. Makaze condemns racism? That's ableist against people who had no control over the era that they were born in and thus have a hard time accepting things like racial integration. My grandmother at 12 years old takes the last seat in the back of the bus just because she likes the view better? She gets yelled at because she won't let the arthritic black woman sit down even though the front of the bus is totally empty. Okay, that last one wasn't as relevant as I thought, but it's a cute story nonetheless.

With how broad it is, its only real function anymore is to say, "I'm offended but I don't want to think of a reason why." And as I've said, it's a real shame because it really is the best word for what it's supposed to mean.

I think one of us misunderstands what "social justice" means. If it's you, you're mistaking social equality for social justice. If it's me, I'm just overly semantic. So we're clear:

The way I understand it, the social justice movement (if it can even be called a movement) is about punishing social majorities or powers (heterosexuals, cis-people, caucasians, men, etc.) because numbers/power=oppression and all members of a major or powerful social class are to blame for that oppression. An example of a "social justice" belief is that all men (even trans-men), are to blame for the very real trauma that women go through thanks to rapists, human traffickers (which I consider to be a particular subset of rapists), and all scum like that. Simply put, I see social justice as fighting against bigotry with even more bigoted bigotry. Fight misogyny with misandry or trans-sexism with cis-sexism. It has nothing to do with the goal of social equality that we should be reaching for and, in fact, is probably seriously hurting it by giving people who want real equality a bad name.

I thought the conversation was strictly referring to those who are developmentally disabled (formerly mentally ******ed, formerly idiots, formerly imbeciles, formerly morons, and so on down the euphemism staircase). I'm sorry if it wasn't.

And besides, your definition of "disabled" doesn't sit well with me. By that definition, literally everyone is disabled because absolutely nobody is able to function normally in every area of life.

Yes. To me, "ableism" and its related words have become catch-all terms for, "Arguing with you is making me start to think, so I'm going to say that I'm offended before my brain starts to hurt."

 

I agree with this for the most part. The beginning felt really odd, but when they got into the heart of the episode, I think they really pulled it off well (although it was pretty ham fisted). My only complain is Farkle. You know all the complaints I made about modern kids sitcoms? This kid is every single one of those created just to piss me off.

 

So you see why I object.

I assume you haven't had it explained.

Ableism is any kind of preferential treatment or attitude towards someone on the basis of a trait that is outside of the subject's control, especially physical or mental abnormalities. At its core, it is looking down on those who cannot take care of themselves.

Ableism is seen in: not wanting to associate with cripples or the mentally unsound, using 'cripple', '******ed' and so on as insults, laughing at them, et cetera.

Ableism is not seen in: not getting offended when someone does the above.

If you think people are just saying they are offended because your arguments make their brains hurt, the problem is probably that their feelings make your brain hurt.