Satire site The Onion apologizes for offensive Oscar tweet - the 'C' word

[quote name='Cantatus']He actually came to mind when I was writing my post, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the type of sense of humor they were trying to emulate.. The thing is, though, there's more to his act than just saying, "My daughter is a fucking asshole!" and then looking at the audience and waiting for laughter. He usually provides some context, like, "Hey, if this was an adult doing this, we'd call them out on their crap, but since it's a kid, we don't."

And, to be completely honest, I do think The Onion could've made the joke funny if they turned it into an actual article. They just went offensive for a cheap laugh and pretty much got the reaction they deserved.[/QUOTE]

Bernie Mac comes to mind as someone that did that kind of stuff before Louis too. He used to call his sisters son that he took in a "little f----ot". He got a free pass. To me it wasn't that funny, was pretty offensive, but clearly his presentation made it more acceptable to his audience. So Louis, Bernie, they were able to do it. The Onion, clearly wasn't, according to the majority response.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='eldergamer']No, Crotch is right and you're missing the point.

The Onion does not actually believe she's a Cunt.[/QUOTE]

I never believed that The Onion believed that she was a cunt. What I am saying is that kids can legitimately get away with behavior that would be poor form for adults at an awards gala. If that were Nicole Kidman, then yes, that would be arrogant behavior. It's not arrogant behavior when a kid does it, and that's the way it should be.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I think you're being too generous here. What he's really saying is that this...
original.gif


...is actually cunt-ish behavior and if she was an adult, it'd be ok to call her out on it, but since she's just a kid, we can't.

In other words, he unironically agrees with the tweet. Honestly, I wish I were joking or being hyperbolic when I say this.[/QUOTE]

Is this gesture not something her character does in the movie? At first I thought she was being a little pretentious, but I think they showed her doing this in the scenes they were playing. I've never seen it, so I really don't know.
 
[quote name='Yamato']Is this gesture not something her character does in the movie? At first I thought she was being a little pretentious, but I think they showed her doing this in the scenes they were playing. I've never seen it, so I really don't know.[/QUOTE]

No clue, but even if an adult did it, it's pretty obvious to me that they'd be doing it just to have some fun with it rather than rubbing it in people's faces. Except if it was Steven Seagal. God, I hate that guy.
 
[quote name='dohdough']No clue, but even if an adult did it, it's pretty obvious to me that they'd be doing it just to have some fun with it rather than rubbing it in people's faces. Except if it was Steven Seagal. God, I hate that guy.[/QUOTE]

1335706739_1236166573_steven_seagal_shooting_kids.gif
 
The Onion sure seems to piss off a lot of people these days. Some of their satire is pretty funny but there are times when they go a little too far for shock value.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Birds of a feather...

It figures the only "freedom" you care about is the freedom of insurance companies to kill people for profit.[/QUOTE]


HAHHAHAHHAHHHEHEHEHEHEHHEHAHAHH....whew....

Yes, I hope the insurance companies kill everyone....and profit from it. :roll:

Do you want someone who has smoked and abused alcohol 20 years and never paid for insurance to be able to then stroll into an insurance company and get insurance for a "reasonable" amount when they start to experience health problems?
 
Do you want someone who has smoked and abused alcohol 20 years and never paid for insurance to be able to then stroll into an insurance company and get insurance for a "reasonable" amount when they start to experience health problems?
Click to expand...

You are being intentionally dishonest because one of the tenets of a universal system is that everyone who can pays.

But asides from that the answer is yes.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Some people don't want others to take responsibility for their actions egofed.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, bro, but it continually blows me away.
 
[quote name='Msut77']You are being intentionally dishonest because one of the tenets of a universal system is that everyone who can pays.

But asides from that the answer is yes.[/QUOTE]


Do we have a universal "socialist" healthcare system? NO! So forcing private companies to cover pre-existing conditions for rates that won't cover the cost of treatment is forced bankruptcy. I see it as intentional by the Dems, make all the private insurance companies fail so that a gov't single payer system is used as a solution. Maybe that will be a better system for America, but forcing private companies to bankrupt themselves through gov't rules is not the way to go about it.
 
[quote name='egofed']Do we have a universal "socialist" healthcare system? NO! So forcing private companies to cover pre-existing conditions for rates that won't cover the cost of treatment is forced bankruptcy. I see it as intentional by the Dems, make all the private insurance companies fail so that a gov't single payer system is used as a solution. Maybe that will be a better system for America, but forcing private companies to bankrupt themselves through gov't rules is not the way to go about it.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...holy fuck, what is this mess? Do you know how insurance works? Do you honestly think that a person that is in remission from cancer will get the same rate as a healthy non-smoking 25 year old if they look for an individual policy? Those insurance companies that you're white knighting won't even be coming close to going bankrupt.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...holy fuck, what is this mess? Do you know how insurance works? Do you honestly think that a person that is in remission from cancer will get the same rate as a healthy non-smoking 25 year old if they look for an individual policy? Those insurance companies that you're white knighting won't even be coming close to going bankrupt.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you on this point. However, I have to agree egofed a bit. The government forcing a private industry to offer certain products at specific prices is a bit ridiculous.

That being said, I do realize the power of health insurance companies. You can't take them down, and you can't exactly start your own to compete. The government has to get involved at some point, but I don't like the way they're doing it now.

Anyway, came here to post this:

http://www.popscreen.com/v/5ZgMA/Steve-Hughes-Whats-wrong-with-being-offended
 
[quote name='egofed']Do we have a universal "socialist" healthcare system? NO! So forcing private companies to cover pre-existing conditions for rates that won't cover the cost of treatment is forced bankruptcy. I see it as intentional by the Dems, make all the private insurance companies fail so that a gov't single payer system is used as a solution. Maybe that will be a better system for America, but forcing private companies to bankrupt themselves through gov't rules is not the way to go about it.[/QUOTE]

If private healthcare insurance companies only function is to make money by cherry picking the healthiest and wealthiest americans then there is no reason for them to exist.
 
It's interesting to see so many folks who supported Obama and Company's present to the health insurance industry being all anti-health insurance providers.
 
[quote name='Msut77']If private healthcare insurance companies only function is to make money by cherry picking the healthiest and wealthiest americans then there is no reason for them to exist.[/QUOTE]

So it's OK if a car insurance company refuses to cover you because you got 15 speeding tickets, but not OK for a health insurance company to turn down a guy who eats McDonalds for all 3 meals every day?

You're suggesting that insurance companies quit being insurance companies and instead be hospitals with low rates.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']So it's OK if a car insurance company refuses to cover you because you got 15 speeding tickets, but not OK for a health insurance company to turn down a guy who eats McDonalds for all 3 meals every day?[/quote]

I am ignoring your reductio but in general terms yes.


You're suggesting that insurance companies quit being insurance companies and instead be hospitals with low rates.
Click to expand...

If insurance only exist to cherry pick the healthiest and wealthiest of Americans and it do it less efficiently (i.e. more expensive) to make a profit. Then there is no reason for them to exist.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...9d56ac-779c-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_print.html

"Many people who are uninsured go untreated, exacerbating their medical problems. When they finally do get coverage through a high-risk pool, they are in immediate need of expensive care.
“What we’ve learned through the course of this program is that this is really not a sensible way for the health-care system to be run,” Cohen said."


Hmmmmm... it needs more money? No way! Who would have seen that coming. I do like this quote, "My responsibility is to work with the appropriation we have.”- Cohen. If only all gov't officials thought as such...

I'm gonna move this into a new thread because it's soooo off topic....
 
Other countries can cover everyone while spending less than the US (with equal or better outcomes).

Care to take a swing at justifying that before to your thread?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Other countries can cover everyone while spending less than the US (with equal or better outcomes).

Care to take a swing at justifying that before to your thread?[/QUOTE]


I think you mistyped your question.

I'm not 100% against a single payer system, I'm just VERY wary of giving the gov't more power and decision making responsibility in private citizens' lives.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']I agree with you on this point. However, I have to agree egofed a bit. The government forcing a private industry to offer certain products at specific prices is a bit ridiculous.

That being said, I do realize the power of health insurance companies. You can't take them down, and you can't exactly start your own to compete. The government has to get involved at some point, but I don't like the way they're doing it now.

Anyway, came here to post this:

http://www.popscreen.com/v/5ZgMA/Steve-Hughes-Whats-wrong-with-being-offended[/QUOTE]


Actually you can start your own insurance company. Ask Ms. Horowitz, and if you know Obama personally, you can get a less than 1% interest loan of 341 million dollars from the government....even if your company is TERRIBLE!:roll:
 
I leave for a week and this is what I come back to? Well at least the usuals haven't changed a bit.
 
[quote name='egofed']I'm not 100% against a single payer system[/quote]

Just 99% against?


I'm just VERY wary of giving the gov't more power and decision making responsibility in private citizens' lives.
Click to expand...

But corporate bureaucracy making those decisions for profit is ok?

No one will take your thread seriously because it never gets past this level of glibness with you people.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Just 99% against?




But corporate bureaucracy making those decisions for profit is ok?

No one will take your thread seriously because it never gets past this level of glibness with you people.[/QUOTE]


Corporations, as evil as you think they are, can not forcibly take my money/property or imprison me for non-payment....

Watch out for using the term "you people", dohdough is watching.....;)
 
You are intentionally avoiding the important part of the discussion, might want to stop that if you want to be taken seriously.
 
[quote name='dohdough']It's nice to know how important I am for two people to try and troll-bait me in 2 separate threads.:rofl:

[/QUOTE]


hhehehehehehe...My comment was supposed to be humorous, not "troll-bait." Sorry if it missed the mark. I just like to see you type the words "dog whistle.";)
 
[quote name='Spokker']A mass of people complained, and then it was retracted with an apology, and thus the masses were bowed to. Looking at the reviews the rest of the telecast has received, I can see why I enjoyed the opening monologue so much. It was finally a show that guys could enjoy as TV has long been a vagina with a remote.[/QUOTE]

You do realize that you just confirmed everything about you guys who yearn for the good ol' days where you could insult women freely?
 
Interesting thought experiment: How many people here who shared their opinion of what the Onion did would flip it if Quvenzhané Wallis was white instead of black?
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']You do realize that you just confirmed everything about you guys who yearn for the good ol' days where you could insult women freely?[/QUOTE]

I think in the good old days if you insulted a woman you would not be getting verbal outrage but a swift punch in the throat.

What context are you even talking about anyway? On the street? In comedy? What?
 
I realize why they made the joke, it's just that most people aren't as up on how celebrities are discussed sometimes. Seems to me like it was satire on how they're always critiqued when seen in public and all. They just seemed to forget that it was a little girl they were talking about, and not everyone gets their humor. Race isn't really important to me in this case.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Interesting thought experiment: How many people here who shared their opinion of what the Onion did would flip it if Quvenzhané Wallis was white instead of black?[/QUOTE]

It wasn't even remotely relevant or a factor in it all. Before I saw a picture of her, I thought she was French. My problem was the age of the target, and the sexual nature of the term...and it just wasn't funny.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Interesting thought experiment: How many people here who shared their opinion of what the Onion did would flip it if Quvenzhané Wallis was white instead of black?[/QUOTE]

I say what I said earlier in the thread: I think they could've made the joke funny or satirical, but one line really didn't deliver the joke. It came across juvenile and beneath The Onion. I don't see how race would influence my opinion in that regard.

I also don't think you're going to find anyone here who will honestly admit that they'd flip their opinion if the girl's race was different, and I'm sure you know that, so I'm not sure where we're going with this line of thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top