Current Events > Sesame Street's official Twitter says that Bert & Ernie are NOT gay.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/SesameWorkshop/status/1042117602678587395

https://twitter.com/SesameWorkshop/status/1042197230583721989

And as usual twitter commenters are cancer.
---

Banjo2553 posted...

And as usual twitter commenters are cancer.

---

Jesus, the extreme progressives are a fucking joke. They've got it where they can just say this person is gay, and if you correct them, you're a hateful homophobe, because how is them being gay hurting you. A clever little racket they've got going on.
---

I never thought they were.
---

gguirao posted...

I never thought they were.

I thought they were brothers, because I related bert and ernie to my older brother and me.
---

My favorite comment was one person calling someone else transphobic for saying muppets don't have dicks.
---

Okay but have you considered

Ray Bradbury was told that his own interpretation of a book he wrote is wrong

And that the general consensus for the interpretation is in fact not that of what he says it is

So therefore it's probable that if enough people think they're gay, and that the tells are obvious enough that they are that it's a commonly accepted fact, they just might be gay

@asagi_mode_gone posted...

Okay but have you considered

Ray Bradbury was told that his own interpretation of a book he wrote is wrong

And that the general consensus for the interpretation is in fact not that of what he says it is

So therefore it's probable that if enough people think they're gay, and that the tells are obvious enough that they are that it's a commonly accepted fact, they just might be gay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPt0QetZ58U" data-time="

l Dudeboy l posted...

My favorite comment was one person calling someone else transphobic for saying muppets don't have dicks.

They actually apologized when someone called them out for that being stupid, which is the most surprising thing I've ever seen.
---

asagi_mode_gone posted...

Okay but have you considered

Ray Bradbury was told that his own interpretation of a book he wrote is wrong

And that the general consensus for the interpretation is in fact not that of what he says it is

So therefore it's probable that if enough people think they're gay, and that the tells are obvious enough that they are that it's a commonly accepted fact, they just might be gay

No, we have not considered that, because it's idiotic.

Ray Bradbury said that Farenheit 451 was about how other forms of media were reducing society's interest in books, which of course was a concern for Bradbury, he being a writer. If you want to say that you think it's about censorship, YOU are personally free to feel that way, but you do not get to say that your interpretation is the official one, or that the author "meant" that as subtext. The author's word (pardon the pun) is the final arbiter of what the author was saying.
---

lmfao sjws are having a meltdown and accusing sesame street of being homophobic
---

I always thought that Bert and Ernie being gay was just some silly shit stoners said.

They came across as an odd couple friendship, two contrasting personalities that ultimately are about being pals regardless.
---

lmao, whats their problem, they already have dumbledore hahaha

What a horrible world we now live in.
---

The comments....... Wow
---

So much butthurt.
---

DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC posted...

Ray Bradbury said that Farenheit 451 was about how other forms of media were reducing society's interest in books, which of course was a concern for Bradbury, he being a writer. If you want to say that you think it's about censorship, YOU are personally free to feel that way, but you do not get to say that your interpretation is the official one, or that the author "meant" that as subtext. The author's word (pardon the pun) is the final arbiter of what the author was saying.

No interpretation is "the official" one. The author has the final word on what they were saying, but they don't have any influence on what people are hearing/reading. Similarly, if I draw a tree but you think it looks like a penis, neither of us are wrong. That's a very fundamental aspect of any critical analysis.
---

scar the 1 posted...

DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC posted...

Ray Bradbury said that Farenheit 451 was about how other forms of media were reducing society's interest in books, which of course was a concern for Bradbury, he being a writer. If you want to say that you think it's about censorship, YOU are personally free to feel that way, but you do not get to say that your interpretation is the official one, or that the author "meant" that as subtext. The author's word (pardon the pun) is the final arbiter of what the author was saying.

No interpretation is "the official" one. The author has the final word on what they were saying, but they don't have any influence on what people are hearing/reading. Similarly, if I draw a tree but you think it looks like a penis, neither of us are wrong. That's a very fundamental aspect of any critical analysis.

No, that's a fundamental aspect of deconstructionist "death of the author" analysis which is complete horse shit. If you draw a tree, it's a tree even if someone else perceives a penis. Authorial intent matters. Full stop.
---

s0nicfan posted...

No, that's a fundamental aspect of deconstructionist "death of the author" analysis which is complete horse s***. If you draw a tree, it's a tree even if someone else perceives a penis. Authorial intent matters. Full stop.

Agree to disagree. authorial intent tells one story. But as an artist, you can't create an experience. You can only create things that in turn will give people an experience. And you don't have full control over that. Maybe the tree I drew is really shitty, maybe I only draw penis-shaped objects, maybe the viewer associates trees with penises, etc. Whatever they saw, they saw. No matter what I wanted to draw.
---

this is why oscar wilde was right

there is only good and ugly art and it should serve no other purpose
---

scar the 1 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

No, that's a fundamental aspect of deconstructionist "death of the author" analysis which is complete horse s***. If you draw a tree, it's a tree even if someone else perceives a penis. Authorial intent matters. Full stop.

Agree to disagree. authorial intent tells one story. But as an artist, you can't create an experience. You can only create things that in turn will give people an experience. And you don't have full control over that. Maybe the tree I drew is really shitty, maybe I only draw penis-shaped objects, maybe the viewer associates trees with penises, etc. Whatever they saw, they saw. No matter what I wanted to draw.

But an experience doesn't get to dictate intent. No matter how shitty your tree, if you were trying to create a tree, I dont have the right to tell people you created a penis just because I perceive one, especially if you've already stated what the intent was. The issue isn't one of personal perception, but when people declare that their personal perception is truth by projecting it onto others. There are an infinite number of ways to carve up creative works to make any claim you want, which is one of the reasons why we are in this weird position nowadays where everything is offensive if you want it to be.
---

s0nicfan posted...

But an experience doesn't get to dictate intent. No matter how shitty your tree, if you were trying to create a tree, I dont have the right to tell people you created a penis just because I perceive one, especially if you've already stated what the intent was. The issue isn't one of personal perception, but when people declare that their personal perception is truth by projecting it onto others. There are an infinite number of ways to carve up creative works to make any claim you want, which is one of the reasons why we are in this weird position nowadays where everything is offensive if you want it to be.

if you drew a tree that looks like a penis, you drew a shitty tree

i think that's where the thought can end
---

"They remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation"

Lmao

This sounds like them saying "duh"

So glad they spoke up on this though
---

s0nicfan posted...

But an experience doesn't get to dictate intent. No matter how s***ty your tree, if you were trying to create a tree, I dont have the right to tell people you created a penis just because I perceive one, especially if you've already stated what the intent was. The issue isn't one of personal perception, but when people declare that their personal perception is truth by projecting it onto others. There are an infinite number of ways to carve up creative works to make any claim you want, which is one of the reasons why we are in this weird position nowadays where everything is offensive if you want it to be.

And no inspiration dictates intent. You have the right to tell people whatever the fuck you want (mostly). If you think my tree looks like a lamp post, you're not wrong. If you're saying "it looks like a lamp post, hence your intent was to make a lamp post", then of course you're wrong. But it's not about figuring out what my intent was. It's about figuring out what you're looking at. If authorial intent rules, then critical analysis is dead. And it obviously isn't, wether you like it or not.

...and this doesn't even take into account scenarios where an artist may be mistaken or insincere, or just doesn't want to say.

Heck, this is why Hemingway is so well regarded, for instance. The Old Man and the Sea is a perfect example of a work that is so different depending on the life experience of the reader.
---

s0nicfan posted...

scar the 1 posted...

DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC posted...

Ray Bradbury said that Farenheit 451 was about how other forms of media were reducing society's interest in books, which of course was a concern for Bradbury, he being a writer. If you want to say that you think it's about censorship, YOU are personally free to feel that way, but you do not get to say that your interpretation is the official one, or that the author "meant" that as subtext. The author's word (pardon the pun) is the final arbiter of what the author was saying.

No interpretation is "the official" one. The author has the final word on what they were saying, but they don't have any influence on what people are hearing/reading. Similarly, if I draw a tree but you think it looks like a penis, neither of us are wrong. That's a very fundamental aspect of any critical analysis.

No, that's a fundamental aspect of deconstructionist "death of the author" analysis which is complete horse shit. If you draw a tree, it's a tree even if someone else perceives a penis. Authorial intent matters. Full stop.

I think that intent absolutely matters, and that there are many wrong interpretations of famous works (egregiously so with Fahrenheit 451) - but at the same time, it should be understood that with certain ideas, people receive the message slightly differently as a result of a multitude of factors that play into how they interpret said message.

Intent matters, but the reality of how we perceive things can vary greatly - and I think thats pretty human.
---

scar the 1 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

But an experience doesn't get to dictate intent. No matter how s***ty your tree, if you were trying to create a tree, I dont have the right to tell people you created a penis just because I perceive one, especially if you've already stated what the intent was. The issue isn't one of personal perception, but when people declare that their personal perception is truth by projecting it onto others. There are an infinite number of ways to carve up creative works to make any claim you want, which is one of the reasons why we are in this weird position nowadays where everything is offensive if you want it to be.

And no inspiration dictates intent. You have the right to tell people whatever the fuck you want (mostly). If you think my tree looks like a lamp post, you're not wrong. If you're saying "it looks like a lamp post, hence your intent was to make a lamp post", then of course you're wrong. But it's not about figuring out what my intent was. It's about figuring out what you're looking at. If authorial intent rules, then critical analysis is dead. And it obviously isn't, wether you like it or not.

...and this doesn't even take into account scenarios where an artist may be mistaken or insincere, or just doesn't want to say.

Heck, this is why Hemingway is so well regarded, for instance. The Old Man and the Sea is a perfect example of a work that is so different depending on the life experience of the reader.

Critical analysis existed long before derrida. You don't need to kill the author to analyze their work, because you should be explicitly considering what their intent likely was in that analysis. The whole purpose of deconstructionist analysis is to declare that your personal interpretation is more important than the authors intent because you've stripped context from it. Analysis stemming from that approach is meaningless, because it is physically impossible to compare multiple annalyses to determine correctness. When all perspectives are valid, none of them are.
---

(My previous post should have said interpretation, not inspiration)

Whose interpretation is more important is meaningless to me.
If authorial intent rules, then any analysis does die the moment the author expresses the intent. I acknowledge that authors can intend something, but that's separate from what I see. A work exists on its own. If the author wanted to clarify their intentions, they should put that in the text.
---

scar the 1 posted...

(My previous post should have said interpretation, not inspiration)

Whose interpretation is more important is meaningless to me.
If authorial intent rules, then any analysis does die the moment the author expresses the intent. I acknowledge that authors can intend something, but that's separate from what I see. A work exists on its own. If the author wanted to clarify their intentions, they should put that in the text.

But where the author didn't clarify, you should consider their possible intentions in your analysis. Context can only enhance analysis, not hurt it. My problem with deconstructionist analysis is it explicitly aims to remove context which creates for an infinite number of "right" perspectives.
---

my childhood is saved
---

s0nicfan posted...

But where the author didn't clarify, you should consider their possible intentions in your analysis. Context can only enhance analysis, not hurt it. My problem with deconstructionist analysis is it explicitly aims to remove context which creates for an infinite number of "right" perspectives.

And what's wrong with having an infinite number of "right" perspectives? Again, what happens if the author is mistaken? Or dishonest? Or very deliberately withholds the intent?
Why is it the authorial intent that matters and not what the beholder feels?
"I think this looks like a lamp"
"Well, it is a tree"
"So what?"

Do you see? The authorial intent doesn't change the experience one bit.
---

What a goldmine of comments lmao, get fucked SJWs
---

scar the 1 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

But where the author didn't clarify, you should consider their possible intentions in your analysis. Context can only enhance analysis, not hurt it. My problem with deconstructionist analysis is it explicitly aims to remove context which creates for an infinite number of "right" perspectives.

And what's wrong with having an infinite number of "right" perspectives? Again, what happens if the author is mistaken? Or dishonest? Or very deliberately withholds the intent?
Why is it the authorial intent that matters and not what the beholder feels?
"I think this looks like a lamp"
"Well, it is a tree"
"So what?"

Do you see? The authorial intent doesn't change the experience one bit.

Is "To Kill a Mockingbird" racist because it uses the N-word? And if so, should we remove it from school reading lists because the author is a racist?

Authorial intent and context MATTERS.
---

This topic is now Bert and Ernie memes

Go


---

s0nicfan posted...

Is "To Kill a Mockingbird" racist because it uses the N-word? And if so, should we remove it from school reading lists because the author is a racist?

Authorial intent and context MATTERS.

No..?
---

What's their statement on Kermit and Miss Piggy? They're married and they're not even the same species.

shnangyboos posted...

Jesus, the extreme progressives are a fucking joke. They've got it where they can just say this person is gay, and if you correct them, you're a hateful homophobe, because how is them being gay hurting you. A clever little racket they've got going on.

Pretty much. Imagine being so miserable you actually go insane.
---

Racists can do math, too.

Thats a fair assessment.
---

Once they decided to shove Bert and Ernie's beds together, they had to know what people were going to start saying.

AvantgardeAClue posted...

"They remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation"

Lmao

This sounds like them saying "duh"

So glad they spoke up on this though

You know there are literally parent puppets right
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

shnangyboos posted...

Jesus, the extreme progressives are a fucking joke. They've got it where they can just say this person is gay, and if you correct them, you're a hateful homophobe, because how is them being gay hurting you. A clever little racket they've got going on.

Pretty much. Imagine being so miserable you actually go insane.

Agreed.

I like that Frank Oz spoke out about this too. Out of EVERYONE, he would know for sure.
---

NeuralLaxative posted...

This topic is now Bert and Ernie memes

Go

---

scar the 1 posted...

And what's wrong with having an infinite number of "right" perspectives? Again, what happens if the author is mistaken? Or dishonest? Or very deliberately withholds the intent?

Who gets to determine if the author is wrong or not? Adding onto the Kill a Mockingbird example, someone who believes in the KKK's ideals would have a substantial different interpretation of the book than from someone who doesn't subject to their beliefs. Would their interpretation be more or less wrong, even though it's kinda obvious that their view would be the complete opposite of what the author wanted to come across?
---

has anyone actually read the interview with the creator where he talks about his experience being gay in the height of the AIDS epidemic
---

At the end of the day what does it matter what the official stance is? If you see them a certain way thats fine. And if Sesame Street Workshop said one thing or another nothing changes. Theyre still wholesome characters.
---

scar the 1 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Is "To Kill a Mockingbird" racist because it uses the N-word? And if so, should we remove it from school reading lists because the author is a racist?

Authorial intent and context MATTERS.

No..?

But absent authorial intent, if someone perceives the book as racist, you've stripped yourself of the ability to say they're wrong. Now they can say you're supporting inclusion of racist texts in schools because their perspective that the author and book is racist, based on their own subjective experiences, and you don't have the ability to disagree. Public perception shapes policy, and deconstructionist critical analysis is absolutely destructive in that regard, because it creates a society where everyone is right, but we still can only have rules that apply evenly to everyone. Who's perspective gets to be the one that shapes everyone else's life in that world?
---

We have Steve from Blue's Clues, Sesame Street can go to Hades!

Nah, I never thought they were gay. It's a children's show, does it even acknowledge romantic love at all?
---