Comments on: Offensive Halloween costumes: a Crikey round-up

By: meski

meski — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:51:53 +0000

@Wyane: “at other times of the year” we can get back to the regular symbolic cannibalistic eating of flesh and drinking of blood? :^)

By: wyane

wyane — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:51:25 +0000

beckchanock makes a fair point. It was never part of any culture I’ve been immersed in (same, maybe, for Mel too?), but doesn’t the spirit (sorry) of All Hallows or Hallowmas involve a nod towards what is shadowy, unknowable and at other times of the year best left be?

By: beckchanock

beckchanock — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:45:23 +0000

I take your point about most of these being quite offensive, but they are also very tame compared to some of the home made costumes at the Halloween party I went to on Saturday (in Australia)! We had a Josef Fritzl, various deformed children to go with him, an Asian friend turned up with stuffed animals on kebabs…dressing up is supposed to be shocking. And fun.

By: Tamo

Tamo — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:05:04 +0000

Maybe in the USA it is safer to make fun of women than to make fun of people of certain other Religous Groups or Afro-Americans (which I Capitalise just to be on the safe side).

PS: When did we stop calling the county the “USA” and start calling it “America”?

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:21:16 +0000

Neither is Mohamed.

By: gef05

gef05 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:39:21 +0000

1. That’s not Buddha.
2. Buddha is not a theological equivalent to Christ.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:30:02 +0000

“Last time I checked, being offensive wasn’t against the law” says Michael Butler defending those fearless agents of satire.

Nuns, priests, Jesus Christs and Buddha’s ridiculed but apparently no Mohammeds Mohammedans or Ayatollahs.

Those fearless wags and Crikey apparently know the unwritten law about what’s a a safe bet for their necks to remain in communication with their heads.

By: Michael Butler

Michael Butler — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:31:09 +0000

Last time I checked, being offensive wasn’t against the law.

By: meski

meski — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:10:56 +0000

So this is going to devolve into an animal ethics argument? It’ll go the same place all such arguments go, you know.

By: Orin Thomas

Orin Thomas — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:47:37 +0000

I don’t know how the author could reasonably argue that dressing up a child as an animal that is routinely boiled alive is a bit of harmless fun.

By: vovo

vovo — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:02:16 +0000

Mel Campbell gets the “Sanctimonious Aussie Award of the Month” for October!

Calm down, Digger!

Take a deep breath, Skip!

By: Amber Jamieson

Amber Jamieson — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:37:57 +0000

While I do think some of these costumes are a tad offensive (hello Anna Rexia!), I find several completely hilarious. The best costumes are ones that balance the line between funny and wrong.
And flouting social taboos should happen every now and then. Particularly if it involves tampon costumes or aliens coming out of babies.

By: meski

meski — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:46:25 +0000

… And the Yanks complained about Hey Hey’s skit? Pot calling the kettle #000000

By: mtats

mtats — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:59:15 +0000

Sorry, so i’m NOT supposed to be laughing at these? Because some of these are pretty hilarious.