Meanwhile, think of the token black characters on The Simpsons: Carl, Homer’s co-worker. Can you think of anything to say about him? No. He has no personality. He’s just there. Because they couldn’t do anything with The Black Guy, because you can’t do black stereotypes in a white show.

Is it true that Carl has no personality? Or merely that he has the personality we expect of your archtypical white middle-class, reasonably-educated male?

People are offended by the Superbowl ad depicting the animated Indian character. Fine. Tell me this: Which Superbowl ad provided a better depiction of an Indian character?

So which do you prefer: imperfect depictions of diversity, or no depictions? Because as far as I can tell from the complaints, people favor the latter.

But that’s a false dichotomy, right? We can have depictions of diversity WITHOUT stereotypes – like the Cosby show! No offensive stereotypes in that show. Indeed, if you just listen to the dialogue, there’s nothing to indicate the characters’ race at all.

Except people criticized the Cosby show for this very dynamic. Rather than being something groundbreaking, it was just another tired family sit-com but with black faces substituted for white ones. It was the perfect show about diversity, in a zen sort of way: perfection as nothingness, invisibility.

What do you make of the Legally Blonde movies? The lead character represents the archtypical Barbie, with the exception that she’s a world-class lawyer. Do these movies perpetuate stereotype by putting the Barbie character in the media again? Or do they undermine stereotype by depicting the Barbie character kicking ass? The shows emphasize that a woman can be a successful lawyer without pretending to be genderless (where the norms of men are the standard of genderlessness). To the contrary, the lead character if stereotypical female, but that’s not depicted as a good thing or a bad thing; it’s just a thing.

Yeah, ok, it’s also a male fantasy. So is Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Is that bad? And it’s also a female fantasy, at least judging by my 8-yr-old. If I can broaden her fantasies beyond princesses and rock stars, that seems like a good fantasy to me.

Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Pick any two roles on The Simpsons and swap their personalities/mannerisms without swapping their roles, and the character no longer works.

Every character is an insulting stereotype. The only reason you notice Apu is because you’re attuned to the racial ones.

Meanwhile, think of the token black characters on The Simpsons: Carl, Homer’s co-worker. Can you think of anything to say about him? No. He has no personality. He’s just there. Because they couldn’t do anything with The Black Guy, because you can’t do black stereotypes in a white show. Dr. Hibbert is a little better with his inappropriate laughter schtick (he always reminds me of a painfully jovial funeral director I once met).

Either way, I’m quite happy to say that I have no idea what the panda thing was an ad for.

Also, there is something disturbing in the fact that they thought it was ok to stereotype Asians in this commercial because I would doubt that they would do that for African Americans and Jewish people.

Of course not. These marketing guys, B-level comedians, and shock jocks push the boundaries and rebel - in all the ways their multimillion dollar corporate sponsor daddies give them permission to. It just turns out some forms of racism are no longer profitable while others are.