Cartoon character cancelled

Discussions about Movies & TV shows not "Super" related.
Locked
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1769
Joined: 10 years ago

User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

It's pathetic. It's a fucking skunk. Reading the articles you have statements like " he promotes rape culture because he forces himself on the woman." No he doesn't because it's a fucking CAT not a woman.
Cartoon characters are not aspirational role models they are caricatures for children's amusement. They use stereotypes because that's a visual frame of reference for a child like having a Dutch person represented as wearing national dress, clogs, and living in a windmill surrounded by tulips. If you take all that away and just have them dressed as a normal person in jeans and say they were from the town of Lieden that's not gonna mean a damn thing to an 8 year old. But clogs are wierd shaped shoes, windmills are a cool place to live and tulips are pretty colours. The national dress makes them interesting to look at as you wonder why they are dressed like that.
As I grew older guess what? I learned Dutch people don't wear clogs and Skunks can't talk.
The stereotypes serve a purpose of accepting people's differences.
How many men saw Pepe Le Pew cartoons as a kid against how many men use his chat up technique?
This world has gone to shit.
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
User avatar
dlo005
Elder Member
Elder Member
Posts: 498
Joined: 12 years ago

Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago
Not one of WB greats but still

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/p ... el-culture
peta will be happy with this, also the world wide skunk population.
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest Simon & Garfunkel
User avatar
dlo005
Elder Member
Elder Member
Posts: 498
Joined: 12 years ago

tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
It's pathetic. It's a fucking skunk. Reading the articles you have statements like " he promotes rape culture because he forces himself on the woman." No he doesn't because it's a fucking CAT not a woman.
Cartoon characters are not aspirational role models they are caricatures for children's amusement. They use stereotypes because that's a visual frame of reference for a child like having a Dutch person represented as wearing national dress, clogs, and living in a windmill surrounded by tulips. If you take all that away and just have them dressed as a normal person in jeans and say they were from the town of Lieden that's not gonna mean a damn thing to an 8 year old. But clogs are wierd shaped shoes, windmills are a cool place to live and tulips are pretty colours. The national dress makes them interesting to look at as you wonder why they are dressed like that.
As I grew older guess what? I learned Dutch people don't wear clogs and Skunks can't talk.
The stereotypes serve a purpose of accepting people's differences.
How many men saw Pepe Le Pew cartoons as a kid against how many men use his chat up technique?
This world has gone to shit.
i agree tally, im a white male of european descent, its like i should feel demeaned by homer simpson or dad on the family guy. geeez
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest Simon & Garfunkel
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

The speedy gonzales thing got me riled about stereotypes. It's the way the world needs to work for children.
Irish men are all leprechauns with a crock of gold, wearing green and a ginger beard, Aussies have corks in their hats and a kangaroo it's how kids start to differentiate countries. When we grow up we realise that they aren't like that. Both nationalities are just pissed in bars but you can't show kids that :giggle:
:laugh: :D :whistle: ;)
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
User avatar
dlo005
Elder Member
Elder Member
Posts: 498
Joined: 12 years ago

tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
The speedy gonzales thing got me riled about stereotypes. It's the way the world needs to work for children.
Irish men are all leprechauns with a crock of gold, wearing green and a ginger beard, Aussies have corks in their hats and a kangaroo it's how kids start to differentiate countries. When we grow up we realise that they aren't like that. Both nationalities are just pissed in bars but you can't show kids that :giggle:
:laugh: :D :whistle: ;)
a-m-e-n!
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest Simon & Garfunkel
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
It's pathetic. It's a fucking skunk. Reading the articles you have statements like " he promotes rape culture because he forces himself on the woman." No he doesn't because it's a fucking CAT not a woman.
Cartoon characters are not aspirational role models they are caricatures for children's amusement. They use stereotypes because that's a visual frame of reference for a child like having a Dutch person represented as wearing national dress, clogs, and living in a windmill surrounded by tulips. If you take all that away and just have them dressed as a normal person in jeans and say they were from the town of Lieden that's not gonna mean a damn thing to an 8 year old. But clogs are wierd shaped shoes, windmills are a cool place to live and tulips are pretty colours. The national dress makes them interesting to look at as you wonder why they are dressed like that.
As I grew older guess what? I learned Dutch people don't wear clogs and Skunks can't talk.
The stereotypes serve a purpose of accepting people's differences.
How many men saw Pepe Le Pew cartoons as a kid against how many men use his chat up technique?
This world has gone to shit.
So, was it cancel culture when Ford canceled the Pinto? They could fix the whole exploding gas tank thing, but they thought it better to just retire the line. Companies are free to manage their brand and image as they see fit. The very rape-y skunk was not part of a image that Warner brothers wanted associated with their brand. The same way The Seuss publishers decided thick lipped black people in grass skirts were not what they wanted to be associated with the other very lucrative titles they have been selling in the last seventy years.

If you hadn’t read the article, would have even noticed Pepé was not in SpaceJam 2? Probably not. The one scene with Greice Santo was decide to be left on the cutting room floor. Was it because it didn’t work having a cartoon animal groping a human woman didn’t work or because they needed to trim it for time?

How much have you complained about the lack of alcohol, drug use or smoking in children’s cartoons? They haven’t allowed any of that for DECADES. Should Hamburgler/ Mayor McCheese be brought back by McDonald’s? Or do they have a right to update their image based on the marketing data they paid for and the corporate image they want to project?
Image
User avatar
DrDominator9
Emissary
Emissary
Posts: 2454
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: On the Border of the Neutral Zone

While I agree with valid points made by both Tallyho and Sneakly, I think what's corrosive about some cancel culture bonfires I've noticed lately is that the seriousness of people's anger at real items of concern such as sexual harassment in the workplace get mitigated. They get diluted by forays into ridiculousness against a skunk cartoon. It minimizes the real fight women have in that area and ends up causing people to feel overwhelmed and to throw up their hands in disgust and ignore important issues altogether.
Follow this link to descriptions of my stories and easy links to them:

viewtopic.php?f=70&t=32025
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1769
Joined: 10 years ago

sneakly wrote:
3 years ago
tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
It's pathetic. It's a fucking skunk. Reading the articles you have statements like " he promotes rape culture because he forces himself on the woman." No he doesn't because it's a fucking CAT not a woman.
Cartoon characters are not aspirational role models they are caricatures for children's amusement. They use stereotypes because that's a visual frame of reference for a child like having a Dutch person represented as wearing national dress, clogs, and living in a windmill surrounded by tulips. If you take all that away and just have them dressed as a normal person in jeans and say they were from the town of Lieden that's not gonna mean a damn thing to an 8 year old. But clogs are wierd shaped shoes, windmills are a cool place to live and tulips are pretty colours. The national dress makes them interesting to look at as you wonder why they are dressed like that.
As I grew older guess what? I learned Dutch people don't wear clogs and Skunks can't talk.
The stereotypes serve a purpose of accepting people's differences.
How many men saw Pepe Le Pew cartoons as a kid against how many men use his chat up technique?
This world has gone to shit.
So, was it cancel culture when Ford canceled the Pinto? They could fix the whole exploding gas tank thing, but they thought it better to just retire the line. Companies are free to manage their brand and image as they see fit. The very rape-y skunk was not part of a image that Warner brothers wanted associated with their brand. The same way The Seuss publishers decided thick lipped black people in grass skirts were not what they wanted to be associated with the other very lucrative titles they have been selling in the last seventy years.

If you hadn’t read the article, would have even noticed Pepé was not in SpaceJam 2? Probably not. The one scene with Greice Santo was decide to be left on the cutting room floor. Was it because it didn’t work having a cartoon animal groping a human woman didn’t work or because they needed to trim it for time?
-----------------
Yes they are free to do it. But they are being bullied by Woke fascists ( and yes that is what they are) Getting back to the Carano example, the majority of fans did not want her fired. You are not allowed to have a non Woke opinion to these intolerants
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

Sneakily you missed the point. Companies can do what they please. It's the article and its reasoning that has annoyed me not dropping Pepe parrticulatly. And then Speedy Gonzales being labelled as bad stereotyping. The stereotupes serve a purpose for the young.
There are lots of reasons to drop Pepe like its one joke repeated ad infinitum.
BUT get rid of him because he's not funny not because of some non existent perception that it incites rape.
The NY Times bullshit article is what I'm annoyed at not getting rid of him. It's the worst kind of pseudo- intellectuallism. And that way lies madness as its endless.
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
The speedy gonzales thing got me riled about stereotypes. It's the way the world needs to work for children.
Irish men are all leprechauns with a crock of gold, wearing green and a ginger beard, Aussies have corks in their hats and a kangaroo it's how kids start to differentiate countries. When we grow up we realise that they aren't like that. Both nationalities are just pissed in bars but you can't show kids that :giggle:
:laugh: :D :whistle: ;)
How is the perception of a white cartoonist from Kansas in the 1950s of Mexicans relevant to the Mexican culture of the 2020s?
Image
User avatar
lionbadger
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 786
Joined: 12 years ago

tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
It's pathetic. It's a fucking skunk. Reading the articles you have statements like " he promotes rape culture because he forces himself on the woman." No he doesn't because it's a fucking CAT not a woman.
dial it back Tally you're being played, cancel culture and culture war indeed, gimme a break. You might as well write "No News oh, other than some people arguing a bit about shit nobody really cares about".

Pepe le Pew was always a shit character and all the article says is "wah wah wah, blue fragile yanks are sad because red fragile yanks think the wrong thing this week". As far as I can see WB has just said they don't plan to have this z list character in their next loony tunes movie (and tbf, space jam was pretty awful).
User avatar
MightyHypnotic
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3103
Joined: 20 years ago
Contact:

I understand the gist of this thread is more about the Times article than the cancel itself but my memory of this cartoon as a kid was, it wasn't very interesting.
However, the only impression it made on me was how delusional Pepe Le Pew was in thinking that the female cat was into him. That was the "humor" of this segment and I agree, it was basically the same joke played over and over, usually in the same scene so it got very redundant.
But the thing it taught me, if anything, was, "don't be that guy". (skunk).
So, you could also say the character shows children how NOT to behave, because it is a bit cringey that Pepe doesn't get it.

But this article and decision reeks a bit of grandstanding.
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Why the general outrage about cancel culture? Because Fox News doesn’t want cover more important issues. It much more difficult to drum up anger about stimulus money and the economic stimulus package or right wing extremists that are awaiting trial for insurrection. Complex economic issues do not lend themselves well to sound bite commentary. The war on Christmas is easy to create anger about rather than $1,400 going to families or the extra $300 in unemployment benefits. Hannity and Carlson have no interest in kitchen table economics, so they promote culture wars that don’t really exist. Debating Pepe le Pew is much easier than Universal healthcare insurance, no facts required. That a half million people are dead and hospitals are hemorrhaging money for the last year is completely irrelevant to Dr Seuss.
Image
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
Sneakily you missed the point. Companies can do what they please. It's the article and its reasoning that has annoyed me not dropping Pepe parrticulatly. And then Speedy Gonzales being labelled as bad stereotyping. The stereotupes serve a purpose for the young.
There are lots of reasons to drop Pepe like its one joke repeated ad infinitum.
BUT get rid of him because he's not funny not because of some non existent perception that it incites rape.
The NY Times bullshit article is what I'm annoyed at not getting rid of him. It's the worst kind of pseudo- intellectuallism. And that way lies madness as its endless.
Image
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

sneakly wrote:
3 years ago
tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
Sneakily you missed the point. Companies can do what they please. It's the article and its reasoning that has annoyed me not dropping Pepe parrticulatly. And then Speedy Gonzales being labelled as bad stereotyping. The stereotupes serve a purpose for the young.
There are lots of reasons to drop Pepe like its one joke repeated ad infinitum.
BUT get rid of him because he's not funny not because of some non existent perception that it incites rape.
The NY Times bullshit article is what I'm annoyed at not getting rid of him. It's the worst kind of pseudo- intellectuallism. And that way lies madness as its endless.
So, somebody, not in the decision chain, make a comment about their opinion and it becomes cancel culture? Wasn’t that Rush Limbaugh’ entire business model? Rush spent decades trying to defund Planned Parenthood, despite it not using public money for abortion and PBS and NPR. That wasn’t the same?
Image
Imagineer
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 614
Joined: 12 years ago

I can't believe that Warner Bros has a character tailor made to illustrate the problems of sexual harassment, and when asked they said they don't have plans to insert that discussion into their all-ages storytelling.

But I'm not surprised that Fox News is continuing its leadership role in framing the discussion.
helstar
Elder Member
Elder Member
Posts: 378
Joined: 15 years ago

I only remember one sketch with this character, and if i am not wrong he was going after the cat because some white paint ended up at the top of said cat which made her look like a female skunk.
After many attempted tries to seduce her, at the end the white paint was gone, so he did not recognize her as a skunk anymore, and even asked the cat if he had seen her around ! He wasn't interested in the cat anymore... clearly would have never been interested if he knew she was a cat, in the first place. But at the very end it was the cat that suddenly was into him, so he ran away !
I thought it was ... kind of confusing, but funny in general for a little child like me (at the time) ?

Anyway, this is beyond retarded, The Simpsons, Family Guy and a thousands of other cartoons have showed similar situations and stereotypes about everybody (the italian ones are the most funny, and I am italian !), but oh well... lots of people are fucked up in their minds, more than ever lately.
Last edited by helstar 3 years ago, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Heroine Addict
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 13 years ago

sneakly wrote:
3 years ago
Why the general outrage about cancel culture? Because Fox News doesn’t want cover more important issues. It much more difficult to drum up anger about stimulus money and the economic stimulus package or right wing extremists that are awaiting trial for insurrection. Complex economic issues do not lend themselves well to sound bite commentary. The war on Christmas is easy to create anger about rather than $1,400 going to families or the extra $300 in unemployment benefits. Hannity and Carlson have no interest in kitchen table economics, so they promote culture wars that don’t really exist. Debating Pepe le Pew is much easier than Universal healthcare insurance, no facts required. That a half million people are dead and hospitals are hemorrhaging money for the last year is completely irrelevant to Dr Seuss.
Well said. We seem to be getting loads of this "Cancel Culture" hysteria recently.

It was apparently "Cancel Culture" that caused dated stereotypes to be flagged with disclaimers on old Disney movies and episodes of The Muppet Show. Even though the material was left uncut.

It was apparently "Cancel Culture" that caused the Mr Potato Head line of toys to be rebranded as Potatoheads. The fact that Mr. and Mrs Potatohead are still available as part of the Potatoheads toy line and clearly labeled as Mr. and Mrs Potatohead on the boxes was largely ignored in favor of moral panic over the rebranded line being a conspiracy to teach toddlers about gender fluidity. Or something.

It was apparently "Cancel Culture" that caused the publishers of Dr Seuss's work to withdraw six books containing images of ape-like Africans and slant-eyed Chinamen. Never mind the fact that this was clearly a commercial decision taken voluntarily to protect the reputation of the Dr Seuss brand.

Now we have one of Warner's shittest characters not being included in a forthcoming ensemble movie. This is apparently "Cancel Culture" too. With all the serious shit that's going on at the moment, it's pretty vile that the likes of Fox News want to keep the proles distracted with so much culture wars bullshit.

It's always a homogeneous "They" that's coming for your old favorites. As if these decisions are made entirely by a far-left star chamber, rather than by executives who want to protect the reputations of lucrative brands.

The non-existent "War on Christmas" is going to be epic this year.
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

I'm not sure you can class PLP as an 'old favourite' as in my 52 years on this planet I have yet to meet anyone who actually liked him. :giggle:
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
User avatar
Heroine Addict
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 13 years ago

tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
I'm not sure you can class PLP as an 'old favourite' as in my 52 years on this planet I have yet to meet anyone who actually liked him. :giggle:
My memory of PLP was as a tedious time-filler on Tiswas while Sally James was busy smoking a joint with the Phantom Flan-Flinger.
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
User avatar
drh1966
Sargeant
Sargeant
Posts: 134
Joined: 18 years ago

Somehow I don't think this is necessarily the right group of people to be discussing the Pepe Le Pew story considering...
"There's no feeling quite as exciting as that of having a helpless superheroine in your arms"
Visitor
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 926
Joined: 14 years ago

tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
The speedy gonzales thing got me riled about stereotypes. It's the way the world needs to work for children.
Irish men are all leprechauns with a crock of gold, wearing green and a ginger beard, Aussies have corks in their hats and a kangaroo it's how kids start to differentiate countries. When we grow up we realise that they aren't like that. Both nationalities are just pissed in bars but you can't show kids that :giggle:
:laugh: :D :whistle: ;)
Speedy Gonzales was Cancelled after a few episodes by WB to eliminate the stereotype. Mexicans demanded the return because Speedy was the only Mexican cartoon character at the time and they like him. There was even an episode where Speedy repeatedly crossed the border to get food from the US side and defeat the character guarding the border showing Mexican.superiority.

You have companies missing the point, The scene as written showed how to deal with unwanted and repeated harassment. Sure you couldn't do it to a human, but it fit in the context.

While almost all the Pepe le Phew cartoons had the same gag, there were a few where at the end he was fleeing from an amorous cat now chasing him. There was one in New Orleans where the cat wanted him to avoid being left unmarried which was its own bad stereotype.
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3743
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

DrDominator9 wrote:
3 years ago
While I agree with valid points made by both Tallyho and Sneakly, I think what's corrosive about some cancel culture bonfires I've noticed lately is that the seriousness of people's anger at real items of concern such as sexual harassment in the workplace get mitigated. They get diluted by forays into ridiculousness against a skunk cartoon. It minimizes the real fight women have in that area and ends up causing people to feel overwhelmed and to throw up their hands in disgust and ignore important issues altogether.
Oh, it's a lot more 'diluted' than that. Let's take it a step further and say that vastly expanding the definition of what 'harrassment' even is (at this point, many activists simply consider it to be saying anything bad about their cause on the Internet) minimizes the real fight against domestic violence, slavery, sex trafficking, child labor, and straight-up concentration camps and genocide.

This past week, I've seen musicians in the indie/hipster scene go apoplectic trying to 'cancel' Grimes for having the audacity to be married to a successful libertarian-leaning young billionaire who's been launching rockets into space. This is just going to go on and on certainly as long as the cancellers feel emboldened by all of their cultural and political successes.

And Heroine Addict: there is a small but vocal minority of far-left activists pushing all of these changes through (sometimes it takes years of lobbying, like the case of Dr Seuss, and sometimes it happens almost overnight). So, in a way, it definitely is a "Star Chamber" but a wider one than just a few people in a room. There have been two generations raised on intersectionalism at the university level, and thus there are now thousands of people willing to go bat for that ideology in both the public and private sectors, even though the vast majority of other people in the world simply do not care. The reason why 'executives' are making all these changes is either because they were inculcated by this ideology in college, or because they are bombarded by the vocal minority which is pushing all of these changes. They know how much bad publicity can be generated by a few loudmouths and they are mitigating against it. And yes, right-wing/Christian fundamentalist activists did the same thing for quite a long time, but their previous domination in this area of 'cancelling' has been eclipsed in the past several years by the left. The roles have flipped: the left used to defend 'free speech' (ACLU) and now it is the right. The right used to 'cancel' (Moral Majority) and now it is the left.

Except outside of the West, of course, where the paradigms for cancellation are different, and much more vehement and draconian in places like Iran and Myanmar.
Last edited by shevek 3 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
Imagineer
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 614
Joined: 12 years ago

A supervillain happens to catch his arch enemy heroine in a rare moment of vulnerability, a little tipsy outside a nightclub. He chloroforms her and steals her away to his lair. After hours of slowly escalating kinky torture, he makes sure he's still recording and peels off her mask, only to find it's not the heroine at all but a cosplaying superfan. He loses interest, but she's really into it.
Damselbinder

Yeah, I think this sort of spins back on itself, doesn't it? There now seems to be from the anti-cancel crowd a demand that entertainment corporations MUST keep certain characters in circulation. They decided Pepé's not marketable. They'd retire Daffy if he stopped being marketable too. You don't have to be cowering in fear of an imaginary twitter storm to think:
"Hey Chad, do we want to bring back the pervy skunk?"
"Does our market data suggest people respond positively to him?"
"No"
"Then no"
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

sneakly wrote:
3 years ago
despite it not using public money for abortion
Google "fungible" especially as its used in accounting.
User avatar
sugarcoater
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1189
Joined: 15 years ago

I have to take issue for anyone who thinks cancel culture is not a very real thing. It is. And it continues to expand. I have no problem with Pepe LePew being retired by the company, just as I would have no issue of Dr. Seuss' library was cut back for reasons due to a lack of interest and popularity. But I do have an issue when products and people are cancelled at the whim of a capricious online mob.
A reasonable conversation based on data leading to the reduction or removal of a product makes sense. The pandering to an angry mob with only anecdotes and feelings to support a movement is dangerous.

On a slightly connected note, it's interesting to hear the podcasts talking about the changes in media. One interesting point made was how the media has changed from information-based outlets to opinion-based outlets. As money is no longer made in the traditional ways, newspapers have relied on opinionated news pandering to the views of their audience. Consequently, most people receive a biased perspective of the situation, as well as pre-selected topics of information while other topics are ignored.
There is also the tendency for news outlets to make those who share their views feel more intelligent while presenting the opposing side as bumbling morons. This is great for ratings--who wouldn't want their confirmation bias that liberals/conservatives are morons while being praised for being part of the intelligent group's camp? Unbiased and fair news just won't sell when most humans are guilty of confirmation bias. I know I have been, and I know I will be if I don't make an effort to be intellectually honest. And even then, I have a limited amount of time to consume news so I may not take interest in a topic that deserves my attention. This is why it is great to have discussions such as this one here where we can exchange ideas and perspectives.

I just bring up the point about the media because in the US, most media (along with tech, sports and entertainment) leans left. As cancel culture comes from the left in 2021, the left-leaning media--along with most celebrities--have no incentive to be critical of such movements. Thankfully, some are still willing to be critical nonetheless.

For a few interesting articles on the topic:

https://abigailshrier.substack.com/p/bo ... -of-amazon

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... rc404=true

https://www.skeptic.com/research-center ... ES-007.pdf
Ignore any virtue-signaling; it's clearly just you.

Ignore any activism; it clearly doesn't exist.

Be very careful!
Don't be indoctrinated!
Ignore your common sense!

Everything is entirely normal and ignore the radical changes to culture.
User avatar
sugarcoater
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1189
Joined: 15 years ago

shevek wrote:
3 years ago
[ There have been two generations raised on intersectionalism at the university level, and thus there are now thousands of people willing to go bat for that ideology in both the public and private sectors, even though the vast majority of other people in the world simply do not care.
You make some good points Shevek. And what happens after a few more years of graduating an ever-growing number of people with this mindset?

As I see it, most every sane person wants the same outcome. We just differ in our ideas as to how to get there in the best way possible.

As I've mentioned before, it seems we are currently judging ourselves those who share our views by the best of our intentions and those with differing philosophies and views by the worst of their actions.
Ignore any virtue-signaling; it's clearly just you.

Ignore any activism; it clearly doesn't exist.

Be very careful!
Don't be indoctrinated!
Ignore your common sense!

Everything is entirely normal and ignore the radical changes to culture.
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

By all means let the church ladies - OOPS! I MEANT CANCEL CULTURE CROWD - (gee what's really the difference) cancel stuff. They will shoot themselves in the face anyway.
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

A cartoon character has been cancelled! This is very serious. The cartoon character must be devastated. Hope he or she can do other roles. Perhaps an action movie with a company who's never produced an action movie before.
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
User avatar
Femina
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1473
Joined: 14 years ago
Contact:

THIS JUST IN! RAPEY SKUNK WHO NOBODY THOUGHT ABOUT IN FIFTEEN YEARS HAS BEEN CANCELLED! EVACUATE THE PLANET BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!

The irony is, those freaking out that a rapey skunk has been cancelled are just as guilty of freaking out as anybody who freaked out about a rapey skunk insidiously permeating the subconsious minds of youth all over the globe seeding in them unconscious gender expectations and behaviors...

The only difference is, one of those two groups are lamenting the loss of the opportunity for their children to observe a rapey skunk unsupervised during their Saturday morning cartoon binge.
Last edited by Femina 3 years ago, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

theScribbler wrote:
3 years ago
A cartoon character has been cancelled! This is very serious. The cartoon character must be devastated. Hope he or she can do other roles. Perhaps an action movie with a company who's never produced an action movie before.
He might have to go to the cartoon character crisis center and get counceling. :giggle:
User avatar
Heroine Addict
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 13 years ago

A skunk getting rapey with a cat? A frog married to a pig? A human telephonist who is sexually attracted to a dog when he fights crime in a robe but is turned off by the exact same dog when he works as a janitor?* What's with all the weird interspecies shit in old media?

*Strange that would-be dog-fucker Rosemary is so picky about dog-fucking that she prefers a dog with questionable kung fu skills over the exact same dog with mopping skills.
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

To me, a key part of this cancel culture BS is the social media aspect of it. Pre social media era, when folks did not like something, they bitched to their friends and relatives. Nowadays with the social media echo chamber, everybody gets their 15 minutes, a megaphone to air their grievances and voice their outrage. The thing is though is that cancel culture is built on a veritable house of mirrors, it's a mirage. Cancel culture folks have succeeded to a large degree in convincing folks that their narrowly defined but well organized ideological and cultural PC cabal represents a vast majority of what most folks are in favor of and support. I think what some folks forget sometimes is that social media dominance does not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of the world in general, that the emperor has no clothes, those cancel culture folks are a vocal but tiny minority. Social media is not the world at large, it is a place where those who feel the most passionately are the ones most motivated to post their thoughts and feelings online. Most of my liberal family and friends think this cancel culture nonsense is ridiculous, something they either dismiss or ignore, just silly, meaningless, social media noise.
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

https://www.the-sun.com/news/2479490/di ... ristocats/
Does this count as cancelling or is this some "nobody wants Peter Pan anymore" situation?
Bert

As a kid, the only message I ever took from Pepe Le Pew was that Frenchmen were obsessively romantic. I have no idea what y'all are arguing about.
User avatar
RedMountain
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 582
Joined: 18 years ago

You would think at this point we'd let parents decide to teach their kids right from wrong instead of pretending they grow up with values learned from an animated skunk.

I also have to laugh at these companies every time they cancel or remove something to be politically correct or because they are so for human rights, anti-racism, etc. but then they run over to China to take all the money they can from a government that essentially hates everyone.
User avatar
dlo005
Elder Member
Elder Member
Posts: 498
Joined: 12 years ago

RedMountain wrote:
3 years ago
You would think at this point we'd let parents decide to teach their kids right from wrong instead of pretending they grow up with values learned from an animated skunk.

I also have to laugh at these companies every time they cancel or remove something to be politically correct or because they are so for human rights, anti-racism, etc. but then they run over to China to take all the money they can from a government that essentially hates everyone.
how very true!!
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest Simon & Garfunkel
User avatar
Heroine Addict
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 13 years ago

Mr. X wrote:
3 years ago
https://www.the-sun.com/news/2479490/di ... ristocats/
Does this count as cancelling or is this some "nobody wants Peter Pan anymore" situation?
I can't see how it's canceling when the content is still available on the platform. If anything, Disney's handling of Peter Pan, The Aristocats and Dumbo is the perfect way to present archive content that reflects the values and attitudes of its time. All that Disney has done is prevent logged-in child users from navigating straight to those films.

Parents can still use their own log-in to show those films to their kids. Which is fine. Something made for kids many decades ago will not necessarily be the sort of thing that every parent would want their own kids to see. So the decision whether to "cancel" access to those films is now in the hands of the parents. Which is where it should be.

The same could potentially happen to any PLP cartoon depicting him trying to fuck a black cat who has accidentally had a white stripe painted on her back. (Which is pretty much all of them.) I really can't see any problem in handing the decision over to parents.

The publishers of Dr Seuss's work can learn from this too. Just reissue the books as special facsimile editions of old material for adult collectors. Get someone to write a Foreward explaining the cultural context of the stereotypes. Then leave it up to parents to decide who gets to read them and when.
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

I think one of the problems with, say, the Dr Seuss characters is white people saying “oh my god, how can they cancel a classic book.” The question, and the reason they dropped the books, is what happens when a black child sees this
Image
and wonders, is this how people see me? White people tend to forget, the books were written with a 1940s -50s lens. They were written for white children. How asian, black or Middle Eastern children look at them didn’t even cross people’s mind. If you are a black parent, would you want this book in the school library?

White folk, that get upset about Christmas coffee cups not being christmassy enough are the same one complaining about the publishers deciding to not sell books with offensive racial imagery.

The Nancy Drew books also were sanitized years ago. You don’t hear anyone complaining that the integrity of of those books were lost.
Image
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

sneakly wrote:
3 years ago
I think one of the problems with, say, the Dr Seuss characters is white people saying “oh my god, how can they cancel a classic book.” The question, and the reason they dropped the books, is what happens when a black child sees this
Yet you're also putting whites into a generalized bucket. Have any "black kids" complained? Is every piece of literature that ever denotes anybody of any race going to be removed? BTW Mein Kampf is available on Amazon. Also as far as images, Cardi B's video wins some award... how would little girls view her video.

Suess's books have been out for decades. Nobody's head exploded. Suess was a classic progressive. He wrote stories specifically to address the issues of racism and hate.

BTW for a good perspective on this there was an interview with Ray Bradbury about why he wrote Fahrenheit 451. It was not about gov censorship. It was about society fracturing into smaller and smaller groups each of which would get offended by something. The result is NOTHING could be published. He used Huck Finn as an example. Rip out the pages that offend blacks, then rip out the pages that offend women etc etc and all you have is a cover.

And nearly all the people wanting this book cancelled are whites of a particular political alignment. Maybe we need to shine some disinfecting sunlight on that group of whites and really look into what's wrong with them.
The Nancy Drew books also were sanitized years ago. You don’t hear anyone complaining that the integrity of of those books were lost.
Oh if only you could see how "creepy" that is. "sanitized "? :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: Maybe they didn't react cause nobody knew or that it was done at the start of all this hyperbole nonsense and so people kind of ignored it.

Added:
Liberalism is about expansion of liberty - NOT BOOK BURNING.
Damselbinder

I have to say, the historical revisionism of going back and scrubbing old books doesn't sit right with me. If a publisher wants to pull a book from the shelf I say that's their right, but to sort of pretend that the troublesome whatever-it-is doesn't exist and never existed is fuckus.

I think on one of the recent DVD anthology of old Looney Tunes shorts, they just had an intro saying "Heyo, some of the stuff you're gonna see here contains racial caricatures and such. It was never okay, but people at the time were much less inclined to question this sort of thing. We didn't want to remove them, because that struck us as dishonest - making it seem like our company has been more awake to this sort of thing than it really has - but, hey, you know. Heads up." That seemed a good solution to me.
Visitor
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 926
Joined: 14 years ago

Watching the Platinum edition of Warner Brothers Looney Tunes cartoon shorts and buried in the commentary was these bits were removed for current television viewing because they contained excessive violence. All the World War II shorts that are racist because of their depiction of the Japanese. Then there is the one where they hired a stripper to model for a few second bit with a snake woman shedding her skin.

What was acceptable then is no longer true.
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Mr. X wrote:
3 years ago
sneakly wrote:
3 years ago
I think one of the problems with, say, the Dr Seuss characters is white people saying “oh my god, how can they cancel a classic book.” The question, and the reason they dropped the books, is what happens when a black child sees this
Yet you're also putting whites into a generalized bucket. Have any "black kids" complained? Is every piece of literature that ever denotes anybody of any race going to be removed? BTW Mein Kampf is available on Amazon. Also as far as images, Cardi B's video wins some award... how would little girls view her video.

Suess's books have been out for decades. Nobody's head exploded. Suess was a classic progressive. He wrote stories specifically to address the issues of racism and hate.

BTW for a good perspective on this there was an interview with Ray Bradbury about why he wrote Fahrenheit 451. It was not about gov censorship. It was about society fracturing into smaller and smaller groups each of which would get offended by something. The result is NOTHING could be published. He used Huck Finn as an example. Rip out the pages that offend blacks, then rip out the pages that offend women etc etc and all you have is a cover.

And nearly all the people wanting this book cancelled are whites of a particular political alignment. Maybe we need to shine some disinfecting sunlight on that group of whites and really look into what's wrong with them.
The Nancy Drew books also were sanitized years ago. You don’t hear anyone complaining that the integrity of of those books were lost.
Oh if only you could see how "creepy" that is. "sanitized "? :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: Maybe they didn't react cause nobody knew or that it was done at the start of all this hyperbole nonsense and so people kind of ignored it.

Added:
Liberalism is about expansion of liberty - NOT BOOK BURNING.
Really, what you are saying is my head didn’t explode, so nobody was offended. Have you actually checked with any black parents, or African American educators? I never thought twice about “If I ran the Zoo” as a kid. Reading it to my own children, I saw those images, but they weren’t of me. I saw little Mario, he was the character I was supposed to empathize with. Not the black man porting the birds or the China man who eats with sticks.

The first Nancy Drew books were written in 1930, under contract. The publisher completely owns the rights to the books and can do as they wish. In 1930, the Klan would hold rallies with thousands in attendance and public lynchings were advertised in the newspapers. The idea that a book would be written that would be inclusive to all children was decades away. In the name of purity, all the racism and sexism should have been intact? Twain wrote about racism, that was the integral part of the story and it was never edited without his consent. Plenty of authors have to fight for the integrity of their work. These two examples were both done by the owners. Dr Seuss estate decided to stop publishing the works in their entirety, rather than edit them.

Nancy Drew was edited to keep the character relevant and current. If you bought a house with a 1957 kitchen, would you modernize it or restore it to keep the integrity of the original intent of the architect and builder, or would you modernize it?

https://electricliterature.com/the-not- ... ancy-drew/
Image
User avatar
Heroine Addict
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 13 years ago

Damselbinder wrote:
3 years ago
I have to say, the historical revisionism of going back and scrubbing old books doesn't sit right with me. If a publisher wants to pull a book from the shelf I say that's their right, but to sort of pretend that the troublesome whatever-it-is doesn't exist and never existed is fuckus.

I think on one of the recent DVD anthology of old Looney Tunes shorts, they just had an intro saying "Heyo, some of the stuff you're gonna see here contains racial caricatures and such. It was never okay, but people at the time were much less inclined to question this sort of thing. We didn't want to remove them, because that struck us as dishonest - making it seem like our company has been more awake to this sort of thing than it really has - but, hey, you know. Heads up." That seemed a good solution to me.
I too have a real problem with revisionism and censorship. However, a lot comes down to the target audience of the material. If old texts are presented as works of cultural/historical interest and marketed to adults, then there's no excuse for censorship. If, however, a text originally made for little kids in the 20th Century is being marketed directly to today's little kids, then it's pretty fair to question whether it's a good idea to expect a five-year-old to fully grasp the historical context of depictions of ape-like Africans, shifty Japs and other stereotypes.

By all means, allow parents to decide when their kids are mature enough to understand the material. It's just not reasonable to expect an explicitly Jim Crow-era text such as Dumbo to be presented to its original intended juvenile audience without a bit of context.
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

sneakly wrote:
3 years ago
Really, what you are saying is my head didn’t explode, so nobody was offended.
Define "offense" in an objective manner? You cannot. ANYTHING can offend ANYONE. There is no measure here. There is no "right to not be offended". This censorship offends me... are you going to cater to me?

Nancy Drew was edited to keep the character relevant and current. If you bought a house with a 1957 kitchen, would you modernize it or restore it to keep the integrity of the original intent of the architect and builder, or would you modernize it?
Then your argument is very misleading because you stated they were "sanitized". That is a bit different than modernizing them. C'mon, that's a little misleading. Also a book NOT including children of other races at the time it was written is a far cry from depicting blacks in some bad light.

BTW should To Kill A Mockingbird be revised to remove the black people? Or should the schools virtually burn the book by removing it?

Lets also add that white!=universal property. Just cause a white person has a back yard BBQ does not mean everyone has to be invited. Yes in a time when the US was mostly white, Nancy Drew had MOSTLY white characters.

Also add that there are more native americans in the US than LGBTQ, especially trans and we see little to no representation of them. Same with Asians. FAR more Asians in the US.... where's the representation?

There has to be a consistent set of rules here. Some people have got to stop trying to be offended on behalf of others.



9 out of 10 native Americans don't care about the name RedSkins.
Damselbinder

Heroine Addict wrote:
3 years ago
Damselbinder wrote:
3 years ago
I have to say, the historical revisionism of going back and scrubbing old books doesn't sit right with me. If a publisher wants to pull a book from the shelf I say that's their right, but to sort of pretend that the troublesome whatever-it-is doesn't exist and never existed is fuckus.

I think on one of the recent DVD anthology of old Looney Tunes shorts, they just had an intro saying "Heyo, some of the stuff you're gonna see here contains racial caricatures and such. It was never okay, but people at the time were much less inclined to question this sort of thing. We didn't want to remove them, because that struck us as dishonest - making it seem like our company has been more awake to this sort of thing than it really has - but, hey, you know. Heads up." That seemed a good solution to me.
I too have a real problem with revisionism and censorship. However, a lot comes down to the target audience of the material. If old texts are presented as works of cultural/historical interest and marketed to adults, then there's no excuse for censorship. If, however, a text originally made for little kids in the 20th Century is being marketed directly to today's little kids, then it's pretty fair to question whether it's a good idea to expect a five-year-old to fully grasp the historical context of depictions of ape-like Africans, shifty Japs and other stereotypes.

By all means, allow parents to decide when their kids are mature enough to understand the material. It's just not reasonable to expect an explicitly Jim Crow-era text such as Dumbo to be presented to its original intended juvenile audience without a bit of context.
That's a good argument. I think we all generally accept that we censor stuff for children. Maybe what you're talking about is just an extension of that.
sneakly
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 729
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Heroine Addict wrote:
3 years ago
Damselbinder wrote:
3 years ago
I have to say, the historical revisionism of going back and scrubbing old books doesn't sit right with me. If a publisher wants to pull a book from the shelf I say that's their right, but to sort of pretend that the troublesome whatever-it-is doesn't exist and never existed is fuckus.

I think on one of the recent DVD anthology of old Looney Tunes shorts, they just had an intro saying "Heyo, some of the stuff you're gonna see here contains racial caricatures and such. It was never okay, but people at the time were much less inclined to question this sort of thing. We didn't want to remove them, because that struck us as dishonest - making it seem like our company has been more awake to this sort of thing than it really has - but, hey, you know. Heads up." That seemed a good solution to me.
I too have a real problem with revisionism and censorship. However, a lot comes down to the target audience of the material. If old texts are presented as works of cultural/historical interest and marketed to adults, then there's no excuse for censorship. If, however, a text originally made for little kids in the 20th Century is being marketed directly to today's little kids, then it's pretty fair to question whether it's a good idea to expect a five-year-old to fully grasp the historical context of depictions of ape-like Africans, shifty Japs and other stereotypes.

By all means, allow parents to decide when their kids are mature enough to understand the material. It's just not reasonable to expect an explicitly Jim Crow-era text such as Dumbo to be presented to its original intended juvenile audience without a bit of context.
Really, if it is up to the parents about the content kids are exposed to, then the content creators get the same consideration? The publishers aren’t trying to collect the old version of Dr Seuss or Nancy Drew like they are defective airbags, they are just saying we don’t feel these feel this content reflects modern values or the image we want to present. Since we we have no insight into the decision making process these companies used, it really can’t be said that a liberal cabal was pressuring them to do anything.
Last edited by sneakly 3 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Damselbinder

sneakly wrote:
3 years ago
Heroine Addict wrote:
3 years ago
Damselbinder wrote:
3 years ago
I have to say, the historical revisionism of going back and scrubbing old books doesn't sit right with me. If a publisher wants to pull a book from the shelf I say that's their right, but to sort of pretend that the troublesome whatever-it-is doesn't exist and never existed is fuckus.

I think on one of the recent DVD anthology of old Looney Tunes shorts, they just had an intro saying "Heyo, some of the stuff you're gonna see here contains racial caricatures and such. It was never okay, but people at the time were much less inclined to question this sort of thing. We didn't want to remove them, because that struck us as dishonest - making it seem like our company has been more awake to this sort of thing than it really has - but, hey, you know. Heads up." That seemed a good solution to me.
I too have a real problem with revisionism and censorship. However, a lot comes down to the target audience of the material. If old texts are presented as works of cultural/historical interest and marketed to adults, then there's no excuse for censorship. If, however, a text originally made for little kids in the 20th Century is being marketed directly to today's little kids, then it's pretty fair to question whether it's a good idea to expect a five-year-old to fully grasp the historical context of depictions of ape-like Africans, shifty Japs and other stereotypes.

By all means, allow parents to decide when their kids are mature enough to understand the material. It's just not reasonable to expect an explicitly Jim Crow-era text such as Dumbo to be presented to its original intended juvenile audience without a bit of context.
Really, if it is up to the parents about the content kids are exposed to, then the content creators get the same consideration? The publishers are trying to collect the old version of Dr Seuss or Nancy Drew like they are defective airbags, they are just saying we don’t feel these feel this content reflects modern values or the image we want to present. Since we we have no incite into the decision making process these companies used, it really can’t be said that a liberal cabal was pressuring them to do anything.
I would never presume to suggest the involvement of any cabal, liberal or otherwise. I still object to their decision - though it's hardly the end of the world.
Locked