Society/Culture Has cancel culture gone too far?

[Sweet Jesus]

That's hardly them deeming it 'unseeable'. They specifically stated that they will be returning it to HBO as it was originally created, simply with a denouncement of the racist stereotypes it contains.

They're briefly pulling the film, to work on an appropriate caveat (like what Disney have put up) for the film that it contains racist stereotypes.

They've decided it's unseeable in its current standalone state, 80 years after its release. It needs annotations saying racism is bad.

All of this is in the OP.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I can't believe this got made!




The Rock plays an amputee?!

What if a real amputee sees this and feels their lived experience is being erased?

I think the film needs to come with a note at the start acknowledging and disavowing this problematic element.

 

[Malifice]

Its also good to remember that Disney is, and always has been, a commercial venture and so would have produced things palatable to the times in order to procure as much profit as possible. They were not an organisation interesting in driving social change. They were fine with using stereotypes that made people laugh and made their profits...better.

Walt himself however...

And I think it was worse than that as far as Disney was concerned. The pinnacle of Disney racism in 'Song of the South' was actively condemned by NAACP and was picketed on its release:

In addition to its overload of racist stereotypes, it literally contains black stereotypes wishing for the 'better years' of slavery, and a freaking tar baby as a plot device. About the only thing it doesnt have is KKK members as it's protagonists.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...fficult-legacy-of-disneys-most-shocking-movie

It's one of the few movies that contemporary Disney have totally pulled from official circulation.

 

[Malifice]

They've decided it's unseeable in its current standalone state, 80 years after its release. It needs annotations saying racism is bad.

All of this is in the OP.

So they are NOT saying its unseeable (like Disney has done with Song of the South). They're saying that the movie should be seen and preserved (and they intend on streaming it from their own website for ****s sake) but it should be done with a caveat about the racist stereotypes in the film.

Do you have a problem with films like this (that portray racist stereotypes) carrying such a caveat?

 

[iBeng]

I can't believe this got made!




The Rock plays an amputee?!

What if a real amputee sees this and feels their lived experience is being erased?

I think the film needs to come with a note at the start acknowledging and disavowing this problematic element.

You're confusing playing a role for a fictional story and portraying a real social situation for the financial benefits you'd receive from it.

Its like complaining if Dwayne played a doctor, and you said "But hes NOT a doctor!" and comparing that to a movie from the 1950s that portrayed African Americans as culturally hilarious or even old westerns that portrayed Native Indians as savages.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So they are NOT saying its unseeable (like Disney has done with Song of the South). They're saying that the movie should be seen and preserved (and they intend on streaming it from their own website for fu**s sake) but it should be done with a caveat about the racist stereotypes in the film.

They're saying its unseeable in its standalone state without annotations.

Tell me, what purpose does the caveat serve exactly? What would happen if they just continued to screen this 80-year-old film without the caveat? What situation are they seeking to avoid? What practical effect does anyone imagine this has?

Do you have a problem with films like this (that portray racist stereotypes) carrying such a caveat?

On the whole, yes I think they're silly.

We should have something about gun violence for Looney Tunes cartoons where Elmer Fudd shoots himself in the face?

 

[iBeng]

They're saying its unseeable in its standalone state without annotations.

Tell me, what purpose does the caveat serve exactly? What would happen if they just continued to screen this 80-year-old film without the caveat? What situation are they seeking to avoid? What practical effect does anyone imagine this has?

Humans up until a certain age have difficulty understanding and processing information without just simply absorbing it. So, with the streaming service being fairly accessible they wanted to at least provide some information regarding its content.

Also, they probably dont want the PR shitstorm that would come from them acting like the movies are all good.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You're confusing playing a role for a fictional story and portraying a real social situation for the financial benefits you'd receive from it.

How so?

If we start annotating films to guard against any and all possible offence, where does it end?

Like how Scarlett Johansson wasn't Japanese enough to play an android in Ghost In The Shell. An android based on a manga flick. FFS.

Its like complaining if Dwayne played a doctor, and you said "But hes NOT a doctor!" and comparing that to a movie from the 1950s that portrayed African Americans as culturally hilarious or even old westerns that portrayed Native Indians as savages.

Who are you to say that?

Disabled people might feel their experience has been erased.

Are you saying they'd be wrong to feel that way? How would you know?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Humans up until a certain age have difficulty understanding and processing information without just simply absorbing it. So, with the streaming service being fairly accessible they wanted to at least provide some information regarding its content.

Also, they probably dont want the PR shitstorm that would come from them acting like the movies are all good.

So that kid is going to read the ridiculous caveat and understand that instead? Really?

I guess every film should be annotated to ensure no unsupervised child could possibly misunderstand anything they're seeing.

Better get moving on that back catalogue.

Isnt it the parent's job to teach kids about this stuff?

 

[iBeng]

Who are you to say that?

Disabled people might feel their experience has been erased.

Are you saying they'd be wrong to feel that way? How would you know?

Im not sure if you are aware, but many people who are disabled by way of amputation loved this particular movie and role because it showed everyone not every action hero has two working legs.

As far as people getting offended...Being offended is a personal choice. You have to CHOOSE to be offended, UNLESS the content is out right immorally indefensible. Think the usual things, stuff I dont care to describe here.

The different between someone like Dwayne playing an amputee and not having a "Warning, this film has a non-disabled pretending to be disabled" and a film from the 1950s actively taking advantage of racial stereotypes is significant here.

 

[Malifice]

Tell me, what purpose does the caveat serve exactly? What would happen if they just continued to screen this 80-year-old film without the caveat?

The purpose of the caveat is to inform viewers that the movie contains racist stereotypes.

Like; I remember watching Dumbo as a child. I didnt think the character of 'Jim Crow' was racist then. I do now (with hindsight). I spent years oblivious to the fact I was exposed to a racist stereotype, which subconsciously led to me accepting that stereotype as being representative of a particular ethnic group, and blind to similar stereotypes growing up. This served to entrench the very racism responsible for those stereotypes in the first place.

With a caveat, I would have viewed the film differently, and not spent years of my life oblivious to the fact that I was accepting racist stereotypes as gospel.

That's the point of the caveat mate. So when Kids sit down and watch films like Dumbo, or Song of the South or similar films, they dont grow up with the same views on race that were prevalent in a less enlightened age.

If you want to break the entrenched social disadvantage and racism in society, this is one of the ways we can go about it. It harms no-one (and contributes to greater understanding and rejection of racial stereotypes, and less entrenched racism).

How can it possibly be a bad thing?

If you saw your 10 year old reading Mein Kampf (for example) do you explain to him that the book is a discredited racist memoir of a warmongering dictator that killed tens of millions and contributed towards a genocide of millions more, or leave him to accept it as gospel?

Which is the preferable option?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Im not sure if you are aware, but many people who are disabled by way of amputation loved this particular movie and role because it showed everyone not every action hero has two working legs.

This makes no point either way.

Popularity isn't a defence if the content is problematic.

What if someone who had a limb amputated felt it erased their experience? What would you say to them?

As far as people getting offended...Being offended is a personal choice. You have to CHOOSE to be offended, UNLESS the content is out right immorally indefensible. Think the usual things, stuff I dont care to describe here.

So why add caveats to Gone With The Wind?

If people are offended, that's their choice, right?

The different between someone like Dwayne playing an amputee and not having a "Warning, this film has a non-disabled pretending to be disabled" and a film from the 1950s actively taking advantage of racial stereotypes is significant here.

Why?

Phrasing one to suggest it's self-evidently worse than the other doesn't make the case.

If we're putting warning labels on old films, why stop at racial sensitivities?

 

[Frank Bunn]

The left uses simplistic slogans to promote their causes such as 'stop climate change' and 'black lives matter' to hide their true agenda.

In a recent article, Greta Thunberg and two other activists made it clear their objectives transcend climate change. They want climate action that is “powerful and wide-ranging.” After all, they say, “the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fuelled it. We need to dismantle them all.”

In Britain, the official GoFundMe page set up to support BLM is committed to “dismantling imperialism, capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures that disproportionately harm black people.”.

They are not just vandalising statues and wanting to ban coal - they want to dismantle the state.

 

[iBeng]

Ok, let me put it into easier to understand terms:

Actors play a wide range of roles. Sometimes, they will play roles where they require to act certain ways or with maybe different accents or something like that. Someone could watch it and be offended by their accent or the way they try and act a limp or, in this case, portray someone who is disabled. Say one out of all the people who watched it was offended by it. They would then choose to...not watch it. The point of the movie was not to take advantage of the said reason the person was offended.

In comparison, the movies like Gone with the Wind portrayed significantly damaging racial stereotypes that, IN THE DAY, were acceptable. But now, with hindsight and an evolving society they are seen as not acceptable. So when re-releasing these types of films and allowing them to be more broadly viewed, the owners of the content felt it best to explain why certain scenes are in the film and how they are not considered appropriate now.

Just because scenario A exists doesnt mean scenario B should fall under the same rules, and vice versa.

As for the Ghost in the Shell situation, from what Ive read about that situation it wasnt about an American playing a different ethnic character, it was more an American playing a character in a non-American sourced material. Im not sure how much Japanese anime you have watched, but many of the characters are racially portrayed as neutral at best description.

For example:


Nothing about the characters facial structure screams any particular race to me, personally. The sticking point was more on the fact that they COULD have cast a Japanese actress, but they chose not to. They bought the rights for the adaption so...they had the options.

 

[iBeng]

The left uses simplistic slogans to promote their causes such as 'stop climate change' and 'black lives matter' to hide their true agenda.

In a recent article, Greta Thunberg and two other activists made it clear their objectives transcend climate change. They want climate action that is “powerful and wide-ranging.” After all, they say, “the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fuelled it. We need to dismantle them all.”

In Britain, the official GoFundMe page set up to support BLM is committed to “dismantling imperialism, capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures that disproportionately harm black people.”.

They are not just vandalising statues and wanting to ban coal - they want to dismantle the state.

If you're going to bring in "True Agenda" buzz words, can you at least keep it somewhat realistic? Otherwise theres an entire conspiracy forum here where you can discuss how Greta is going to be the God Queen of the New World Order or something.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The purpose of the caveat is to inform viewers that the movie contains racist stereotypes.

To what end?

Should Lolita come with a warning that it contains problematic content about consent?

Like; I remember watching Dumbo as a child. I didnt think the character of 'Jim Crow' was racist then. I do now (with hindsight). I spent years oblivious to the fact I was exposed to a racist stereotype, which subconsciously led to me accepting that stereotype as being representative of a particular ethnic group, and blind to similar stereotypes growing up. This served to entrench the very racism responsible for those stereotypes in the first place.

It's a cartoon character and you were oblivious to any undertones. Because you were a kid.

Oh you were exposed to it as a child! If only it had come with a warning label!

With a caveat, I would have viewed the film differently, and not spent years of my life oblivious to the fact that I was accepting racist stereotypes as gospel.

That's the point of the caveat mate. So when Kids sit down and watch films like Dumbo, or Song of the South or similar films, they dont grow up with the same views on race that were prevalent in a less enlightened age.

You spent your life interpreting race through the prism of a cartoon? But a note at the start of the film would have set you right?

What kind of fantasy land is this?

If you want to break the entrenched social disadvantage and racism in society, this is one of the ways we can go about it.

Putting warning labels on cartoons. This is pie in the sky stuff.

It harms no-one (and contributes to greater understanding and rejection of racial stereotypes, and less entrenched racism).

How can it possibly be a bad thing?

It's an absurd concession to wokeness that achieves SFA.

And the impulse to repackage texts based on the pieties of the day is fundamentally illiberal.

Where does it end?

Will you be so willing to accommodate religious sensitivities should they arise?

If you saw your 10 year old reading Mein Kampf (for example) do you explain to him that the book is a discredited racist memoir of a warmongering dictator that killed tens of millions and contributed towards a genocide of millions more, or leave him to accept it as gospel?

Which is the preferable option?

I'd ask how he got a copy of Mein Kampf.

Thereafter, this supports my argument. It is a matter of parental responsibility to discuss these issues and monitor access.

There is a fundamental break with reality when we think Gone With The Wind needs to be accompanied with a warning label but you can get hold of Mein Kampf and worse, as well as unlimited pr0n, if you like.

Why don't we put warning labels on everything, just in case?

 

[iBeng]

Dumbo didnt have warning labels because AT THE TIME IT WAS CONSIDERED FINE.

We have EVOLVED AS A SOCIETY and now we can acknowledge when some shit just isnt right. And part of parenting is to PARENT YOUR CHILDREN ON THIS.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Ok, let me put it into easier to understand terms:

Actors play a wide range of roles. Sometimes, they will play roles where they require to act certain ways or with maybe different accents or something like that. Someone could watch it and be offended by their accent or the way they try and act a limp or, in this case, portray someone who is disabled. Say one out of all the people who watched it was offended by it. They would then choose to...not watch it. The point of the movie was not to take advantage of the said reason the person was offended.

Like how people could choose to watch or not watch Gone With The Wind?

You arbitrarily privilege one kind of offence over another.

In comparison, the movies like Gone with the Wind portrayed significantly damaging racial stereotypes that, IN THE DAY, were acceptable. But now, with hindsight and an evolving society they are seen as not acceptable. So when re-releasing these types of films and allowing them to be more broadly viewed, the owners of the content felt it best to explain why certain scenes are in the film and how they are not considered appropriate now.

But people can simply choose not to watch it.

That was your explanation above for other classes of offence.

You arbitrarily privilege one kind of offence over another.

Just because scenario A exists doesnt mean scenario B should fall under the same rules, and vice versa.

Sounds like you're making it up as you go along.

As for the Ghost in the Shell situation, from what Ive read about that situation it wasnt about an American playing a different ethnic character, it was more an American playing a character in a non-American sourced material. Im not sure how much Japanese anime you have watched, but many of the characters are racially portrayed as neutral at best description.

For example:
View attachment 890088

Nothing about the characters facial structure screams any particular race to me, personally. The sticking point was more on the fact that they COULD have cast a Japanese actress, but they chose not to. They bought the rights for the adaption so...they had the options.

The original film is set in Japan and the main character is called Motoko Kusanagi.

So this film should have come with a note at the start acknowledging and disavowing whitewashing in non-Caucasian roles. How else can we expect people to handle it?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Dumbo didnt have warning labels because AT THE TIME IT WAS CONSIDERED FINE.

We have EVOLVED AS A SOCIETY and now we can acknowledge when some shit just isnt right. And part of parenting is to PARENT YOUR CHILDREN ON THIS.

Great. So let's put warning labels on any text that could potentially be considered problematic by someone.

It's a long list.

 

[iBeng]

Look, Im not sure how much more we can explain this.

Movies from generations that accepted slavery have scenes in them that are MORALLY BANKRUPT. Because the people who own the rights to said movies want to have them available but NOT have a shitstorm of PR drama for "profiting off racially/morally bankrupt content" they are releasing them either with the pre-warnings or, in some cases, edited.

This is so that, majority of the time, parents are aware and can explain to children exactly what is going on. This is actually a win for you if you see it for what it is: The content isnt being deleted, its just being labeled for what it is.

 

[iBeng]

Great. So let's put warning labels on any text that could potentially be considered problematic by someone.

It's a long list.

No. No no no. You are just throwing a blanket over everything. Thats not what anyone actually wants and its always the first thing that comes up when people discuss changing anything. Change HAPPENS. Things CHANGE. If you want to hold on to the negative shit of the past then its going to come with warnings.

There is shit in the movie Dumbo which is just not morally right. It doesnt sit well at all by todays standards and because of that Disney has put a warning label before it.

That doesnt mean every damn movie needs lists before it. Movies made today are based on current social standards. Who knows what the world might be like in 50 years. Take for example smoking, smoking is now widely removed and even edited out of many cartoons and quite a lot of movies. It still occurs, but its been DE-NORMALISED. And Racial Stereotyping is also DE-NORMALISED and if it DOES OCCUR warnings are given.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Look, Im not sure how much more we can explain this.

Maybe that's a sign I'm on more principled, more solid ground?

Do you really think that any disagreement is because you just haven't "explained it" enough?

More likely, you're wrong and I'm right.

Movies from generations that accepted slavery have scenes in them that are MORALLY BANKRUPT. Because the people who own the rights to said movies want to have them available but NOT have a shitstorm of PR drama for "profiting off racially/morally bankrupt content" they are releasing them either with the pre-warnings or, in some cases, edited.

This is so that, majority of the time, parents are aware and can explain to children exactly what is going on. This is actually a win for you if you see it for what it is: The content isnt being deleted, its just being labeled for what it is.

I don't dispute the legalities of it.

My question is: where does it end? And therein, what is the standard we've agreed here?

Firstly, on a practical basis, should all texts containing potentially problematic material now come with warning labels? That could be any text. It's entirely within the eye of the beholder.

Secondly, on principle, what are the implications of reviewing all pre-existing texts and repackaging them to align with the standards of 2020. This is a fool's errand and not an impulse we should pursue.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No. No no no. You are just throwing a blanket over everything. Thats not what anyone actually wants and its always the first thing that comes up when people discuss changing anything. Change HAPPENS. Things CHANGE. If you want to hold on to the negative shit of the past then its going to come with warnings.

There is shit in the movie Dumbo which is just not morally right. It doesnt sit well at all by todays standards and because of that Disney has put a warning label before it.

That doesnt mean every damn movie needs lists before it. Movies made today are based on current social standards. Who knows what the world might be like in 50 years. Take for example smoking, smoking is now widely removed and even edited out of many cartoons and quite a lot of movies. It still occurs, but its been DE-NORMALISED. And Racial Stereotyping is also DE-NORMALISED and if it DOES OCCUR warnings are given.

So you're privileging the potential for "racial offence" over the potential for other kinds of offence.

Why do we need warning labels about racial insensitivities but not about religious insensitivities?

Even then, it's only certain kinds of racial offence that concern you. The obvious whitewashing in Ghost In The Shell is a non-issue as far as you're concerned. Even though it absolutely annoyed other people, just as other people were annoyed with Jared Leno playing a trans character in Dallas Buyers Club.

Maybe consider for a second that you're trying to reconcile inconsistent principles and that's why it's so hard.

 

[iBeng]

So you're privileging the potential for "racial offence" over the potential for other kinds of offence.

Why do we need warning labels about racial insensitivities but not about religious insensitivities?

Even then, it's only certain kind if racial offence that concern you. The obvious whitewashing in Ghost In The Shell in a non-issue as far as you're concerned.

Maybe consider for a second that you're trying to explain inconsistent principles and that's why it's so hard.

You realise movies come with ratings, right? M? R? Warnings for violence, sexual, disturbing scenes, etc? These have been around for a LONG TIME.

 

[iBeng]

By your argument movies shouldnt have ANY ratings and it should be a free for all. Let people decide themselves DURING the movie if it really is that violent, or if the sex scenes are really that sexual.