Society/Culture Has cancel culture gone too far?

[Sweet Jesus]

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

Yeah, and?

How is that analogous to deciding an 80-year-old film needs an added "explanation" at the start so it aligns with the norms of 2020?

You're just saying random things that don't connect.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

By your argument movies shouldnt have ANY ratings and it should be a free for all.

This chestnut? Really?

By your argument!

 

[iBeng]

Yeah, and?

How is that analogous to deciding an 80-year-old film needs an added "explanation" at the start so it aligns with the norms of 2020?

You're just saying random things that don't connect.

You dont see any moral or any financial risk to the entities that own the rights to these films being at risk of they didnt address its content?

If Disney just released them the PR disaster alone would be a headache. At least this way they are addressing what they did was, in plenty of hindsight, wrong morally and while they still want the story accessible they understand for some ENTIRE RACIAL GROUPS it is considered extremely derogatory.

Dont miss the forest for the trees and all that.

 

[iBeng]

This chestnut? Really?

By your argument!

What about movies based on true stories? They contain warnings so people are aware that things in the movie may not be entirely fictional and are based on real events.

You assume people are able to easily distinguish fact from fiction, right from wrong but if that were so society would be a literal utopia.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You dont see any moral or any financial risk to the entities that own the rights to these films being at risk of they didnt address its content?

What is "moral risk"?

If Disney just released them the PR disaster alone would be a headache. At least this way they are addressing what they did was, in plenty of hindsight, wrong morally and while they still want the story accessible they understand for some ENTIRE RACIAL GROUPS it is considered extremely derogatory.

Dont miss the forest for the trees and all that.

This doesn't address any of my criticisms.

You are simply saying Disney is trying to cover its arse in an unprincipled, PR-driven way.

Again, what's your point?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What about movies based on true stories? They contain warnings so people are aware that things in the movie may not be entirely fictional and are based on real events.

You assume people are able to easily distinguish fact from fiction, right from wrong but if that were so society would be a literal utopia.

You're not making any points that connect to anything I've said.

 

[iBeng]

So then let's restate your point because so far you've told me an actor cant act as someone missing a leg and Disney shouldn't need to put information before films from an age when racially insensitive portrayals were all fine.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So then let's restate your point because so far you've told me an actor cant act as someone missing a leg and Disney shouldn't need to put information before films from an age when racially insensitive portrayals were all fine.

We won't be restating anything.

If you think texts should come with warning labels to guard against any and all forms of potential offence, it's going to be a long list.

Maybe you say it's only some classes of offence that warrant it. Like there's a hierarchy?

Good luck with that.

 

[Malifice]

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

Oh. So you're saying parents can censor things and caveat texts, but companies can put out whatever they like?

Im sorry man, but I dont have an issue with warnings that material contains things that are sexually explicit, have drug references, implicit racism or whatever.

Heck, that's a cornerstone of the M/PG/R ratings system for stuff on telly anyway!

 

[iBeng]

We won't be restating anything.

If you think texts should come with warning labels to guard against any and all forms of potential offence, it's going to be a long list.

I think in the topic of the thread the films in question have scenes and depictions which racially profile an ENTIRE RACE OF OUR SPECIES and should be acknowledged that while at the time it was accepted by our somewhat improved standards today it wouldnt be considered acceptable.

We dont need to label everything because we already do that with age restrictions and other warnings.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Oh. So you're saying parents can censor things and caveat texts, but companies can put out whatever they like?

I didn't say companies can put out "whatever they like". Again, see the OP.

But yes, of course parental responsibility applies.

What part of this is controversial?

Im sorry man, but I dont have an issue with warnings that material contains things that are sexually explicit, have drug references, implicit racism or whatever.

Heck, that's a cornerstone of the M/PG/R ratings system for stuff on telly anyway!

I don't have a problem with that either. That's a classification system that applies to everything at the time of release across the board.

Why don't you try engaging with what I've actually said instead of hoping in vain to catch me in a contradiction?

At the moment, it just looks like I've got you covered and you're resorting to clumsy distortions and hail marys.

 

[iBeng]

I didn't say companies can put out "whatever they like". Again, see the OP.

But yes, of course parental responsibility applies.

What part of this is controversial?

I don't have a problem with that either. That's a classification system that applies to everything at the time of release across the board.

Why don't you try engaging with what I've actually said instead of hoping in vain to catch me in a contradiction?

I think you are managing the contradiction quite fine by yourself.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I think in the topic of the thread the films in question have scenes and depictions which racially profile an ENTIRE RACE OF OUR SPECIES and should be acknowledged that while at the time it was accepted by our somewhat improved standards today it wouldnt be considered acceptable.

We dont need to label everything because we already do that with age restrictions and other warnings.

This doesn't answer the question.

You're just asserting that the potential for racial offence is special.

What about if there is the potential for religious offence in a text? Should there be a warning label for that too?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I think you are managing the contradiction quite fine by yourself.

Then by all means point it out for everyone to see.

 

[iBeng]

This doesn't answer the question.

You're just asserting that the potential for racial offence is special.

What about if there is the potential for religious offence in a text? Should there be a warning label for that too?

I thought we were discussing movies?

If you want to use text, an example would be:

A book from 1940 that explained everything about "the negro" as it would have been told back then. This book is rereleased to book stores in it's original form, no editing and no other information.

Would that be acceptable to you?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I thought we were discussing movies?

Movies are a text. Text is the printed word, obviously, but it's also an umbrella term for any content: films, books, TV shows, songs etc.

If you want to use text, an example would be:

A book from 1940 that explained everything about "the negro" as it would have been told back then. This book is rereleased to book stores in it's original form, no editing and no other information.

Would that be acceptable to you?

Of course.

You want to edit a book 80 years after it was written to make it align to the norms of 2020?

Are you crazy?

Why do you ignore my questions about the potential for religious offence?

Is it because you're willing to accommodate racial sensitivities but not religious ones? And you know you can't reconcile that obvious contradiction?

 

[iBeng]

Movies are a text. Text is the printed word, obviously, but it's also an umbrella term for any content: films, books, TV shows, songs etc.

Of course.

You want to edit a book 80 years after it was written to make it align to the norms of 2020?

Are you crazy?

I wouldnt release it all, for obvious reasons.

But in the example you've given, cooperate companies own the rights to these films, they are aware they contain socially accepted forms of racial portrayal that are not socially accepted in this day and age but they still wish to use the films. So they do this using the method we have been discussing this entire thread.

If you dont accept that then you do what you can do to fight the system: dont pay for their streaming content.

That's how it works.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I wouldnt release it all, for obvious reasons.

Huh? Who are you to decide?

How pro-censorship are you?

A book should be blacklisted because someone might be offended?

Have you heard of Salman Rushdie?

But in the example you've given, cooperate companies own the rights to these films, they are aware they contain socially accepted forms of racial portrayal that are not socially accepted in this day and age but they still wish to use the films. So they do this using the method we have been discussing this entire thread.

If you dont accept that then you do what you can do to fight the system: dont pay for their streaming content.

That's how it works.

You've restated the obvious commercial and proprietary state of affairs.

Is that the extent of your argument?

You make no point about the principles discussed.

You're very respectful of racial sensitivities. Are you as respectful of religious sensitivities?

 

[iBeng]

What the hell dude no one CHOOSES THEIR RACE.

You absolutely cannot link what is racially offensive to what is religiously offensive.

You. You CHOOSE your faith. You do not choose your damn heritage what the hell is wrong with you?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What the hell dude no one CHOOSES THEIR RACE.

Not in dispute.

Although ancestry is more operative than race.

You absolutely cannot link what is racially offensive to what is religiously offensive.

So there's a hierarchy of offence?

You're happy to accommodate racial offence but not religious offence.

Is that accurate?

You. You CHOOSE your faith. You do not choose your damn heritage what the hell is wrong with you?

Setting aside whether or not that makes a difference to how we should address questions of offence, how much choice do you think a girl born in Saudi Arabia has about her religion?

 

[Fadge]

You CHOOSE your faith. You do not choose your damn heritage what the hell is wrong with you?

Setting aside whether or not that makes a difference to how we should address questions of offence, how much choice do you think a girl born in Saudi Arabia has about her religion?

Just like you choose your sexuality, right iBeng?

 

[The Passenger]

Not got time to read the whole thread right now, but going with the HBO and GWTW example, is throwing this racism caveat before it, really any different to the ratings system in use which comes with warnings for a whole myriad of reasons.

 

[DIG]

Where does it end? Even if we were going to go down this ludicrous path there’s no systematic process to it like there is with the current movie rating system. It’s just screaming angry, self-righteous mobs pressuring companies via social media or otherwise.

Will networks soon not be able to depict dead people on the screen because that’s insensitive to Aboriginal culture?

Sounds crazy but doesn’t sound impossible anymore does it?

 

[DIG]

 

[EasternTiger]

I really think this episode of Skippy needs to come with a warning.

"The Rainmakers"

There is a severe shortage of rain in the park, and Mr. Pearson has arrived to inform Matt about activating rainclouds. Matt and Mark meet an aboriginal backpacker, an artist Johnny Bombada. Mr. Bombada, Mr. Pennyweather, and Mr. Pearson all claim to have caused the rain. When the rain becomes too much, Matt demands that someone turn it off, and Johnny Bombada does so, successfully. Guest stars Athol Compton, Rod Hull, and Noel Ferrier.

Although books like Dark Emu will claim 'rainmaking' is further evidence of an advanced indigenous agricultural society, I'm not convinced it's sending the right message to children about our first peoples and climate change, especially considering the work doyen of CC, Greta Thunberg, has put in to educating the young kids in schools.