Discussion Random Discussion (No Politics, Religion) - SHOW CHIN PASSPORT ON ENTRY

[Joffaboy]

A bit of a departure from Saints Disco but posted to prove a point



A great animated film clip and first for Gorillaz. Someone woke will point out that the Gorillas in the clip dancing like Michael Jackson (an homage to Thriller BTW) is racist as it depicts African American's as apes.
Add to that Noodle is drawn as a caricature of an Asian girl with over emphasised slanted eyes and a huge gormless grin.

Add to that Murdoch is a Satanist.

I mean the fact that the band is fictional and is from drawing by Jamie Hewitt, who has always drawn in this fashion and as stated before the Gorilla dance is a salute to Thriller, doesn't matter, someone will be offended.

Context my dears, context. Otherwise all anamie will need to be banned for drawing westerners with huge round eyes and button noses.

 

[Joffaboy]

I just think it's funny how pathetic and weak the social justice warriors are that they'll scream rape culture in regards to a cartoon skunk and think of it as a real way to improve real issues LOL. The stupidity of people who identify as part of that group always blows me away.

What's your problem with social justice? Why denegrate everyone who wants to work towards social justice.

You see your reaction is just as polarising as the opposite view, we dismiss the march of social justice when it can only do good for people being discriminated against.

Where were the extreme right culture warriors (see easy to label everyone) on cancel culture when Colin Kappernick was being literally cancelled for his First Amendment right of free speech? All he did was kneel down, but is it only the right who has the privilege of "free speech"?

Where was this angst when Yassmin Abdel-Magied was being harrassed, bullied, and attacked by all and sundry on the right for one tweet? Where was her right to free speech? Where was the rights outrage on her having to flee Australia because of the persecution?

Goes both ways.

 

[George]

What's your problem with social justice? Why denegrate everyone who wants to work towards social justice.

You see your reaction is just as polarising as the opposite view, we dismiss the march of social justice when it can only do good for people being discriminated against.

Where were the extreme right culture warriors (see easy to label everyone) on cancel culture when Colin Kappernick was being literally cancelled for his First Amendment right of free speech? All he did was kneel down, but is it only the right who has the privilege of "free speech"?

Where was this angst when Yassmin Abdel-Magied was being harrassed, bullied, and attacked by all and sundry on the right for one tweet? Where was her right to free speech? Where was the rights outrage on her having to flee Australia because of the persecution?

Goes both ways.

My reaction was cancelling a cartoon character is not helping deal with real issues. Is this polarising to you?

Do you think my comments insinuated I am against social justice? What person in their right mind is against social justice?

You don't know my views on any of the rest of your examples. Are you assuming because I think cancelling a cartoon character is stupid I somehow will think the same way in every instance? Pretty odd if that is the case.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Not sure I understand the point of your post?

Do you think I'm making it up?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/03/09/pepe-le-pew/

What's Meghan got to do with it? LOL.

Don't think you are making it up but do believe you are so easily led by a headline.

Space Jam 2 is due for release very shortly and believe me, they aren't gonna rejig a movie with a $200M budget just because (according to your link), someone writes an article a week ago.

Pepe Le Pew was never really part of the movie and hit the editing floor more than 2 years ago.

As for the Meghan reference - well believing this sort of stuff is like believing Meghan and Harry are really desperate to preserve their "privacy" despite the fact they're happy to blab on Opray.

Clickbait clickbait!!!!

 

[George]

Don't think you are making it up but do believe you are so easily led by a headline.

Space Jam 2 is due for release very shortly and believe me, they aren't gonna rejig a movie with a $200M budget just because (according to your link), someone writes an article a week ago.

Pepe Le Pew was never really part of the movie and hit the editing floor more than 2 years ago.

As for the Meghan reference - well believing this sort of stuff is like believing Meghan and Harry are really desperate to preserve their "privacy" despite the fact they're happy to blab on Opray.

Clickbait clickbait!!!!

If he was or wasn't cancelled because of the reasons mentioned is neither here nor there for me personally. To me it still doesn't take away from the hilarity of a reporter running with it. The mindset of someone to immediately come to that conclusion is hilarious and the same kind of thinking is prevalent everywhere.

My comment was he was cancelled because of his contribution to rape culture. He doesnt need to be cancelled by the film. He can also be cancelled by lunatics like the reporter in the NYT. There's really no coming back from that now, they've painted a picture already, and it would be incredibly hard to put PLP back into a future film and defend it. There would be pressure on WB to make a move like that when if in fact he wasn't cancelled because of rape culture, social justice warriors have just cancelled something for literal lies.

 

[StFly]

if the character is a doctor, should the voice actor also be a doctor? Should they be the same age?
the Simpsons is changing the voice actors for the black characters moving forward.

Remember when Scarlett Johansson was cast in the transgender movie a few years ago? People sooked and whinged so she dropped out of the role and now the movie isn’t getting made because there’s no star power attached. It’s just bizarre stuff.
Or even more recently, when Sia cast a non autistic person to play an autistic character? A ton of outrage around that, too. She cast that young girl that is in her film clips.
Acting is supposed to involve becoming someone else.

I recall the semi outrage when Johansson was cast as Katsuragi from GITS, as white washing a Japanese woman as you do in acting, and people were generally not kind about it.

Even if the movie was meh in of itself, it's watchable just not all that great. There is the actor, and their job is acting.

The transgender film was literally named Rub & Tug, whoever wanted to try and piss off the trans community by tagging that with "and here's Johansson dismissing you as the woman who's a man crime boss character" was kind of successful in trashing that message. as it was less about the synopsis of the movie and more about "does this director love Scarlo, and do they like washing things you need to tread carefully with?"

That she distanced herself from it was classic self preservation.

I'm more iffy on the director, he's done what, Snow White & the Huntsman, GITS and failed with Rub & Tug, not a great body of work or anything to touch such sensitive issues underlying things on say your 3rd rodeo and first kind of solo effort not based on something with years of body of work.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

if the character is a doctor, should the voice actor also be a doctor? Should they be the same age?
the Simpsons is changing the voice actors for the black characters moving forward.

Remember when Scarlett Johansson was cast in the transgender movie a few years ago? People sooked and whinged so she dropped out of the role and now the movie isn’t getting made because there’s no star power attached. It’s just bizarre stuff.
Or even more recently, when Sia cast a non autistic person to play an autistic character? A ton of outrage around that, too. She cast that young girl that is in her film clips.
Acting is supposed to involve becoming someone else.

The whole point of "actors" is that they are portraying something they are not.
Personally i consider that if they play their role convincingly and are not taking stereotyping or taking the piss the wrong way, then its OK.

Johnny Depp portrayed a native american , twice that i know of. ( "The Brave" was very disturbing ).
Why not employ a Native American
Because acting is NOT a generic talent , and movie makers require a certain talent , or a certain box-office pulling power.

Its the same as if you are employing an accountant. Why didn't you employ the black guy...? "well he's not a good enough accountant" is totally a legitimate reason.

The reason Sellars made the character Indian, was so he had a reason for the character's cultural misunderstandings. But its also condescending because the character ( like many of Sellars characters ) was clumsy and bungling.
I could see Indian's being offended in a similar manner that Bruce Lee found depictions of Charlie Chan, as portrayed by Hollywood at the time, to be offensive.
Apparently the "Mr Bean" character was inspired by "The Party" and interestingly travelled to Europe and America so as to have his cultural misunderstandings.

The whole trend of trying to speak "badly" like an African American, because its cool.
Hell , i didn't hear Obama speaking like that. There are African Americans who could speak Shakespeare like Richard Burton, but in many of their movie roles they are expected to "talk like an uneducated southerner ". Reputable white singers try to put on black accents. (like this)

Teens on TikTok have no clue they’re perpetuating racist stereotypes

Pretending to be black on social media, even without the face paint, is a form of blackface.

qz.com

Now i read into that what i will. But kids try to be like people they admire, for me growing up it was usually a super hero or a cowboy or some s**t, zorro was a good one , because he had a sword. I probably didn't realize he was hispanic at the time.

 

[pebblesofsand]

If he was or wasn't cancelled because of the reasons mentioned is neither here nor there for me personally. To me it still doesn't take away from the hilarity of a reporter running with it. The mindset of someone to immediately come to that conclusion is hilarious and the same kind of thinking is prevalent everywhere.

My comment was he was cancelled because of his contribution to rape culture. He doesnt need to be cancelled by the film. He can also be cancelled by lunatics like the reporter in the NYT. There's really no coming back from that now, they've painted a picture already, and it would be incredibly hard to put PLP back into a future film and defend it. There would be pressure on WB to make a move like that when if in fact he wasn't cancelled because of rape culture, social justice warriors have just cancelled something for literal lies.

I really don't know what you're trying to say.

Its pretty obvious that Pepe Le Pew is an outdated offensive stereotype on so many levels - if he is no longer part of the modern society - great - celebrate it - its a sign we've moved on.

Your view seems to be that unless everything changes nothing can change and then to belittle and stereotype people (social justice warriors - please gimme a break!!!) who realise that all changes help to solve a problem.

The world is moving on - get on board George otherwise you could end up a sad angry old man like you know who!!!

 

[George]

I really don't know what you're trying to say.

Its pretty obvious that Pepe Le Pew is an outdated offensive stereotype on so many levels - if he is no longer part of the modern society - great - celebrate it - its a sign we've moved on.

Your view seems to be that unless everything changes nothing can change and then to belittle and stereotype people (social justice warriors - please gimme a break!!!) who realise that all changes help to solve a problem.

The world is moving on - get on board George otherwise you could end up a sad angry old man like you know who!!!

When have I ever said nothing can change.

If people are so soft as to go and spend their time on things as insignificant as cancelling a cartoon character instead of (what I would prefer) bringing their attention and effort to real issues that actually impact people in day to day life, then of course I'm going to belittle them. They are constantly outraged, attention seeking and virtue signalling idiots.

Are these concepts really that hard to understand, or are you just taking an opposing view for the sake of it? Seemingly defending the cancellation of a cartoon character on the basis of "social justice". Please tell me my assumption is wrong. What effect is cancelling an 80 year old cartoon character (So insignificant I doubt anyone would've heard of PLP at any stage over the last 25 years) going to do to positively impact the way people who are actually marginalised live?

The world isn't moving on at all it's taken a left turn and heading towards a damn cliff because we will get absolutely nowhere on actual issues if we keep patting each other on the back for this kind of stupidity.

It's ridiculousness taken to a whole new level. And for anyone to defend it is bizarre!

 

[StCicatriz]

My reaction was cancelling a cartoon character is not helping deal with real issues. Is this polarising to you?

you got angry about something that never happened. there is no link between the NY article that wanted the character cancelled and the reason why the character got cut.

the cancelling of the scene pre-dated the article and the scene was actually pro me too.

 

[StCicatriz]

If he was or wasn't cancelled because of the reasons mentioned is neither here nor there for me personally. To me it still doesn't take away from the hilarity of a reporter running with it. The mindset of someone to immediately come to that conclusion is hilarious and the same kind of thinking is prevalent everywhere.

My comment was he was cancelled because of his contribution to rape culture. He doesnt need to be cancelled by the film. He can also be cancelled by lunatics like the reporter in the NYT. There's really no coming back from that now, they've painted a picture already, and it would be incredibly hard to put PLP back into a future film and defend it. There would be pressure on WB to make a move like that when if in fact he wasn't cancelled because of rape culture, social justice warriors have just cancelled something for literal lies.

he wasn't cancelled because of the "contributions to rape culture". it never happened.

 

[StCicatriz]

When have I ever said nothing can change.

If people are so soft as to go and spend their time on things as insignificant as cancelling a cartoon character instead of (what I would prefer) bringing their attention and effort to real issues that actually impact people in day to day life, then of course I'm going to belittle them. They are constantly outraged, attention seeking and virtue signalling idiots.

Are these concepts really that hard to understand, or are you just taking an opposing view for the sake of it? Seemingly defending the cancellation of a cartoon character on the basis of "social justice". Please tell me my assumption is wrong. What effect is cancelling an 80 year old cartoon character (So insignificant I doubt anyone would've heard of PLP at any stage over the last 25 years) going to do to positively impact the way people who are actually marginalised live?

The world isn't moving on at all it's taken a left turn and heading towards a damn cliff because we will get absolutely nowhere on actual issues if we keep patting each other on the back for this kind of stupidity.

It's ridiculousness taken to a whole new level. And for anyone to defend it is bizarre!

the character was never cancelled for the reasons you mentioned

you are getting upset over something that never happened

 

[George]

you got angry about something that never happened. there is no link between the NY article that wanted the character cancelled and the reason why the character got cut.

the cancelling of the scene pre-dated the article and the scene was actually pro me too.

he wasn't cancelled because of the "contributions to rape culture". it never happened.

the character was never cancelled for the reasons you mentioned

you are getting upset over something that never happened

I didn't get angry about anything. I laughed at it, and you can say it three times but you are completely missing the point I'm making.

Irrespective of if the director cancelled him or the reporter, the fact of the matter is that now in the public eye he has been cancelled - because whether you want to admit it or not, for WB to turn around in their next Looney Tunes film and put him in it will be a huge risk and will come with much backlash now that this rumour has spread worldwide.

You can close your eyes and pretend like it never happened, it's a weird stance to take. It doesn't matter who has removed him or why he has been removed once a rumour has spread to pretty much every major news outlet across the world. You do understand how rumours, if peddled long and often enough, can be perceived as fact, right?

If there's no hysteria over PLP rejoining a LT film in future then you are correct, but I reckon the chance of that happening is slim to none.

This is really the bigger issue that I have, and it is prevalent everywhere. This is why I've taken issue with you in the past for example, because you've tried to peddle misinformation as fact. Why you say "it never happened" and "it's made up s**t" in this instance but then can't have the same objectivity about your own behaviours when they reflect in the exact same way is just a small example of a bigger problem that is seen everywhere today. This isn't really a dig at you as much as it is a good example of people everywhere who have a voice online and behave in the same way you do.

I'll put it to you another way - are you OK with the behaviour of the NYT reporter (yes/no) and why?

 

[Diehard Saint]

I still think you can watch it in historical context and see it as a movie that was made and wouldn't be now. Hiding the shame of the past doesn't really improve the future.

Dirty Harry is on one of the streaming services and the has lots of N words and in one tirade pretty much lists every homophobic and racist put down imaginable, listing them as people he hates then says he hates Mexicans the most and winks to his boss while watching his Mexican partner. They are hard to watch in the same way these days. I remember my grandmother had a book of my mum's called Little Black Sambo, even as a kid that looked racist as fu** in the 80s. That got cancelled around that time so as people change attitudes so does the acceptance of what's morally unfashionable.

Perhaps they could edit the really bad stuff out so that the good stuff in them can still be part of modern culture and not completely removed from view with some of them.

Unfortunately the cancel culture set doesn’t agree with your common sense notion.

How will future generations ever learn when all history is erased? Be it in movies like “Gone with the wind”, the recent Dr Seuss books or classics like Huckleberry Finn. Surely they are all useful as learning tools to show how far we have come.

How do you ever know what it is to be happy, if you’ve never experienced sad?
We can’t change the past , but if we erase it we certainly can’t learn from it either.

 

[George]

And yes I do find it funny arguing about a Looney Tunes character, the stupidity of that isn't lost on me

 

[Joffaboy]

My reaction was cancelling a cartoon character is not helping deal with real issues. Is this polarising to you?

Do you think my comments insinuated I am against social justice? What person in their right mind is against social justice?

You don't know my views on any of the rest of your examples. Are you assuming because I think cancelling a cartoon character is stupid I somehow will think the same way in every instance? Pretty odd if that is the case.

I can only think you deliberately misunderstood my post. Well I hope this is the case.
Using SJW is pejorative and a slur. It is as lazy as calling anyone you dont agree with PC, another pejorative slur.
It is as polarising as calling someone a RWNJ.
That is the polarising aspect. Especially when you are railling against something that has been shown to be false.

Attempt to look at nuance not just emotional reactions to clickbait.

I posted the Gorillaz clip to point out that anything can be sensationalised without context.
So enough with the SJW insults and address the issue. Or in football parlance, play the ball not the man.

 

[Joffaboy]

Unfortunately the cancel culture set doesn’t agree with your common sense notion.

.

Who are the cancel culture set? The people slurred by the right wing or those same right wingers who cancel Kappernick or Yassmin?

 

[Mowman]

The left blaming the right for everything The right blaming the left for everything and all as bad as each other. Boy we do love to label everything and every one, this is when BF turns to s**t

 

[Diehard Saint]

Who are the cancel culture set? The people slurred by the right wing or those same right wingers who cancel Kappernick or Yassmin?

Nope, but those who cancel the type of things I just mentioned. History. Things we can learn from.
Much as I’d like to cancel Mein Kampf, I believe it is necessary to be out there, for obvious reasons. I‘m just asking for common sense.

 

[George]

I can only think you deliberately misunderstood my post. Well I hope this is the case.
Using SJW is pejorative and a slur. It is as lazy as calling anyone you dont agree with PC, another pejorative slur.
It is as polarising as calling someone a RWNJ.
That is the polarising aspect. Especially when you are railling against something that has been shown to be false.

Attempt to look at nuance not just emotional reactions to clickbait.

I posted the Gorillaz clip to point out that anything can be sensationalised without context.
So enough with the SJW insults and address the issue. Or in football parlance, play the ball not the man.

What was shown to be false? The seemingly insignificant difference of him being cancelled by the media as opposed to by the company? Perhaps I've forgotten but in my initial post I don't remember saying it was WB that cancelled him anyway. And what difference does it make? He doesn't need to be cancelled by those directly involved to still be cancelled. That's quite obvious when you look at what happened with Eminem lately as an example.

I said he was cancelled. WB will be criticised for bringing PLP back for something they allegedly didn't do. That's not right, is it?

As for your last line, I hope you will admit you are a hypocrit now. You said this to me the other day;

Try actually reading what I posted before responding with incoherent straw man arguments.
As for lecturing me on being objective, don't think I'll take to much advice from a gen y with minimal life experience who seems to have difficulty understanding a relatively linear alternative pov. Hey but appreciate the effort mate.

Perhaps take your own advice in regards to playing the ball...(your idea of being lectured is just someone saying "be objective" apparently)

You can deflect the discussion by being critical of the use of the term social justice warrior, perhaps just discuss what happened. A cartoon character has been wrongly cancelled by the media and now this rumour has spread across the globe. One would think it is now going to be difficult for WB to reintroduce him in future because of it. This is not right.

 

[George]

The left blaming the right for everything The right blaming the left for everything and all as bad as each other. Boy we do love to label everything and every one, this is when BF turns to sh*t

Once the season starts we'll be all good to go mate.

Without footy every week the mind wanders...lol

 

[Joffaboy]

What was shown to be false? The seemingly insignificant difference of him being cancelled by the media as opposed to by the company? Perhaps I've forgotten but in my initial post I don't remember saying it was WB that cancelled him anyway. And what difference does it make? He doesn't need to be cancelled by those directly involved to still be cancelled. That's quite obvious when you look at what happened with Eminem lately as an example.

I said he was cancelled. WB will be criticised for bringing PLP back for something they allegedly didn't do. That's not right, is it?

As for your last line, I hope you will admit you are a hypocrit now. You said this to me the other day;



Perhaps take your own advice in regards to playing the ball...(your idea of being lectured is just someone saying "be objective" apparently)

You can deflect the discussion by being critical of the use of the term social justice warrior, perhaps just discuss what happened. A cartoon character has been wrongly cancelled by the media and now this rumour has spread across the globe. One would think it is now going to be difficult for WB to reintroduce him in future because of it. This is not right.

I stand by what I wrote the other night. From what I can gather I was spot on. Someone who gets triggered by a cartoon

As for deflection about labels, you we're the one labelling people SJW's. Wasn't a deflection it was the issue I wanted to highlight.
You got caught out and now again try to play the man.
Yup life experience mate. One day, one day

 

[George]

I stand by what I wrote the other night. From what I can gather I was spot on. Someone who gets triggered by a cartoon

As for deflection about labels, you we're the one labelling people SJW's. Wasn't a deflection it was the issue I wanted to highlight.
You got caught out and now again try to play the man.
Yup life experience mate. One day, one day

I'm not sure what it is with a few here but you seem to either not be able to comprehend me, or you deliberately ignore my comments. I'm not triggered, upset, or angry about it. I don't know where you saw me write that and if you did could you please show me? I've been pretty steadfast all the way through that I've found this funny, the stupidity of it and the stupidity of those defending it is laughable. If you can not deflect the argument for a second and find that for me, that'd be much appreciated.

The issue you highlighted is separate to what we were discussing. I posted news about a cartoon character being cancelled. That is the discussion. No need to deflect the discussion over to something different. Discuss the topic. If you don't have the ability to do so, just say so.

It's a shame you don't take in experiences from all people regardless of their age, it makes me laugh because you must know there's people younger than you that are far more intelligent than you are, perhaps not being so ignorant might be a good thing.

Shall we discuss the topic anyway or are you going to continue to deflect and make it personal like you did the other day?

 

[Yawkey way]

What's your problem with social justice? Why denegrate everyone who wants to work towards social justice.

You see your reaction is just as polarising as the opposite view, we dismiss the march of social justice when it can only do good for people being discriminated against.

Where were the extreme right culture warriors (see easy to label everyone) on cancel culture when Colin Kappernick was being literally cancelled for his First Amendment right of free speech? All he did was kneel down, but is it only the right who has the privilege of "free speech"?

Where was this angst when Yassmin Abdel-Magied was being harrassed, bullied, and attacked by all and sundry on the right for one tweet? Where was her right to free speech? Where was the rights outrage on her having to flee Australia because of the persecution?

Goes both ways.

Kaepernick wasn’t canceled he had and has plenty of supporters.

He hasn’t stopped talking, he’s a Nike brand ambassador films commercials etc. If you mean he was shut out of the nfl then yeah I can’t see how someone wouldn’t have picked him up without the controversy but even that’s a bit more complicated than it seems.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com.au

 

[StCicatriz]

I didn't get angry about anything. I laughed at it, and you can say it three times but you are completely missing the point I'm making.

Irrespective of if the director cancelled him or the reporter, the fact of the matter is that now in the public eye he has been cancelled - because whether you want to admit it or not, for WB to turn around in their next Looney Tunes film and put him in it will be a huge risk and will come with much backlash now that this rumour has spread worldwide.

You can close your eyes and pretend like it never happened, it's a weird stance to take. It doesn't matter who has removed him or why he has been removed once a rumour has spread to pretty much every major news outlet across the world. You do understand how rumours, if peddled long and often enough, can be perceived as fact, right?

If there's no hysteria over PLP rejoining a LT film in future then you are correct, but I reckon the chance of that happening is slim to none.

This is really the bigger issue that I have, and it is prevalent everywhere. This is why I've taken issue with you in the past for example, because you've tried to peddle misinformation as fact. Why you say "it never happened" and "it's made up sh*t" in this instance but then can't have the same objectivity about your own behaviours when they reflect in the exact same way is just a small example of a bigger problem that is seen everywhere today. This isn't really a dig at you as much as it is a good example of people everywhere who have a voice online and behave in the same way you do.

I'll put it to you another way - are you OK with the behaviour of the NYT reporter (yes/no) and why?

you find it weird that people would highlight that what you claimed to have happened was factually incorrect?

it never happened George. there was no cancelling of a carton character because of perceived rape culture.

but you're right, such a weird stance to take.

i would say that getting all worked up about something that didn't happen, is a weirder stance and then proceed to try and defend that to be even weirder.