Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

“Cancel Culture” and “Woke”


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Yet somehow this dust up is the fault of liberals?

Yep. It's part and parcel to the revaluing of values that the left has shoved so relentlessly down our throat. It's like wondering why church and state erosion happened under the auspices of a born-again president leading a born-again march through policy and court appointments. The libertarian/fusionist right had to own the reduction in church/state separation in the aughts because their coalition included those that were pushing church/state issues, and the left and their coalition cohorts should really have to own stuff like this since this is of the left's coalition own making.

It's not very hard. You might not personally agree with it, but it comes from your coalition, to be sure. 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That was way too long a post.  Gordon Gekko is looking at that and wondering why I couldn't tighten it up a little.

Right-wingers do something dumb: "Look at those right-wingers.  What a bunch of dummies." Progressives do something dumb: "Look at those right-wingers complaining about that thing we did.  What a

Another Ted talk from Tim. Count down till 4 months from now when we get the thread titled "I was wrong about cancel culture"

9 hours ago, timschochet said:

See this is the type of over the top, ridiculous rhetoric that caused me to believe this whole “movement” is disingenuous. 
Did the removal of Song of the South result in other Disney movies being banned? 
Did the removal of Speedy Gonzalez cartoons result in other Warner Brothers cartoon characters being banned? 
 

Wait    Speedy is gone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

Wait    Speedy is gone?

Yeah, I was wondering that when I read it, too. Wasn't Speedy actually the reverse of the stereotype which his cousin personified for a moment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, rockaction said:
30 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

Wait    Speedy is gone?

Yeah, I was wondering that when I read it, too. Wasn't Speedy actually the reverse of the stereotype which his cousin personified for a moment?

Speedy isn't gone. When Cartoon Network acquired the Looney Tunes catalog back in 1999, they decided not to air his episodes. But the fans objected and the shows were brought back in 2002. The character has also been used in the New Looney Tunes cartoons, as recently as 2018.

edit: Modern day Speedy

Edited by Sea Duck
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, djmich said:

You said that if they’re racist, if they offend people, they should be gone....yet you seem to be incredibly self assured that the line has been drawn and it is not moving any further (doenst mean pinocchio is next, etc, etc).  Wanna bet there is more?

Pinocchio?

Dumbo, Lady and the Tramp, Jungle Book, Peter Pan.  Swiss Family Robinson. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tucker Carlson@TuckerCarlson 49m

Dr. Seuss was never a major literary figure, but his memory matters more than ever. The battle over what Dr. Seuss stood for — over what it means to be racist — will have consequences that extend for generations. If we lose that battle, America is lost.

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1366937340489392128

 

:mellow:  

And I thought the hyperbole on this forum was a bit over the top. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be more upset over this Dr. Seuss stuff if I didn't just sell two books on eBay today for about $350 when yesterday they were probably worth about $5.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

So far, there has been no evidence, even anecdotal, that I have seen to suggest that Hasbro took their Potato Head action based on any complaints from "the left".  It was literally the definition of a corporation exercising its version of "free speech".  Liberals summarily ignored the news.  Conservatives freaked out because they are constantly looking for reasons to freak out.  Then, of course, it turns out that what Hasbro actually did was not at all what conservative outlets reported.  Yet somehow this dust up is the fault of liberals?

Try some decaf.  Or maybe a horse tranqualizer.

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:

Tucker Carlson@TuckerCarlson 49m

Dr. Seuss was never a major literary figure, but his memory matters more than ever. The battle over what Dr. Seuss stood for — over what it means to be racist — will have consequences that extend for generations. If we lose that battle, America is lost.

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1366937340489392128

 

:mellow:  

And I thought the hyperbole on this forum was a bit over the top. 

Yes, this forum has been totally hyperbolic. Past reason. Seuss's Green Eggs N' Ham was definitely not a book about confronting personal prejudice and racism and treating individuals as individuals. His more questionable works should be expunged, if necessary, and at least expurgated at all costs. The publisher is just doing right by history not publishing these things. No dramatic action there to get upset about whatsoever. 

The hyperbole is there in the talk radio world because it's such a stupid thing, this refusal to print these books. The hyperbole is actually on the other side. Merely protesting against ridiculousness doesn't make it hyperbole. Nor is claiming that the fight for America's soul is on. It definitely is, and these communists that are in charge of these things are the ones starting it, not the people reacting to their silly culture war. But the left doesn't quite get that and never will, eschewing the chance to maybe straighten out their coalition by asking them to adopt -- never mind inculcate -- values of liberal tolerance for dissenting ideas and maybe imperfection in historical presentation. 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, squistion said:

Tucker Carlson@TuckerCarlson 49m

Dr. Seuss was never a major literary figure, but his memory matters more than ever. The battle over what Dr. Seuss stood for — over what it means to be racist — will have consequences that extend for generations. If we lose that battle, America is lost.

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1366937340489392128

 

:mellow:  

And I thought the hyperbole on this forum was a bit over the top. 

Can't agree with his take.  DS was probably the foundation for most when they started reading.  That would make him a major literary figure.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last Exit to Mulberry Street

Quote

When I sit down to read a book,
Some idjit says to me,
“Oppressor, check your privilege —
We’ll decide what you can see!”
And if I dare to contravene
Or decline to heed his quarantine,
Some philistine on Twitter sternly says,
“That literature’s obscene!
“You must do as we dictate,
“And we shall de-platform that hate!”

Now, what can I say
About the news today?

Under pressure from the mob
A gaggle of millionaires
— Dr. Seuss’s own literary heirs! —
Are nixing six books — they are pressing “Delete.”
And we’ll never again stroll down Mulberry Street.

That’s nothing new to us:
Just go ask Mark Twain
How the story of Huck Finn
Got flushed down the drain.

“Art should break rules!”
So they used to say.
But the fools’ new command
Is that art must obey.

Conformism’s victory is almost complete
So you’ll never again visit Mulberry Street.

The great and the small fry,
From Steinbeck to Weiss
Are pushed into the margins
Their words put on ice.
Harper Lee, Whitman, Rushdie, and Golding —
Faced with complaints, the school boards are folding.

Freedom of speech has nary a booster:
Not at The Atlantic nor at Simon & Schuster.
The New York Times will bellow and bleat,
And the silence will echo down Mulberry Street.

No, this won’t do, this won’t do at all —
This won’t do, these minds so small!
If they see just one word that they deem indiscreet
They’ll melt into puddles on old Mulberry Street.

Hold on a minute! Has it come to that?
Yertle the Turtle? The Cat in the Hat?
The Whos down in Whoville —
All samizdat?

Informers informing, keep your eyes on your feet:
The Secret Police patrol Mulberry Street.

Must we be doomed to litigate
The past, which did not anticipate
The present? Must it be our sorry fate
To comically self-flagellate?

We live and we learn
And our attitudes change.
Every day is a new day —
But isn’t it strange
That people who sell books
Should have the conceit
To put up a roadblock on Mulberry Street?

The hucksters and hypocrites
Are quick to join forces
And report any wrongthink
To Human Resources.

I know what I know . . . and this isn’t right.

Amazon plots
In the dark of the night
And gone is a book
That won’t see the light.
But wouldn’t it be grand
If they cared half as much
About books as their brand?

Oh, but who needs all that reading when there’s Netflix to binge?
The Star-Belly Sneetches now have their revenge.

An intelligent book
Deserves someone to read it.
A book that starts fights?
We desperately need it.
An unpopular view?
The campus should hear it.
But both teachers and students
Are afraid to go near it.
They cling to their wubbies
And bury their faces.
Away with you ninnies —
Back to your safe spaces!

Go back to TikTok or stay home and tweet.
You don’t deserve to see Mulberry Street.

I laughed. So sue/cancel me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

So two huge black leaders are not offended, but some Karen is?  That’s so 2021. 

Nothing either said address the current situation.  And how is this a case of some Karen is offended?  Again, is there anything to suggest this isn't the publisher acting vs some sort of cancel?

Obama's and Harris' statements have zero relevance to the discussion.  Do you think they have a problem with what the publisher is doing?  Do you think they have a problem with any company looking into things and deciding, you know, maybe we put out some stuff in the past...maybe it wasn't always the best stuff and we can be better?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, squistion said:

Tucker Carlson@TuckerCarlson 49m

Dr. Seuss was never a major literary figure, but his memory matters more than ever. The battle over what Dr. Seuss stood for — over what it means to be racist — will have consequences that extend for generations. If we lose that battle, America is lost.

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1366937340489392128

 

:mellow:  

And I thought the hyperbole on this forum was a bit over the top. 

Right, this episode definitely is not about the right searching for something, anything, to be outraged about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, can't they just change the offending images & words? I know it wouldn't be Seuss' original work then, but at least it's not completely lost.

This just seems like more Zero Tolerance thinking - which really means zero thinking, IMO.

 

Edited by Andy Dufresne
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Andy Dufresne said:

Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, can't they just change the offending images & words? I know it wouldn't be Seuss' original work then, but at least it's not completely lost.

This just seems like more Zero Tolerance thinking - which really means zero thinking, IMO.

I'm not a lawyer, and definitely not an expert on copyright law, but would that be legal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole cancel culture outrage, blaming “libs/the left/democrats” for decisions made by private companies, is ridiculous. The publisher announced they would stop printing them/hasbro is making a gender neutral potato; it’s not like there was a vote in the house. I haven’t seen anything to suggest there were picket lines or anything like that to apply public pressure, just a company making a business decision and FOX covering it all day rather than talk about the committee hearings about the insurrection. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I'm not a lawyer, and definitely not an expert on copyright law, but would that be legal?

I would guess it would be if it's done by the people that hold the rights to it.

Would it be any different than George Lucas' special edition changes to Star Wars, for example? Or the changes Disney made to them for Disney+?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I'm not a lawyer, and definitely not an expert on copyright law, but would that be legal?

This isn't really a "cancel culture" thing, but it's time for another reminder that copyrights last way, way, WAY too long.  There's no good reason why the works of Dr. Seuss, Hemingway, Nabakov, etc. aren't in the public domain.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Andy Dufresne said:

I would guess it would be if it's done by the people that hold the rights to it.

Would it be any different than George Lucas' special edition changes to Star Wars, for example? Or the changes Disney made to them for Disney+?

Exactly.  To expound, I'm not sure the publisher holds the rights in this case.  That's probably the question.

If not, the publisher can stop publishing a book on its own but couldn't modify the book on its own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Nothing either said address the current situation.  And how is this a case of some Karen is offended?  Again, is there anything to suggest this isn't the publisher acting vs some sort of cancel?

Obama's and Harris' statements have zero relevance to the discussion.  Do you think they have a problem with what the publisher is doing?  Do you think they have a problem with any company looking into things and deciding, you know, maybe we put out some stuff in the past...maybe it wasn't always the best stuff and we can be better?

 

Maybe.  But in a lot of these cases the private companies are acting at least in part out of fear of reprocussions from government.  So government can effectively use their purse strings to impliment anti-free speech policies essentually using a looohole to eliminate free speech.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

This isn't really a "cancel culture" thing, but it's time for another reminder that copyrights last way, way, WAY too long.  There's no good reason why the works of Dr. Seuss, Hemingway, Nabakov, etc. aren't in the public domain.

Sure, I'm on board.  As you note, nothing to do with cancel culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jon_mx said:

Maybe.  But in a lot of these cases the private companies are acting at least in part out of fear of reprocussions from government.  So government can effectively use their purse strings to impliment anti-free speech policies essentually using a looohole to eliminate free speech.

Wait, your contention is that Hasbro acted out of fear of government intervention?  If not Hasbro, which incident are you referencing?  Do you have any evidence whatsoever?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

The whole cancel culture outrage, blaming “libs/the left/democrats” for decisions made by private companies, is ridiculous. The publisher announced they would stop printing them/hasbro is making a gender neutral potato; it’s not like there was a vote in the house. I haven’t seen anything to suggest there were picket lines or anything like that to apply public pressure, just a company making a business decision and FOX covering it all day rather than talk about the committee hearings about the insurrection. 

I think the Seuss thing is getting way more attention than warranted.  That said, your point only serves to highlight the impact of the "culture".  When people are afraid to speak or write things or leave things written for fear of the mob...that is not evidence that cancel culture does not exist, it is evidence of how insidious it is.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I'm not a lawyer, and definitely not an expert on copyright law, but would that be legal?

I would guess it would depend on the estate and how the rights and all work out with his wishes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Exactly.  To expound, I'm not sure the publisher holds the rights in this case.  That's probably the question.

If not, the publisher can stop publishing a book on its own but couldn't modify the book on its own.

It seems like they're one in the same here. The decision to stop producing these specific books came from Dr. Seuss Enterprises. 

Regardless, somebody owns them. I just wonder if the option to modify them was ever on the table.

Edited by Andy Dufresne
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, djmich said:

I think the Seuss thing is getting way more attention than warranted.  That said, your point only serves to highlight the impact of the "culture".  When people are afraid to speak or write things or leave things written for fear of the mob...that is not evidence that cancel culture does not exist, it is evidence of how insidious it is.

This again seems like a claim without evidence.  In both the Dr. Seuss case and the Hasbro case, it seems reasonable to at least suspect that the decisions and announcements were made in the hopes of gathering cheap publicity and increased sales.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Wait, your contention is that Hasbro acted out of fear of government intervention?  If not Hasbro, which incident are you referencing?  Do you have any evidence whatsoever?

Facebook censuring the Hunter Biden story.  Conservative competitors being deplatformed.  In Hasbro case, they publish a ton of children's books and materials, which are bought by school districts across the country.  If they are seen as non-PC, they could face being blacklisted as racists.  Liberals are actively boycotting numerous organizations who are seen as simply supporting Trump.

The arguement does not even require a direct link to government coercion to be correct.  In the early 1900's prominent liberals promoted the idea that corporations could commit first amendment violations.  This arguement eventually prevailed in the Supreme Court in a 1946 decision of Marsh v. Alabama.  Later in 1968, a decision by Thurgood Marshall expanded the ruling.  Eventually it was overturned by a more conservative court.  

But now especially with a few Tech giants monopolizing the public platform known as the internet, these issues need to be re-evaluated so that free speech can be protected. i would like to think liberals would join this fight for basic freedoms, but seeing they are the ones with the strings i kind of doubt they will willing give up their new found power to eliminate opposing viewpoints.  

Edited by jon_mx
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

This again seems like a claim without evidence.  In both the Dr. Seuss case and the Hasbro case, it seems reasonable to at least suspect that the decisions and announcements were made in the hopes of gathering cheap publicity and increased sales.

Not really focusing on dr seuss, more on the thought process that cancel culture outcomes (people not speaking, people not writing, people editing past content) without picket lines or mobs is evidence that cancel culture is not driving those outcomes.

People are smart enough to not anger the mob after seeing others get punched in the face. 

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

Facebook censuring the Hunter Biden story.  Conservative competitors being deplatformed.  In Hasbro vase, they publish a ton of chimdren's books and materials, which are bought by school districts across the country.  If they are seen as non-PC, they could face being blacklisted as racists.  Linerals are actively boycotting numerous organizations who are seen as supporting Trump.

The arguement does not even require a direct link to government coercing to be correct.  In the early 1900's prominent liberals promoted the idea that corporations could committ first amendment violations.  This arguement eventually prevailed in the Supreme Court in a 1946 decision of Marsh v. Alabama.  Later in 1968, a decision by Thurgood Marshall exoanded the ruling.  Eventually it was overturned by a more conservative court.  

But now especially with a few Tech giants monopolizing the public platform known as the internet, these issues need to be re-evaluated so that free speech can be protected. i would like to think liberals would join this fight for basic freedoms, but seeing they are the ones with the strings i kind of doubt they will willing give up their new found power to eliminate opposing viewpoints.  

So you have no evidence whatsoever, then.  Just an opinion made up out of thin air.  Gotcha.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, djmich said:

Not really focusing on dr seuss, more on the thought process that cancel culture outcomes (people not speaking, people not writing, people editing past content) without picket lines or mobs is evidence that cancel culture is not driving those outcomes.

People are smart enough to not anger the mob after seeing others get punched in the face. 

I think you're seeing things that aren't there.  I know Hannity, Carlson, et.al. are making things up that aren't there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rich Conway said:

So you have no evidence whatsoever, then.  Just an opinion made up out of thin air.  Gotcha.

It is an concept based on past supreme court ruling.  I seriously am getting tired of the condescending belittlement that occurs by the liberal mob on this forum. Grow up.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rich Conway said:

I think you're seeing things that aren't there.  I know Hannity, Carlson, et.al. are making things up that aren't there.

I don't watch Fox, but OK

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I think you're seeing things that aren't there.  I know Hannity, Carlson, et.al. are making things up that aren't there.

Why did CNN see fit to devote a segment at five and a segment at eight on it, on different programs then? Seems like something that the conservative press might cover more, but it doesn't seem so. I don't know the tone and tenor of the coverage (I was eating. I'm always eating.) but it was right there next to otherwise real, and usually partisan news the other way.

It was news all around.

Jesse Walker of Reason made a great point. If these books didn't fall under IP law and the ridiculous protections now offered authors for their works, it would be in the public domain and this wouldn't even be an issue. Life of the author plus seventy years is a ridiculous protection, and some would call it unconstitutional because when we grant intellectual property copyrights to authors for "limited times," surely the word "limit" means something.

Edited by rockaction
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

This isn't really a "cancel culture" thing, but it's time for another reminder that copyrights last way, way, WAY too long.  There's no good reason why the works of Dr. Seuss, Hemingway, Nabakov, etc. aren't in the public domain.

I see I skimmed right by this before I made my grandiose point right above. Good catch on that issue, IMO.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

Speedy isn't gone. When Cartoon Network acquired the Looney Tunes catalog back in 1999, they decided not to air his episodes. But the fans objected and the shows were brought back in 2002. The character has also been used in the New Looney Tunes cartoons, as recently as 2018.

edit: Modern day Speedy

 

Did they get rid of Pepe Le Pew? Because that dude was a rapist.

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

In the early 1900's prominent liberals promoted the idea that corporations could commit first amendment violations.  This arguement eventually prevailed in the Supreme Court in a 1946 decision of Marsh v. Alabama.  Later in 1968, a decision by Thurgood Marshall expanded the ruling.  Eventually it was overturned by a more conservative court. 

That's the company town case. It possessed powers similar to what a state actor possessed, so it was found in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It's also a precursor to the mall free speech cases in California, but those are generally determined by state constitutions. I talked about these in my ranting against Twitter in the Ron Paul thread. There's precedent to ensure free speech in privately-owned settings that are open to the public. But it's a real stretch to say Simon and Schuster or one of the other publishing houses has to publish. Forget prior restraint, that's compelled publication, and we should be just as wary of placing a publication burden on private enterprise as we are dissuading prior restraint by government. 

Keep government out of publication of all things but government documents, statistics, forms, etc.

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Sure, I'm on board.  As you note, nothing to do with cancel culture.

You're being obtuse again if you think this isn't a function of cancel culture.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

So you have no evidence whatsoever, then.  Just an opinion made up out of thin air.  Gotcha.

This is good schtick.

Conway: obviously they did this for free publicity. (No evidence provided)

Other people: they did this out of fear of the woke mob. 

Conway: i demand evidence!!!

  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Why did CNN see fit to devote a segment at five and a segment at eight on it, on different programs then? Seems like something that the conservative press might cover more, but it doesn't seem so. I don't know the tone and tenor of the coverage (I was eating. I'm always eating) but it was right there next to otherwise real, and usually partisan news the other way.

It was news all around.

Jesse Walker of Reason made a great point. If these books didn't fall under IP law and the ridiculous protections now offered authors for their works, it would be in the public domain and this wouldn't even be an issue. Life of the author plus seventy years is a ridiculous protection, and some would call it unconstitutional because when we grant intellectual property copyrights to authors for "limited times," surely the word "limit" means something.

WaPo said Happy Birthday to Dr Seuss also by saying his racist books have to go.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/dr-seuss-books-canceled-notebook/2021/03/02/b3496b98-7b55-11eb-a976-c028a4215c78_story.html%3foutputType=amp

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FairWarning said:

Fudge. I've already used my monthly quota of WaPo articles. We know that this is why the books were taken out of publication and what the general intent behind it was. Well, all of us but Rich Conway, who seems to lack the necessary evidence.

*laughs a bit at the absurdity of that evidence claim*

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

It is an concept based on past supreme court ruling.  I seriously am getting tired of the condescending belittlement that occurs by the liberal mob on this forum. Grow up.  

When someone asks for evidence of a "feeling", it is not condescending.  When the "evidence" presented is along the lines of "it's everywhere, just look around", calling that out as not really being evidence is also not condescending.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, rockaction said:

You're being obtuse again if you think this isn't a function of cancel culture.

I don't think length of copyright protections are really related to cancel culture.  I'm open to argument otherwise, I suppose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

This is good schtick.

Conway: obviously they did this for free publicity. (No evidence provided)

Other people: they did this out of fear of the woke mob. 

Conway: i demand evidence!!!

Not at all what I wrote, but you know that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...