Buffarukus Posted March 3, 2021 Posted March 3, 2021 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Motorin' said: Quaker, which is owned by Pepsico, made the choice revert to the original Pearl Milling Company. I had nothing to do with it. I wasn't offended by anything, but understand why they would want to stop using a racist trope. What I find illuminating is the extent to which right wingers will go to express outrage and offense against companies making choices to repair there racist past. It's almost like the people most offended by Quaker attempting to repair it's racist past are angry that they would admit that there was something to repair. i wasnt generally talking about you. just giving the question to those who feel that way. is it a racist trope if the people that are closely associated with it do not see it that way. the fact noone seems to take their opinion as the end of the discussion seems pretty supremist to me. so the question really is how far does it go? when is it (lol) they mad at a potato toy and oh my god that is wrong and should be stopped? it doesn't seem like the left is concerned about drawing a line and will attack everything with impunity. case instance the set design at cpac..racism!! designed by a liberal owned company whos done tons of sets designs for biden in the past and meant nothing they say was intended...opps. but are targeted just the same. on to the next one. you went back in time and showed a racist advertisement as justification but removing her also removes that history. noone will ever see her face and look back at her life, the companies history, and how her image persevered through that time to a point where society now simply saw her as a well known brand identifier. a smiling face to greet you for your pancakes. you are the ones seeing the racism then calling others that name..for not seeing the same thing? Edited March 3, 2021 by Buffarukus
SoCal Deek Posted March 3, 2021 Posted March 3, 2021 (edited) 59 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: The publishers can simply reprint these 6 books with updated artwork. Or not. It’s their call and it appears they’ve made it. You honestly should stop making exaggerated comparisons like repainting all the pictures in the Louvre. It detracts from your arguments and makes you look silly. My comment is meant to open people's eyes beyond what's right in front of them this morning. These type of comparisons are only silly to people who don't see the inevitable conclusion of this kind of slippery slope. If you don't like the books....don't read them, and don't buy them. You make the exact same choices every time you walk into your local Barnes and Noble, and I'm pretty sure you don't tell the manager that you find a certain section offensive. Nobody has the right to change the work of a creative artist, author, or musician after they are dead. Simply make a new book if you'd like to make a better one. People make books every day. Edited March 3, 2021 by SoCal Deek
Motorin' Posted March 3, 2021 Posted March 3, 2021 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Buffarukus said: i wasnt generally talking about you. just giving the question to those who feel that way. is it a racist trope if the people that are closely associated with it do not see it that way. the fact noone seems to take their opinion as the end of the discussion seems pretty supremist to me. so the question really is how far does it go? when is it (lol) they mad at a potato toy and oh my god that is wrong and should be stopped? it doesn't seem like the left is concerned about drawing a line and will attack everything with impunity. case instance the set design at cpac..racism!! designed by a liberal owned company whos done tons of sets designs for biden in the past and meant nothing they say was intended...opps. but are targeted just the same. on to the next one. you went back in time and showed a racist advertisement as justification but removing her also removes that history. noone will ever see her face and look back at her life, the companies history, and how her image persevered through that time to a point where society now simply saw her as a well known brand identifier. a smiling face to greet you for your pancakes. you are the ones seeing the racism then calling others that name..for not seeing the same thing? Let me first say thank you for responding honestly. While we may end up totally disagreeing on this point, I appreciate your sincerity. And I appreciate that the family of Nancy Green sees their relative and her role in selling the product when they think of the brand. It's actually not her picture on the box, and many different actresses played Aunt Jemima throughout the years. She happens to be the first one, and the story at the stage show was that she, Aunt Jemima, created the mix from scratch. That was a story, that at some point got passed down to the family as fact. Let's be 100% honest, very few people knew the story of Nancy Green until Quaker announced they were rebranding. Then some news organizations picked up on the family's press release and ran with it. I read that and thought the Green family must be wealthy having invented Aunt Jemima pancakes. It turns out they didn't make a dime. I have a lot of stories from my grandparents that turned out to be either off, or flat out false. So I understand how family lore can be taken as a truth, only later to learn otherwise. If Nancy Green had invented the pancake mix, and her family was profiting from it's sales, I'd say they still deserve their royalties, even after the rebrand. But they never received any, because she was playing a role. The role was originally created in a 1875 minstrel show, where Aunt Jemima was the central character played in blackface by a white man. They sang a song about dumb old Aunt Jemima who's happy to serve white people. The brand Aunt Jemima was created decades before hiring Nancy Green to play her. There are many black accomplishments to celebrate, and we probably don't celebrate them enough. Aunt Jemima isn't one of them. I'm not sure how to respond to being called a supremecist for thinking it's a good thing that Quaker is no longer using one of the most popular symbols of white supremecy. But I didn't put any pressure on them to change, and I don't know that their decision was anything other than an internal business choice. Here's what Neil deGrasse Tyson has to say, "It’s not that Aunt Jemima was a symbol of a racist past, she was the very embodiment of a racist past. She will not be missed by anyone who knew that." Edited March 3, 2021 by Motorin' 2
Unforgiven Posted March 3, 2021 Posted March 3, 2021 If they make Superman black will it put this to bed ? Will that be enough? https://screenrant.com/superman-movie-reboot-actors-casting/ First they devastated the comic industry now they are determined to pound the movies into oblivion. Way to go ! (to be fair the DC films are already garbage and can only get better)
SoCal Deek Posted March 3, 2021 Posted March 3, 2021 36 minutes ago, Unforgiven said: If they make Superman black will it put this to bed ? Will that be enough? https://screenrant.com/superman-movie-reboot-actors-casting/ First they devastated the comic industry now they are determined to pound the movies into oblivion. Way to go ! (to be fair the DC films are already garbage and can only get better) If someone wants to make a new black Superman, I guess they can....but...they should really get permission from the original creator. If not, they should simply create their own super hero and call him whatever they want to .
Buffarukus Posted March 3, 2021 Posted March 3, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Motorin' said: Let me first say thank you for responding honestly. While we may end up totally disagreeing on this point, I appreciate your sincerity. And I appreciate that the family of Nancy Green sees their relative and her role in selling the product when they think of the brand. It's actually not her picture on the box, and many different actresses played Aunt Jemima throughout the years. She happens to be the first one, and the story at the stage show was that she, Aunt Jemima, created the mix from scratch. That was a story, that at some point got passed down to the family as fact. Let's be 100% honest, very few people knew the story of Nancy Green until Quaker announced they were rebranding. Then some news organizations picked up on the family's press release and ran with it. I read that and thought the Green family must be wealthy having invented Aunt Jemima pancakes. It turns out they didn't make a dime. I have a lot of stories from my grandparents that turned out to be either off, or flat out false. So I understand how family lore can be taken as a truth, only later to learn otherwise. If Nancy Green had invented the pancake mix, and her family was profiting from it's sales, I'd say they still deserve their royalties, even after the rebrand. But they never received any, because she was playing a role. The role was originally created in a 1875 minstrel show, where Aunt Jemima was the central character played in blackface by a white man. They sang a song about dumb old Aunt Jemima who's happy to serve white people. The brand Aunt Jemima was created decades before hiring Nancy Green to play her. There are many black accomplishments to celebrate, and we probably don't celebrate them enough. Aunt Jemima isn't one of them. I'm not sure how to respond to being called a supremecist for thinking it's a good thing that Quaker is no longer using one of the most popular symbols of white supremecy. But I didn't put any pressure on them to change, and I don't know that their decision was anything other than an internal business choice. Here's what Neil deGrasse Tyson has to say, "It’s not that Aunt Jemima was a symbol of a racist past, she was the very embodiment of a racist past. She will not be missed by anyone who knew that." i always try to conversate with those that will do back with thoughtful discussion. the internet has more then enough name calling spats that go nowhere. i was not calling you personally a supremist. i was just pointing out how the cancel mob has no issue superseding the voices of who is being effected the most. as with most things today it turns into a all or nothing referendum as i am a white supremist for not agreeing and trying to maintain a racist trope. at the end of the day i think we should ask those mostly effected and stop allowing others to step in and make those demands. it brings obserdity to the conversation. it also become profitable as those calling for the attention have stories to produce for clicks and gofundme to link for support. manufactured outrage. we can look at a potato toy and agree (id hope) removing a gender is inconsequential to anything as they even still have genders in the actual product, just not brand name. but when you combine that with the fact a major body of government has banned all gendered language you (id hope) say hey that's crazy and may be going to far in society. when it comes to historical writing (id hope) that all can not be viewed under the same glass. some writing requires the historical ugly past context, some doesn't. will you fight on behalf of the ones that do? instead of snap decisions from a mob that clearly has no basis in reality for some of what they call for.. this needs actual debate. unfortunatly anyone making these arguments is given a label regardless of the content of the discussion. so the right will fight EVERYTHING because it IS leading to some impactful negative changes. such as abolishing police area violence spikes, 3 year old given options to gender change. THREE!? ect ect there's a middle ground and we may disagree but as long as there are people willing to make a honest dialogue then hopefully neither extreme will fully win, but lets be real, the left is in the drivers seat. if leftist dont speak up on these things then its not going to end well. imo. so i am. the fact you don't simply throw trump argument at me and stick around to defend your point truley does give me hope. believe me when i tell you ive taken your points into consideration on my stance. Edited March 3, 2021 by Buffarukus 1
B-Man Posted March 4, 2021 Posted March 4, 2021 8 hours ago, oldmanfan said: This cancel culture stuff is fake. 3
Motorin' Posted March 4, 2021 Posted March 4, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, Buffarukus said: i always try to conversate with those that will do back with thoughtful discussion. the internet has more then enough name calling spats that go nowhere. i was not calling you personally a supremist. i was just pointing out how the cancel mob has no issue superseding the voices of who is being effected the most. as with most things today it turns into a all or nothing referendum as i am a white supremist for not agreeing and trying to maintain a racist trope. at the end of the day i think we should ask those mostly effected and stop allowing others to step in and make those demands. it brings obserdity to the conversation. it also become profitable as those calling for the attention have stories to produce for clicks and gofundme to link for support. manufactured outrage. we can look at a potato toy and agree (id hope) removing a gender is inconsequential to anything as they even still have genders in the actual product, just not brand name. but when you combine that with the fact a major body of government has banned all gendered language you (id hope) say hey that's crazy and may be going to far in society. when it comes to historical writing (id hope) that all can not be viewed under the same glass. some writing requires the historical ugly past context, some doesn't. will you fight on behalf of the ones that do? instead of snap decisions from a mob that clearly has no basis in reality for some of what they call for.. this needs actual debate. unfortunatly anyone making these arguments is given a label regardless of the content of the discussion. so the right will fight EVERYTHING because it IS leading to some impactful negative changes. such as abolishing police area violence spikes, 3 year old given options to gender change. THREE!? ect ect there's a middle ground and we may disagree but as long as there are people willing to make a honest dialogue then hopefully neither extreme will fully win, but lets be real, the left is in the drivers seat. if leftist dont speak up on these things then its not going to end well. imo. so i am. the fact you don't simply throw trump argument at me and stick around to defend your point truley does give me hope. believe me when i tell you ive taken your points into consideration on my stance. I do appreciate the honest dialogue. I had to search for info about government banning gendered language. What I found was interesting. And it looks like another example of fake outrage, first propagated by Dinesh D'Souza and then Breitbart. It seems to have spread all over right leaning media from there. It looks like the House of Representatives re-wrote the rules of conduct for House members and used non-gender specific language. For instance, there was a passage that prohibited Congress members from hiring, "fathers, mothers, fathers in law, mothers in law, brothers, sisters, brothers in law, sisters in law..." And it was re-written to read, "parents, in-laws and siblings..." It seems to be a long tedious document spelling out what Congress can and can not do in the course of their job. What does not appear to be anywhere in this re-write are rules on the use of language. In fact shortly after the re-write, Nancy Pelosi (regardless of what you think of her as a person) gave a speech where she reffered to herself as a mother and wife. If the House did not change the rules of language use, which appears to be the case, why have the right leaning media jumped all over it claiming that the House has banned the usage of gendered language? It seems like they are lying to evoke emotional responses from their base. Edited March 4, 2021 by Motorin' 1
Buftex Posted March 4, 2021 Posted March 4, 2021 45 minutes ago, BillStime said: Let's not forget, the GOP censured those in their own party who voted to impeach their Mango Messiah. They know all about "cancel culture", they have been doing it for years. 2
Buffarukus Posted March 4, 2021 Posted March 4, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Motorin' said: I do appreciate the honest dialogue. I had to search for info about government banning gendered language. What I found was interesting. And it looks like another example of fake outrage, first propagated by Dinesh D'Souza and then Breitbart. It seems to have spread all over right leaning media from there. It looks like the House of Representatives re-wrote the rules of conduct for House members and used non-gender specific language. For instance, there was a passage that prohibited Congress members from hiring, "fathers, mothers, fathers in law, mothers in law, brothers, sisters, brothers in law, sisters in law..." And it was re-written to read, "parents, in-laws and siblings..." It seems to be a long tedious document spelling out what Congress can and can not do in the course of their job. What does not appear to be anywhere in this re-write are rules on the use of language. In fact shortly after the re-write, Nancy Pelosi (regardless of what you think of her as a person) gave a speech where she reffered to herself as a mother and wife. If the House did not change the rules of language use, which appears to be the case, why have the right leaning media jumped all over it claiming that the House has banned the usage of gendered language? It seems like they are lying to evoke emotional responses from their base. you son of a parent. lol. you made me download the pdf and try to comprehend that garbage. 43 pages!! i see fact check that says it was for that single piece of legislation then i also see Under the changes, words like “father,” “mother,” “son,” “daughter,” “brother” and “sister” will be replaced in official documents by the gender-neutral terms “parent,” “child” or “sibling,” respectively. so what is a "official documents"..plural? im not sure but it would lead me to believe that this can easily be seen as a beginning step. i never thought that they were banning gendered language from speeches. if a republican said father i wasn't implying that they would halt the proceedings and arrest someone from speaking. but did think it was required for all bills and rules as i would think that would be concidered having to be written up on "official documents". either way it looks to be a virtue signaling tactic that does not encompass as much as i thought. ill admit i may have not gotten the full facts on it and have been enlightened. ill def look more into it more now. what i will say, when it comes to this. its a drop in the bucket. so then you have this interaction between rand paul and rachel levine. i think that deserves a direct answer. but maybe thats me. just another drop in the bucket. then you have attempted censorship by the ACLU of a book on the study of the damage to transgendered teens who have made irreparable decisions. WHY would this be on a censor list? why would someone have to fight a organization that used to fight for freedom of speech? just to hide that there ARE negative consequences to these decisions. it isnt all sunshine for some people and the decision should be taken VERY seriously. another drop. https://www.iwf.org/2020/11/16/some-in-aclu-have-new-cause-book-banning/ so then we look at the amount of childrens books, shows, influences, forced educations, even against their parents wishes. (some examples shown in this thread). the fight against established science of two sexes. the rise of "violence" if you use the wrong pronoun and banning off platforms for even discussing the other side. the women right advocates being attacked for wanting their own sports, scholarships ect. ect. its almost if there werent gay pride parades all over the country. gay bars and night clubs. gay actors and performers who have been very successful. gay right to marry. shows specifically designated towards this lifestyle, some of which was established decades before any of this. but the lgbt community has a subsector of trans so we MUST focus all our attention on that now. if you don't, or question it publically, then you are a bigot. and you wonder why this subject envokes a emotional response? why people are swayed by another announcement of a drip going into the , you must conform to this thinking or else, bucket? Edited March 4, 2021 by Buffarukus
SoCal Deek Posted March 4, 2021 Posted March 4, 2021 I’m going to offer my two cents here. The majority of you are missing the ‘longer play’ here. The current chapter of cancel chapter is only a small step in a much greater movement. The goal of all of this has nothing to do with gender, pronoun, transgender or racial anything. The goal is to strip the American people of personal or individual identity until their only identity is defined by the State. Don’t kid yourselves, at the root of it, these folks are communists. Their ultimate goal is that everyone (men, women, whatever) will be genderless, raceless comrades all existing for the good of the State where the village will raise your children. It takes a few steps to accomplish this evolution but you can be sure this is indeed the goal. 2
Tiberius Posted March 4, 2021 Posted March 4, 2021 On 3/2/2021 at 10:32 AM, Over 29 years of fanhood said: Ironically he was a staunch liberal Yup, which shows how racial stereotypes can spread so easily and unwittingly. On 3/2/2021 at 8:09 PM, T&C said: I'd have to wonder if Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn are available in their natural form at library's anymore... haven't been to a library in probably 20 years. Sure are! Huck Finn's racist loser dad has his racist tirade still in the book. Sounds kind of like a Trump supporter 1
T master Posted March 4, 2021 Posted March 4, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, Buffarukus said: you son of a parent. lol. you made me download the pdf and try to comprehend that garbage. 43 pages!! i see fact check that says it was for that single piece of legislation then i also see Under the changes, words like “father,” “mother,” “son,” “daughter,” “brother” and “sister” will be replaced in official documents by the gender-neutral terms “parent,” “child” or “sibling,” respectively. so what is a "official documents"..plural? im not sure but it would lead me to believe that this can easily be seen as a beginning step. i never thought that they were banning gendered language from speeches. if a republican said father i wasn't implying that they would halt the proceedings and arrest someone from speaking. but did think it was required for all bills and rules as i would think that would be concidered having to be written up on "official documents". either way it looks to be a virtue signaling tactic that does not encompass as much as i thought. ill admit i may have not gotten the full facts on it and have been enlightened. ill def look more into it more now. what i will say, when it comes to this. its a drop in the bucket. so then you have this interaction between rand paul and rachel levine. i think that deserves a direct answer. but maybe thats me. just another drop in the bucket. then you have attempted censorship by the ACLU of a book on the study of the damage to transgendered teens who have made irreparable decisions. WHY would this be on a censor list? why would someone have to fight a organization that used to fight for freedom of speech? just to hide that there ARE negative consequences to these decisions. it isnt all sunshine for some people and the decision should be taken VERY seriously. another drop. https://www.iwf.org/2020/11/16/some-in-aclu-have-new-cause-book-banning/ so then we look at the amount of childrens books, shows, influences, forced educations, even against their parents wishes. (some examples shown in this thread). the fight against established science of two sexes. the rise of "violence" if you use the wrong pronoun and banning off platforms for even discussing the other side. the women right advocates being attacked for wanting their own sports, scholarships ect. ect. its almost if there werent gay pride parades all over the country. gay bars and night clubs. gay actors and performers who have been very successful. gay right to marry. shows specifically designated towards this lifestyle, some of which was established decades before any of this. but the lgbt community has a subsector of trans so we MUST focus all our attention on that now. if you don't, or question it publically, then you are a bigot. and you wonder why this subject envokes a emotional response? why people are swayed by another announcement of a drip going into the , you must conform to this thinking or else, bucket? In reference to the video . Never answer the question as it is posed to you always defer to the none answer answer ! Same as it ever was ... Edited March 4, 2021 by T master 1
BillStime Posted March 4, 2021 Posted March 4, 2021 10 hours ago, Buftex said: Let's not forget, the GOP censured those in their own party who voted to impeach their Mango Messiah. They know all about "cancel culture", they have been doing it for years. Yeah Republicans don’t believe in boycotting companies. Unless it’s: "Nike for using Kaepernick in an ad, or when they were throwing their Keurigs out the window because the company pulled their ads from Sean Hannity’s show, or boycotting Busch over an ad about their immigrant founder, or Doritos for releasing limited edition rainbow chips in support of children bullied for their sexual orientation, or Netflix over their Obama deal, or Yeti for dropping the NRA, or the Superbowl over an ad, or Dick's Sporting Goods because they stopped selling assault style weapons, or Air BnB because some resident owners were allowing "refugees" to stay in their homes, or Ben and Jerry's because they said they didn't support the travel ban, or Disney (I can't remember why that one happened, actually... something, something inclusivity?), or Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, Apple, and Instagram (while using these exact platforms to complain) for "silencing conservatives" or having “leftist propagandists” as CEOs, or Kellogg, Johnson & Johnson, and Nestle because they stopped advertising on Breitbart and/or Laura Ingraham's program, or Starbucks because of the “war on Christmas”, or Target because they don't specify what bathroom you must use, and took down the "girls" and "boys" signs by the toys, or Macy’s and Nordstrom’s because they dropped Ivanka Trump’s clothing line (because it wasn’t selling - they weren’t even trying to make a political statement here), or United Airlines, Delta Airlines, REI, Hertz, and Enterprise because they ended their NRA rewards programs, or Amazon because Bezos publicly disapproved of the travel ban, or Marvel because they “promote social justice warriors”, or ESPN because “they should just stick to sports”, oh and let’s not forget any and all news outlets that are not Fox. So, I mean aside from that? Nope. None. It’s “the left” that’s full of wallet grabbing snowflakes." 3 1
wnyguy Posted March 4, 2021 Posted March 4, 2021 2 minutes ago, BillStime said: It’s “the left” that’s full of wallet grabbing snowflakes." Gad to see you finally opened your eyes.
BillStime Posted March 4, 2021 Posted March 4, 2021 3 minutes ago, wnyguy said: Gad to see you finally opened your eyes. 1
Recommended Posts