The All Things Political Thread (The World and US Reunited)

[BruceVC]

On 3/6/2021 at 12:14 PM, BruceVC said:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/vaccinated-pope-francis-makes-history-183106580.html

I respect the Pope for this historic visit to Iraq, he is a good guy and a true believer 

Its important for all the people of Iraq but especially for the shrinking and Lilliputian  Iraqi Christian community which sometimes is indirectly and directly the target of bias and discrimination

So well done Pope 

 

The Pope also visited Mosul which use to be the ISIS capital in Iraq during the era of the false ISIS Caliphate 

And he met with the highest ranking Shia in Iraq so its been a comprehensive tour to Iraq and he has done exceptionally well at visiting different places and people important to both Muslims and Christians 

[ComradeYellow]

https://en.die-linke.de/welcome/

Germans. 

[rjshae]

20 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I wouldnt call it moral panic .....its a good question? 

I wouldn't call it  moral because for me that word is real and means something that is consistent and sometimes cancel culture is more about grandstanding, sheep mentality and people having an automatic knee-jerk reaction to certain developments only if committed by one group or another. So its inconsistent with how it manifests 

I see it as a form of isolating and punishing people or companies we dont like and it has a direct impact on the revenue stream of the targeted group ? So its punitive and a form of punishment IMO  

But that is what happens in a moral panic. The main difference this time is it comes from the left; usually we get these from the right.

[Raithe]

[BruceVC]

41 minutes ago, Raithe said:

Nah, thats definitely not the reason I am opposed to the banning/not publishing  of the books

This is just a sweeping generalization and ignores other pertinent concerns 

 

[Raithe]

49 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Nah, thats definitely not the reason I am opposed to the banning/not publishing  of the books

This is just a sweeping generalization and ignores other pertinent concerns 

 

[BruceVC]

2 minutes ago, Raithe said:

Raithe I always appreciate your input but I have explained my reasons several times  for objecting to this banning/ not publishing and I am not going to repeat them again but you can go back a few threads and see what my objection is 

[Raithe]

 

I always find it interesting how two different sides will view the other doing the same activities as something completely different.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Raithe

[Amentep]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Raithe I always appreciate your input but I have explained my reasons several times  for objecting to this banning/ not publishing and I am not going to repeat them again but you can go back a few threads and see what my objection is 

Your argument is apparently that once a creator creates something they (or their agents) cannot voluntarily withdraw the creation from the marketplace of ideas (or at the very least, cannot voluntarily withdraw if you deem the study they commissioned that led to the decision to withdraw flawed and there exists statistically invalid polls that fell on the side of non-withdrawal).

[BruceVC]

33 minutes ago, Amentep said:

Your argument is apparently that once a creator creates something they (or their agents) cannot voluntarily withdraw the creation from the marketplace of ideas (or at the very least, cannot voluntarily withdraw if you deem the study they commissioned that led to the decision to withdraw flawed and there exists statistically invalid polls that fell on the side of non-withdrawal).

No thats not my main argument, you have some of it right but not the main point. I will repeat it again in the interests of clarity and so that other members like Raithe also can understand my view on this 

Its not  just  about this specific example of the Seuss Estate but the ongoing principle of conclusions we decide to act on based on reports or information. But if we going to act or change our thinking than the reason, in this case a report , needs to be accurate and not make false conclusions 

The report commissioned by the Seuss Estate made one serious  conclusion that because the author of the books is white and all his main characters are white this automatically translates to white supremacy. And of course this doesn't even remotely mean his books are automatically  examples of white supremacy.  Anyone of any race can  choose to include whatever race he wants in his own fiction stories.

This cannot be ignored and immediately leads to questions of the credibility of the entire report. If the report was a witness in a trial and he was on the side of the prosecutors the defense would have a field day and take him to task on the stand because irrespective of what else he said this would impinge on his credibility and entire testimony

So my argument is about the credibility of the report and how it made anti-white and biased conclusions even amongst ostensibly valid critique of  certain cartoons 

I only added the Smerconish poll because it represents political centralists and moderate Americans and they share my view. So in other words its not just Conservatives and right-wingers who think this development is unnecessary. You can ignore what the actual sentiment on the ground is and dismiss polling data , its not going to change my main point 

So I am not arguing " they have no right " , its  a private entity and they can do what they like. The argument is based on " how they came to the decision "

And its based on a biased report which should concern all of us with its  " conclusions " of the Dr Seuss books and the ideological views of the author.

 

Edited March 8, 2021 by BruceVC

[Amentep]

The problem with your argument is the Seuss estate does not cite the 2019 study, nor did they commission it.  As near as I can tell, it is an independent study published in the journal Research on Diversity in Youth Literature and was only added to the CNN article for context by the reporter.

The study in question was committed to answering the question of whether Seuss' oveure was anti-racist as had been claimed by others in the youth literature field (particularly within context of The Sneetches and Horton Hears a Who specifically and without a broader context for the works).  In that sense, the statement that Seuss didn't address non-whites in his human characters makes contextual sense (whether you agree with the conclusion or not).

The important thing, again, is that the Seuss estate does not cite that 2019 study as their rationale for their decision to pull the 6 books (nor, for that matter, was the library reading program saying they wouldn't count Seuss books towards their reading event cited).

[BruceVC]

6 minutes ago, Amentep said:

The problem with your argument is the Seuss estate does not cite the 2019 study, nor did they commission it.  As near as I can tell, it is an independent study published in the journal Research on Diversity in Youth Literature and was only added to the CNN article for context by the reporter.

The study in question was committed to answering the question of whether Seuss' oveure was anti-racist as had been claimed by others in the youth literature field (particularly within context of The Sneetches and Horton Hears a Who specifically and without a broader context for the works).  In that sense, the statement that Seuss didn't address non-whites in his human characters makes contextual sense (whether you agree with the conclusion or not).

The important thing, again, is that the Seuss estate does not cite that 2019 study as their rationale for their decision to pull the 6 books (nor, for that matter, was the library reading program saying they wouldn't count Seuss books towards their reading event cited).

Okay well that could change things, if in fact the decision to not publish those books is not based on the biased report than I would need to review my opinion

I need to do some research, do you have links that specifically explain "Seuss estate does not cite the 2019 study " or rather do you have links that explain how they came to that conclusion ( yes I am being lazy but if you have done the research it would save time )

[Amentep]

This is the official statement from Seuss Estate - https://www.seussville.com/statement-from-dr-seuss-enterprises/
 

Quote

 

Today, on Dr. Seuss’s Birthday, Dr. Seuss Enterprises celebrates reading and also our mission of supporting all children and families with messages of hope, inspiration, inclusion, and friendship.

We are committed to action.  To that end, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, working with a panel of experts, including educators, reviewed our catalog of titles and made the decision last year to cease publication and licensing of the following titles:  And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, If I Ran the Zoo, McElligot’s Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, Scrambled Eggs Super!, and The Cat’s Quizzer.  These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.

Ceasing sales of these books is only part of our commitment and our broader plan to ensure Dr. Seuss Enterprises’s catalog represents and supports all communities and families.

 

No studies or events are cited at all.  No particular conclusion is made, however these titles have been controversial for years.

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Raithe said:

 

I always find it interesting how two different sides will view the other doing the same activities as something completely different.

Everyone wants the thing they don’t like prohibited. No one is on the side of the angels. But every one mistakenly thinks they are.

[BruceVC]

52 minutes ago, Amentep said:

This is the official statement from Seuss Estate - https://www.seussville.com/statement-from-dr-seuss-enterprises/
 

No studies or events are cited at all.  No particular conclusion is made, however these titles have been controversial for years.

 

Okay thanks, I would like to know if indeed the Research on Diversity in Youth Literature  study was used as  reason for the decision

But they dont specifically say so in your link and I cant find other sources based on the time I am prepared to spend on this 

Anyway I appreciate the feedback, I dont have issues with them not publishing these 6 books anymore because I cannot say their decision was based on the biased and anti-white report  

[Guard Dog]

Pepe Le Pew has been culture cancelled!

 

actually he hasn’t. It sounds like his scene was just cut from the new space jam movie.  But a short while ago it went around that he was the next loony tune character to be hated because he promoted “rape culture“. LOL! If they think he is the worst and most politically incorrect thing to come out of Looney Tunes they need to watch some of the really old episodes!

Anyway some of the responses to this are truly comedic.

[Gfted1]

Yeah, they had to dial back the "sexy" of Lola Bunny too.

[Gfted1]

British royal family plunged into crisis after Harry and Meghan allege racism and neglect in Oprah interview.

Why are the British royals such dirtbags?

[BruceVC]

13 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Yeah, they had to dial back the "sexy" of Lola Bunny too.

As long as no-one takes away Jessica Bunny I can live with that

 

[BruceVC]

3 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

British royal family plunged into crisis after Harry and Meghan allege racism and neglect in Oprah interview.

Why are the British royals such dirtbags?

They not, the story is nuanced and complex and you should hear both sides 

[Guard Dog]

Bah. I cannot imagine anything less interesting then inter family squabbles of great Britain‘s national pets. 

[Gfted1]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

As long as no-one takes away Jessica Bunny I can live with that

Just wait until they try to remake the movie. Pearls will be clutched!

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

They not, the story is nuanced and complex and you should hear both sides 

I bet theyre really hoping for a return of Trump in 2024.

[Zoraptor]

Kind of funny how easy people are to manipulate and how utterly naive they are to even the most basic PR moves.

Literally everyone familiar with the Royal Family knows who asked how dark the baby's skin colour would be, it wouldn't do the slightest damage to name everyone's racist uncle Prince Philip as the person asking that question. It does more damage not to name him because speculation, and Meghan Markle 100% knows that. Archie doesn't get to be a prince because Prince Harry publicly said he didn't want his children to have titles literally years ago, and Archie doesn't qualify for being a Prince. She's also not Princess Diana, coming into the family blind as an innocent (more or less) 19 year old, she's a TV actress in her 30s.

Harry is also at best thick as two short planks. Yeah, everyone in the royal family feels trapped, not a secret, Liz the QM famously hated Edward VIII for abdicating and forcing her husband to be King. They still do it though, with a smile. I'm sure they'll be very keen to reconcile with brave Harry who spoke his mind after... running away and leaving them to take up his slack.

Ironically Harry and Meghan come across as utterly entitled. They wanted only the perks of the RF and none of the downsides and for everything to bend to them. And they'll run the money side of being royals into the ground, on their own terms. To quote the great philosopher Scott Steiner: "no simpy". Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Amentep]

41 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

As long as no-one takes away Jessica Bunny I can live with that

 

Jessica Rabbit. She took her husband's last name. He was Roger Rabbit.

Re: Pepe Lepew - never liked the character much, so won't miss him. Supposedly they'd filmed a scene (where he gets  comeuppance,  of a sort) but with the production juggling and changing directors it isn't going to be in the finished film.

[BruceVC]

30 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Kind of funny how easy people are to manipulate and how utterly naive they are to even the most basic PR moves.

Literally everyone familiar with the Royal Family knows who asked how dark the baby's skin colour would be, it wouldn't do the slightest damage to name everyone's racist uncle Prince Philip as the person asking that question. It does more damage not to name him because speculation, and Meghan Markle 100% knows that. Archie doesn't get to be a prince because Prince Harry publicly said he didn't want his children to have titles literally years ago, and Archie doesn't qualify for being a Prince. She's also not Princess Diana, coming into the family blind as an innocent (more or less) 19 year old, she's a TV actress in her 30s.

Harry is also at best thick as two short planks. Yeah, everyone in the royal family feels trapped, not a secret, Liz the QM famously hated Edward VIII for abdicating and forcing her husband to be King. They still do it though, with a smile. I'm sure they'll be very keen to reconcile with brave Harry who spoke his mind after... running away and leaving them to take up his slack.

Ironically Harry and Meghan come across as utterly entitled. They wanted only the perks of the RF and none of the downsides and for everything to bend to them. And they'll run the money side of being royals into the ground, on their own terms. To quote the great philosopher Scott Steiner: "no simpy". Quite the opposite, in fact.

I was about to criticize this post heavily for its lack of patriotism  as NZ in part of the Commonwealth but then I read what you said and I agree with most of it