Llooll Aammaazzoonn!

twist3d0n3 · 2 Oct 2014 at 15:35

Atlas23 said:
Are you straw man-ing him?

are you straw man-ing me?

TheBDog · 2 Oct 2014 at 15:35

twist3d0n3 said:
are you straw man-ing me?

It's Spider-Man! Don't forget the '-'!

twist3d0n3 · 2 Oct 2014 at 15:37

TheBDog said:
It's Spider-Man! Don't forget the '-'!

antijoke · 2 Oct 2014 at 15:40

Looking at Wiki and the T&J wiki it indicates Mammy Two Shoes is the owner of the house and not a maid.

TheBDog · 2 Oct 2014 at 15:42

twist3d0n3 said:

Greboth · 2 Oct 2014 at 15:46

spoffle said:
I don't particularly see an issue with explaining context. I'd rather that than things be edited, censored, or even removed completely.

I am not against a label explaining content, like you I would rather than than things be edited or censored. I just do not see the need for an explaination of the content in the first place. Trying to make it now as a representation of today you would be on very shakey ground but the cartoon was of its time. People should know and appreciate that and get over making stupid and uneeded complaints.

twist3d0n3 · 2 Oct 2014 at 15:48

TheBDog said:

TheBDog · 2 Oct 2014 at 15:49

twist3d0n3 said:

robfosters · 2 Oct 2014 at 15:55

I am disappointed at the so called mod thinking their funny by changing the thread title when the right thing to do would be to take the extra a away, not take the ****

Mods should not behave in this way. The forum is not their personal toy.

robfosters · 2 Oct 2014 at 15:57

anticonscience said:
Looking at Wiki and the T&J wiki it indicates Mammy Two Shoes is the owner of the house and not a maid.

So they are literally making a racist issue out of something that never was.

Typical of this day and age. I and most others thought she was the owner and that seems to be the case, therefore I rest mine.

Mark M · 2 Oct 2014 at 15:58

I am appalled! Im not really, I'll probably never even read the warning!

Atlas23 · 2 Oct 2014 at 15:58

robfosters said:
I am disappointed at the so called mod thinking their funny by changing the thread title when the right thing to do would be to take the extra a away, not take the ****

Mods should not behave in this way. The forum is not their personal toy.

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

For the love of god, please let there be some entertainment in GD.

Also, *they're

TheBDog · 2 Oct 2014 at 16:00

robfosters said:
So they are literally making a racist issue out of something that never was.

Typical of this day and age. I and most others thought she was the owner and that seems to be the case, therefore I rest mine.

/thread

twist3d0n3 · 2 Oct 2014 at 16:01

robfosters said:
So they are literally making a racist issue out of something that never was.

Typical of this day and age. I and most others thought she was the owner and that seems to be the case, therefore I rest mine.

Atlas23 · 2 Oct 2014 at 16:03

robfosters said:
So they are literally making a racist issue out of something that never was.

Typical of this day and age. I and most others thought she was the owner and that seems to be the case, therefore I rest mine.

FoxEye · 2 Oct 2014 at 16:07

function reactToThisNews() {
self.shrugShoulders();
thread.readNext();
}

It's their store, I don't see why they shouldn't put whatever warning on they feel appropriate.

Most people have sufficient critical thinking skills to accept these cartoons in their historical context.

But when you add lawyers and politicians to the equation, all bets are off. I don't think the average man in the street is so PC that they're being forced to do this. Probably most people are as baffled as the OP.

I mean, did any of us on hearing this news think, "Great! About time too. Those cartoons are so offensive to black people."

TheBDog · 2 Oct 2014 at 16:09

FoxEye said:
function reactToThisNews() {
self.shrugShoulders();
thread.readNext();
}

It's their store, I don't see why they shouldn't put whatever warning on they feel appropriate.

Most people have sufficient critical thinking skills to accept these cartoons in their historical context.

But when you add lawyers and politicians to the equation, all bets are off. I don't think the average man in the street is so PC that they're being forced to do this. Probably most people are as baffled as the OP.

I mean, did any of us on hearing this news think, "Great! About time too. Those cartoons are so offensive to black people."

Didn't you read the thread? spoffle reckons it's not about black people or something and then got butthurt and then I forget because I don't care.

....Nevermind

FoxEye · 2 Oct 2014 at 16:10

No I didn't read the thread.

Atlas23 · 2 Oct 2014 at 16:11

FoxEye said:
No I didn't read the thread.

One of GD's many taglines

Pawnless Endgame · 2 Oct 2014 at 16:11

I think part of the problem is that the goalposts change all the time. E.g. in English class back in the early 1990s, we had to say "coloured people". Apparently, that's no longer PC and we have to say black people.

No one have mentioned the blackface effect yet on this thread. That's when a bomb blows up in Jerry's face, covering it in soot. Was that seen as racist too or was it entirely to do with Mammy Two Shoes (the maid)? When it comes to censorship, I personally think that editing out the smoking scenes in Tom & Jerry is worse. Ok, smoking is a lifestyle choice that can sheer 5-10 years off your life, but so can alcohol, chocolate, pasties and Playstations lol. The censoring out of smoking scenes just smacks of nanny state.

With the exception of feature-length films (Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks), you can give me Tom & Jerry and Road Runner etc over modern stuff any day!

P.S. if you like slapstick like T&J, give Lilo & Stitch a viewing, as that's a fairly modern feature-length film that has similar humour.