sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

1) I have seen some of them. Have kids or their parents complained about the pictures in the 50+ years that they've been published? These books have been popular forever. I have never heard a dissenting word about them.

---

Maybe you haven't, but there has been criticism in recent years about Dr. Seuss' history of drawing racial caricatures, especially in political cartoons of the 1930s and 40s. This book is from 2017:

https://www.amazon.com/Was-Cat-Hat-Black-Literature/dp/019063507X

Interview with the author:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/12/11/just-how-racist-is-childrens-literature-the-author-of-was-the-cat-in-the-hat-black-explains/

This thread is also interesting, for another perspective.

Again, I don't fully agree with the decision on all of these books, but I do think it's important to engage with the argument here and not just dismiss because you personally haven't heard it before.

---

I'm not saying it should be dismissed. It's important to discuss it. But let me illustrate the problem. If you become a 2021 critic of what was created over the last 100 years, you really should apply your set of criteria to everything. It's disingenuous to pick and choose. So let's say we do that.

In From Here to Eternity, Ernest Borgnine's character calls Frank Sinatra's character a "WOP" and a "monkey," and ultimately kills him. Shouldn't the movie be banned for disparaging and encouraging attacks on Italian-Americans? Can you really show Gone With the Wind without being a hypocrite? Can you perform The Merchant of Venice? The Little Rascals has to be pulled, and much of Disney's landmark works also. No more WWII movies that depict the Japanese as sneaky and conniving. No more The Sand Pebbles because Chinese are depicted as lesser than.

I'm just scratching the surface. The fact is that, using present criteria, a case can be made to ban the majority of our historical works. Is that what we want? Is the WAP performance an indication of how to do it right, of how far we've come as a society? I can't think of anything that objectifies women and girls more than that but in the eyes of the activists that's just fine but Dr. Seuss is out.

In the end, all you have left is what's acceptable to present day thought and preference. This is what Naziism, The Cultural Revolution, and North Korea are all about.

---

Well, a lot of what you describe is entertainment for adults that is not marketed directly to children in the same way Dr. Seuss still is. Adults probably have a better capacity for consuming potentially offensive content than children do. For the material that is presented to children (Disney movies), very often that stuff is pulled from circulation. Have you tried purchasing Song of the South recently?

As I said, I don't fully agree with the decision here, but I don't think there's an obviously different standard with Seuss here. Children's media is held to stricter standards, and Seuss self-edited his own work in the past. His estate is now continuing that practice.

---

I see what you're saying. Are you OK with not being able to purchase Song of the South? If so, what do you feel gets accomplished? Would you let your kid watch the WAP performance or Song of the South?

---

I think Disney should release Song of the South, in the same way Warner Brothers did with some of the older Looney Tunes cartoons that contained offensive racial caricatures: in a historical collection with supplemental material to put the racism of the time in context.

I don't think a song like WAP is intended for children either (though of course they may hear it anyway, same as with any other pop music with explicit lyrics), so no I would not want them to watch it. But I also know that I can't shield them from the world, so again when they're old enough to understand I would want to put that in context too.

---

Ok fair enough. If you had a daughter who arrived at an age where you felt something like the WAP performance was Ok to watch, how would you explain it to her other than to say it's an example of the objectification of women, by women?

sycasey said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

All this talk about the WAP performance at the Grammy's so I decided to take a look. I haven't watched the Grammy's since Huey Lewis & The News ran the table there. That offended my sensibilities.

---

dajo's life story, as performed by Huey Lewis and the News.

---

My favorite bit of trivia about this song is that several famous 49ers of the time (Joe Montana, Ronnie Lott, Dwight Clark) sang backup on the album track. I did not know this until I read about it sometime last year.

---

I knew it the year came out. But then, unlike dajo9, meth offends my sensibilities and Huey Lewis and the News don't.

How dajo9 sees himself (2:00 mark)


How the world sees dajo9

Quote:

---

"Sweet Connie" is mentioned in Grand Funk Railroad's song "We're an American Band" ("Sweet, sweet Connie, doin' her act / She had the whole show and that's a natural fact"). Hamzy published a memoir Rock Groupie: The Intimate Adventures of "Sweet Connie" from Little Rock and is more than happy to divulge names of who had the biggest (Huey Lewis) and smallest (Peter Frampton) units!

---

https://www.laweekly.com/top-10-most-recycled-women-of-rock-only-three-call-themselves-groupies/

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

1) I have seen some of them. Have kids or their parents complained about the pictures in the 50+ years that they've been published? These books have been popular forever. I have never heard a dissenting word about them.

---

Maybe you haven't, but there has been criticism in recent years about Dr. Seuss' history of drawing racial caricatures, especially in political cartoons of the 1930s and 40s. This book is from 2017:

https://www.amazon.com/Was-Cat-Hat-Black-Literature/dp/019063507X

Interview with the author:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/12/11/just-how-racist-is-childrens-literature-the-author-of-was-the-cat-in-the-hat-black-explains/

This thread is also interesting, for another perspective.

Again, I don't fully agree with the decision on all of these books, but I do think it's important to engage with the argument here and not just dismiss because you personally haven't heard it before.

---

I'm not saying it should be dismissed. It's important to discuss it. But let me illustrate the problem. If you become a 2021 critic of what was created over the last 100 years, you really should apply your set of criteria to everything. It's disingenuous to pick and choose. So let's say we do that.

In From Here to Eternity, Ernest Borgnine's character calls Frank Sinatra's character a "WOP" and a "monkey," and ultimately kills him. Shouldn't the movie be banned for disparaging and encouraging attacks on Italian-Americans? Can you really show Gone With the Wind without being a hypocrite? Can you perform The Merchant of Venice? The Little Rascals has to be pulled, and much of Disney's landmark works also. No more WWII movies that depict the Japanese as sneaky and conniving. No more The Sand Pebbles because Chinese are depicted as lesser than.

I'm just scratching the surface. The fact is that, using present criteria, a case can be made to ban the majority of our historical works. Is that what we want? Is the WAP performance an indication of how to do it right, of how far we've come as a society? I can't think of anything that objectifies women and girls more than that but in the eyes of the activists that's just fine but Dr. Seuss is out.

In the end, all you have left is what's acceptable to present day thought and preference. This is what Naziism, The Cultural Revolution, and North Korea are all about.

---

Well, a lot of what you describe is entertainment for adults that is not marketed directly to children in the same way Dr. Seuss still is. Adults probably have a better capacity for consuming potentially offensive content than children do. For the material that is presented to children (Disney movies), very often that stuff is pulled from circulation. Have you tried purchasing Song of the South recently?

As I said, I don't fully agree with the decision here, but I don't think there's an obviously different standard with Seuss here. Children's media is held to stricter standards, and Seuss self-edited his own work in the past. His estate is now continuing that practice.

---

I see what you're saying. Are you OK with not being able to purchase Song of the South? If so, what do you feel gets accomplished? Would you let your kid watch the WAP performance or Song of the South?

---

I think Disney should release Song of the South, in the same way Warner Brothers did with some of the older Looney Tunes cartoons that contained offensive racial caricatures: in a historical collection with supplemental material to put the racism of the time in context.

I don't think a song like WAP is intended for children either (though of course they may hear it anyway, same as with any other pop music with explicit lyrics), so no I would not want them to watch it. But I also know that I can't shield them from the world, so again when they're old enough to understand I would want to put that in context too.

---

Ok fair enough. If you had a daughter who arrived at an age where you felt something like the WAP performance was Ok to watch, how would you explain it to her other than to say it's an example of the objectification of women, by women?

---

I would say that some people feel that exaggerating and blowing out a stereotype is a way of confronting it and getting past it. This has been especially true of Black art in the past, like the Blaxploitation films of the 70s. Grabbing the harmful stereotypes and turning them into power fantasies. WAP seems in a similar tradition to me.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

1) I have seen some of them. Have kids or their parents complained about the pictures in the 50+ years that they've been published? These books have been popular forever. I have never heard a dissenting word about them.

---

Maybe you haven't, but there has been criticism in recent years about Dr. Seuss' history of drawing racial caricatures, especially in political cartoons of the 1930s and 40s. This book is from 2017:

https://www.amazon.com/Was-Cat-Hat-Black-Literature/dp/019063507X

Interview with the author:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/12/11/just-how-racist-is-childrens-literature-the-author-of-was-the-cat-in-the-hat-black-explains/

This thread is also interesting, for another perspective.

Again, I don't fully agree with the decision on all of these books, but I do think it's important to engage with the argument here and not just dismiss because you personally haven't heard it before.

---

I'm not saying it should be dismissed. It's important to discuss it. But let me illustrate the problem. If you become a 2021 critic of what was created over the last 100 years, you really should apply your set of criteria to everything. It's disingenuous to pick and choose. So let's say we do that.

In From Here to Eternity, Ernest Borgnine's character calls Frank Sinatra's character a "WOP" and a "monkey," and ultimately kills him. Shouldn't the movie be banned for disparaging and encouraging attacks on Italian-Americans? Can you really show Gone With the Wind without being a hypocrite? Can you perform The Merchant of Venice? The Little Rascals has to be pulled, and much of Disney's landmark works also. No more WWII movies that depict the Japanese as sneaky and conniving. No more The Sand Pebbles because Chinese are depicted as lesser than.

I'm just scratching the surface. The fact is that, using present criteria, a case can be made to ban the majority of our historical works. Is that what we want? Is the WAP performance an indication of how to do it right, of how far we've come as a society? I can't think of anything that objectifies women and girls more than that but in the eyes of the activists that's just fine but Dr. Seuss is out.

In the end, all you have left is what's acceptable to present day thought and preference. This is what Naziism, The Cultural Revolution, and North Korea are all about.

---

Well, a lot of what you describe is entertainment for adults that is not marketed directly to children in the same way Dr. Seuss still is. Adults probably have a better capacity for consuming potentially offensive content than children do. For the material that is presented to children (Disney movies), very often that stuff is pulled from circulation. Have you tried purchasing Song of the South recently?

As I said, I don't fully agree with the decision here, but I don't think there's an obviously different standard with Seuss here. Children's media is held to stricter standards, and Seuss self-edited his own work in the past. His estate is now continuing that practice.

---

I see what you're saying. Are you OK with not being able to purchase Song of the South? If so, what do you feel gets accomplished? Would you let your kid watch the WAP performance or Song of the South?

---

I think Disney should release Song of the South, in the same way Warner Brothers did with some of the older Looney Tunes cartoons that contained offensive racial caricatures: in a historical collection with supplemental material to put the racism of the time in context.

I don't think a song like WAP is intended for children either (though of course they may hear it anyway, same as with any other pop music with explicit lyrics), so no I would not want them to watch it. But I also know that I can't shield them from the world, so again when they're old enough to understand I would want to put that in context too.

---

Ok fair enough. If you had a daughter who arrived at an age where you felt something like the WAP performance was Ok to watch, how would you explain it to her other than to say it's an example of the objectification of women, by women?

---

I would say that some people feel that exaggerating and blowing out a stereotype is a way of confronting it and getting past it. This has been especially true of Black art in the past, like the Blaxploitation films of the 70s. Grabbing the harmful stereotypes and turning them into power fantasies. WAP seems in a similar tradition to me.

---

Interesting take.

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

1) I have seen some of them. Have kids or their parents complained about the pictures in the 50+ years that they've been published? These books have been popular forever. I have never heard a dissenting word about them.

---

Maybe you haven't, but there has been criticism in recent years about Dr. Seuss' history of drawing racial caricatures, especially in political cartoons of the 1930s and 40s. This book is from 2017:

https://www.amazon.com/Was-Cat-Hat-Black-Literature/dp/019063507X

Interview with the author:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/12/11/just-how-racist-is-childrens-literature-the-author-of-was-the-cat-in-the-hat-black-explains/

This thread is also interesting, for another perspective.

Again, I don't fully agree with the decision on all of these books, but I do think it's important to engage with the argument here and not just dismiss because you personally haven't heard it before.

---

I'm not saying it should be dismissed. It's important to discuss it. But let me illustrate the problem. If you become a 2021 critic of what was created over the last 100 years, you really should apply your set of criteria to everything. It's disingenuous to pick and choose. So let's say we do that.

In From Here to Eternity, Ernest Borgnine's character calls Frank Sinatra's character a "WOP" and a "monkey," and ultimately kills him. Shouldn't the movie be banned for disparaging and encouraging attacks on Italian-Americans? Can you really show Gone With the Wind without being a hypocrite? Can you perform The Merchant of Venice? The Little Rascals has to be pulled, and much of Disney's landmark works also. No more WWII movies that depict the Japanese as sneaky and conniving. No more The Sand Pebbles because Chinese are depicted as lesser than.

I'm just scratching the surface. The fact is that, using present criteria, a case can be made to ban the majority of our historical works. Is that what we want? Is the WAP performance an indication of how to do it right, of how far we've come as a society? I can't think of anything that objectifies women and girls more than that but in the eyes of the activists that's just fine but Dr. Seuss is out.

In the end, all you have left is what's acceptable to present day thought and preference. This is what Naziism, The Cultural Revolution, and North Korea are all about.

---

Well, a lot of what you describe is entertainment for adults that is not marketed directly to children in the same way Dr. Seuss still is. Adults probably have a better capacity for consuming potentially offensive content than children do. For the material that is presented to children (Disney movies), very often that stuff is pulled from circulation. Have you tried purchasing Song of the South recently?

As I said, I don't fully agree with the decision here, but I don't think there's an obviously different standard with Seuss here. Children's media is held to stricter standards, and Seuss self-edited his own work in the past. His estate is now continuing that practice.

---

I see what you're saying. Are you OK with not being able to purchase Song of the South? If so, what do you feel gets accomplished? Would you let your kid watch the WAP performance or Song of the South?

---

I think Disney should release Song of the South, in the same way Warner Brothers did with some of the older Looney Tunes cartoons that contained offensive racial caricatures: in a historical collection with supplemental material to put the racism of the time in context.

I don't think a song like WAP is intended for children either (though of course they may hear it anyway, same as with any other pop music with explicit lyrics), so no I would not want them to watch it. But I also know that I can't shield them from the world, so again when they're old enough to understand I would want to put that in context too.

---

Ok fair enough. If you had a daughter who arrived at an age where you felt something like the WAP performance was Ok to watch, how would you explain it to her other than to say it's an example of the objectification of women, by women?

---

It doesn't objectify women in the usual context as sex bauble to be acted upon. it objectifies woman as protagonist and predator manipulating sex for her own pleasure.

Don't be such a bore, Yogi

dajo9 said:

---

All this talk about the WAP performance at the Grammy's so I decided to take a look. I haven't watched the Grammy's since Huey Lewis & The News ran the table there. That offended my sensibilities.

Here's my take on the WAP. When I was young I listened to all the dirty, violent, gangster rap music from the 1980's so I try not to be prudish. I must be getting old because I have a complaint. Not the lyrics, not the dancing. My complaint is the music sucked. The song is boring. Yeah, I'd let my kids watch that. Then they wouldn't want to be bothered with it. The only thing interesting about that song is watching grown ups hyperventilate over it.

Me So Horny is 1000x better than WAP

---

Speaking of Huey Lewis, Fox is developing a TV series inspired by Huey Lewis & The News songs.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

1) I have seen some of them. Have kids or their parents complained about the pictures in the 50+ years that they've been published? These books have been popular forever. I have never heard a dissenting word about them.

---

Maybe you haven't, but there has been criticism in recent years about Dr. Seuss' history of drawing racial caricatures, especially in political cartoons of the 1930s and 40s. This book is from 2017:

https://www.amazon.com/Was-Cat-Hat-Black-Literature/dp/019063507X

Interview with the author:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/12/11/just-how-racist-is-childrens-literature-the-author-of-was-the-cat-in-the-hat-black-explains/

This thread is also interesting, for another perspective.

Again, I don't fully agree with the decision on all of these books, but I do think it's important to engage with the argument here and not just dismiss because you personally haven't heard it before.

---

I'm not saying it should be dismissed. It's important to discuss it. But let me illustrate the problem. If you become a 2021 critic of what was created over the last 100 years, you really should apply your set of criteria to everything. It's disingenuous to pick and choose. So let's say we do that.

In From Here to Eternity, Ernest Borgnine's character calls Frank Sinatra's character a "WOP" and a "monkey," and ultimately kills him. Shouldn't the movie be banned for disparaging and encouraging attacks on Italian-Americans? Can you really show Gone With the Wind without being a hypocrite? Can you perform The Merchant of Venice? The Little Rascals has to be pulled, and much of Disney's landmark works also. No more WWII movies that depict the Japanese as sneaky and conniving. No more The Sand Pebbles because Chinese are depicted as lesser than.

I'm just scratching the surface. The fact is that, using present criteria, a case can be made to ban the majority of our historical works. Is that what we want? Is the WAP performance an indication of how to do it right, of how far we've come as a society? I can't think of anything that objectifies women and girls more than that but in the eyes of the activists that's just fine but Dr. Seuss is out.

In the end, all you have left is what's acceptable to present day thought and preference. This is what Naziism, The Cultural Revolution, and North Korea are all about.

---

Well, a lot of what you describe is entertainment for adults that is not marketed directly to children in the same way Dr. Seuss still is. Adults probably have a better capacity for consuming potentially offensive content than children do. For the material that is presented to children (Disney movies), very often that stuff is pulled from circulation. Have you tried purchasing Song of the South recently?

As I said, I don't fully agree with the decision here, but I don't think there's an obviously different standard with Seuss here. Children's media is held to stricter standards, and Seuss self-edited his own work in the past. His estate is now continuing that practice.

---

I see what you're saying. Are you OK with not being able to purchase Song of the South? If so, what do you feel gets accomplished? Would you let your kid watch the WAP performance or Song of the South?

---

I think Disney should release Song of the South, in the same way Warner Brothers did with some of the older Looney Tunes cartoons that contained offensive racial caricatures: in a historical collection with supplemental material to put the racism of the time in context.

I don't think a song like WAP is intended for children either (though of course they may hear it anyway, same as with any other pop music with explicit lyrics), so no I would not want them to watch it. But I also know that I can't shield them from the world, so again when they're old enough to understand I would want to put that in context too.

---

Ok fair enough. If you had a daughter who arrived at an age where you felt something like the WAP performance was Ok to watch, how would you explain it to her other than to say it's an example of the objectification of women, by women?

---

I would say that some people feel that exaggerating and blowing out a stereotype is a way of confronting it and getting past it. This has been especially true of Black art in the past, like the Blaxploitation films of the 70s. Grabbing the harmful stereotypes and turning them into power fantasies. WAP seems in a similar tradition to me.

---

Yup, minority groups have traditionally done that. The word "queer" was once an anti-gay slur.

Now it's been reclaimed by the LGBTQ community so much so that it is used in mainstream New York Times headlines.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

1) I have seen some of them. Have kids or their parents complained about the pictures in the 50+ years that they've been published? These books have been popular forever. I have never heard a dissenting word about them.

---

Maybe you haven't, but there has been criticism in recent years about Dr. Seuss' history of drawing racial caricatures, especially in political cartoons of the 1930s and 40s. This book is from 2017:

https://www.amazon.com/Was-Cat-Hat-Black-Literature/dp/019063507X

Interview with the author:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/12/11/just-how-racist-is-childrens-literature-the-author-of-was-the-cat-in-the-hat-black-explains/

This thread is also interesting, for another perspective.

Again, I don't fully agree with the decision on all of these books, but I do think it's important to engage with the argument here and not just dismiss because you personally haven't heard it before.

---

I'm not saying it should be dismissed. It's important to discuss it. But let me illustrate the problem. If you become a 2021 critic of what was created over the last 100 years, you really should apply your set of criteria to everything. It's disingenuous to pick and choose. So let's say we do that.

In From Here to Eternity, Ernest Borgnine's character calls Frank Sinatra's character a "WOP" and a "monkey," and ultimately kills him. Shouldn't the movie be banned for disparaging and encouraging attacks on Italian-Americans? Can you really show Gone With the Wind without being a hypocrite? Can you perform The Merchant of Venice? The Little Rascals has to be pulled, and much of Disney's landmark works also. No more WWII movies that depict the Japanese as sneaky and conniving. No more The Sand Pebbles because Chinese are depicted as lesser than.

I'm just scratching the surface. The fact is that, using present criteria, a case can be made to ban the majority of our historical works. Is that what we want? Is the WAP performance an indication of how to do it right, of how far we've come as a society? I can't think of anything that objectifies women and girls more than that but in the eyes of the activists that's just fine but Dr. Seuss is out.

In the end, all you have left is what's acceptable to present day thought and preference. This is what Naziism, The Cultural Revolution, and North Korea are all about.

---

Well, a lot of what you describe is entertainment for adults that is not marketed directly to children in the same way Dr. Seuss still is. Adults probably have a better capacity for consuming potentially offensive content than children do. For the material that is presented to children (Disney movies), very often that stuff is pulled from circulation. Have you tried purchasing Song of the South recently?

As I said, I don't fully agree with the decision here, but I don't think there's an obviously different standard with Seuss here. Children's media is held to stricter standards, and Seuss self-edited his own work in the past. His estate is now continuing that practice.

---

I see what you're saying. Are you OK with not being able to purchase Song of the South? If so, what do you feel gets accomplished? Would you let your kid watch the WAP performance or Song of the South?

---

I think Disney should release Song of the South, in the same way Warner Brothers did with some of the older Looney Tunes cartoons that contained offensive racial caricatures: in a historical collection with supplemental material to put the racism of the time in context.

I don't think a song like WAP is intended for children either (though of course they may hear it anyway, same as with any other pop music with explicit lyrics), so no I would not want them to watch it. But I also know that I can't shield them from the world, so again when they're old enough to understand I would want to put that in context too.

---

Ok fair enough. If you had a daughter who arrived at an age where you felt something like the WAP performance was Ok to watch, how would you explain it to her other than to say it's an example of the objectification of women, by women?

---

I would say that some people feel that exaggerating and blowing out a stereotype is a way of confronting it and getting past it. This has been especially true of Black art in the past, like the Blaxploitation films of the 70s. Grabbing the harmful stereotypes and turning them into power fantasies. WAP seems in a similar tradition to me.

---

Or she can just be owning her sexuality, albeit in a bit crude manner, like men have been doing forever.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

1) I have seen some of them. Have kids or their parents complained about the pictures in the 50+ years that they've been published? These books have been popular forever. I have never heard a dissenting word about them.

---

Maybe you haven't, but there has been criticism in recent years about Dr. Seuss' history of drawing racial caricatures, especially in political cartoons of the 1930s and 40s. This book is from 2017:

https://www.amazon.com/Was-Cat-Hat-Black-Literature/dp/019063507X

Interview with the author:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/12/11/just-how-racist-is-childrens-literature-the-author-of-was-the-cat-in-the-hat-black-explains/

This thread is also interesting, for another perspective.

Again, I don't fully agree with the decision on all of these books, but I do think it's important to engage with the argument here and not just dismiss because you personally haven't heard it before.

---

I'm not saying it should be dismissed. It's important to discuss it. But let me illustrate the problem. If you become a 2021 critic of what was created over the last 100 years, you really should apply your set of criteria to everything. It's disingenuous to pick and choose. So let's say we do that.

In From Here to Eternity, Ernest Borgnine's character calls Frank Sinatra's character a "WOP" and a "monkey," and ultimately kills him. Shouldn't the movie be banned for disparaging and encouraging attacks on Italian-Americans? Can you really show Gone With the Wind without being a hypocrite? Can you perform The Merchant of Venice? The Little Rascals has to be pulled, and much of Disney's landmark works also. No more WWII movies that depict the Japanese as sneaky and conniving. No more The Sand Pebbles because Chinese are depicted as lesser than.

I'm just scratching the surface. The fact is that, using present criteria, a case can be made to ban the majority of our historical works. Is that what we want? Is the WAP performance an indication of how to do it right, of how far we've come as a society? I can't think of anything that objectifies women and girls more than that but in the eyes of the activists that's just fine but Dr. Seuss is out.

In the end, all you have left is what's acceptable to present day thought and preference. This is what Naziism, The Cultural Revolution, and North Korea are all about.

---

Well, a lot of what you describe is entertainment for adults that is not marketed directly to children in the same way Dr. Seuss still is. Adults probably have a better capacity for consuming potentially offensive content than children do. For the material that is presented to children (Disney movies), very often that stuff is pulled from circulation. Have you tried purchasing Song of the South recently?

As I said, I don't fully agree with the decision here, but I don't think there's an obviously different standard with Seuss here. Children's media is held to stricter standards, and Seuss self-edited his own work in the past. His estate is now continuing that practice.

---

I see what you're saying. Are you OK with not being able to purchase Song of the South? If so, what do you feel gets accomplished? Would you let your kid watch the WAP performance or Song of the South?

---

I think Disney should release Song of the South, in the same way Warner Brothers did with some of the older Looney Tunes cartoons that contained offensive racial caricatures: in a historical collection with supplemental material to put the racism of the time in context.

I don't think a song like WAP is intended for children either (though of course they may hear it anyway, same as with any other pop music with explicit lyrics), so no I would not want them to watch it. But I also know that I can't shield them from the world, so again when they're old enough to understand I would want to put that in context too.

---

Ok fair enough. If you had a daughter who arrived at an age where you felt something like the WAP performance was Ok to watch, how would you explain it to her other than to say it's an example of the objectification of women, by women?

---

I would say that some people feel that exaggerating and blowing out a stereotype is a way of confronting it and getting past it. This has been especially true of Black art in the past, like the Blaxploitation films of the 70s. Grabbing the harmful stereotypes and turning them into power fantasies. WAP seems in a similar tradition to me.

---

Or she can just be owning her sexuality, albeit in a bit crude manner, like men have been doing forever.

---

Definitely also a big part of it.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Ok fair enough. If you had a daughter who arrived at an age where you felt something like the WAP performance was Ok to watch, how would you explain it to her other than to say it's an example of the objectification of women, by women?

---

I would say that some people feel that exaggerating and blowing out a stereotype is a way of confronting it and getting past it. This has been especially true of Black art in the past, like the Blaxploitation films of the 70s. Grabbing the harmful stereotypes and turning them into power fantasies. WAP seems in a similar tradition to me.

---

blungld said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

blungld said:

---

Did I say anywhere that I support banning Dr Suess or pulling the books? No, I didn't. I refuted your (and the right's framing) that it is the work of the Left to ban Suess or promote WAP. Neither is true. The Suess estate pulled the books for whatever reason they wanted to. That is not the work of the left, and neither is what you find objectionable material. You invented a boogeyman as an excuse to either rag on the Left or uphold your anxiety or projection on the left. Your position is false and irrational. Period.

---

"The Suess estate pulled the books for whatever reason they wanted to." Right. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

---

I'm not quite getting why you think this is a mic drop rebuttal.

I'm curious:

1) Have you seen the objectionable pictures in the Suess books and do you think they are a good thing to show to kids?

2) Do you think the estate has the right to publish what they want for whatever reason they choose?

3) Do you think the WAP performance at the Grammy's should have been censored or banned? By whom? Who decides what is morally objectionable? Is the criteria more about sexuality or more about violence?

4) Were you just as upset by the sexuality of say "My Cherry Pie" by Warrant or "Girls girls girls" by Motley Cru music video 20 years ago when presented by white heterosexual rockers as you are by WAP performed by black rappers?

5) Did the Left as a monolithic group make the decision to pull the Dr Suess books or tell Cardi to perform WAP at the Grammys?

6) If you had to summarize the last 30 years or so, would you say that it is the Left or the Right that is more frequently trying to restrict access to certain ideas or pieces of art--more typically associated with censorship?

---

The (mostly white) guys who listened to all that pornographic heavy metal music in the 1970s and 1980s grew up to be perfectly fine people who are now esteemed leaders in their 40s, 50s and 60s.

okaydo said:

---

blungld said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

blungld said:

---

Did I say anywhere that I support banning Dr Suess or pulling the books? No, I didn't. I refuted your (and the right's framing) that it is the work of the Left to ban Suess or promote WAP. Neither is true. The Suess estate pulled the books for whatever reason they wanted to. That is not the work of the left, and neither is what you find objectionable material. You invented a boogeyman as an excuse to either rag on the Left or uphold your anxiety or projection on the left. Your position is false and irrational. Period.

---

"The Suess estate pulled the books for whatever reason they wanted to." Right. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

---

I'm not quite getting why you think this is a mic drop rebuttal.

I'm curious:

1) Have you seen the objectionable pictures in the Suess books and do you think they are a good thing to show to kids?

2) Do you think the estate has the right to publish what they want for whatever reason they choose?

3) Do you think the WAP performance at the Grammy's should have been censored or banned? By whom? Who decides what is morally objectionable? Is the criteria more about sexuality or more about violence?

4) Were you just as upset by the sexuality of say "My Cherry Pie" by Warrant or "Girls girls girls" by Motley Cru music video 20 years ago when presented by white heterosexual rockers as you are by WAP performed by black rappers?

5) Did the Left as a monolithic group make the decision to pull the Dr Suess books or tell Cardi to perform WAP at the Grammys?

6) If you had to summarize the last 30 years or so, would you say that it is the Left or the Right that is more frequently trying to restrict access to certain ideas or pieces of art--more typically associated with censorship?

---

The (mostly white) guys who listened to all that pornographic heavy metal music in the 1970s and 1980s grew up to be perfectly fine people who are now esteemed leaders in their 40s, 50s and 60s.

---

Are you sure? I think there's an oddly high percentage of them who stormed the Capitol building.

Cancel Culture

Candace > Cardi

BearForce2 said:

---

Candace > Cardi

---

Candace = Cardi

AunBear89 said:

---

In other news, more white people doing white people things. Watch Tucker Carlson eat Wonder Bread slathered in margarine, followed by Hannity watching Lawrence Welk reruns.

---

Apparently, white people own Cardi B's WAP.

BearForce2 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

In other news, more white people doing white people things. Watch Tucker Carlson eat Wonder Bread slathered in margarine, followed by Hannity watching Lawrence Welk reruns.

---

Apparently, white people own Cardi B's WAP.

---

Nothing see but two coons executing their slave masters orders
Co and JW hate that they were born black so they do everything to please the white Supremacist racists that prop them up.

Once again it's meritorious manumission and nothing more. it is the disseminated pathology from the dominant (white and racist) culture. Those two people ( used lightly) are black in skin color ONLY they go to bed every night / wake up every morning wishing their were why white. Because of people like you , they are weak spineless /soulless.

They hate themselves so much to the point that rather throw their own under the bus to get crumbs off masters floor. This is your Amerikkka.

Put your kkk hood on and wear it proudly

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

1) I have seen some of them. Have kids or their parents complained about the pictures in the 50+ years that they've been published? These books have been popular forever. I have never heard a dissenting word about them.

---

Maybe you haven't, but there has been criticism in recent years about Dr. Seuss' history of drawing racial caricatures, especially in political cartoons of the 1930s and 40s. This book is from 2017:

https://www.amazon.com/Was-Cat-Hat-Black-Literature/dp/019063507X

Interview with the author:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/12/11/just-how-racist-is-childrens-literature-the-author-of-was-the-cat-in-the-hat-black-explains/

This thread is also interesting, for another perspective.

Again, I don't fully agree with the decision on all of these books, but I do think it's important to engage with the argument here and not just dismiss because you personally haven't heard it before.

---

I'm not saying it should be dismissed. It's important to discuss it. But let me illustrate the problem. If you become a 2021 critic of what was created over the last 100 years, you really should apply your set of criteria to everything. It's disingenuous to pick and choose. So let's say we do that.

In From Here to Eternity, Ernest Borgnine's character calls Frank Sinatra's character a "WOP" and a "monkey," and ultimately kills him. Shouldn't the movie be banned for disparaging and encouraging attacks on Italian-Americans? Can you really show Gone With the Wind without being a hypocrite? Can you perform The Merchant of Venice? The Little Rascals has to be pulled, and much of Disney's landmark works also. No more WWII movies that depict the Japanese as sneaky and conniving. No more The Sand Pebbles because Chinese are depicted as lesser than.

I'm just scratching the surface. The fact is that, using present criteria, a case can be made to ban the majority of our historical works. Is that what we want? Is the WAP performance an indication of how to do it right, of how far we've come as a society? I can't think of anything that objectifies women and girls more than that but in the eyes of the activists that's just fine but Dr. Seuss is out.

In the end, all you have left is what's acceptable to present day thought and preference. This is what Naziism, The Cultural Revolution, and North Korea are all about.

---

Well, a lot of what you describe is entertainment for adults that is not marketed directly to children in the same way Dr. Seuss still is. Adults probably have a better capacity for consuming potentially offensive content than children do. For the material that is presented to children (Disney movies), very often that stuff is pulled from circulation. Have you tried purchasing Song of the South recently?

As I said, I don't fully agree with the decision here, but I don't think there's an obviously different standard with Seuss here. Children's media is held to stricter standards, and Seuss self-edited his own work in the past. His estate is now continuing that practice.

---

I see what you're saying. Are you OK with not being able to purchase Song of the South? If so, what do you feel gets accomplished? Would you let your kid watch the WAP performance or Song of the South?

---

I think Disney should release Song of the South, in the same way Warner Brothers did with some of the older Looney Tunes cartoons that contained offensive racial caricatures: in a historical collection with supplemental material to put the racism of the time in context.

I don't think a song like WAP is intended for children either (though of course they may hear it anyway, same as with any other pop music with explicit lyrics), so no I would not want them to watch it. But I also know that I can't shield them from the world, so again when they're old enough to understand I would want to put that in context too.

---

Ok fair enough. If you had a daughter who arrived at an age where you felt something like the WAP performance was Ok to watch, how would you explain it to her other than to say it's an example of the objectification of women, by women?

---

I asked my daughter about the song tonight. She said "not my kind of music." I asked her if the music was better with the same lyrics, would she like it. "Dunno."

She's not offended by someone else singing the lyrics, but ask her to sing them and you'll get instant stage panic. She doesn't think it's objectification.

SFBear92 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Ok fair enough. If you had a daughter who arrived at an age where you felt something like the WAP performance was Ok to watch, how would you explain it to her other than to say it's an example of the objectification of women, by women?

---

I asked my daughter about the song tonight. She said "not my kind of music." I asked her if the music was better with the same lyrics, would she like it. "Dunno."

She's not offended by someone else singing the lyrics, but ask her to sing them and you'll get instant stage panic. She doesn't think it's objectification.

---

First, she's not going to want to have that conversation with dad so take anything she says with a grain of salt. She was probably horrified.

Second, how old is your daughter? I think that as women age they go through different stages of feminism for lack of a better word. That is to say that a 50 year old version of your daughter will probably have quite a different opinion from a 16 year old version. The former is probably more valid. Therefore, instead of asking your daughter ask your wife.

dimitrig said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Ok fair enough. If you had a daughter who arrived at an age where you felt something like the WAP performance was Ok to watch, how would you explain it to her other than to say it's an example of the objectification of women, by women?

---

I asked my daughter about the song tonight. She said "not my kind of music." I asked her if the music was better with the same lyrics, would she like it. "Dunno."

She's not offended by someone else singing the lyrics, but ask her to sing them and you'll get instant stage panic. She doesn't think it's objectification.

---

First, she's not going to want to have that conversation with dad so take anything she says with a grain of salt. She was probably horrified.

Second, how old is your daughter? I think that as women age they go through different stages of feminism for lack of a better word. That is to say that a 50 year old version of your daughter will probably have quite a different opinion from a 16 year old version. The former is probably more valid. Therefore, instead of asking your daughter ask your wife.

---

That's a good point. There's no doubt in my mind that those kinds of things--amongst plenty of other things on social media--harm our young women. It's not just WAP, it's lots of things that have gained legitimacy in the public sphere. When my daughter hands me her phone to watch a funny video that makes fun of dads, the previews that follow really raise your eyebrows. All sexual. It's a shame that society demands that our young people grow up so damn fast. Buy hey, it sells.

going4roses said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

In other news, more white people doing white people things. Watch Tucker Carlson eat Wonder Bread slathered in margarine, followed by Hannity watching Lawrence Welk reruns.

---

Apparently, white people own Cardi B's WAP.

---

Nothing see but two coons executing their slave masters orders
Co and JW hate that they were born black so they do everything to please the white Supremacist racists that prop them up.

Once again it's meritorious manumission and nothing more. it is the disseminated pathology from the dominant (white and racist) culture. Those two people ( used lightly) are black in skin color ONLY they go to bed every night / wake up every morning wishing their were why white. Because you people like you , they are weak spineless /soulless

They hate themselves so much to the point that rather throw their own under the bus to get crumbs off masters floor. This is your Amerikkka.

Put your kkk hood on and wear it proudly

---

Gtfo here with your racist coon epithets

LMK5 said:

---

Quote:

---

1) I have seen some of them. Have kids or their parents complained about the pictures in the 50+ years that they've been published? These books have been popular forever. I have never heard a dissenting word about them. I think it is up to parents to decide what is appropriate for their young kids to see in books, TV, etc., not woke rage mobs taking advantage of their social media prowess. If you'd like to apply the same criteria in deciding what should be available and what shouldn't in books, film, etc, do you realize how much of our past would be banished? Are you OK with that? Is that any different than what the Nazis did in the 30s or what the Taliban did in Afghanistan?

---

Wow. That's a lot to unpack. Yes, kids and parents have complained over the last 50 years, you just didn't hear about on FOX news until last week. I agree parents should decide for their family AND companies should also decide what is appropriate for how they are represented AND society should create an evolving sense of values they endorse and criticize. You have assigned the Dr. Suess decision as "parent choice" when it suits your argument and ignored that it is actually a business decision by the estate and to a certain extent a social decision that NOW we don't want offensive depictions of black people and asians in children's literature. I don't believe that you honestly think that those illustrations are good for kids and just boil down to a "parent's decision". Do you also feel that MAMBLA should be circulating their brochures and just leave it to the parents to decide if it is appropriate in their home?

But you also have completely fabricated my position and what is actually happening. I have said nothing about banning books and neither has the "Left." My position is the estate makes a business decision to
stop publishing offensive images while still publishing the vast majority of Dr.Suess's work and that is THEIR decision and I would support it AND there is still all his best work to read AND society has always had changing taste and evolving values and this seeing his work in a new light is natural and normal. This has ZERO similarity to the book burning you describe. That is an act of terror done by an oppressive mob--this is precisely the opposite and you are making not only a lazy disingenuous parallel but is actually quite dangerous. To suggest market-driven, rational analysis that looks to liberate from racism or exclusion is the same as the cultural cleansing of a genocidal regime is a false equivalence that provides cover and excuses for the latter. No matter how much you do not relate to the causes of the modern left or the social media of youth, they are in NO WAY in any way resembling the Taliban or Nazis and that is actually pretty gross that you would loosely throw that accusation. Wokeness may go too far in some instances and sensitivity is high (for good and historical reason I might add) but the overall corrections are long overdue and making our nation better--don't let your fears or defense of the status quo confuse that.

Quote:

---

2) I think the estate has the right to publish whatever they choose as long as it's within the law. I think individuals possess the right to read it or not to read it.

---

So the estate chose not to publish some books. You actually do not seem okay with that. If you were okay with it you wouldn't have said a peep. Your position seems to be instead they HAVE to publish books I want them to publish so I can choose if I want to read them or so I can accuse others wrongly of censorship. Your words don't match your stated position.

Quote:

---

3) I think things like the WAP performance have their place. When most programs are about to broadcast a segment that they feel may not be for everyone, they give a warning ("the following images may not be appropriate for all audiences") or words to that effect. Was this kind of heads-up given before the WAP performance? It is very difficult to gauge what is appropriate for mass audiences and what isn't. There are decency rules enforced by the FCC. You can't say shyt on air, but you can show what is clearly a soft porn performance. Are you OK with this contradiction? What is the purpose of decency rules? Do we need them? Tell me what you think. How should we police (or not) what is shown or heard over the airwaves?

Let me add something else about the "performance." It is damaging to young women. Do you have daughters? I do. That kind of thing sends the wrong message to our girls. It confuses them. It gives them a warped view of sexuality. Those who are concerned about woman being depicted as sexual objects should be alarmed at what might pass for acceptable prime time entertainment. Where are they now? Where are the #metoo folks?

---

Okay, there is nuance here that you will (I'm sorry) generationally not understand. So you have to perhaps accept that you don't get it and don't have to. Yes, I have a daughter. I feel like the "protecting our daughters" is a cop out. Of course I want to protect my daughter--from sexual predators and harassment (do you feel anger and rage at Trump for his obvious objectification and probable sexual assaults or do you have selective political outrage?) and more than anything from bad art. I think the WAP song and performance is offensive for how bad it is not for its sexuality. It was lip synced, the song is not creative, the dancing was simplistic, hell it wasn't even sexy.

As far as it being "soft core" give me a break. Have you watched TV in 20 years? There is much much much more suggestive and gratuitous things on TV but again your outrage neatly targets these black performers after FOX news outrage. Did you even watch the Grammys? Would you have even known about any of this if you were not told to be mad about it? Come on, be real.

Lastly, and this is what you will not understand. I do not endorse that song. I think it sucks and is not well written or original, but the takeaway for the majority of women is that is IS NOT exploitive. You might not get that. Understand that you are not a young woman so you can't tell them what to feel or what is true you can only listen. They feel the song is empowering. That it is reclaiming sexuality for themselves on their own terms and without the voyeurism of the male gaze or the performative paternalization of female sexuality. It is giving them permission to be sexual and to have pleasure defined by their own pleasure and not for the man. Many men find this threatening and so they get angry or call this offensive. That is control and objectification. You might not agree or understand but that is how young women FEEL about it and what they take the meaning to be. So, even if you disagree, if young women are feeling empowered and NOT exploited then you can't tell them they are being exploited. You just are not part of this cultural conversation and can't define the terms of it. It sucks to get old but this is what happened over and over again with Elvis, Beatles, Stones, Madonna...the list goes on. Parents don't make the rules as art changes and each generation finds their voice and how to feel powerful. So no, daughters are not being exploited in the way you say it, your daughters are getting stronger. Would I like that strength to look and sound different? Yes. But I don't get to decide.

Quote:

---

4) I didn't see it but yes, I would be against anything that objectifies women and girls, whether it comes from a male performer or a female performer.

---

I find it hard to believe that you never saw Motley Crus "Girls Girls Girls".



But there are literally hundreds of examples I could show of mainstream culture depicting white hetero-normal sexuality that exploits women in the way you have described (every beer commercial of the 802 and 90s) that you have seen and NOT posted here on BI in a state of outrage. Because it either was not this week's conservative talking point or because you don't notice things that advertise your own sexuality. You only notice things that advertise alternatives to it or the things you hear to be offended by. This is faux FOX outrage AND it has NOTHING to do with the left. Sexploitation is, if anything, much more the domaine of the right--the beer swilling good old boys who want a bikini clad chick on the calendar on their wall and to whistle at each hottie that walks by like they owe them their attention. Just because there is something that bothers you doesn't make it the Left's problem. Don't scapegoat anything you don't agree with or understand to "the left."

Quote:

---

5) I don't know if a monolithic group was behind it. I think that there is a lot of momentum for groups to apply pressure to conform to their own doctrine because they know they can bury you via social media weaponization. Clearly, the great majority of these movements have left wing tendencies.

---

There is no "doctrine." That is language meant to make it sound scary and like their is a group you need to fight against that is coming to get you. Be honest with your words. The truth is that our society as a whole has become more aware of how certain actual exploitive depictions of race and gender and sex are used to marginalize certain groups and attack these same groups. Conservative white Christians want to own culture and use it to keep hegemony of what is right and normal for the purposes of perpetuating power. If you don't know this or see it then educate yourself. Those pushing back are not a "thought police" they are people trying to raise awareness so that everyone is treated the same and with respect. Don't turn the oppression around on them, that is intellectually dishonest and the oldest trick in the book. The establishment gets challenged so the establishment rather than listen and evolve tries to play themselves as the victim. Of course there are examples of high sensitivity. So what? So a few times people get a little too causey or self-righteous. I'd much rather have society be a little outspoken versus accepting racism and sexism and acts of violence (literal or verbal). How about being more worried about doing too little rather than too much? The overall effort is noble and leading to a better society. You are picking around the edges and in effect defending the right to be bigoted.

Quote:

---

6) I don't know who is more involved in creating restrictions over the last 30 years. I do know that over the last few, the liberals are clearly the ones who are trying to reshape society through threatening tactics. I'm 59 years old and I can tell you I've never seen anything on this scale before. You can make a comment today and everyone in America can know about it tomorrow and pass judgment on you. Is that healthy?

---

This is the one answer that is you just straight not being truthful. This isn't even up to debate. Really? You think the MeToo movement and BLM is a threat to freedom? That they aren't trying to create equality they are taking something from you and the nation? That they are worse than say McCarthyism, Asian internment, racial oppression of black americans over the last 59 years of your life, of gay bashing and conversion therapy, of the church's widespread pedophilia and coverup, of even Tipper Gore, Anita Hill, Nancy Reagan and other mouthpieces of straight out censorship? That woman wanting to no longer be sexually harassed at work is the horrible terrible thing--and so many innocent men are what in jail for doing nothing wrong but maybe grabbing a little tail here or there? Oh, but you are the one protecting your daughter? You are behaving hysterically and irrationally if this is your sincere feeling about this.

Thanks for answering my questions. I appreciate your forthcomingness, and don't know that your eyes can be opened to a different way of seeing these things.

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

In other news, more white people doing white people things. Watch Tucker Carlson eat Wonder Bread slathered in margarine, followed by Hannity watching Lawrence Welk reruns.

---

Apparently, white people own Cardi B's WAP.

---

Nothing see but two coons executing their slave masters orders
Co and JW hate that they were born black so they do everything to please the white Supremacist racists that prop them up.

Once again it's meritorious manumission and nothing more. it is the disseminated pathology from the dominant (white and racist) culture. Those two people ( used lightly) are black in skin color ONLY they go to bed every night / wake up every morning wishing their were why white. Because you people like you , they are weak spineless /soulless

They hate themselves so much to the point that rather throw their own under the bus to get crumbs off masters floor. This is your Amerikkka.

Put your kkk hood on and wear it proudly

---

Gtfo here with your racist coon epithets

---

Nope
sorry you can't handle the truth
I have no reason to lie
I'm stating the facts that you obviously know nothing about
Run along believing you know every thing which you clearly DONT

Racist ? You have no idea of the word actual meaning

going4roses said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

In other news, more white people doing white people things. Watch Tucker Carlson eat Wonder Bread slathered in margarine, followed by Hannity watching Lawrence Welk reruns.

---

Apparently, white people own Cardi B's WAP.

---

Nothing see but two coons executing their slave masters orders
Co and JW hate that they were born black so they do everything to please the white Supremacist racists that prop them up.

Once again it's meritorious manumission and nothing more. it is the disseminated pathology from the dominant (white and racist) culture. Those two people ( used lightly) are black in skin color ONLY they go to bed every night / wake up every morning wishing their were why white. Because you people like you , they are weak spineless /soulless

They hate themselves so much to the point that rather throw their own under the bus to get crumbs off masters floor. This is your Amerikkka.

Put your kkk hood on and wear it proudly

---

Gtfo here with your racist coon epithets

---

Nope
sorry you can't handle the truth
I have no reason to lie
I'm stating the facts that you obviously know nothing about
Run along believing you know every thing which you clearly DONT

Racist ? You have no idea of the word actual meaning

---

You're a little racist s$it empowered by some bogus racial theory course and Tik Tok memes. Trivial and useless person.

dimitrig said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Ok fair enough. If you had a daughter who arrived at an age where you felt something like the WAP performance was Ok to watch, how would you explain it to her other than to say it's an example of the objectification of women, by women?

---

I asked my daughter about the song tonight. She said "not my kind of music." I asked her if the music was better with the same lyrics, would she like it. "Dunno."

She's not offended by someone else singing the lyrics, but ask her to sing them and you'll get instant stage panic. She doesn't think it's objectification.

---

First, she's not going to want to have that conversation with dad so take anything she says with a grain of salt. She was probably horrified.

---

You would have to know our relationship and know the particulars of my daughter to have insight there. I think she gave a fairly honest answer.

Quote:

---

Second, how old is your daughter? I think that as women age they go through different stages of feminism for lack of a better word. That is to say that a 50 year old version of your daughter will probably have quite a different opinion from a 16 year old version. The former is probably more valid. Therefore, instead of asking your daughter ask your wife.

---

A 50 year old version of my daughter would be my wife. My wife thinks it's trash, but wouldn't keep other people from listening to it if that's their thing. But my wife is not the target audience.

Anarchistbear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

In other news, more white people doing white people things. Watch Tucker Carlson eat Wonder Bread slathered in margarine, followed by Hannity watching Lawrence Welk reruns.

---

Apparently, white people own Cardi B's WAP.

---

Nothing see but two coons executing their slave masters orders
Co and JW hate that they were born black so they do everything to please the white Supremacist racists that prop them up.

Once again it's meritorious manumission and nothing more. it is the disseminated pathology from the dominant (white and racist) culture. Those two people ( used lightly) are black in skin color ONLY they go to bed every night / wake up every morning wishing their were why white. Because you people like you , they are weak spineless /soulless

They hate themselves so much to the point that rather throw their own under the bus to get crumbs off masters floor. This is your Amerikkka.

Put your kkk hood on and wear it proudly

---

Gtfo here with your racist coon epithets

---

going4roses said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

In other news, more white people doing white people things. Watch Tucker Carlson eat Wonder Bread slathered in margarine, followed by Hannity watching Lawrence Welk reruns.

---

Apparently, white people own Cardi B's WAP.

---

Nothing see but two coons executing their slave masters orders
Co and JW hate that they were born black so they do everything to please the white Supremacist racists that prop them up.

Once again it's meritorious manumission and nothing more. it is the disseminated pathology from the dominant (white and racist) culture. Those two people ( used lightly) are black in skin color ONLY they go to bed every night / wake up every morning wishing their were why white. Because of people like you , they are weak spineless /soulless.

They hate themselves so much to the point that rather throw their own under the bus to get crumbs off masters floor. This is your Amerikkka.

Put your kkk hood on and wear it proudly

---

Let's assume what you're saying is true that CO and JW go to bed every night wishing they were white the next day. How does that affect you or your agenda?

80 people!!!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA

All those outraged people didn't bother to file FCC complains. Or perhaps this whole thing was overblown.

For perspective, 57,000+ more British people complained to Britain's version of the FCC about Piers Morgan mocking Meghan Markle's suicide claim last week.

Hope Never Dies said:

---

okaydo said:

---

80 people!!!

HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA

All those outraged people didn't bother to file FCC complains. Or perhaps this whole thing was overblown.

For perspective, 57,000+ more British people complained to Britain's version of the FCC about Piers Morgan mocking Meghan Markle's suicide claim last week.

---

A lot more people watch the Super Bowl than the Grammy's.

Super Bowl: 96.4 million
Grammy's: 9.23 million

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/awards/9541290/grammys-2021-ratings

Furthermore, as people who are watching the Grammy's are more likely to be tuning in because they want to see them perform rather than Super Bowl viewers who are mostly watching for football reasons and not tuning in specifically because they want to see J-Lo and Shakira perform, it's not an apples to apples comparison.

But yeah, continue with whatever point you're trying to make, Twitter guy.

---

I didn't compare it to the Super Bowl.

Maybe you shouldn't have flunked reading comprehension in preschool.

Only 80 people complained. That is peanuts, even with 9.23 million viewers. There are more posts in this thread than the number of people who complained.

Why did so few people complain? Because there really wasn't much to be outraged about. It was all predictable, performative outrage for ratings and clicks.

Conservatives were just bored because mocking Biden is boring.

So they had to pretend to care about Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion for a day to fill programming time.

L. Brett Bozell III, the father of one of the U.S. Capital terrorists, started a group decades ago called the Parents Television Council to express outrage over what they think is unfit for TV. When Howard Stern was named a judge on America's Got Talent, they expressed outrage.

The Parents Television Council even sounded the alarm over "WAP."

Supposedly the Parents TV Council has a lot of members ready to file FCC complaints.

And how much outrage did they generate? A measly 80 complaints. What a joke!

Cardi B doesn't look very proud of her music when her daughter walks in the room

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Cardi B doesn't look very proud of her music when her daughter walks in the room

---

You wouldn't want your daughter watching you having sex with your wife either, and you might even feel ashamed about it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

dimitrig said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Cardi B doesn't look very proud of her music when her daughter walks in the room

---

You wouldn't want your daughter watching you having sex with your wife either, and you might even feel ashamed about it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

---

Amazingly, sometimes adults might make art for other adults that they might not want their kids exposed to. This seems a difficult concept for some conservatives to grasp.

dimitrig said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Cardi B doesn't look very proud of her music when her daughter walks in the room

---

You wouldn't want your daughter watching you having sex with your wife either, and you might even feel ashamed about it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

---

Would you simulate sex acts with your wife on the Grammy's?

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Cardi B doesn't look very proud of her music when her daughter walks in the room

---

You wouldn't want your daughter watching you having sex with your wife either, and you might even feel ashamed about it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

---

Amazingly, sometimes adults might make art for other adults that they might not want their kids exposed to. This seems a difficult concept for some conservatives to grasp.

---

Cardi B's target audience isn't her daughter but someone else's daughter, probably not much older than her.