More Censorship

[Twilight Hue]

Long ago, Betty Boop & other cartoons were pulled from all TV.
HBO has pulled Gone With The Wind.
Other shows, movies,& characters (eg, Apu) are being censored for being offensive to various groups.

Are we going to be better as a result of seeing them?

Nope. It's the perfect venue to develop a dystopian culture where only select views are allowed.

 

[oldbadger]

Long ago, Betty Boop & other cartoons were pulled from all TV.
HBO has pulled Gone With The Wind.
Other shows, movies,& characters (eg, Apu) are being censored for being offensive to various groups.

Are we going to be better as a result of seeing them?

One of my favourite films, The Trap, Oliver Reed and Rita Tushingham, is not available unless copied to dvd from an old. cassette. Fur trapping and the auctioning of convict women to be wives might just have something to do with that.

 

[oldbadger]

I think you're mistaking my post to be about 1st Amendment rights.
Not so.
Self censorship by a business is certainly their right....a right I don't oppose.
Throughout the history of movie & television, there's been much of that.
(Government censorship also existed, but that's another issue.)
But I dislike losing access to historical culture just because it offends some.

Will Latin tuition be banned in schools?
Them Romans were the very devils, with slaves.

And will films like Gladiator get banned. Slaves made to murder each other.

And steam engines were mostly coal fired. Disgusting stuff, coal.

Etc.

 

[Augustus]

No, I see this all about the sort of content they wish to offer that reflects the values they hold as a company.

The moral conscience of major corporations always seems to happen to chime with the latest fad that they can cheaply take advantage of.

They pull GWTW because it's high profile, they don't systematically go through their entire catalogue looking for racially or culturally insensitive, sexist, anti-gay, etc representations as if they did they'd lose half of their back catalogue.

It is tokenism for the latest iteration of the age old desire to purge society of heresy.

What you are calling self-censorship, I would call a shift in values through the public's awareness being raised to these issues that affect everyone. It's all good and fine to let racism run unchecked in our media, but now that people see the disgusting nature of what it is, I would hardly call that a fad ideology. It's waking up to the need to correct of a wrong that harms others in our society. I consider that being responsible. What we say, matters.

The fad is that we are either so fragile that we need to be protected from anything that doesn't exactly match our worldview, or so stupid that we can't watch a historical program and see it as a product of its time.

Again, this is a business, not the government. A business reflects the values of its audiences.

And it is better when the audiences are open-minded and resilient enough to allow a diversity of opinion rather than demanding ideological purity.

It's always useful to consider how you would feel if the self-censorship was going against what you think best, would you still be saying the same thing?

Do you think it's a good thing that many Republicans are terrified of being voted out by the audience if they criticise Trump and attract his wrath and so self-censor the criticisms that many of them obviously want to voice? Or would you prefer they felt free to speak their mind?

 

[sun rise]

Long ago, Betty Boop & other cartoons were pulled from all TV.
HBO has pulled Gone With The Wind.
Other shows, movies,& characters (eg, Apu) are being censored for being offensive to various groups.

Are we going to be better as a result of seeing them?

And the losers who try to off Bugs can't use guns any longer. But, as this shows, maybe the violence will still be as strong.

 

[Windwalker]

The moral conscience of major corporations always seems to happen to chime with the latest fad that they can cheaply take advantage of.

I just read the article about this, and I think you are perhaps a little too glib about this. The context of its removal followed an op-ed piece which calls out its problems, set against the backdrop of the Floyd murder and America's systemic racism coming to a full head right now. Here is exactly what HBO said about their decision: 'Gone with the Wind' pulled from HBO Max until it can return with 'historical context' - CNN

A spokesperson for HBO Max, which like CNN is owned by WarnerMedia, told CNN Business that "Gone with the Wind" is "a product of its time and depicts some of the ethnic and racial prejudices that have, unfortunately, been commonplace in American society."

"These racist depictions were wrong then and are wrong today, and we felt that to keep this title up without an explanation and a denouncement of those depictions would be irresponsible," the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson added that when the film returns to HBO Max, it "will return with a discussion of its historical context and a denouncement of those very depictions," and will be presented "as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed."

"If we are to create a more just, equitable and inclusive future, we must first acknowledge and understand our history," the spokesperson said.​

The above is not a "fad" at all. I call it being responsible. Nor, is it actually removing the film out of being shown. It is simply pulling it, in order to preface the racist contexts of the time it was written. So all of this about "censorship" is moot. It's not being removed, or altered. Simply placed within a context of America's racist past, which it most certainly was.

They pull GWTW because it's high profile, they don't systematically go through their entire catalogue looking for racially or culturally insensitive, sexist, anti-gay, etc representations as if they did they'd lose half of their back catalogue.

Upon reading the article on it, they are not pulling it.

It is tokenism for the latest iteration of the age old desire to purge society of heresy.

Do you see racism as a heresy, or a threat to social cohesion? I'm a little disturbed you may be seeing all this as a "fad". I see it as being responsible in the face of what has happen to America's black citizens and taking a stand we all should be.

The fad is that we are either so fragile that we need to be protected from anything that doesn't exactly match our worldview, or so stupid that we can't watch a historical program and see it as a product of its time.

Ah, but you think that the average person is as learned as you or I? I think these "qualifiers" they are going to add, is about educated the "unwashed masses". It can, and hopefully will serve that purpose.

Are you against letting people know we don't think racism is, or was okay in the past?

And it is better when the audiences are open-minded and resilient enough to allow a diversity of opinion rather than demanding ideological purity.

I absolutely resent you calling fighting racism an "ideological purity". It's a human rights issue. Unless you ideologically view blacks as inferior? I don't believe you do. Then why taint it calling it that? People need to be educated, this is not okay. It's not an ideological belief system. Right?

Do you think it's a good thing that many Republicans are terrified of being voted out by the audience if they criticise Trump and attract his wrath and so self-censor the criticisms that many of them obviously want to voice? Or would you prefer they felt free to speak their mind?

What you are describing in not anything like what HBO is doing. HBO is speaking up out of courage. The GOP is going silent out of cowardice.

 

[Revoltingest]

I heard the show Cops is being taken off the air for being offensive...
TV show Cops, criticized for glorifying police aggression, cancelled after 32 seasons

I'm perfectly fine with dropping shows which encourage violence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Will Latin tuition be banned in schools?
Them Romans were the very devils, with slaves.

And will films like Gladiator get banned. Slaves made to murder each other.

And steam engines were mostly coal fired. Disgusting stuff, coal.

Etc.

Gladiator was mostly white guys killing white guys.
Steam engines....the next such show I'll attend is secret.

 

[Revoltingest]

And the losers who try to off Bugs can't use guns any longer. But, as this shows, maybe the violence will still be as strong.

I'm sure they'll find politically correct violence.

 

[Augustus]

The spokesperson added that when the film returns to HBO Max, it "will return with a discussion of its historical context and a denouncement of those very depictions," and will be presented "as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed."

"If we are to create a more just, equitable and inclusive future, we must first acknowledge and understand our history," the spokesperson said.

Fair enough, I think that is a perfectly reasonable approach. I was just going off Rev's OP.

I absolutely resent you calling fighting racism an "ideological purity". It's a human rights issue. Unless you ideologically view blacks as inferior? I don't believe you do. Then why taint it calling it that? People need to be educated, this is not okay. It's not an ideological belief system. Right?

Racism is wrong and should be opposed wherever it exists.

The ideological purity is that anyone who disagrees with the highly ideological doctrine of "anti-racism" (not simply opposition to racism) is a white supremacist and deserves to be cancelled.

The problem is that systemic bias is hard to quantify and even harder to correct. Often our attempts at trying to manage such things cause the opposite effect of that which we seek.

Personally, I don't believe making everyone hypersensitive to race, pathologising whiteness, and ruining people's lives over anything not seen as sufficiently pure in this regard is counterproductive.

There is scientific evidence that the more people become aware of racial differences the more they discriminate, yet even advocating for a goal of a colourblind society is 'white supremacism'.

How can you solve a problem that you can't even discuss in good faith?

What you are describing in not anything like what HBO is doing. HBO is speaking up out of courage. The GOP is going silent out of cowardice.

What HBO is doing seems reasonable, I wouldn't describe it as courageous though.

In general though, there is a lot of self-censorship out of fear, especially as one of the preferred tactics is to get people fired and ruin their entire lives for the crime of heresy (and I'm not talking about blatant racism either, it's often liberals who are just not being woke enough).

 

[Valjean]

But they're being cut because they depict attitudes that we now find offensive. Do we need to be protected from exposure to offensive ideas or archaic attitudes. Would the comparison with modern attitudes not be culturally and historically educational?

I saw a rerun of I Love Lucy last night. Ricky was smoking a cigarette. I'm trying to maintain my composure and to restrain myself from running out and buying a pack of Camels.

 

[Windwalker]

Racism is wrong and should be opposed wherever it exists.

The ideological purity is that anyone who disagrees with the highly ideological doctrine of "anti-racism" (not simply opposition to racism) is a white supremacist and deserves to be cancelled.

I am not familiar with a "doctrine of anti-racism". In looking it up just now I find this. Anti-racism - Wikipedia

"Anti-racism can be defined as some form of focused and sustained action, which includes inter-cultural, inter-faith, multi-lingual and inter-abled (i.e. differently abled) communities with the intent to change a system or an institutional policy, practice, or procedure which has racist effects."​

So it appears that you view anyone who actively tries to counter systemic racism is engaging in a "highly ideological doctrine"? Personally, I call it taking moral actions against those forces which deny the rights of others. I'd call it being moral, rather ideological. I'd call the lack of that, a type of amorality. I'd call ridiculing that, highly suspect.

The problem is that systemic bias is hard to quantify and even harder to correct. Often our attempts at trying to manage such things cause the opposite effect of that which we seek.

Doing nothing and saying nothing of course will not correct the situation. And I don't think recognizing systemic bias in the system is hard to identify. It's very clear when there are policies put in place that discrimination against blacks. Of course there will be blow back when you try to challenge that, but remaining silence only allows it to continue and to grow.

Personally, I don't believe making everyone hypersensitive to race, pathologising whiteness, and ruining people's lives over anything not seen as sufficiently pure in this regard is counterproductive.

Hypersensitive? The problem is a lack of sensitivity. If someone feels they are being "preached at", for what should be normal human compassion responses, then I'd say the problem is theirs. I'd call that hypersensitivity a reflection of something they are uncomfortable with personally, a "methinks the lady doth protest too loudly," senario.

As far as pathologizing whiteness, again, I think that is in how someone hears that. What is it they are hearing? That they should feel guilty about have social and economic advantages because they are not black? While that is factually true, how someone chooses to internalize that fact, feeling guilty, is entirely their own thing. Blaming the messenger, doesn't change the message. That's something I don't think people realize, hoping if they can make the messenger look bad, the message can be ignored.

Sure, you're going to have some self-righteous ones who acts the same as the self-righteous Christian who tries to feel morally superior because they can point out the flaws of sinners. But to focus on those, can easily be used as an excuse to not listen to the truth that are touching on. Everyone is going to act differently, but it's not about them. It's about racism and overcoming it. That includes everyone, themselves included, left or right, liberal or conservative. It's everyone's problem.

There is scientific evidence that the more people become aware of racial differences the more they discriminate, yet even advocating for a goal of a colourblind society is 'white supremacism'.

Are you proposing no one say anything? Just let it self-correct? Let George Floyd just be another victim of systemic racism, and let people figure it out without all this fuss?

How can you solve a problem that you can't even discuss in good faith?

Good faith is acknowledging there is a problem, and that it needs to be addressed. All that other stuff is just distractions. "Look over here at them thinking they are so righteous". That's not looking at the situation itself. That's just an excuse to not look.

What HBO is doing seems reasonable, I wouldn't describe it as courageous though.

Not caring what right-wingers say, I suppose is a step of courage though. Look, we even started a thread calling what they did "censorship". How sensational, and untrue. Again, the effect is "Look at HBO!", or "Look at these Libs!". It's curiously not however, "Look at my own role in racism". It should be, because we're all part of it. It's part of our culture.

In general though, there is a lot of self-censorship out of fear, especially as one of the preferred tactics is to get people fired and ruin their entire lives for the crime of heresy (and I'm not talking about blatant racism either, it's often liberals who are just not being woke enough).

I'm not sure who are what you are referring to. But I can this, what you accuse the left of doing, the right does the same. This is a behavioral thing, a developmental thing, not a political thing. Extremists on the left and on the right, are solemates. They are one and the same thing.

 

[Windwalker]

I think you're mistaking my post to be about 1st Amendment rights.
Not so.
Self censorship by a business is certainly their right....a right I don't oppose.
Throughout the history of movie & television, there's been much of that.
(Government censorship also existed, but that's another issue.)
But I dislike losing access to historical culture just because it offends some.

If you had searched out this story, you would have discovered they are not removing it at all. HBO Max pulls 'Gone with the Wind' until it can return with 'historical context' - CNN

A spokesperson for HBO Max, which like CNN is owned by WarnerMedia, told CNN Business that "Gone with the Wind" is "a product of its time and depicts some of the ethnic and racial prejudices that have, unfortunately, been commonplace in American society."

"These racist depictions were wrong then and are wrong today, and we felt that to keep this title up without an explanation and a denouncement of those depictions would be irresponsible," the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson added that when the film returns to HBO Max, it "will return with a discussion of its historical context and a denouncement of those very depictions," and will be presented "as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed."

"If we are to create a more just, equitable and inclusive future, we must first acknowledge and understand our history," the spokesperson said.​

 

[Revoltingest]

If you had searched out this story, you would have discovered they are not removing it at all. HBO Max pulls 'Gone with the Wind' until it can return with 'historical context' - CNN

A spokesperson for HBO Max, which like CNN is owned by WarnerMedia, told CNN Business that "Gone with the Wind" is "a product of its time and depicts some of the ethnic and racial prejudices that have, unfortunately, been commonplace in American society."

"These racist depictions were wrong then and are wrong today, and we felt that to keep this title up without an explanation and a denouncement of those depictions would be irresponsible," the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson added that when the film returns to HBO Max, it "will return with a discussion of its historical context and a denouncement of those very depictions," and will be presented "as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed."

"If we are to create a more just, equitable and inclusive future, we must first acknowledge and understand our history," the spokesperson said.​

Thanx for the elaboration.

 

[Augustus]

I am not familiar with a "doctrine of anti-racism". In looking it up just now I find this. Anti-racism - Wikipedia

"Anti-racism can be defined as some form of focused and sustained action, which includes inter-cultural, inter-faith, multi-lingual and inter-abled (i.e. differently abled) communities with the intent to change a system or an institutional policy, practice, or procedure which has racist effects."
So it appears that you view anyone who actively tries to counter systemic racism is engaging in a "highly ideological doctrine"? Personally, I call it taking moral actions against those forces which deny the rights of others. I'd call it being moral, rather ideological. I'd call the lack of that, a type of amorality. I'd call ridiculing that, highly suspect.

Words have different uses in different contexts, and I did explicitly point out that I was not referring to generic opposition to racism.

If you don't know what a term means it is better to ask for clarification rather than assume bad faith in the person who used it. If you would like to know what I was actually talking about, you can start here: Critical race theory - Wikipedia

As I said, one problem about attempting to solve a problem as complex as racism is that it is impossible to discuss as any disagreement is immediately assumed to be a sign of great moral failings.

Are you proposing no one say anything? Just let it self-correct?

There is quite a big space in between "say nothing" and "make everyone hyper-aware at all times" wouldn't you agree?

If you accept racism is a complex problem, I'm sure you can accept that there isn't only a single potential solution and that some purported solutions may not work or may even be counterproductive.

Would you agree that this is true?

Hypersensitive? The problem is a lack of sensitivity.

Given the diversity of views in society, don't you think the problem could actually be both of these?

As far as pathologizing whiteness, again, I think that is in how someone hears that.

This kind of thing: Whiteness studies - Wikipedia

But I can this, what you accuse the left of doing, the right does the same. This is a behavioral thing, a developmental thing, not a political thing. Extremists on the left and on the right, are solemates. They are one and the same thing.

That's what I was saying. When people with mainstream views have to self-censor to appease a vocal minority then this is bad for society. It has nothing to do with right or left which is why I made a point of highlighting that people seem to be fine with it when it is 'their side' forming the mob, but find it unconscionable when it is the 'other side' forming the mob.

One major reason US politics is particularly poisonous is due to it belong divided into 2 evenly balanced sides turning everything into a zero-sum game of winning or losing.

 

[Augustus]

It is a difficult balancing act. There was a BBC Comedy Show called 'Til Death Us Do Part, it aired in the 60/70s; the main character, Alf Garnett, was a right wing racist who made many derogatory comments about black and Asian people. His live in son-in-law was a socialist who called him out on these opinions. I thought the show was funny at the time; but I would cringe nowadays
Then the likes of The Black and White Minstrel Show where white actors 'blacked' up and sang in stereo typical accents.
Add to that Love Thy Neighbour - these were horribly offensive shows that were at the time accepted.
It is right that they are no longer shown, perhaps they should be available as archive to show that we are progressing.

Fawlty Towers: The Germans episode removed from UKTV over 'racial slurs'

An episode of sitcom Fawlty Towers has been taken off UKTV's streaming service because it contains "racial slurs".

The BBC-owned platform said it had made The Germans unavailable while it carries out a review.

In the 1975 episode, Basil Fawlty declares "don't mention the war" around German guests, while the Major uses highly offensive language about the West Indies cricket team.

Actor and creator John Cleese described the move as "stupid".

Speaking to The Age newspaper, he said the episode was clearly a critique of racist attitudes.

"One of the things I've learned in the last 180 years is that people have very different senses of humour," he said.

"Some of them understand that if you put nonsense words into the mouth of someone you want to make fun of, you're not broadcasting their views, you're making fun of them."
Fawlty Towers episode removed from UKTV


Seems a bit silly to me.

 

[Altfish]

Fawlty Towers: The Germans episode removed from UKTV over 'racial slurs'

An episode of sitcom Fawlty Towers has been taken off UKTV's streaming service because it contains "racial slurs".

The BBC-owned platform said it had made The Germans unavailable while it carries out a review.

In the 1975 episode, Basil Fawlty declares "don't mention the war" around German guests, while the Major uses highly offensive language about the West Indies cricket team.

Actor and creator John Cleese described the move as "stupid".

Speaking to The Age newspaper, he said the episode was clearly a critique of racist attitudes.

"One of the things I've learned in the last 180 years is that people have very different senses of humour," he said.

"Some of them understand that if you put nonsense words into the mouth of someone you want to make fun of, you're not broadcasting their views, you're making fun of them."
Fawlty Towers episode removed from UKTV


Seems a bit silly to me.

Hmm, I've heard that it was removed because it was an 'early' version that had the Major using the 'N' word; it had already been edited out with John Cleese's blessing. It is nothing to do with reference to Germans and WW2

 

[Stevicus]

Seems a bit silly to me.

I agree, although I'm wondering if it's the censorship itself which is the problem or the inconsistency in principles which can sometimes come through. One of the key criticisms of political correctness is that it often has double standards. It gives a pass to some derogatories, depending on who's uttering them or which group they're directed at, while disallowing and/or severely criticizing similarly derogatory remarks.

If one chooses to establish a principle that it is morally wrong to make offensive or disparaging remarks about a race, nationality, religion, ethnic group, gender identity, etc., then one must be consistent in that principle. If not, then one has no legitimate basis for complaint against others who refuse to follow such a principle.

 

[Augustus]

Hmm, I've heard that it was removed because it was an 'early' version that had the Major using the 'N' word; it had already been edited out with John Cleese's blessing. It is nothing to do with reference to Germans and WW2

I know that. The major was telling a story about his date referring to Indians using the N word, and he objected as they were in fact something beginning with W.

The point of the Major though was that he was a parody of the posh, old-fashioned, English establishment.

The N word is used in countless films with minimal controversy