Kayne anyone?

[narad]

To make an example of how silly the whole thing is. Progressive liberals are offended by toys. Don't buy one if it doesn't suit you, and grow some skin.

To make an example of how silly the whole thing is, Hasbro decided to rebrand without any major external push to do so and conservative dorks were offended. Don't buy one if it doesn't suit you, and grow some skin.

 

[spudmunkey]

Picture the Ram Trucks brand. They make trucks, right? And the name works, because all they make are trucks. But now let's say they add a car to the lineup. So for the next 20 years, that car is known as the Ram Trucks Car. After a couple of decades, they decide that this name is awkward and confusing, so they rename the brand "Ram", and then they have the "Ram Truck" and the "Ram Car" models. And then, they offer a kit of parts that just has all of the parts from both the truck and the car that you can piece together however you want.

That's what happened with Mr. Potato Head. They had a Mrs. Potato Head toy, but it's full designation was the Mr. Potato Head Mrs. Potato Head. So, since they had multiple non "Mr." characters in the lineup, they just renamed the family of products "Potato Head". Within that product line, there's a Mr. Potato Head, and a Mrs. Potato Head. Then, they came out with a "Potato Head Family Playset" that just came with all sorts of mixed parts, and you could combine them however you want.

That's it. Any gender politics applied to this situation was purely done to press buttons. They didn't change because of "woke politics". They didn't keep the "Mr. Potato Head" branding for the male version because of "backlash"...keeping it was always the plan.

I have a cousin who used to work there years ago, and he said he and some of his old coworkers' minds were blown by all of the bad takes surrounding their desire to just not have confusing names for their products.

If anything, you'd have thought conservatives would have cheered the striking of the "against nature" name of "Mr. Potato Head Mrs. Potato Head." It's very "Glen or Glenda", isn't it?

It's already one of the most "against God" toys you can imagine, because half of the fun is sticking all sorts of random body parts up inside their back door.

 

[CanserDYI]

A pearl clutching conservative telling me to grow some skin is rich. You people are afraid of like 99% of things and gonna tell me to man up?

Boo! Social programs! Boo! People of color moving into your neighborhood! Boo!

Scared ya, I know. I'm really sorry.

 

[zappatton2]

Dear glob with the Potato Head drama! This is exactly the problem; outlets like Fox News see a headline somewhere, and without taking the time to understand it or investigate the issue to inform their viewers, they spin it into this grand "woke" conspiracy against "Real Amuricans". That's it.

They do it with all these trifling little things that wouldn't make the headlines in any other context. They do it around bigger issues, like trans rights or "Critical Race Theory", spinning it into something it's not, mischaracterizing issues in bad faith to purposely enrage the mouth-breathers, and then you have to hear the same stupid talking points repeated verbatim in place of any honest attempt to understand the issue at hand.

 

[narad]

Dear glob with the Potato Head drama! This is exactly the problem; outlets like Fox News see a headline somewhere, and without taking the time to understand it or investigate the issue to inform their viewers, they spin it into this grand "woke" conspiracy against "Real Amuricans". That's it.

They do it with all this trifling little things that wouldn't make the headlines in any other context. They do it around bigger issues, like trans rights or "Critical Race Theory", spinning it into something it's not, mischaracterizing issues in bad faith to purposely enrage the mouth-breathers, and then you have to hear the same stupid talking points repeated verbatim in place of any honest attempt to understand the issue at hand.

Cue the litter boxes in school bathrooms for the kids identifying as animals.

 

[zappatton2]

Cue the litter boxes in school bathrooms for the kids identifying as animals.

Exactly!!

 

[Jonathan20022]

To make an example of how silly the whole thing is. Progressive liberals are offended by toys. Don't buy one if it doesn't suit you, and grow some skin.

Narad already pointed out the hilarity of changing the toy, and grown adult conservatives caring about a toy from their childhood.

Conservatives/Republicans participate in cancel culture as much as "liberals" do, the pendulum just hasn't swung back. Still waiting on a person who was unfairly cancelled for their own actions.

 

[bostjan]

I'm more upset that it's not even a real fucking potato.

Look, I get it, there are insane people on both sides of the political divide. However, there's no need to contribute more insanity than we already have. It's a fake plastic potato with fake plastic eyes and fake plastic body parts. Does that deserve to be in the news?!

Meanwhile, children are getting shot on a daily basis in US schools and grandma's are getting arrested for feeding homeless people.

Kanye is an idiot. It's 2022, so that little piece of "news" is years old at this point.

Potato head isn't a real man nor a real woman. Umm ok, again, tell me something I don't know.

 

[jaxadam]

Still waiting on a person who was unfairly cancelled for their own actions.

Kayne anyone?

Mr. Potato Head? weh weh weh, it's not gender neutral :D That's your new nickname, Mr. Potato Head Why don't you actually look up Mr. Potato Head and see if it's been cancelled. Go on I'll wait. Oh, wait. You're saying you can still buy a Mr. Potato Head branded Potato head? Golly, gee, AMOS...

www.sevenstring.org

 

[TedEH]

While I hate contributing to this trash fire (or maybe I enjoy the trash fire, who knows), I feel like the only real valid criticism to be made of this whole "cancelling" bandwagon is the sort of guilty-by-proxy effect. By which I mean, the "oh, you still like Harry Potter? You think Dave Chapelle is funny? You work for a company whose higher-ups have done something stupid? I bet you're a terrible person too." That being said - it's a stretch, usually.

A more concrete example:
When we had Ottawa invaded by a bunch of truckers, there was a list published at some point of people who donated or otherwise publicly supported the convoy. The people on that list suffered some consequences, which I don't feel bad about - but so did the people around them who had nothing to do with it. A business owner down the street from my office at the time was outed as a supporter, and in response, people went down there and harassed their employees who had no idea what was going on. I vaguely remember a brick going through the window or something, but maybe I'm remembering that wrong. The problem in this scenario is not that the person who was outed is suffering consequences, but that the target of people's "justice" was just the regular employees trying to earn a living who likely had no idea their employer was connected to the convoy at all - and it's not like they could have done anything about it, or had time to find other jobs or something.

 

[Jonathan20022]

While I hate contributing to this trash fire (or maybe I enjoy the trash fire, who knows), I feel like the only real valid criticism to be made of this whole "cancelling" bandwagon is the sort of guilty-by-proxy effect. By which I mean, the "oh, you still like Harry Potter? You think Dave Chapelle is funny? You work for a company whose higher-ups have done something stupid? I bet you're a terrible person too." That being said - it's a stretch, usually.

A more concrete example:
When we had Ottawa invaded by a bunch of truckers, there was a list published at some point of people who donated or otherwise publicly supported the convoy. The people on that list suffered some consequences, which I don't feel bad about - but so did the people around them who had nothing to do with it. A business owner down the street from my office at the time was outed as a supporter, and in response, people went down there and harassed their employees who had no idea what was going on. I vaguely remember a brick going through the window or something, but maybe I'm remembering that wrong. The problem in this scenario is not that the person who was outed is suffering consequences, but that the target of people's "justice" was just the regular employees trying to earn a living who likely had no idea their employer was connected to the convoy at all - and it's not like they could have done anything about it, or had time to find other jobs or something.

The fact that your final sentence carries any weight at all is bizarre to me, are you suggesting that people should change their jobs given enough time and that their status would go from unwilling participant, to willfully ignorant, then an accessory to?

I know your whole premise is that those people shouldn't be harmed for the actions of those above them. But I get the inkling that you feel like there is some line where that now becomes ok from your wording.

If that's the case, then I sincerely hope you don't partake in those wildly known pieces of entertainment. Because knowing and separating the art from the artist is demonstrably worse if you're going to be consistent there, to know and disregard while holding that standard of others is absolutely worse.

 

[TedEH]

I meant it to say nothing more than they had no means to escape the consequences of someone else's actions. Anything more that that is just projecting your own interpretation into the matter.

I think it would be in their best interest to change jobs if they don't share values with the ownership, and if they have the means to do so - but I'd be willing to bet that if they landed in that job in the first place, their means were limited to begin with. The entirety of the point is that they're powerless in this situation, and shouldn't be dragged into the situation or discussion at all - given that they don't take their own stance or action that would warrant doing so (something like if they themselves came to the defense of the owners actions, etc).

 

[bostjan]

The fact that your final sentence carries any weight at all is bizarre to me, are you suggesting that people should change their jobs given enough time and that their status would go from unwilling participant, to willfully ignorant, then an accessory to?

I know your whole premise is that those people shouldn't be harmed for the actions of those above them. But I get the inkling that you feel like there is some line where that now becomes ok from your wording.

If that's the case, then I sincerely hope you don't partake in those wildly known pieces of entertainment. Because knowing and separating the art from the artist is demonstrably worse if you're going to be consistent there, to know and disregard while holding that standard of others is absolutely worse.

I read that as "even if those people who had no idea what was going on wanted to jump on the bandwagon (regardless of whether they agreed or not), it's not like they could have even done anything about it anyway."

I think the rest of the post provides plenty of context to show that the intention of the sentence is not what you are projecting, but hey, maybe we are both wrong.

 

[Jonathan20022]

I read that as "even if those people who had no idea what was going on wanted to jump on the bandwagon (regardless of whether they agreed or not), it's not like they could have even done anything about it anyway."

I think the rest of the post provides plenty of context to show that the intention of the sentence is not what you are projecting, but hey, maybe we are both wrong.

Not projecting, just inquiring overall. I know that TedEh means well from all of his conversations in the past and that of many people here he is absolutely one of those who is willing to flesh out his views/argue in good faith. He drew parallels to people who enjoy media made by problematic people, and those who rely on shitty people to survive. The consequences to the latter are severe and infinitely worse if they're displaced with no fault of their own.

One leads to the other, and people are generally not consistent. I know a lot of people that give the things they love a pass regardless of controversy, yet vehemently call for the necks of others for a variety of reasons.

I don't think expecting someone unless that person has the means to change jobs at a whim when told "your boss is a piece of garbage" is reasonable. I know socdems who participate in the apparent "late stage capitalism" they oppose without seeking alternatives to luxuries they live with. That's just a glaring example in the landscape right now, but is an entirely different topic.

 

[TedEH]

Not projecting, just inquiring overall

You gatta be careful a bit with the kinds of "so what you're saying is" kinds of arguments, since those tend to come across as deliberate twisting of someone's intent. A la "so what you're saying is, you hate America, amirite?". Often when someone is digging for context between the lines of a literal statement, it's just a means to put words in someone's mouth.

parallels to people who enjoy media made by problematic people, and those who rely on shitty people to survive.

Only by the way that their connection to "the problem" is tangential, and being mad at them points your ire in a non-productive direction. Being mad at someone for continuing to like Harry Potter doesn't do anything but annoy Harry Potter fans. It puts zero dent in JKR if that's your intent. Same as throwing bricks at minimum wage workers to stick it to their employer. The employer has insurance and will be fine, while the innocent third party is the one who has to suffer for it.

Not every example is as clear cut as those - like say, cases where someone wants to boycott a game or movie, and you could argue that you don't want to support the publisher (which you'd technically be accomplishing), but you could also argue that publishers are likely to have contingencies for when a product doesn't succeed and it's the bottom-of-the-barrel workers, who make up the meat of the company but have no influence over what you're mad at, who will suffer most of the consequences by way of losing bonuses, losing upcoming contracts, etc. Big media products provide for a lot of people, but only a tiny minority get to make the kinds of decisions that make headlines.

 

[Drew]

Wrong is not clear cut. It's never been clear cut. Good vs. evil, wrong vs. right, has been a fundamental philsophical inquiry for centuries. Even under the eyes of the law, it's not "clear cut". Lawyers, those who "interpret the law" are the ones who are making this up.

https://jezebel.com/women-are-warning-each-other-that-brock-turner-is-out-a-1849446450

How did Brock Turner, a convicted rapist, walk the streets as a free man in something so clear cut?

Oh idunno. I think this

I never listened to his music, I don't feel bad for him, and I would never say anything so fucking stupid, BUT, I think cancel culture is cringe.

...is pretty clearcut, whether or not anti-semitism is wrong, or if it's just an example of "woke cancel culture" going too far when the whole world lines up to tell Kanye to shut the fuck up.

The fact Brock Turner managed to use his privelige to skirt out of a rape conviction because a judge agreed it wasn't fair to "ruin his whole life over 30 seconds" is a pretty textbook example of why we HAVE cancel culture, because we can't always trust the courts to do the right thing for us.

You're making it increasingly hard to not look at your posting here and come away with the belief that you're sympathetic to antisemitism and the whole incel men's rights bullshit thing. I'd REALLY stop and think about what you're trying to say here.

 

[Drew]

A pearl clutching conservative telling me to grow some skin is rich. You people are afraid of like 99% of things and gonna tell me to man up?

Boo! Social programs! Boo! People of color moving into your neighborhood! Boo!

Scared ya, I know. I'm really sorry.

You know, I'll say this for conservatives - successfully branding liberals "snowflakes" for inclusive policies, while they in fact were the ones melting down every single time they saw something formerly exclusionary becoming more inclusive, would have been enough of a coup... but in doing so stealing a phrase from a book about the toxicity of modern American culture written by a gay man and using THAT as a derogatory term, that happens to be all-white, to boot, was really the icing on the cake. I don't know how the fuck they pulled it off but it's legitimately kind of impressive.

 

[/wrists]

Oh idunno. I think this

...is pretty clearcut, whether or not anti-semitism is wrong, or if it's just an example of "woke cancel culture" going too far when the whole world lines up to tell Kanye to shut the fuck up.

The fact Brock Turner managed to use his privelige to skirt out of a rape conviction because a judge agreed it wasn't fair to "ruin his whole life over 30 seconds" is a pretty textbook example of why we HAVE cancel culture, because we can't always trust the courts to do the right thing for us.

You're making it increasingly hard to not look at your posting here and come away with the belief that you're sympathetic to antisemitism and the whole incel men's rights bullshit thing. I'd REALLY stop and think about what you're trying to say here.

You can think whatever you want of me. My opinion on the matter on Kayne is pretty clear. My opinion on the matter of cancel culture is also pretty clear. My opinion on Brock Turner is also very clear.

Trying to blur the lines so you have some way of implicating I support or believe in whatever you want to think I support or believe is entirely your right and opinion, even if it's the wrong opinion.

I sleep fine at night.

 

[Drew]

You can think whatever you want of me. My opinion on the matter on Kayne is pretty clear. My opinion on the matter of cancel culture is also pretty clear. My opinion on Brock Turner is also very clear.

Trying to blur the lines so you have some way of implicating I support or believe in whatever you want to think I support or believe is entirely your right and opinion, even if it's the wrong opinion.

I sleep fine at night.

All I'm saying is you've spent this entire thread flirting with anti-Semitism and toxic masculinity/anti-feminism. I'm not sure what your goal is here exactly, but it's not a good look.

 

[TedEH]

I'd REALLY stop and think about what you're trying to say here.

IMO there's a whole lot of points where this whole thread should have ground to a halt to reflect on how close we got to saying some pretty awful things.