Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

No Warnings, Please, Mr. Karger!"


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Allhallowsday said:

I'm not sure I agree with everything you write, but damned straight, Pvt Bone Spurs IS the anti-Christ. 

The Republican Party lost its way with Trump. It became a bunch of hate-spewing extremists.

As a result, more moderate conservatives were forced to become independent or else switch over to the other side and become moderate liberals. But that's another story.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

I agree...we (you and I) both know the original poster is acting like a self-appointed spokesperson of offended right wingers everywhere. These people used to be called the Christian Right but since Trump they very seldom put Christ at the center of what they say and do. My honest opinion.

Be careful Top... Writing like this will get this thread removed or moved to Off Topics...

Not all of us supposedly "right wingers" are offended. And not all of the 75 million or so voters who cast their vote for President Trump in 2020 including me are racists as is the prevailing wisdom over on the OFF Topic forum.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fxreyman said:

Be careful Top... Writing like this will get this thread removed or moved to Off Topics...

No great loss. It's a terrible opening post to begin with and has only gotten more stupid with each response to it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't ya just love the Internet, folks?!

Remember, back before it was created the only options available to people who were offended by something they saw or heard on TV was to either place a telephone call to the local TV station or was to write a nasty letter to the TV station expressing why they were offended about something they saw and/or heard on it.

But NOW DAYS using this thing called the Internet, we can express these complaints as to why we were offended in a website's public forum section or in some other social media site, and so EVERYONE can then see why we were so offended about something.

Yep, what a wonderous thing this Internet is, isn't it.

Question though: Do you think the Internet might have contributed to why it seems EVERY freakin' American seems to be offended about SOMETHING now days, and in some cases even about something as seemingly INSIGNIFICANT as being told or reminded that there are older cultural practices such as blackface which now days some might find offensive?

(...just wonderin', that's all...and although I really think I ALREADY know the answer to this)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2021 at 7:56 PM, Dargo said:

Question though: Do you think the Internet might have contributed to why it seems EVERY freakin' American seems to be offended about SOMETHING now days, and in some cases even about something as seemingly INSIGNIFICANT as being told that there are older cultural practices such as blackface which now days some might find offensive?

To address your question I don't think the Internet has increase the number that are offended by something.   Instead it just increases the number we know are offended.    I.e.  when they were yelling at their T.V. or kicking their dog,  the general public didn't know about that.    This is why I objected to the OP using the term "we",  as if he represented the views of a significant portion of TCM viewers.    

As for your "insignificant" comment:   My gut tells me this is a counter reaction to those that are offended by TCM showing certain films.    I.e.  the OP believes the reaction of the PC activist to ban films (which TCM has faced pressure to do),   is over-the-top so they do a counter over-the-top counter-reaction.     But I did find it ironic the OP threated to boycott TCM,   just like the PC activist they despise.  

I feel TCM's choice was the best middle ground between these two opposing POV.      Notice that TCM has been running their own spots to explain why they went with this middle ground approach.     Of course there are those that believe TCM can't have it both ways.      Oh well.

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

To address your question I don't think the Internet has increase the number that are offended by something.   Instead it just increases the number we know are offended.    I.e.  when they were yelling at their T.V. or kicking their dog,  the general public didn't know about that.    This is why I objected to the OP using the term "we",  as if he represented the views of a significant portion of TCM viewers.    

As for your "insignificant" comment:   My gut tells me this is a counter reaction to those that are offended by TCM showing certain films.    I.e.  the OP believes the reaction of the PC activist to ban films (which TCM has faced pressure to do),   is over-the-top so they do a counter over-the-top counter-reaction.     But I did find it ironic the OP threated to boycott TCM,   just like the PC activist they despise.  

I feel TCM choice the best middle ground between these two opposing POV.      Notice that TCM has been running their own spots to explain why they when with this middle ground approach.     Of course there are those that believe TCM can't have it both ways.      Oh well.

 

Excellent post.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, fxreyman said:

Be careful Top... Writing like this will get this thread removed or moved to Off Topics...

Not all of us supposedly "right wingers" are offended. And not all of the 75 million or so voters who cast their vote for President Trump in 2020 including me are racists as is the prevailing wisdom over on the OFF Topic forum.

Thanks. The thread may get moved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was so looking forward to TCM showing NAZI LOVE CAMP 27 . . . I guess that's now blown all to Hell!   I could've even *enjoyed* the 'content warning'! 

Same with SPECIAL TRAIN FOR HITLER and GESTAPO'S LAST ****.   Jeez.  TCM is no fun at all!  I may weep . . . 😞

😜

 

 

 

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

To address your question I don't think the Internet has increase the number that are offended by something.   Instead it just increases the number we know are offended.    I.e.  when they were yelling at their T.V. or kicking their dog,  the general public didn't know about that. 

Yep, but pretty much the point I was attempting to make, James. Although, I'll now add the thought that perhaps because of this increased public awareness to all those poor "offended" people, this has created a "snowball effect" in these regards.

 

10 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

This is why I objected to the OP using the term "we",  as if he represented the views of a significant portion of TCM viewers.    

Yep, I saw that eariler post of yours and where you questioned the OP's use of the "collective we" or sometimes also referred to as the "royal we". And yes, I thought it a very good point made on your part. 

 

12 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

As for your "insignificant" comment:   My gut tells me this is a counter reaction to those that are offended by TCM showing certain films.    I.e.  the OP believes the reaction of the PC activist to ban films (which TCM has faced pressure to do),   is over-the-top so they do a counter over-the-top counter-reaction.     But I did find it ironic the OP threated to boycott TCM,   just like the PC activist they despise. 

Yep again, and thus yet another example of why there are often as many examples available to point to out there when it comes to the idea that people REGARDLESS where they might place themselves on the political spectrum can and often DO practice various forms of "political correctness", and of which it's always seemed those who position themselves on one particular side of said spectrum seem especially blind to this fact or lack the self-awareness to recognize this in themselves.

 

21 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I feel TCM choice the best middle ground between these two opposing POV.      Notice that TCM has been running their own spots to explain why they when with this middle ground approach.     Of course there are those that believe TCM can't have it both ways.      Oh well.

Yep, exactly...again.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From my perspective I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person over the age of say 18 or even 14 isn't culturally aware of "blackface" in television and film. Perhaps not aware of Minstrel shows but definitely TV and movies.  It's not as though it hasn't been discussed in mainstream conversations since at least the 1960's. Even Archie Bunker was in blackface when his grandson was born. This was to lampoon Archie's bigotry rather than make fun of black people.  Then there was Ricky Ricardo in the 1950's when he was dressed in native gear, complete with Afro, when his son was born. I'm sure there are other examples.

Even as a kid myself I knew it wasn't right. I understood what it was and why it wasn't appropriate. I guess you could say I took it at face value. We live in a time when people are easily sued and people take offense at things far, far less serious than cultural appropriation. TCM is doing what it has to do to fit the times otherwise they would have been commenting on these films appearances since they went on the air.  My two cents.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FEEyWahvWsAAriNr.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Frossmcleansec%2Fstatus%2F1174478988049362944&tbnid=SwT-43I2lMFSEM&vet=12ahUKEwiXnMHjxNzyAhVOhJ4KHTzrB9IQMygBegQIARAp..i&docid=vybZ01o6wI_9QM&w=615&h=380&q=archie bunker blackface&ved=2ahUKEwiXnMHjxNzyAhVOhJ4KHTzrB9IQMygBegQIARAp

 

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2F64.media.tumblr.com%2Fa2ff12db646afe40938c8f99235b578d%2Fc65cb0320d47b4fa-fb%2Fs640x960%2F9fa6501838381a9404b22ae0f2008ac540ddb1e6.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fpapermoonloveslucy.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F132144140768%2Flucy-goes-to-the-hospital&tbnid=R2-xSmHlTjTY9M&vet=12ahUKEwjysbmBxdzyAhWClZ4KHVFKDt8QMygFegQIARAb..i&docid=MCiMn7qGNzswCM&w=640&h=472&q=ricky ricardo blackface&ved=2ahUKEwjysbmBxdzyAhWClZ4KHVFKDt8QMygFegQIARAb

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dargo said:

. . . Question though: Do you think the Internet might have contributed to why it seems EVERY freakin' American seems to be offended about SOMETHING now days, and in some cases even about something as seemingly INSIGNIFICANT as being told or reminded that there are older cultural practices such as blackface which now days some might find offensive? . . .

IMO, the Internet has democratized mass communication. No more being ignored, edited, or censored by a select few, elitist -- sometimes self-appointed -- gatekeepers, "bouncers," and screeners on newspapers and magazines and on talk radio shows. Now The People have direct, unfettered access to express and share their opinions! Now Joe Blow/Joe McDoakes/Joe Sixpack can be heard and read!

I dig it myself. Democracy and vox populi in action! Bravo, say I!

And similar to the naive idealism of inventors of television who envisioned TV as a way of bringing people together and unifying Mankind, the starry-eyed utopianism of architects who had the same dream for the Internet also proved that things don't always turn out as planned and hoped.

But, you gotta take the bad with the good, IMO.

I genuinely and seriously believe that the reason for the seemingly increased polarization, alienation, division, and hostility in the world and among Mankind is the very medium through which we are communicating. Or as a radio pundit I heard long ago expressed -- regarding the philosophy that integration teaches us that we are more alike than we are not alike -- integration also teaches some folks that there are more people they can hate.

The Internet brings all of us together, making us One.

Except when it doesn't and when we aren't.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dargo said:

But NOW DAYS using this thing called the Internet, we can express these complaints as to why we were offended in a website's public forum section or in some other social media site, and so EVERYONE can then see why we were so offended about something.

That's how I joined this site. 

1 hour ago, Dargo said:

Do you think the Internet might have contributed to why it seems EVERY freakin' American seems to be offended about SOMETHING now days, and in some cases even about something as seemingly INSIGNIFICANT as being told or reminded that there are older cultural practices such as blackface which now days some might find offensive?

Yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Eucalpytus P. Millstone said:

IMO, the Internet has democratized mass communication. No more being ignored, edited, or censored by a select few, elitist -- sometimes self-appointed -- gatekeepers, "bouncers," and screeners on newspapers and magazines and on talk radio shows. Now The People have direct, unfettered access to express and share their opinions! Now Joe Blow/Joe McDoakes/Joe Sixpack can be heard and read!

I dig it myself. Democracy and vox populi in action! Bravo, say I!

And similar to the naive idealism of inventors of television who envisioned TV as a way of bringing people together and unifying Mankind, the starry-eyed utopianism of architects who had the same dream for the Internet also proved that things don't always turn out as planned and hoped.

But, you gotta take the bad with the good, IMO.

I genuinely and seriously believe that the reason for the seemingly increased polarization, alienation, division, and hostility in the world and among Mankind is the very medium through which we are communicating. Or as a radio pundit I heard long ago expressed -- regarding the philosophy that integration teaches us that we are more alike than we are not alike -- integration also teaches some folks that there are more people they can hate.

The Internet brings all of us together, making us One.

Except when it doesn't and when we aren't.

 

Now see, THIS is exactly what I've always liked about you since you've first shown up on these boards here, EPM!

Your ability to equivocate with the best of 'em out there!  ;)  LOL

Or in other words, and sorry, but it seemed to me that you were, as they say, "talking out of both sides of your mouth" up there.

(...BUT, very eloquently, I might add)

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Now see, THIS is exactly what I've always liked about you since you've first shown up on these boards here, EPM!

Your ability to equivocate with the best of 'em out there!  ;)  LOL

Or in other words, and sorry, but it seemed to me that you were, as they say, "talking out of both sides of your mouth" up there.

(...BUT, very eloquently, I might add)

 

The perception that I'm "talking out of both sides of [my] mouth" is merely a deft act of slick ventriloquism.

My elocution originates from a distinctly lower region of my anatomy (as do my opinions), generally covered by pants.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dargo said:

Question though: Do you think the Internet might have contributed to why it seems EVERY freakin' American seems to be offended about SOMETHING now days, and in some cases even about something as seemingly INSIGNIFICANT as being told or reminded that there are older cultural practices such as blackface which now days some might find offensive?

(...just wonderin', that's all...and although I really think I ALREADY know the answer to this)

No, it's mostly a generational thing, when you wanted to Change the World in college, but could only do it with little clubs, gatherings or protest to demand they tear down the campus statue or put in a black-history program, and nobody else on campus cared.

Now, you can use the Internet to market your ambitious Punish the 20th Century outrage as if it's an actual thing, and enough people will believe it's some actual issue.  That's how Pepe LePew was banned from Warner, after one columnist made an article wondering "who would be next" after Disneyland changed Splash Mountain. 

As for the Perils of Unannounced Blackface, I remember the scene from the 1980 Neil Diamond The Jazz Singer, where they tried to pay "tribute" to Al Jolson with a scene where Neil has to use blackface to sit in with his black friend's group, and when the audience at the club finds out, a race riot erupts.  (And Laurence Olivier tells him "It wasn't hard enough being a Jew??")

 0yulIDjKZ2FfIS01SlrQ8hPRuedHDyMOYE54CtPN

Critics were less offended at Neil in shoe polish as they were at the stereotype that Black People would immediately riot at the very appearance of a non-black performer pretending to be one, and yet that's EXACTLY what the TCM powers-that-be are implying should they even dare to show Holiday Inn uncut.  It's not "sensitivity", it's fear, and naive, condescending, goofy fear at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2021 at 2:44 AM, Ed in Orange said:

Mr. Karger, it is not necessary to "warn" us about "characters in Black faces," as during your intro to "Yankee Doodle Dandy."   We're, generally, a mature-adult, well-adapted viewing audience who grew up watching classic films. Personally, I have never found it "uncomfortable" or offensive to watch characters in Black faces, nor has any member of our local classic film club.  Watching classic movies is, purely, entertainment.  So, please, Mr. Karger, [we] hope you DO NOT make it a regular practice of lecturing us regarding social, racial or moral issues, again.  Next, you'll be "warning" us about LGBT, ethnic cartoon characters, Charlie Chan, Benito Juarez (characters portrait by non-ethnic actors), etc.  We are not adolescents, Mr. Karger, and you are not old enough to lecture us.  We are fully capable of, consciously, acknowledging [for ourselves] "where we've been and how far we've come."  Don't spoil it for us!  Mr. Karger, you are wrong.  It is NOT uncomfortable to watch "characters in Black faces", but it is uncomfortable to hear you lecture us on morality.  Should TCM hosts not refrain from lecturing us about racial depictions and such, I will not hesitate to stop watching the channel, permanently.  That's why Robert Osborne was such a great host--- He never made his audience feel uncomfortable.   No more warnings, please!

Ed, 25-Year TCM Fan. 

Ed, it is necessary for Dave Karger and the other hosts to provide these warnings. Without the warnings, these films will soon no longer be shown on TCM or any other media provider. TCM will cease to exist without the disclaimers and an obvious commitment on TCM's part to portray racial diversity and provide education about the racial issues of TCM's content. I'm not saying this to be politically correct, I'm saying that this is how businesses operate.

The assets of TCM are a library of old films produced in a segregated industry in which black people (in the rare instances they appear) are mostly depicted as servants or buffoons. Blackface was not an oddity, it was common enough that it was worn by icons like Fred Astaire and Shirley Temple and depicted in all-time great films like YANKEE DOODLE DANDY. So if you owned TCM, in order to 1) exist and 2) to monetize your assets by presenting these films... you would provide warnings/disclaimers. Otherwise you couldn't show the films and you'd go out of business.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2021 at 11:25 PM, EricJ said:

Critics were less offended at Neil in shoe polish as they were at the stereotype that Black People would immediately riot at the very appearance of a non-black performer pretending to be one, and yet that's EXACTLY what the TCM powers-that-be are implying should they even dare to show Holiday Inn uncut.  It's not "sensitivity", it's fear, and naive, condescending, goofy fear at that.

Not sure I'm following this;   it appears you're implying TCM either doesn't show Holiday Inn,  at all,  or that if they do they show it with the Abraham scene removed (cut-out),  due to fear etc...   Here is what Wiki has:

Beginning in the 1980s, some broadcasts of the film have entirely omitted the "Abraham" musical number, staged at the Inn for Lincoln's Birthday, because of its depiction of a blackface minstrel show incorporating images and behaviors that are racist in nature.[23] However, because Turner Classic Movies airs films uncut and unedited, the network has left the "Abraham" number intact during their screenings of Holiday Inn.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2021 at 11:25 PM, EricJ said:

No, it's mostly a generational thing, when you wanted to Change the World in college, but could only do it with little clubs, gatherings or protest to demand they tear down the campus statue or put in a black-history program, and nobody else on campus cared.

Now, you can use the Internet to market your ambitious Punish the 20th Century outrage as if it's an actual thing, and enough people will believe it's some actual issue.  That's how Pepe LePew was banned from Warner, after one columnist made an article wondering "who would be next" after Disneyland changed Splash Mountain. 

As for the Perils of Unannounced Blackface, I remember the scene from the 1980 Neil Diamond The Jazz Singer, where they tried to pay "tribute" to Al Jolson with a scene where Neil has to use blackface to sit in with his black friend's group, and when the audience at the club finds out, a race riot erupts.  (And Laurence Olivier tells him "It wasn't hard enough being a Jew??")

 0yulIDjKZ2FfIS01SlrQ8hPRuedHDyMOYE54CtPN

Critics were less offended at Neil in shoe polish as they were at the stereotype that Black People would immediately riot at the very appearance of a non-black performer pretending to be one, and yet that's EXACTLY what the TCM powers-that-be are implying should they even dare to show Holiday Inn uncut.  It's not "sensitivity", it's fear, and naive, condescending, goofy fear at that.

Why was Pepe banned? Offensive to French people? Skunks?

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Hibi said:

Why was Pepe banned? Offensive to French people? Skunks?

His relentless physical aggressiveness towards the object of his "affection" (aka horniness), combined with his complete indifference towards her obvious discomfort, now reads to some viewers as harassment, abuse, and male sexual entitlement rather than lighthearted humor.  From Wikipedia:

"The character's antics have been criticized for normalizing rape culture, and perpetuating stereotypes of French culture. Amber E. George, in her 2017 essay 'Pride or Prejudice? Exploring Issues of Queerness, Speciesism, and Disability in Warner Bros. Looney Tunes', describes Pepé's actions towards Penelope Pussycat as 'sexual harassment, stalking, and abuse' and noted that Pepé's qualities mock the French people and their culture.

In a 2021 column for The New York Times, Charles M. Blow wrote that Pepé normalized rape culture. Linda Jones Clough, the daughter of Pepé's creator, says she does not think anyone would watch Pepé cartoons and be inspired to rape someone, but she saw the choice to give him a break for a while as an appropriate decision."

I realize that Pepé is partly an exaggerated parody of Maurice Chevalier, and that his obliviousness to Penelope's constant rejection of him was itself intended to be comic (because...she's a cat...and he isn't...and he smells),  but the above outcome is probably inevitable given today's greater sensitivity to these issues. (Or hypersensitivity, depending on your point of view; I'm just explaining the situation as I understand it.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...