|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:19 pm
The Living Force TANRailgun The Living Force TANRailgun The Living Force I'd say that a work of fiction isn't comparable so it's a non-issue. Derpy wasn't accidentally a mentally-handicapped stereotype. So if a white character acted stereotypically black that character would be a stereotype? My point is that unless you ARE the group that is stereotyped, you cannot be a stereotype. And since your only evidence for Derpy being mentally challenged is that actual stereotype, which is circular logic and therefor invalidated, we have do not have adequate reason to assume that she is mentally challenged, and therefor she cannot be a stereotype of the mentally challenged. Yes, and wrong. It does not matter if she is mentally differently abled or not. By making her fit a popular negative stereotype, they are helping continue the publicly accepted mockery of a differently abled group of people. You're retreating, and not very gracefully. It IS relevant whether or not she is mentally disabled as that determines whether or not she is a stereotype. And what EXACTLY was offensive to you about how she was portrayed? That she had crossed eyes? Crossed eyes are not a sign of mental disability, that she was clumsy? Also not a sign of mental disability. Was it her voice? Her hair? What, what was it that honestly offended you, because I can't think of a single thing portrayed that any reasonable person would take exception to. You can portray a stereotype without making the entity portraying it actually fit the stereotype. It was a combination of her voice and actions, making her into a slow, slurred speech buffoon for the amusement of viewers. The media is full of negative portrayals of mentally differently abled people. We don't need to have kids watching this come to associate these traits with something amusing. They're people. My Little Pony should not be a minstrel show. And thank you, those offended enjoy being called unreasonable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbleismYep, 'cause evaryone who saw Derpy will now be more apt ta' be rude, discriminatory, and a complete jerk towards any mentally handicapped people they meet in real life. I guess I now be prejudice towards th' mentally handicapped 'cause I don't find Derpy offensive If'n someone tis rude, holds prejudicial views, and tis a jerk towards mentally disabled people, they probably held such opinions anyways. Reminds me o' th' youtube show "Retarded Policeman" and how it twas taken down, though now it be back up thankfully
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:32 pm
Kaptain K Rool The Living Force TANRailgun The Living Force TANRailgun The Living Force I'd say that a work of fiction isn't comparable so it's a non-issue. Derpy wasn't accidentally a mentally-handicapped stereotype. So if a white character acted stereotypically black that character would be a stereotype? My point is that unless you ARE the group that is stereotyped, you cannot be a stereotype. And since your only evidence for Derpy being mentally challenged is that actual stereotype, which is circular logic and therefor invalidated, we have do not have adequate reason to assume that she is mentally challenged, and therefor she cannot be a stereotype of the mentally challenged. Yes, and wrong. It does not matter if she is mentally differently abled or not. By making her fit a popular negative stereotype, they are helping continue the publicly accepted mockery of a differently abled group of people. You're retreating, and not very gracefully. It IS relevant whether or not she is mentally disabled as that determines whether or not she is a stereotype. And what EXACTLY was offensive to you about how she was portrayed? That she had crossed eyes? Crossed eyes are not a sign of mental disability, that she was clumsy? Also not a sign of mental disability. Was it her voice? Her hair? What, what was it that honestly offended you, because I can't think of a single thing portrayed that any reasonable person would take exception to. You can portray a stereotype without making the entity portraying it actually fit the stereotype. It was a combination of her voice and actions, making her into a slow, slurred speech buffoon for the amusement of viewers. The media is full of negative portrayals of mentally differently abled people. We don't need to have kids watching this come to associate these traits with something amusing. They're people. My Little Pony should not be a minstrel show. And thank you, those offended enjoy being called unreasonable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbleismYep, 'cause evaryone who saw Derpy will now be more apt ta' be rude, discriminatory, and a complete jerk towards any mentally handicapped people they meet in real life. I guess I now be prejudice towards th' mentally handicapped 'cause I don't find Derpy offensive If'n someone tis rude, holds prejudicial views, and tis a jerk towards mentally disabled people, they probably held such opinions anyways. Reminds me o' th' youtube show "Retarded Policeman" and how it twas taken down, though now it be back up thankfully They don't have to. While antilocution makes people more prone to support more advanced forms of discrimination, it is still bad if it does not. Derpy was written to come off as a comical stereotype and it is offensive. No need to be cavalier about people taking offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:33 am
The Living Force TANRailgun The Living Force TANRailgun The Living Force I'd say that a work of fiction isn't comparable so it's a non-issue. Derpy wasn't accidentally a mentally-handicapped stereotype. So if a white character acted stereotypically black that character would be a stereotype? My point is that unless you ARE the group that is stereotyped, you cannot be a stereotype. And since your only evidence for Derpy being mentally challenged is that actual stereotype, which is circular logic and therefor invalidated, we have do not have adequate reason to assume that she is mentally challenged, and therefor she cannot be a stereotype of the mentally challenged. Yes, and wrong. It does not matter if she is mentally differently abled or not. By making her fit a popular negative stereotype, they are helping continue the publicly accepted mockery of a differently abled group of people. You're retreating, and not very gracefully. It IS relevant whether or not she is mentally disabled as that determines whether or not she is a stereotype. And what EXACTLY was offensive to you about how she was portrayed? That she had crossed eyes? Crossed eyes are not a sign of mental disability, that she was clumsy? Also not a sign of mental disability. Was it her voice? Her hair? What, what was it that honestly offended you, because I can't think of a single thing portrayed that any reasonable person would take exception to. You can portray a stereotype without making the entity portraying it actually fit the stereotype. It was a combination of her voice and actions, making her into a slow, slurred speech buffoon for the amusement of viewers. The media is full of negative portrayals of mentally differently abled people. We don't need to have kids watching this come to associate these traits with something amusing. They're people. My Little Pony should not be a minstrel show. And thank you, those offended enjoy being called unreasonable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbleismAre we fighting? It feels like we're fighting...it doesn't feel good...normally I like to be fighting...but you're a friend, and that doesn't come easy for me...so I give up, you win. Derpy is still awesome, but you win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:08 am
The Living Force Kaptain K Rool The Living Force TANRailgun The Living Force Yes, and wrong. It does not matter if she is mentally differently abled or not. By making her fit a popular negative stereotype, they are helping continue the publicly accepted mockery of a differently abled group of people. You're retreating, and not very gracefully. It IS relevant whether or not she is mentally disabled as that determines whether or not she is a stereotype. And what EXACTLY was offensive to you about how she was portrayed? That she had crossed eyes? Crossed eyes are not a sign of mental disability, that she was clumsy? Also not a sign of mental disability. Was it her voice? Her hair? What, what was it that honestly offended you, because I can't think of a single thing portrayed that any reasonable person would take exception to. You can portray a stereotype without making the entity portraying it actually fit the stereotype. It was a combination of her voice and actions, making her into a slow, slurred speech buffoon for the amusement of viewers. The media is full of negative portrayals of mentally differently abled people. We don't need to have kids watching this come to associate these traits with something amusing. They're people. My Little Pony should not be a minstrel show. And thank you, those offended enjoy being called unreasonable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbleismYep, 'cause evaryone who saw Derpy will now be more apt ta' be rude, discriminatory, and a complete jerk towards any mentally handicapped people they meet in real life. I guess I now be prejudice towards th' mentally handicapped 'cause I don't find Derpy offensive If'n someone tis rude, holds prejudicial views, and tis a jerk towards mentally disabled people, they probably held such opinions anyways. Reminds me o' th' youtube show "Retarded Policeman" and how it twas taken down, though now it be back up thankfully They don't have to. While antilocution makes people more prone to support more advanced forms of discrimination, it is still bad if it does not. Derpy was written to come off as a comical stereotype and it is offensive. No need to be cavalier about people taking offense. I jus' don't see th' problem. Thar be stereotypes that can be offensive in evary damn thin' in this world. And pointin' out th' stereotypes only reinforces th' stereotypes. Thar be so much offensive material I jus' don't see th' point o' actually takin' offense I didn't even give a thought o' Derpy bein' retarded until ye damn well pointed it out and said it be offensive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:42 am
Kaptain K Rool The Living Force Kaptain K Rool The Living Force TANRailgun The Living Force Yes, and wrong. It does not matter if she is mentally differently abled or not. By making her fit a popular negative stereotype, they are helping continue the publicly accepted mockery of a differently abled group of people. You're retreating, and not very gracefully. It IS relevant whether or not she is mentally disabled as that determines whether or not she is a stereotype. And what EXACTLY was offensive to you about how she was portrayed? That she had crossed eyes? Crossed eyes are not a sign of mental disability, that she was clumsy? Also not a sign of mental disability. Was it her voice? Her hair? What, what was it that honestly offended you, because I can't think of a single thing portrayed that any reasonable person would take exception to. You can portray a stereotype without making the entity portraying it actually fit the stereotype. It was a combination of her voice and actions, making her into a slow, slurred speech buffoon for the amusement of viewers. The media is full of negative portrayals of mentally differently abled people. We don't need to have kids watching this come to associate these traits with something amusing. They're people. My Little Pony should not be a minstrel show. And thank you, those offended enjoy being called unreasonable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbleismYep, 'cause evaryone who saw Derpy will now be more apt ta' be rude, discriminatory, and a complete jerk towards any mentally handicapped people they meet in real life. I guess I now be prejudice towards th' mentally handicapped 'cause I don't find Derpy offensive If'n someone tis rude, holds prejudicial views, and tis a jerk towards mentally disabled people, they probably held such opinions anyways. Reminds me o' th' youtube show "Retarded Policeman" and how it twas taken down, though now it be back up thankfully They don't have to. While antilocution makes people more prone to support more advanced forms of discrimination, it is still bad if it does not. Derpy was written to come off as a comical stereotype and it is offensive. No need to be cavalier about people taking offense. I jus' don't see th' problem. Thar be stereotypes that can be offensive in evary damn thin' in this world. And pointin' out th' stereotypes only reinforces th' stereotypes. Thar be so much offensive material I jus' don't see th' point o' actually takin' offense I didn't even give a thought o' Derpy bein' retarded until ye damn well pointed it out and said it be offensive Pointing out problems reinforces problems? Hardly. Offense is bad. If you value good, you attempt to end offense. And I'm not talking about unjustified offense, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:14 am
The Living Force Kaptain K Rool The Living Force Kaptain K Rool The Living Force You can portray a stereotype without making the entity portraying it actually fit the stereotype. It was a combination of her voice and actions, making her into a slow, slurred speech buffoon for the amusement of viewers. The media is full of negative portrayals of mentally differently abled people. We don't need to have kids watching this come to associate these traits with something amusing. They're people. My Little Pony should not be a minstrel show. And thank you, those offended enjoy being called unreasonable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbleismYep, 'cause evaryone who saw Derpy will now be more apt ta' be rude, discriminatory, and a complete jerk towards any mentally handicapped people they meet in real life. I guess I now be prejudice towards th' mentally handicapped 'cause I don't find Derpy offensive If'n someone tis rude, holds prejudicial views, and tis a jerk towards mentally disabled people, they probably held such opinions anyways. Reminds me o' th' youtube show "Retarded Policeman" and how it twas taken down, though now it be back up thankfully They don't have to. While antilocution makes people more prone to support more advanced forms of discrimination, it is still bad if it does not. Derpy was written to come off as a comical stereotype and it is offensive. No need to be cavalier about people taking offense. I jus' don't see th' problem. Thar be stereotypes that can be offensive in evary damn thin' in this world. And pointin' out th' stereotypes only reinforces th' stereotypes. Thar be so much offensive material I jus' don't see th' point o' actually takin' offense I didn't even give a thought o' Derpy bein' retarded until ye damn well pointed it out and said it be offensive Pointing out problems reinforces problems? Hardly. Offense is bad. If you value good, you attempt to end offense. And I'm not talking about unjustified offense, either. Evarythin' tis offensive ta' someone. If'n we were ta' get rid o' all "offensive" crap I'd be unable ta' type like a pirate 'cause people find it "offensive" ta' th' english language. Also it'd be a pretty buckin' borin' world ta' live in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:51 pm
The Living Force TANRailgun The Living Force I'm a bit put off since they just characterized her as mainstream Western media usually characterizes those differently abled mentally, which is to say offensively. I checked the forums for it and I was not surprised at the people defending the characterization and deriding those who were offended. The only why I could see that is if you were only going by her voice alone, aside from that it's only shown to be a klutz. Neither of these things say anything about her mental capacity, and even if they did, we'd love her anyway, so quit TRYING to be a stick in the mud. She's a walking stereotype. They did not have to portray her that way, and it is inconsequential if the fanbase loves her. Southerners loved the portrayal of Uncle Remus in Song of the South but it didn't make the film or his character any less racist. To be fair, the portrayal of Uncle Remus was progressive for it's time. With that said, I assumed Derpy was supposed to sound more like a hick, but I can see how someone would see it another way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:59 pm
marshmallowcreampie The Living Force TANRailgun The Living Force I'm a bit put off since they just characterized her as mainstream Western media usually characterizes those differently abled mentally, which is to say offensively. I checked the forums for it and I was not surprised at the people defending the characterization and deriding those who were offended. The only why I could see that is if you were only going by her voice alone, aside from that it's only shown to be a klutz. Neither of these things say anything about her mental capacity, and even if they did, we'd love her anyway, so quit TRYING to be a stick in the mud. She's a walking stereotype. They did not have to portray her that way, and it is inconsequential if the fanbase loves her. Southerners loved the portrayal of Uncle Remus in Song of the South but it didn't make the film or his character any less racist. To be fair, the portrayal of Uncle Remus was progressive for it's time. With that said, I assumed Derpy was supposed to sound more like a hick, but I can see how someone would see it another way. I'd say it was just another stereotype coming into vogue. It worked rather hard to sterilize slavery and make it look like white folks were benefactors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:02 pm
The Living Force I'd say it was just another stereotype coming into vogue. It worked rather hard to sterilize slavery and make it look like white folks were benefactors. Perhaps, but the movie was made in the 1940's, where pretty much no movies had black main characters, much less showed them in a positive light. So while it's easily racist today, I think it passes by 1940's standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:11 pm
marshmallowcreampie The Living Force I'd say it was just another stereotype coming into vogue. It worked rather hard to sterilize slavery and make it look like white folks were benefactors. Perhaps, but the movie was made in the 1940's, where pretty much no movies had black main characters, much less showed them in a positive light. So while it's easily racist today, I think it passes by 1940's standards. Plenty of movies had black characters in a positive light, they were just completely domesticated servants who loved their white masters to death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:23 pm
The Living Force marshmallowcreampie The Living Force I'd say it was just another stereotype coming into vogue. It worked rather hard to sterilize slavery and make it look like white folks were benefactors. Perhaps, but the movie was made in the 1940's, where pretty much no movies had black main characters, much less showed them in a positive light. So while it's easily racist today, I think it passes by 1940's standards. Plenty of movies had black characters in a positive light, they were just completely domesticated servants who loved their white masters to death. If you look at the context of the time in which the character was written however, it was extremely progressive, as was Remus's spiritual predecessors, Uncle Tom, and ****** Jim. While all of these characters are racist depictions by modern standards, at the time these characters were written these depictions were actually quite revolutionary. Prior to this black people were lucky if they were simply depicted as furniture and not hulking, rabid, animals, or raping and murdering machines. And the casting of a black man in the movie was also quite revolutionary, as it had never been done in a major movie production in the US (as far as I know). That being said, I have to agree with the Kap'n on this, I didn't honestly think of Derpy as being depicted as mentally challenged until you tried to make the argument that she was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:34 pm
TANRailgun The Living Force marshmallowcreampie The Living Force I'd say it was just another stereotype coming into vogue. It worked rather hard to sterilize slavery and make it look like white folks were benefactors. Perhaps, but the movie was made in the 1940's, where pretty much no movies had black main characters, much less showed them in a positive light. So while it's easily racist today, I think it passes by 1940's standards. Plenty of movies had black characters in a positive light, they were just completely domesticated servants who loved their white masters to death. If you look at the context of the time in which the character was written however, it was extremely progressive, as was Remus's spiritual predecessors, Uncle Tom, and ****** Jim. While all of these characters are racist depictions by modern standards, at the time these characters were written these depictions were actually quite revolutionary. Prior to this black people were lucky if they were simply depicted as furniture and not hulking, rabid, animals, or raping and murdering machines. And the casting of a black man in the movie was also quite revolutionary, as it had never been done in a major movie production in the US (as far as I know). That being said, I have to agree with the Kap'n on this, I didn't honestly think of Derpy as being depicted as mentally challenged until you tried to make the argument that she was. The progressivism served a purpose; to sterilize the racist history. Also, it could have been used to complement other racist stereotypes: free black people were barbaric, slaves were civil. The history of stereotyping of black people in the US changed so frequently, it's amazing people ate it up every time. Racists aren't a hard sell, though. People don't recognize many isms in everyday life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:46 pm
The Living Force TANRailgun The Living Force marshmallowcreampie The Living Force I'd say it was just another stereotype coming into vogue. It worked rather hard to sterilize slavery and make it look like white folks were benefactors. Perhaps, but the movie was made in the 1940's, where pretty much no movies had black main characters, much less showed them in a positive light. So while it's easily racist today, I think it passes by 1940's standards. Plenty of movies had black characters in a positive light, they were just completely domesticated servants who loved their white masters to death. If you look at the context of the time in which the character was written however, it was extremely progressive, as was Remus's spiritual predecessors, Uncle Tom, and ****** Jim. While all of these characters are racist depictions by modern standards, at the time these characters were written these depictions were actually quite revolutionary. Prior to this black people were lucky if they were simply depicted as furniture and not hulking, rabid, animals, or raping and murdering machines. And the casting of a black man in the movie was also quite revolutionary, as it had never been done in a major movie production in the US (as far as I know). That being said, I have to agree with the Kap'n on this, I didn't honestly think of Derpy as being depicted as mentally challenged until you tried to make the argument that she was. The progressivism served a purpose; to sterilize the racist history. Also, it could have been used to complement other racist stereotypes: free black people were barbaric, slaves were civil. The history of stereotyping of black people in the US changed so frequently, it's amazing people ate it up every time. Racists aren't a hard sell, though. People don't recognize many isms in everyday life. ****** Jim was an escaped slave, and he was a protagonist, and depicted in what probably amounts to the least racist and most positive depiction of African Americans at the time. Your argument (that they were just trying to cover their asses and rewrite history) only works until you realize that Harriet Beecher Stowe (author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, Uncle Tom the character on whom Uncle Remus is based) was an abolitionist, and was the one who arguably started the whole "Black Uncle" archetype as an attempt to humanize African Americans, and make them more sympathetic. Now it's also true that the author of the Uncle Remus stories was pro-slavery and used much the same arguments as you do as an attempt to paint slavery in a kinder light. If we don't recognize "isms" then why do people get their panties all in a bundle over them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:58 pm
TANRailgun The Living Force TANRailgun The Living Force marshmallowcreampie The Living Force I'd say it was just another stereotype coming into vogue. It worked rather hard to sterilize slavery and make it look like white folks were benefactors. Perhaps, but the movie was made in the 1940's, where pretty much no movies had black main characters, much less showed them in a positive light. So while it's easily racist today, I think it passes by 1940's standards. Plenty of movies had black characters in a positive light, they were just completely domesticated servants who loved their white masters to death. If you look at the context of the time in which the character was written however, it was extremely progressive, as was Remus's spiritual predecessors, Uncle Tom, and ****** Jim. While all of these characters are racist depictions by modern standards, at the time these characters were written these depictions were actually quite revolutionary. Prior to this black people were lucky if they were simply depicted as furniture and not hulking, rabid, animals, or raping and murdering machines. And the casting of a black man in the movie was also quite revolutionary, as it had never been done in a major movie production in the US (as far as I know). That being said, I have to agree with the Kap'n on this, I didn't honestly think of Derpy as being depicted as mentally challenged until you tried to make the argument that she was. The progressivism served a purpose; to sterilize the racist history. Also, it could have been used to complement other racist stereotypes: free black people were barbaric, slaves were civil. The history of stereotyping of black people in the US changed so frequently, it's amazing people ate it up every time. Racists aren't a hard sell, though. People don't recognize many isms in everyday life. ****** Jim was an escaped slave, and he was a protagonist, and depicted in what probably amounts to the least racist and most positive depiction of African Americans at the time. Your argument (that they were just trying to cover their asses and rewrite history) only works until you realize that Harriet Beecher Stowe (author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, Uncle Tom the character on whom Uncle Remus is based) was an abolitionist, and was the one who arguably started the whole "Black Uncle" archetype as an attempt to humanize African Americans, and make them more sympathetic. Now it's also true that the author of the Uncle Remus stories was pro-slavery and used much the same arguments as you do as an attempt to paint slavery in a kinder light. If we don't recognize "isms" then why do people get their panties all in a bundle over them? The argument still works. They managed to convince people fairly well, didn't they? Because some people are more aware of them. I feel like bluh in my head and I can't think so night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:46 am
The Living Force TANRailgun The Living Force TANRailgun The Living Force Plenty of movies had black characters in a positive light, they were just completely domesticated servants who loved their white masters to death. If you look at the context of the time in which the character was written however, it was extremely progressive, as was Remus's spiritual predecessors, Uncle Tom, and ****** Jim. While all of these characters are racist depictions by modern standards, at the time these characters were written these depictions were actually quite revolutionary. Prior to this black people were lucky if they were simply depicted as furniture and not hulking, rabid, animals, or raping and murdering machines. And the casting of a black man in the movie was also quite revolutionary, as it had never been done in a major movie production in the US (as far as I know). That being said, I have to agree with the Kap'n on this, I didn't honestly think of Derpy as being depicted as mentally challenged until you tried to make the argument that she was. The progressivism served a purpose; to sterilize the racist history. Also, it could have been used to complement other racist stereotypes: free black people were barbaric, slaves were civil. The history of stereotyping of black people in the US changed so frequently, it's amazing people ate it up every time. Racists aren't a hard sell, though. People don't recognize many isms in everyday life. ****** Jim was an escaped slave, and he was a protagonist, and depicted in what probably amounts to the least racist and most positive depiction of African Americans at the time. Your argument (that they were just trying to cover their asses and rewrite history) only works until you realize that Harriet Beecher Stowe (author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, Uncle Tom the character on whom Uncle Remus is based) was an abolitionist, and was the one who arguably started the whole "Black Uncle" archetype as an attempt to humanize African Americans, and make them more sympathetic. Now it's also true that the author of the Uncle Remus stories was pro-slavery and used much the same arguments as you do as an attempt to paint slavery in a kinder light. If we don't recognize "isms" then why do people get their panties all in a bundle over them? The argument still works. They managed to convince people fairly well, didn't they? Because some people are more aware of them. I feel like bluh in my head and I can't think so night. Obviously not, as the abolitionists won. The only "black uncle/aunt" image that survives today (to my knowledge) is Aunt Jemima...and don't ******** dare try to take away my Aunt Jemima! I love that woman and her syrup!...even if she is depicted in a slightly racist way...still. Anywho, so what you're saying is that if someone thinks something is offensive, then it is? So if I were to say that I find Christianity offensive because it says that I deserve to suffer for all eternity in a pit of fire and pain, then Christianity is inherently offensive and they should be censored because I don't like it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
