F Champ Receives Lifetime Ban, Racism in the FGC/USA, and Other Prevalent Social Discussions

[Matix218]

^^^^^^ All of this.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and yells "WHITE POWER" like a duck, forgive me if I have no patience for anyone trying to tell me I'm not looking at a duck.

TIL ducks are racist lol

 

[NaCl man]

I take no issue with Kano's Australian roots being ret-conned, though he was only made that way because of a compelling actor's rendition of him.

Are you Australian?

 

[ItsYaBoi]

TIL ducks are racist lol

Ducks are cute as fuck and need cherishing.

 

[mrapchem]

Are you Australian?

No, but I know that Australia has had to shake its reputation as a former colony for British criminal expatriates. Thus, since Kano is MK's ultimate criminal and he's Australian, I can see how people might want that to be changed.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

TIL ducks are racist lol

I've been sitting at work feeling bad about dragging the ducks into this. They deserve better.

 

[Law Hero]

That white dude that's been doing Cleveland's voice on Family Guy for 20 years is finally getting the message.

Took him long enough. Gives me hope that we Americans might get our heads out of our asses and wake up.

Assuming he did it of his own volition and wasn't "encouraged" to do so by higher-ups, that's fine. Though I doubt it.

 

[Jynks]

So can we cancel Kano please.
He is a terrible stereotype of Australian culture.
We are not all beer guzzling convicts who cook shrimp on the barby.

I really hope this is a joke. Kano is awesome and one of the few aussies in any major franchise and guess what... arseholes are everywhere. There are plenty of scum sucking aussies and we have our share of phycios and crazy killers. The entire idea that any bad portrayal is something that shouldn't exist is baffeling. If your joking then cool, if you are serious then this is a joke.

I'm australian btw.

 

[NaCl man]

I really hope this is a joke. Kano is awesome and one of the few aussies in any major franchise and guess what... arseholes are everywhere. There are plenty of scum sucking aussies and we have our share of phycios and crazy killers. The entire idea that any bad portrayal is something that shouldn't exist is baffeling. If your joking then cool, if you are serious then this is a joke.

I'm australian btw.

 

[M2Dave]

This is historical racist imagery in this country. And replacing the word 'Black' with 'Watermelon' removed any ambiguity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_stereotype

They say 'pick your battles', and I'm not sure this is the one you want to fall on your sword over.

Dave Chappelle has made millions of dollars stereotyping white people, black people, Latinos, and Asians, yet nobody would call Dave Chappelle a racist. Family Guy and South Park have also engaged in ethnic jokes, many of which are highly offensive, yet the shows have acquired millions of fans, most of whom are liberals. Obviously, Filipino Champ lacks an artistic license so he should not have been posted what he did, which is why everyone is opposing the content of the picture. However, I am defending Filipino Champ's freedom of speech. I am also arguing that just because someone makes a racial joke does not mean that the person is a racist. Dave Chappelle as well as the creators of Family Guy and South Park along with the millions of people who watch their shows would be considered racists, according to this premise.

As far as cancel culture is concerned, you above everyone ought to object to this madness. You are an administrator, yet you obviously hold certain political perspectives with which some users like me disagree. However, I have no doubt that you treat and moderate each user fairly because I respect you as a professional and as an individual until you give me a reason not to. Cancel culture leads to dehumanization because the movement judges people only by their worst moment, even if that moment happened 30 years ago.

Stfu. The "Black on Black" crime narrative you used IS propaganda.

Citing statistics is neither propaganda nor racist just because they fail to comply with your political agenda.

Far-left ideologues have been widening the definition of racism while people in the media accuse people of racism very casually. The result is desensitization to the word among the American public, particularly white Americans, which is really dangerous because the vast majority of people genuinely want to combat racism in order to develop a better society. However, claiming that things such as statistics and certain political views with which you disagree are racist creates division and leads some people to abandon the cause.

I think I have typed enough for a while. Bill Maher explains how I feel about racism and cancel culture in his most recent "New Rule" segment, and as you can see from the likes I assure you that mainstream America feels this way too.

 

[Professor Oak]

Dave Chappelle has made millions of dollars stereotyping white people, black people, Latinos, and Asians, yet nobody would call Dave Chappelle a racist. Family Guy and South Park have also engaged in ethnic jokes, many of which are highly offensive, yet the shows have acquired millions of fans, most of whom are liberals. Obviously, Filipino Champ lacks an artistic license so he should not have been posted what he did, which is why everyone is opposing the content of the picture. However, I am defending Filipino Champ's freedom of speech. I am also arguing that just because someone makes a racial joke does not mean that the person is a racist. Dave Chappelle as well as the creators of Family Guy and South Park along with the millions of people who watch their shows would be considered racists, according to this premise.

As far as cancel culture is concerned, you above everyone ought to object to this madness. You are an administrator, yet you obviously hold certain political perspectives with which some users like me disagree. However, I have no doubt that you treat and moderate each user fairly because I respect you as a professional and as an individual until you give me a reason not to. Cancel culture leads to dehumanization because the movement judges people only by their worst moment, even if that moment happened 30 years ago.



Citing statistics is neither propaganda nor racist just because they fail to comply with political agenda.

Far-left ideologues have been widening the definition of racism while people in the media accuse people of racism very casually. The result is desensitization to the word among the American public, particularly white Americans, which is really dangerous because the vast majority of people genuinely want to combat racism in order to develop a better society. However, claiming that things such as statistics and certain political views with which you disagree are racist creates division and leads some people to abandon the cause.

I think I have typed enough for a while. Bill Maher explains how I feel about racism and cancel culture in his most recent "New Rule" segment, and as you can see from the likes I assure you that mainstream America feels this way too.

Statistics are not propaganda, correct. The Black on Black crime rhetoric that has been spouted for decades IS. The reasoning for it is clear, ramifications of segregation and subsequent housing laws. Saying the black people kill more black people so that must mean there is no institutionalized racism is a straw-man argument and is in fact, Right-wing propaganda. Im sure youre convinced Im far-left or some other form of labeled and pre-destined ideological sect, which is silly, and attacking the way "the world is going" vs "the way the world should be according to me and Bill Maher," is not found on me. Its simple, White America oppresses Black America, and ALWAYS has. If that is incorrect, point to historical events that fully allowed Black People to be on the same footing as White people after segregation ended in the 1960s? Logically tell me how they were helped to play catch up for the past 6+ generations? Tell me I DONT hear professionals, business owners, employers use the n-word daily. Tell me that Obama wasnt lambasted for "not being a citizen." Tell me there arent people just like you, that when the world says, "Hey please help us fight against racism!" You say, "I dont see enough racism personally to justify me fighting."

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

Statistics are not propaganda, correct. The Black on Black crime rhetoric that has been spouted for decades IS. The reasoning for it is clear, ramifications of segregation and subsequent housing laws. Saying the black people kill more black people so that must mean there is no institutionalized racism is a straw-man argument and is in fact, Right-wing propaganda. Im sure youre convinced Im far-left or some other form of labeled and pre-destined ideological sect, which is silly, and attacking the way "the world is going" vs "the way the world should be according to me and Bill Maher," is not found on me. Its simple, White America oppresses Black America, and ALWAYS has. If that is incorrect, point to historical events that fully allowed Black People to be on the same footing as White people after segregation ended in the 1960s? Logically tell me how they were helped to play catch up for the past 6+ generations? Tell me I DONT hear professionals, business owners, employers use the n-word daily. Tell me that Obama wasnt lambasted for "not being a citizen." Tell me there arent people just like you, that when the world says, "Hey please help us fight against racism!" You say, "I dont see enough racism personally to justify me fighting."

Seconded.
Also, @M2Dave , I'd still like to hear who hear who these left-wing ideologues are that are on the same level as Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the far-right-wing talking heads that use their platforms to perpetuate their fearmongering racist agendas on a constant and daily basis.

Also twice, I myself clarified to Haze that I fully believe in people being forgiven and allowed redemption as long as their intent and remorse is genuine. This isn't about someone who made a mistake 30 years ago, any more than my statement yesterday about Mike Z had anything to do with ALL men: this is about FChamp, who has artistic license as one of the most prolific fighting game players in history, chose to use his platform to make a horrible racist joke in the middle of the biggest race-related movement and protest since the Civil Rights movement in the 60's, and has doubled down on it repeatedly because he had to pay the consequences of doing something painfully stupid at the worst possible time for it. Whether he's a racist at heart or not doesn't change the fact that he, of all people, being in the scene he's in for as long as he's been and seeing what the culture is in 2020, should've known better. He didn't. He went for it anyway. Actions have consequences, and freedom of speech won't keep someone from getting thrown under the bus when they make that big of a mistake, especially when they have as long a track record of gross behavior as he does. Pride comes before the fall, and dude really thought he was too high on the mountain to get knocked down. Thems the breaks. I don't see logically how you make a fucking watermelon meme in the middle of everything going on right now and DON'T expect to get castigated for it unless you feel you're beyond reproach.

Also thrice, Bill Maher is the same guy who's STILL trying to make the case that Islam is a religion of war, while he's made his living in the country that's been at war for nearly its entire lifespan, so maybe he isn't the best person to cite as far as how "mainstream America" feels. Taking advice from Hollywood celebrities about the pros and cons of cancel culture seems like a terrible idea.

So, anyway. Those ideologues. Would love to know who I need to avoid on the other side.

 

[M2Dave]

If that is incorrect, point to historical events that fully allowed Black People to be on the same footing as White people after segregation ended in the 1960s?

First of all, black people have made tremendous progress since slavery and subsequent discriminatory laws. I have already referenced Dr. Thomas Sowell whose research suggests that black people in America have collectively acquired the most wealth in the shortest amount of time in human history. Second of all, no group has historically been "on the same footing", which is your surreptitious manner of advocating for equality of outcome, as any other group. Even individuals within the same group have had vastly different results. If white Americans are oppressing minorities in America, why is the highest household income for 8 out of 10 families non-white? In fact, South African Americans, which mostly consist of blacks, are listed as number four. Could you please stop race baiting for once?

Logically tell me how they were helped to play catch up for the past 6+ generations?

The War on Poverty, Affordable Housing, and Affirmative Action are merely a couple of programs out of a dozen designed to "help play catch up." All programs have been proposed and implemented by people who share your political philosophy, yet you remain unsatisfied with the results.

Seconded.
Also, @M2Dave , I'd still like to hear who hear who these left-wing ideologues are that are on the same level as Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the far-right-wing talking heads that use their platforms to perpetuate their fearmongering racist agendas on a constant and daily basis.

Also twice, I myself clarified to Haze that I fully believe in people being forgiven and allowed redemption as long as their intent and remorse is genuine. This isn't about someone who made a mistake 30 years ago, any more than my statement yesterday about Mike Z had anything to do with ALL men: this is about FChamp, who has artistic license as one of the most prolific fighting game players in history, chose to use his platform to make a horrible racist joke in the middle of the biggest race-related movement and protest since the Civil Rights movement in the 60's, and has doubled down on it repeatedly because he had to pay the consequences of doing something painfully stupid at the worst possible time for it. Whether he's a racist at heart or not doesn't change the fact that he, of all people, being in the scene he's in for as long as he's been and seeing what the culture is in 2020, should've known better. He didn't. He went for it anyway. Actions have consequences, and freedom of speech won't keep someone from getting thrown under the bus when they make that big of a mistake, especially when they have as long a track record of gross behavior as he does. Pride comes before the fall, and dude really thought he was too high on the mountain to get knocked down. Thems the breaks. I don't see logically how you make a fucking watermelon meme in the middle of everything going on right now and DON'T expect to get castigated for it unless you feel you're beyond reproach.

Also thrice, Bill Maher is the same guy who's STILL trying to make the case that Islam is a religion of war, while he's made his living in the country that's been at war for nearly its entire lifespan, so maybe he isn't the best person to cite as far as how "mainstream America" feels. Taking advice from Hollywood celebrities about the pros and cons of cancel culture seems like a terrible idea.

So, anyway. Those ideologues. Would love to know who I need to avoid on the other side.

Nobody in this thread is defending people like Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Sean Hannity. However, people have defended Marxism and argued for extensive wealth distribution programs that are even outside of mainstream liberalism in America.

As far as extremism is concerned, if Bill Maher is insufficiently liberal for you, then you are probably a far-left ideologue.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

Nobody in this thread is defending people like Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Sean Hannity. However, people have defended Marxism and argued for extensive wealth distribution programs that are even outside of mainstream liberalism in America.

As far as extremism is concerned, if Bill Maher is insufficiently liberal for you, then you are probably a far-left ideologue.

I've literally been watching Bill Maher since after 9/11 when he got kicked off ABC and got the HBO deal in the first place. Been there since day one. I'm not saying he's insufficiently liberal; I'm saying his position on Islam specifically is offensive, and that given the state of Hollywood in recent years, it's not the best idea to be taking cancel culture advice from someone in his position.
I also didn't say anyone was defending the far-right in the thread; I asked you who these ideologues are you keep harping about, and how their supposedly dangerous ideology stack up against what they've putting on the airwaves and pumping into the culture since Roger Ailes and Karl Rove turned Fox News and the Republican Party into a perpetual propoganda machine. And instead of providing an answer, you're bending my words, labeling ME an ideologue, and avoiding my actual question, which I specifically said I was asking out of a want for facts and information. You keep telling us the far left is just as bad as the far right, but you won't elaborate.

Also, in a country wrought with billionaires who hide their wealth offshore, and the amount of outsourcing that's been done since the Bush years, while we remain the only major country on Earth without universal healthcare, this economy could do with some wealth redistribution. But that's just me.

 

[jokey77]

I think that @mrapchem , @ItsYaBoi and @CrimsonShadow have made a very similar point: "Things aren't getting better fast enough, so we gotta try something else." Personally I do think that is a fair approach, because most of you remain alert: You do see that the BLM movement can lead to both: improvements and deterioration. I think this is why @mrapchem said something in line with"we don't want to do this".

So at this point two questions come up:
1.) What are the effects of the BLM movement and/or cancel culture...?
2.) ... and will those effects do more good than harm?

My impression is that the three of you would consider these legit questions and answer them with a "yes". In this case your viewpoint seem very reasonable to me. By allowing these questions you remain open to discourse and don't prohibit any thinking. This seems crucial to me!

The difference between you and me is that I might answer those two questions differently.

Don't get me wrong: I am 100% for equal opportunities for people of color and a fairer justice system. One should always strive for improvement. However I expect that the whole cancel culture will end up doing more harm than good. I am currently unsure with regard to the BLM (thats why I want to understand it better).

… however it is perfectly fine that we have different opinions on what the overall results will be. Yet I'd say that both of us should take responsibility for their respective viewpoints:

• As a result it is perfectly fair that you criticize me, because my reluctance could hamper progress. I respect this and don't take that accusation lightly.
• On the other hand: If cancel culture does indeed lead to escalation, counter-reactions and a polarized society, then this is the sacrifice that you were willing to make. In this case it does not seem appropriate if you blame political dissidents ("they made us to").

So in the end I'd really like to know what you expect that the (positive and negative) effects of cancel culture and the BLM movement will be! I really think that this could broaden my horizon (and especially make me see positive aspects that I didn't think of yet).

P.S.: Actually I also wanted to add some Max Weber (ethics of ultimate success vs. ethics of attitude), but got called a pseudointellectual already. Thus I leave this part out!

 

[CrimsonShadow]

I think that @mrapchem , @ItsYaBoi and @CrimsonShadow have made a very similar point: "Things aren't getting better fast enough, so we gotta try something else." Personally I do think that is a fair approach, because most of you remain alert: You do see that the BLM movement can lead to both: improvements and deterioration. I think this is why @mrapchem said something in line with"we don't want to do this".

So at this point two questions come up:
1.) What are the effects of the BLM movement and/or cancel culture...?
2.) ... and will those effects do more good than harm?

My impression is that the three of you would consider these legit questions and answer them with a "yes". In this case your viewpoint seem very reasonable to me. By allowing these questions you remain open to discourse and don't prohibit any thinking. This seems crucial to me!

The difference between you and me is that I might answer those two questions differently.

Don't get me wrong: I am 100% for equal opportunities for people of color and a fairer justice system. One should always strive for improvement. However I expect that the whole cancel culture will end up doing more harm than good. I am currently unsure with regard to the BLM (thats why I want to understand it better).

… however it is perfectly fine that we have different opinions on what the overall results will be. Yet I'd say that both of us should take responsibility for their respective viewpoints:

• As a result it is perfectly fair that you criticize me, because my reluctance could hamper progress. I respect this and don't take that accusation lightly.
• On the other hand: If cancel culture does indeed lead to escalation, counter-reactions and a polarized society, then this is the sacrifice that you were willing to make. In this case it does not seem appropriate if you blame political dissidents ("they made us to").

So in the end I'd really like to know what you expect that the (positive and negative) effects of cancel culture and the BLM movement will be! I really think that this could broaden my horizon (and especially make me see positive aspects that I didn't think of yet).

P.S.: Actually I also wanted to add some Max Weber (ethics of ultimate success vs. ethics of attitude), but got called a pseudointellectual already. Thus I leave this part out!

As far as more good than harm, absolutely. They already have. Finally long-time abusers like Harvey Weinstein are being brought to justice, after being ignored by authorities for years. Many instances of long-term racist symbolism have been removed, laws against hate crimes have been passed, reforms are being made, and many people feel comfortable speaking out where they didn't feel free to before. Many others are also preemptively apologizing for past actions instead of being cancelled (Jimmy Kimmel, Justin Trudeau, etc).

I'd say the results are overwhelmingly positive to this point. Still, it's not a perfect solution, as it's possible for any sort of crowd-driven accountability to be used for less-than-ideal purposes (see: Jussie Smollett). But our actual justice system has been used for less-than-ideal purposes literally since the very start in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#History

This is a balancing act. Some people will push too far, things will overcorrect, and then things will settle somewhere in the middle. But it was sorely needed after hundreds of years of voices not really being heard.

 

[Lt. Boxy Angelman]

I think that @mrapchem , @ItsYaBoi and @CrimsonShadow have made a very similar point: "Things aren't getting better fast enough, so we gotta try something else." Personally I do think that is a fair approach, because most of you remain alert: You do see that the BLM movement can lead to both: improvements and deterioration. I think this is why @mrapchem said something in line with"we don't want to do this".

So at this point two questions come up:
1.) What are the effects of the BLM movement and/or cancel culture...?
2.) ... and will those effects do more good than harm?

My impression is that the three of you would consider these legit questions and answer them with a "yes". In this case your viewpoint seem very reasonable to me. By allowing these questions you remain open to discourse and don't prohibit any thinking. This seems crucial to me!

The difference between you and me is that I might answer those two questions differently.

Don't get me wrong: I am 100% for equal opportunities for people of color and a fairer justice system. One should always strive for improvement. However I expect that the whole cancel culture will end up doing more harm than good. I am currently unsure with regard to the BLM (thats why I want to understand it better).

… however it is perfectly fine that we have different opinions on what the overall results will be. Yet I'd say that both of us should take responsibility for their respective viewpoints:

• As a result it is perfectly fair that you criticize me, because my reluctance could hamper progress. I respect this and don't take that accusation lightly.
• On the other hand: If cancel culture does indeed lead to escalation, counter-reactions and a polarized society, then this is the sacrifice that you were willing to make. In this case it does not seem appropriate if you blame political dissidents ("they made us to").

So in the end I'd really like to know what you expect that the (positive and negative) effects of cancel culture and the BLM movement will be! I really think that this could broaden my horizon (and especially make me see positive aspects that I didn't think of yet).

P.S.: Actually I also wanted to add some Max Weber (ethics of ultimate success vs. ethics of attitude), but got called a pseudointellectual already. Thus I leave this part out!

I like the cut of your intellectual jib. I wish more people could soundly and sanely hold the middle ground as you have so far.

As far as more good than harm, absolutely. They already have. Finally long-time abusers like Harvey Weinstein are being brought to justice, after being ignored by authorities for years. Many instances of long-term racist symbolism have been removed, laws against hate crimes have been passed, reforms are being made, and many people feel comfortable speaking out where they didn't feel free to before. Many others are also preemptively apologizing for past actions instead of being cancelled (Jimmy Kimmel, Justin Trudeau, etc).

I'd say the results are overwhelmingly positive to this point. Still, it's not a perfect solution, as it's possible for any sort of crowd-driven accountability to be used for less-than-ideal purposes (see: Jussie Smollett). But our actual justice system has been used for less-than-ideal purposes literally since the very start in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#History

This is a balancing act. Some people will push too far, things will overcorrect, and then things will settle somewhere in the middle. But it was sorely needed after hundreds of years of voices not really being heard.

100% agreed. It's a far from perfect option, but given the amount of success so far, I'd say it's the best one that's been presented so far, especially given the downward spiral in quality of leadership in government since the turn of the century.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

As far as cancel culture is concerned, you above everyone ought to object to this madness. You are an administrator, yet you obviously hold certain political perspectives with which some users like me disagree. However, I have no doubt that you treat and moderate each user fairly because I respect you as a professional and as an individual until you give me a reason not to. Cancel culture leads to dehumanization because the movement judges people only by their worst moment, even if that moment happened 30 years ago.

I wouldn't say that it judges people by their worst moment; but I would say that it asks for accountability for people for their actions, even past ones.

This has been a reality in numerous ways until this point; the only difference now is who is exerting the pressure. Yes, as a moderator, I'm aware that I could lose my position if I did something reprehensible. But I've been aware of this long before #metoo and #blacklivesmatter. I didn't need a social movement to tell me that being racist or harrasing someone has consequences. So I don't do it, and I haven't long before now. I'm an adult and responsible for my own actions.

Likewise, for every job I've had, I've been aware that I could be fired from that job for representing my employer badly, for conduct that happens even outside of the workplace, etc. It's a fact of life. I think about what I say and do before I say/do it. One careless action has always been able to ruin an entire career in many fields, even without some sort of criminal trial and conviction.

For you as a teacher, if you were found say, championing Nazi imagery 20 years ago, or doing something questionable around kids in 2001, and because of that the parents no longer felt comfortable having you around their children, you would likely be fired quickly. Apologizing would likely not be enough.. And that would have happened long before any of these social media movements were in play.

So yes, your reputation matters. Even your past actions matter. They always have. So I'm not sure why you present this as if it's something unexpected.

 

[ChaosTheory]

Assuming he did it of his own volition and wasn't "encouraged" to do so by higher-ups, that's fine. Though I doubt it.

The thing is, it's stupid either way.

He was either pushed out by some moron(s) that think it's racist for a white guy to voice a black cartoon character. And this will help racism against black people.

Or

He is the moron that thinks it's racist for a white guy to voice a black cartoon character. And this will help racism against black people.



But of course both scenarios are disingenuous. It's another painfully (painfully) obvious attempt at pandering.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

RIP to the sunny episodes getting taken off Hulu. Still fucking pissed.

 

[Trustful_Whale]

RIP to the sunny episodes getting taken off Hulu. Still fucking pissed.

I don't understand what they think they're helping with by slashing anything remotely similar to black face in tv and film.

 

[Dankster Morgan]

I don't understand what they think they're helping with by slashing anything remotely similar to black face in tv and film.

The characters in that show are portrayed as absolutely deplorable individuals, and are doing awful things in every episode. The show is portraying bad things as bad, are shows just not supposed to portray anything that is offensive? Offensive content can be portrayed for realism, weight, or in this case comedic commentary. One of the writers / stars, Glenn Howerton who plays Dennis said something along the lines of it being okay for the characters to be cruel, but not cross the line for the writing to be cruel. But ya know REEEEEEEEEE

 

[ItsYaBoi]

The problem with removing certain episodes of TV shows is that it trivialises the BLM movement.

People aren't marching for these episodes to be removed, they're marching for equal rights and to not get unjustly killed by police. Black people are not fucking asking for this. Wiping episodes of TV shows will trivialise this moment in history, and years down the line people will disingenuously look back at this time as the time that 'SJW's ruined our TV shows'.

I know why companies are doing this. All for the PR and to cover their own asses, but it's fucking ridiculous tbh. Especially when something like Always Sunny is mocking those who do blackface, with every other character calling them racist and an idiot.

It becomes a slippery slope especially with Always Sunny. That show is dark comedy, and the characters are utterly awful human beings - which is the intention. Now it becomes the question of if this was an issue, why not the rampant transphobia in the earlier seasons? Why not the homophobia in the earlier seasons? Why not the predatory behaviour of Dennis being played for laughs etc. Is racism more important than those issues?

The fact of the matter is with programs like Always Sunny, the punchline isn't POC, gay people or trans people - the punchline is the characters in the show who are being assholes to said people. You're meant to laugh at how fucking idiotic and backwards these people are, and the show clearly presents it this way.

 

[Trustful_Whale]

The problem with removing certain episodes of TV shows is that it trivialises the BLM movement.

Especially when they're wiping scenes that aren't even black face, like Chang painted up as a Dark Elf in Community, or the Golden Girls wearing mud masks.

The show is portraying bad things as bad, are shows just not supposed to portray anything that is offensive?

Exactly. Gotta bubble wrap all of the corners now.

 

[Trustful_Whale]

Hell, removing anything uncomfortable is stupid anyways. Chris D'Elia is a creep but somehow this means we have to axe the episodes of a TV show he appeared on just because of that? An episode that many people other than him contributed to making.

It's madness.

 

[Marlow]

I think there is a time and place for when certain episodes or scenes should be removed from things. For example, there's a lot of cartoons from the 40's and 50's that outright rely on racial stereotypes as a source of humor. There really shouldn't be a place for that.

The problem with removing certain episodes of TV shows is that it trivialises the BLM movement.

Exactly. All it does is just give people a chance to hand wave the entire movement away as just "some pc culture run amok".