# Pepe le Pew's canceled, updated thoughts / WB girls



## rufe-squirrel (Jun 9, 2021)

So Pepe's still out for the most part, I did not expect all the fan backlash or the petitions to really work.  I still stand by the idea that the better option would have been to change Pepe's whole makeup than to either delete him or to keep him all rapey and such, (chuck Jones daughter was with me on this idea)

Anyways reading some articles on it, it all naturally ties into Lola Bunny and the objectificaion of her body.  With lost of arguments on both sides.  Shouls she be sexy or not?  Whats the narrative that we are trying to tell girls?  so on so on.  A lot of women writers made the point that Lola, being the only female in Space Jam and with her very sexy behavior and look, basically puts out the image that the one girl to look up to in the movie has to be the blonde bombshell.  WB writers heard these complaints and reflexively went with the idea "ok make her less sexy", which then leads to the implication in my mind, that the way to humanize women is for them to be unattractive.  So on...

But I have a counter to this.  In fact Lola is not the ONLY girl in Looney Tunes.   There is Penelope Pussycat!  Penelope has been the female foil ofr Pepe, but now wether Pepe is canceled or is remade, she can basically come into her own now.  Compaired to Lola, Penelope has a totally standard toon animal body just like Pepe.  Shes not physically sexualized and she doesnt make any attempt to outwardly objectify herself.  She has a much more reserved personality than Lola and basically i imagine that she could be used as a great alternative to play alongside Lola... again emphasizing that Penelope is liberated from being Pepe's amorous foil.  

I think using Penelope would be a great solution to the Lola issue,  women could have more than jsut ONE toon protagonist to try and see themselves in.  Lola could be the commanding sexy character she started as and Penelope can be developed into another archetype of being feminine that people could see themselves in and know they have a place other than Lola's super sexy one.  Shes a cute character.  
Though I have the idea that the WB writers will be vacuous enough to totally miss out on this.  Once agian focusing all their attention on Lola and 'what should we do about her'.  And the canceling of Pepe, I would not be surprised if they also let Penelope disappear too, forget the invisible victim in fact!

ARRCHH... this whole affair has been so aggravating.  I would hope people have noticed these issues and that the way WB is trying to fix these problems is in fact really badly done.  Think about it.  Once again theyre having debates about "how can we fox lola'  while the other likeable toon female is thrown out rather than given the change to come into her own as another option than Lola.


----------



## MaelstromEyre (Jun 9, 2021)

Penelope is that girl who is just trying to get on with her life and do her own things, and being constantly stalked, groped, harassed by a guy who won't take "no" for an answer.

I can't say I'm in favor of giving stereotypical "roles" to Lola or Penelope just to make some kind of life lesson out of it.  They're supposed to be cartoons for entertainment, not to teach morality or proper social behavior.  I grew up watching this stuff and was still able to grasp that the cartoons were for humor, they are making fun of exaggerated situations and human characteristics and comical situations.  Treating women as sex objects, either the Lola version or the Penelope version, is never cool. . .no more than dropping an anvil on someone's head.  I don't think it's necessary to cancel it, though.  Cancelling stuff just means people don't have the intelligence to understand that what they see in television, movies, etc. is not acceptable in real, everyday life.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 9, 2021)

I personally never seen the character as "rapey", just a dumb dude who is stupidly in love and keeps chasing his crush, which is most likely the intention since his debut.


----------



## Muttmutt (Jun 9, 2021)

I don’t know if I think anything about the toons needs to be changed. However, I also don’t really care if it were changed because it’s just a cartoon and it doesn’t matter to me.

Women in general haven’t been well represented in the past. They’re either oversexualized, dumb blondes, or just a prize for the guys in the show. It’s unfortunate. On the upside, women are slowly being represented better and more fairly these days. I don’t think we need to bother changing what is canon in the past (although I don’t think it matters even if we did) but instead should focus on equal and better representation in the future.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Jun 9, 2021)

I remember hearing about that and wondering "wait what? I thought bigoted stereotypes about white people were okay by progressive™ standards" but of course it had nothing to do with that; I hate that this confused me.

I think all these companies need to just die out with the parasites that are currently using them as cash grabs, so the same sort of people who actually built them long ago can make fresh, new entertainment that people would actually enjoy instead of being on the lookout for fake outrage nitpicks


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Jun 9, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> I personally never seen the character as "rapey", just a dumb dude who is stupidly in love and keeps chasing his crush, which is most likely the intention since his debut.


Then clearly you need a tinfoil hat, THEN you'll see all about the sexism in it


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 9, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> I remember hearing about that and wondering "wait what? I thought bigoted stereotypes about white people were okay by progressive™ standards" but of course it had nothing to do with that; I hate that this confused me.
> 
> I think all these companies need to just die out with the parasites that are currently using them as cash grabs, so the same sort of people who actually built them long ago can make fresh, new entertainment that people would actually enjoy instead of being on the lookout for fake outrage nitpicks


I'm gonna be honest, I hate turning on Netflix or Prime Video and seeing this activist shit forced on the front page, in every show, and seeing that some new reboots have been bastardized. Sometimes, within the first 5 minutes I see a fucking cheesy reference about whites, blacks, women, gays, etc, it's literally in every new movie or TV show.

"THEM" is an example of an awful show because not only does it exaggerate elements to some degree, but it makes both whites and blacks look bad, and then these weird horror series having the white people die early on (like they did with black people tropes decades ago, except reversing it on whites), or just make them look like the villain, like wtf? Or the new Twilight Zone just being an ideological shitfest is another example.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Jun 9, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> I'm gonna be honest, I hate turning on Netflix or Prime Video and seeing this activist shit forced on the front page, in every show, and seeing that some new reboots have been bastardized. Sometimes, within the first 5 minutes I see a fucking cheesy reference about whites, blacks, women, gays, etc, it's literally in every new movie or TV show.
> 
> "THEM" is an example of an awful show because not only does it exaggerate elements to some degree, but it makes both whites and blacks look bad, and then these weird horror series having the white people die early on (like they did with black people tropes decades ago, except reversing it on whites), or just make them look like the villain, like wtf? Or the new Twilight Zone just being an ideological shitfest is another example.


That's why I don't want netfucks, lol. If I want propaganda, I'll watch old ones, at least they weren't disguised as your favorite series. That's just deceptive.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 9, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Then clearly you need a tinfoil hat, THEN you'll see all about the sexism in it


Nothing is usually an issue or a threat until all of a sudden people are told it's an issue.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 9, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> That's why I don't want netfucks, lol. If I want propaganda, I'll watch old ones, at least they weren't disguised as your favorite series. That's just deceptive.


They're only disguised for stupid people who will watch the show and then subconsciously come to a shitty (negative) realization about the group that's being portrayed in a bad light. Insightful people will see that shit right away, and it's only subtle to sugar-coat the show for the masses who eat that shit up.


----------



## ConorHyena (Jun 9, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> Nothing is usually an issue or a threat until all of a sudden people are told it's an issue.


... this seems a strange approach to life.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 9, 2021)

ConorHyena said:


> ... this seems a strange approach to life.


It's obviously dependent on the context, but in regards to entertainment or expression, there's variables.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 9, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> I would still prefer if they took it upon themselves to be honest and have a header that says "this is identitarian propaganda. Enjoy!"


You know the CIA had a hand in inserting a lot propaganda in films decades ago against the soviet union and Russia, and actually used Nazis in the cold war? That's not a conspiracy theory either. One history documentary actually pointed out "they should have put a CIA disclaimer inside the movie". haha


----------



## ConorHyena (Jun 9, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> It's obviously dependent on the context, but in regards to entertainment or expression, there's variables.


I mean there is, yeah. But at the same time people make mountains out of molehills there's an equivalent amount of people that will try to downplay or ignore serious issues.


----------



## ManicTherapsid (Jun 9, 2021)

Whatever happened to Fifi La Fume, Pepe's female protege?


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 9, 2021)

ConorHyena said:


> I mean there is, yeah. But at the same time people make mountains out of molehills there's an equivalent amount of people that will try to downplay or ignore serious issues.


The problem is, people don't focus on the serious issues, instead, issues are being tackled through slick propaganda and prejudice from another angle, or making new shitty tropes that alienate a portion of society, or things that are not helpful at all.


----------



## ConorHyena (Jun 9, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> The problem is, people don't focus on the serious issues, instead, issues are being tackled through slick propaganda and prejudice from another angle, or making new shitty tropes that alienate a portion of society, or things that are not helpful at all.


This is however extremely subjective - who judges the 'not helpful' - it implies there's objective judgement to be found somewhere.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 9, 2021)

ConorHyena said:


> This is however extremely subjective - who judges the 'not helpful' - it implies there's objective judgement to be found somewhere.


I don't see how people would find reversing prejudices subjectively helpful to them; well fuck those people then I guess.


----------



## ConorHyena (Jun 9, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> I don't see how people would find reversing prejudices subjectively helpful to them; well fuck those people then I guess.


I suppose a racist has no problem with racism. Hence the reason he's a racist.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 9, 2021)

ConorHyena said:


> I suppose a racist has no problem with racism. Hence the reason he's a racist.


Logically, people shouldn't be racist at all, or certain skin colors portrayed negatively? If that's an issue, then don't be surprised when you see more counter-movements, just as racists did decades ago.


----------



## ConorHyena (Jun 9, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> Logically, people shouldn't be racist at all, or certain skin colors portrayed negatively? If that's an issue, then don't be surprised when you see more counter-movements, just as racists did decades ago.


Logic unfortunately is hard to apply to human behaviour and social order.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 9, 2021)

Just to be clear for a moment: Some people can’t see how a character who explicitly - _explicitly _- hounds a stranger under (often no less explicit) circumstances where they find them _irresistibly _attractive, blatantly try to court them into romance (explicitly a _physical_ romance, _starting_ with physical contact and excessive kissing)... and the stranger no less explicitly and overtly _denies these advances and attempts to escape him_... might be seen as Rape-y?

As if so this is... not the most disappointed with strangers on the internet re:this subject, but considering _that _particular incident was people arguing with a straight face “Getting somebody drunk enough that they black out, then fucking them, is not rape because they probably went to the bar looking to get laid anyways” that’s a _pretty low bar_ to have not cleared yet.

Seriously: If you think Pepe’s behavior is good fun, harmless, and tinfoil hat realm for being controversial... I’d almost invite you to try it yourself and explain it five minutes later through a face full of asphalt, but:
1) Nobody deserves to be the target of this just for a prat to learn a lesson;
2) FAF Moderation is quite clear about users advocating users to commit crimes.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jun 9, 2021)

I give this thread 5 pages max before Flamingo takes it out behind the shed.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 9, 2021)

Attaman said:


> Seriously: If you think Pepe’s behavior is good fun, harmless, and tinfoil hat realm for being controversial... I’d almost invite you to try it yourself and explain it five minutes later through a face full of asphalt, but:
> 1) Nobody deserves to be the target of this just for a prat to learn a lesson;
> 2) FAF Moderation is quite clear about users advocating users to commit crimes.


That's why they're in cartoons, and I don't think anybody gets their moral guidance for something that was meant to be comical, that they know is such, in a cartoon, for decades. So no, I'm not gonna go out and try something I know wasn't ever supposed to be real, or an example for my behavior in the first place.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 9, 2021)

You're the same dude who once threatened to fight me in public after baseless Nazi accusations if I remember, @Attaman Bro fuck your accusations against people and shit far-left activist bullshit. Everything that comes through your teeth is like the typical brainwashed college student.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 9, 2021)

Goodnight, stinky prince.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 9, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> You're the same dude who once threatened to fight me in public after baseless Nazi accusations if I remember, @Attaman Bro fuck your accusations against people and shit far-left activist bullshit. Everything that comes through your teeth is like the typical brainwashed college student.



I just love how ridiculous this situation is. You and Attaman are arguing about a farty cartoon skunk.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 9, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> arguing about a farty cartoon skunk.


That was my original point before accusations got thrown around about people being called "criminals" on here, the same way he used to love calling people white nationalists and shit. Fucking disgusting shit I have to read.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jun 9, 2021)

Slow week on the forum I see.


----------



## TyraWadman (Jun 9, 2021)

I personally don't see what the big fuss is over his cancellation. He had one trick, and since that one trick was now removed, what else would he do other than make a cameo appearance? The jokes are old and outdated. 

I do think it would have been cool to see a sort of Disney approach, where the character acknowledges their iffy past and how they've grown... but at the same time, it's a kids show, and there's no reason to make it awkward and disrupt the enjoyment of it just because ADULTS can't get over themselves and their endless pursuit of nostalgia.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 9, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> You're the same dude who once threatened to fight me in public after baseless Nazi accusations if I remember, @Attaman Bro fuck your accusations against people and shit far-left activist bullshit. Everything that comes through your teeth is like the typical brainwashed college student.


1) I take “typical brainwashed college student” as a compliment, so thank you.
2) You’re definitely conflating the “I’ll fight you” with somebody else as I’m the one who’s repeatedly posted on here about my severe arthritis / how the only way I’m winning a fight is with the element of surprise and a cinderblock.

Also, to go back a page: Tuck your tail between your leg harder. “I’ve never seen Pepe as rapey” were explicitly your own words at the thread’s start. If you want to talk about how nobody would emulate him or whatnot that’s on you, but your explicit words were “I’ve never seen him as rapey”. My response being “Somebody tries that shit IRL they will eat concrete as people _will_ step in as they couldn’t make it more obvious if they tried”.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 9, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> I personally don't see what the big fuss is over his cancellation. He had one trick, and since that one trick was now removed, what else would he do other than make a cameo appearance? The jokes are old and outdated.
> 
> I do think it would have been cool to see a sort of Disney approach, where the character acknowledges their iffy past and how they've grown... but at the same time, it's a kids show, and there's no reason to make it awkward and disrupt the enjoyment of it just because ADULTS can't get over themselves and their endless pursuit of nostalgia.


He was the smelly one though. ;^; 

</3 

Anyway, I'm kinda unsurprised that old cartoons in the 'itchy and scratchy' groove aren't always perceived well by more modern consumers.



Attaman said:


> .


Attaman, this isn't worth it. It's not worth it I say.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 9, 2021)

Attaman said:


> 2) You’re definitely conflating the “I’ll fight you” with somebody else as I’m the one who’s repeatedly posted on here about my severe arthritis / how the only way I’m winning a fight is with the element of surprise and a cinderblock.


Nah, you said that to me under a deleted account of mine a few years ago. Unless you forgot my previous username from about 2018-'19. I remember saying that I didn't stand with antifa or some shit along those lines, and you said something along the lines of "I'll be ready to fight", and you were called out for it. Not to mention, the numerous times you tried to suggest in one form or another that I was alt-right or something on here for criticizing the media.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 9, 2021)

How we should view warnerbros not wanting Pepe le pew anymore:

Now he's _*ours*_. >:}


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Jun 9, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> Attaman, this isn't worth it. It's not worth it I say.


Why tell this to the one user whose only use for this forum is precisely just waiting for something to ANGRILY *argue *_about_?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 9, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Why tell this to the one user whose only use for this forum is precisely just waiting for something to ANGRILY *argue *_about_?


This isn't worth it Frank. Leave your drama behind. It's not worth it I say.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Jun 9, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> This isn't worth it Frank. Leave your drama behind. It's not worth it I say.


That's almost more like it


----------



## Kuroserama (Jun 9, 2021)

Attaman said:


> “I’ve never seen him as rapey”. My response being “Somebody tries that shit IRL they will eat concrete as people _will_ step in as they couldn’t make it more obvious if they tried”.


I just want to point out that the things Pepe has done, whether one considers them immoral, "rapey," or simply annoying, have and do actually happen in the real world. And often they do go without consequences. At the least not serious consequences that would keep the perpetrator from repeating his actions.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 9, 2021)

Granny is also a woman.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 9, 2021)

Kuroserama said:


> I just want to point out that the things Pepe has done, whether one considers them immoral, "rapey," or simply annoying, have and do actually happen in the real world. And often they do go without consequences. At the least not serious consequences that would keep the perpetrator from repeating his actions.


Yeah, dudes get big heart eyes, waving around their stinky skunk tail around, with a French accent, and continuously kisses their cat crush as she squirms away from his persisting lack of etiquette. That happens in real life, and is totally represents what happens to irl victims too, because life is a cartoon, but for me, it's more like a circus now. I think victims of abuse face a lot worse than depicted persistent kissing in a cartoon for the sake of making a gestural mockery out of how dudes crush on women.


----------



## Nexus Cabler (Jun 9, 2021)

Pepe isn't cancelled in a 'erased from existence and made an illegal icon' sort of way.  They just mean that they are gonna change some of his characteristics that are not favorable by most of todays audiences. This is done with pretty much every popular cartoon character as time goes by. Sometimes for trends, new styles to keep things fresh, or for social perceptions. It can be for any reason.

It's so commonly done, that we sometimes don't even notice it.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 9, 2021)

Nexus Cabler said:


> Pepe isn't cancelled in a 'erased from existence and made an illegal icon' sort of way.  They just mean that they are gonna change some of his characteristics that are not favorable by most of todays audiences. This is done with pretty much every popular cartoon character as time goes by. Sometimes for trends, new styles to keep things fresh, or for social perceptions. It can be for any reason.
> 
> It's so commonly done, that we sometimes don't even notice it.



That's fine, and while they're at it being back Lola's energetic personality from the New Loony Toons show.


----------



## Kuroserama (Jun 9, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> Yeah, dudes get big heart eyes, waving around their stinky skunk tail around, with a French accent, and continuously kisses their cat crush as she squirms away from his persisting lack of etiquette. That happens in real life, and is totally represents what happens to irl victims too, because life is a cartoon, but for me, it's more like a circus now. I think victims of abuse face a lot worse than depicted persistent kissing in a cartoon for the sake of making a gestural mockery out of how dudes crush on women.


Hm, I want to be clear I wasn't downplaying victims of any type of abuse.

The part I was responding to from someone else was just saying that unwanted advances happen all the time and usually not much is done about it. i.e.: a group of morality people at the club do not grab the guy and collectively throw him out onto the street.


----------



## Punji (Jun 9, 2021)

I remember an episode where the situation was suddenly reversed, in that the cat was the one obsessively pursuing a distressed Pepe.

Why couldn't they have done something to that effect instead? Have Pepe be both the "victim" and the "aggressor" as a comic routine at different times instead. It'd make for a more amusing dynamic than the stereotype of the French skunk he's to be left with.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 9, 2021)

Punji said:


> I remember an episode where the situation was suddenly reversed, in that the cat was the one obsessively pursuing a distressed Pepe.
> 
> Why couldn't they have done something to that effect instead? Have Pepe be both the "victim" and the "aggressor" as a comic routine at different times instead. It'd make for a more amusing dynamic than the stereotype of the French skunk he's to be left with.


Or have penny punch him, which would be hilarious.


----------



## Rimna (Jun 9, 2021)

I barely remember Pepe from the cartoons. I doubt I'd have realized he was removed.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jun 9, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> How we should view warnerbros not wanting Pepe le pew anymore:
> 
> Now he's _*ours*_. >:}


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jun 9, 2021)

Kuroserama said:


> I just want to point out that the things Pepe has done, whether one considers them immoral, "rapey," or simply annoying, have and do actually happen in the real world. And often they do go without consequences. At the least not serious consequences that would keep the perpetrator from repeating his actions.


I feel like both this and @Attaman's claim that you'd eat pavement if you tried can be true. (I'm expanding on thoughts, here, so don't take this whole post as a response to you personally.)

On one hand, violating the consent of others in the name of pursuing them is often not seen as the violation it is. On the other, whether or not a bystander intervened (which is a crapshoot, for a number of reasons), there's a non-zero chance that someone trying to do that _will_ find themselves at the receiving end of some form of violence. Whether that's being thrown to the ground by a bystander, getting maced by your target, or getting kicked in the nuts... it's still going to be a pretty bad day for the aggressor. This is not always the outcome to unwanted advances, of course, and there's going to be times where the response from the public is some variation of "but he was just flirting, that's overkill."

And that's where the aggressor finds his justification. It's sort of where Pepe Le Pew finds _his_ justification - he's "only courting" his love interest, and thinks that justifies crossing her boundaries. 

Now, was this how I saw Pepe Lew Pew when watching cartoons as a kid? Not hardly. But around the same era the kids in the elementary school I attended would play "the kissing game," a form of tag where the objective was to catch and kiss other kids (of the opposite sex). That game, in hindsight... probably could have done with addressing by the adults. It was largely an extension of the common "boy/girl cooties" stage of social development, but it sets the stage for a "might makes right"/"aggressor gets to take what they want" attitude towards sexuality, in some small way. I'm not saying it _had_ to be an inappropriate thing to allow kids to play, just that adults taking the time to talk about consent might have been a good move. 

Pepe is overblown by design, sure. Him pursuing a love interest and getting rejected again and again but not getting the hint is funny to kids, sure. Because it's essentially a form of slapstick. But a very similar dynamic already exists between Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner, with a less applicable-to-real-life motivation for the repeat attempts (and associated failures) to catch Road Runner. Hell, WB's stable of characters is absolutely crammed with adversarial "repeatedly trying and failing to catch a specific target" relationships. Kids get told "s/he's bothering you because s/he likes you" all the freaking time, or at least that was the case when I was little. Reinforcing that lesson by incorporating it into a cartoon meant for children is maybe not appropriate, given that it's dysfunctional as fuck. The same really goes for the little girl who keeps trying to catch animal characters to "love them" (I don't know her English name, and I'm not even sure I remember her Swedish name right). 

I'm not necessarily saying "Pepe needs to go." But I don't think it's a _bad_ decision to let him fade into obscurity. And honestly, children's media looks very different today than it did when I was a kid; the only people who will realize there was a change are adults who are probably looking at a franchise they grew up with through glasses tinted rosy by nostalgia. I _can_ agree that "change her appearance" is not really the best way to address "this character is unnecessarily sexualized and can we please not?" Again, it may only be adults who'll notice the change, but adults aren't immune to subtle messages in media. If the message is "being hot is what makes a woman sexualized," it... Kind of misses the point.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 9, 2021)

@quoting_mungo Well said. 

I was originally going to respond to @Kuroserama that there are some contextual differences that (unfortunately) would explain why I'd argue Pepe’s behavior would be met far more severely than the examples people often let slide... but the fact of the matter _is_ that both are true. And also somewhat beside the point.

Now, to jump in on just one spot as I overall agree with your (quoting's) post: It's no wonder there's no real effort to change Pepe le Pew to fit a modern market. There's pre-existing alternatives to most of the obvious fixes that keep him recognizable, and many of the others are only _marginally_ more palatable or go against what Warner would do with their IP.

The joke is now that Pepe le Pew is _not_ the Casanova he thinks he is? Is often rejected, and quite bluntly at that? Pepe doesn't hound a singular target, but instead is just a cascading chain of turn-downs? You have Johnny Bravo for that. 

Is it that Pepe le Pew is relatively unchanged, merely his _target_ (specifically: Somebody who is now _at least _begrudgingly welcoming and consensual to his advances) is adapted? Overly adoring significant other is a dime a dozen. And would, for that matter, probably lead to people lining up to sell their right kidneys for it to be done with the Adams Family instead. Furthermore you now need an _actual plot / episode_ to work around too (since the skit is no longer "Pew chases somebody, hopes to win them by the end").

Is Pew being lead around by the nose, and blatantly so at that? Again: Dime a dozen. How many episodes of Tom & Jerry, Bugs Bunny, and so-on share this overall premise? Let alone that many of the people adamant about Pew's character probably aren't going to like the idea of him being a bumbling / easily mislead and manipulated fool.

And so-on. And so-on. At the very bottom of the list is "Just go all in on the shock value: Pepe le Pew is an unironic series of Grapist skits"... which, as said earlier, Warner just _won't_ greenlight. For obvious reasons.

Warner's best - in terms of effort, profit, and lack of scandal - bet is to quite simply just keep cashing in on cameos and the fact that his _appearance_ / _design_ is far less controversial than his feature episodes / shorts.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 9, 2021)

quoting_mungo said:


> Kids get told "s/he's bothering you because s/he likes you" all the freaking time, or at least that was the case when I was little. Reinforcing that lesson by incorporating it into a cartoon meant for children is maybe not appropriate, given that it's dysfunctional as fuck.



And, mic drop. That's all that really needs to be said about this, right there.


----------



## aomagrat (Jun 9, 2021)

In the 1942 cartoon "Hold the Lion, Please" Bugs Bunny was married and Mrs. Bunny didn't put up with any of his silliness!


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Jun 10, 2021)

Deadass had to google him since I didn’t know the skunk boi was called Pepe and I thought you were on about Pepe the frog for a moment.

I never liked him, but that’s because he was constantly after a girl which is an annoying cliche I hate in the media, mostly because they somehow get with them by end of movie, although I don’t think it happened with Pepe.

Obviously as time progresses what was done in the past will seem very wrong and old, and that’s ok.
What annoys me is that the solution to things is either “DELET THIS!” Or “Make them ugly!”, like at this point no one cares to try and push a story anymore, a girl can be pretty but still have a backbone, and not all guys are H O R N Y when they see a girl... Ok no a lot still do, but my point is not all do.


----------



## AniwayasSong (Jun 10, 2021)

I don't think as a child I ever gave a second thought to all the things going on in cartoons.  They were just 'Fun'.  We all knew you didn't paint a dark spot on a mountain or the ground, and suddenly create a tunnel or hole.  We knew you didn't fall from great heights and just come back in the next scene.  We all knew you didn't play with shotguns/firearms, dynamite, rockets, etc..  I feel like mine is the last Generation that literally grew up with Common Sense.  Anyone lacking that trait didn't survive to reach adulthood.
Now that aside, I do think things eventually had to be addressed. Children are extremely vulnerable to stimuli of all sorts. Their little minds absorb it like a dry sponge after all. Leaving out the 'Common Sense Gene' (which I honestly believes applies, but won't go deeper into that topic now), kids seeing blatant violence or behavior that is simply not permissible is a problem. 
Much like my parents, who both smoked and drank, telling me and my older brothers to never do that, 'cause it's bad! (M'kay?)... Yeah, we saw right through their hypocrisy, even if what they were telling us was the literal truth.
Making cartoon characters for children hyper sexual? Body fit to drool over, attitude/behavior to match? Pursuing/chasing anyone of any gender when they've clearly said 'NO!', and are trying to get the hell away? Picking a dog up by his tail and *WHACKING* his fanny with a board, then running away till the rope around his neck becomes taut and yanks him off his feet? Those aren't good things I'd want my impressionable children watching, no.
Society changes, and the mores we live with change, too. Hence we no longer see cigarette commercials or billboards, and the days of buying your pack o' smokes from a vending machine in every lobby in the world faded into the dust of memories decades ago. I don't have a problem with that, though I certainly don't agree with how Govt. has gone total 'England' with their 'Tax Stamp' bullshit on the product. How people can afford that habit is beyond me, but I know where there's a will, they will find a way.
Now I'll take it to the other side of the coin, and this is where folks are probably going to get their jimmies in a knot.
I don't approve of force-feeding children this *WOKE* insanity, either. Leave the drag queens, and two mothers/fathers relations OUT of children's stories or school assemblies. THAT task is up to the kids' parents. 
Does this mean the outdated thoughts and attitudes by the parents will affect their children? Of COURSE it does! Guess what? Kids grow up, form their own opinions, and moreoftenthannot, do exactly the OPPOSITE of what their parents were telling them! What, none of you were rebels?
You're 'Here', in a Furry site, aren't ya?
There's more of a rebel in ya than you ever imagined, I suspect?!
;-)


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jun 10, 2021)

Attaman said:


> Now, to jump in on just one spot as I overall agree with your (quoting's) post: It's no wonder there's no real effort to change Pepe le Pew to fit a modern market. There's pre-existing alternatives to most of the obvious fixes that keep him recognizable, and many of the others are only _marginally_ more palatable or go against what Warner would do with their IP.
> 
> The joke is now that Pepe le Pew is _not_ the Casanova he thinks he is? Is often rejected, and quite bluntly at that? Pepe doesn't hound a singular target, but instead is just a cascading chain of turn-downs? You have Johnny Bravo for that.
> 
> ...


Oh, absolutely, I agree with pretty much all of what you say here. What I was trying to say was more... If they did decide to change Pepe in some way to make him less problematic, and we accept the premise that it's a franchise aimed at children? The target audience wouldn't have a clue that changes had been made to the character. What exact changes would or could be made matters less, or even if there's a way to clean up the character at all.



AniwayasSong said:


> Now I'll take it to the other side of the coin, and this is where folks are probably going to get their jimmies in a knot.
> I don't approve of force-feeding children this *WOKE* insanity, either. Leave the drag queens, and two mothers/fathers relations OUT of children's stories or school assemblies. THAT task is up to the kids' parents.
> Does this mean the outdated thoughts and attitudes by the parents will affect their children? Of COURSE it does! Guess what? Kids grow up, form their own opinions, and moreoftenthannot, do exactly the OPPOSITE of what their parents were telling them! What, none of you were rebels?
> You're 'Here', in a Furry site, aren't ya?
> There's more of a rebel in ya than you ever imagined, I suspect?!


Let's say that all representation of non-cishet relationships and identities (messily including drag queens right now, though it's questionable to assume in general that drag queens are trans* and/or non-straight) was removed from all children's media. Just *poof*, no more _King & King_, no _And Tango Makes Three_, etc. What effect do you expect that will have on the children of non-cishet parents? It's not about the media "force-feeding children this *WOKE* insanity." It's about providing examples of the variety of people they're liable to encounter. It's about giving children of non-cishet parents examples of other families like theirs, because seeing someone like yourself in the media you consume is important (as is learning to empathize with a character that _isn't_ like yourself - we need both). It's about reducing the risk of children growing up in non-traditional families becoming the target of bullies due to something they have absolutely no control over. Media also gives parents a jumping-off point for teaching these things to their kids.

I'm sure that plenty of parents will actively choose not to buy storybooks that feature same-sex relationships/parents, _because_ those storybooks feature those things. I personally think those children are worse off for it. But those parents' refusal to present their children with examples of diverse families is not a valid reason to refrain from producing that media at all. And yeah, the children of those parents will grow up and (hopefully)  learn to be more tolerant than their parents were. But that's not the kind of attitude that changes overnight. In the meantime, they may hurt plenty of other children with their parents' prejudice. I can see no ethical way to justify that risk.

The "*WOKE* insanity" you're objecting to is literally just telling/showing kids that queerness exists and isn't a negative thing. Hell, Sex Ed would be just as incomplete without mention of non-straight sexualities as it is with no mention of contraception beyond abstinence.


----------



## AniwayasSong (Jun 10, 2021)

quoting_mungo said:


> Oh, absolutely, I agree with pretty much all of what you say here. What I was trying to say was more... If they did decide to change Pepe in some way to make him less problematic, and we accept the premise that it's a franchise aimed at children? The target audience wouldn't have a clue that changes had been made to the character. What exact changes would or could be made matters less, or even if there's a way to clean up the character at all.
> 
> 
> Let's say that all representation of non-cishet relationships and identities (messily including drag queens right now, though it's questionable to assume in general that drag queens are trans* and/or non-straight) was removed from all children's media. Just *poof*, no more _King & King_, no _And Tango Makes Three_, etc. What effect do you expect that will have on the children of non-cishet parents? It's not about the media "force-feeding children this *WOKE* insanity." It's about providing examples of the variety of people they're liable to encounter. It's about giving children of non-cishet parents examples of other families like theirs, because seeing someone like yourself in the media you consume is important (as is learning to empathize with a character that _isn't_ like yourself - we need both). It's about reducing the risk of children growing up in non-traditional families becoming the target of bullies due to something they have absolutely no control over. Media also gives parents a jumping-off point for teaching these things to their kids.
> ...


No govt., school (and I realize I'm being maybe hypocritical, because of mine-own indoctrination surviving Catholic School, right up to the 9th Grade (H.S.)), should be 'Teaching' children anything along the lines of sexual interactions and all the many deviations within/without it. 
Schools are there to teach 'Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic', and they've been doing nothing but failing in those three areas. 
No matter what is done, children are going to be raised under the heavy influence of their parents (or worse still, LACK of parents!) guidance. I've lived under racism's cruel hand, and I'm not talking BS when I type that. Wrong gender, wrong religion, wrong attitude that kept me from complying under any 'Dictatorial Rule' (at least, that's how I looked at it!). It's the parents and communities responsibility to correct a child the moment they see said kid misbehaving. At least, to maintain a healthy community. I'm not talking about smacking or whipping another person's child (though when I was a kid, that was done and no other adult had any problem with it! Hell, most of the time, if we did something so bad another adult whacked us, our parents repeated the experience once we were returned to them!).
I do not and will not approve or support govt., or any school district/board deviating from the '3 R's' in teaching. I don't see any of them having the maturity or common sense to do such a thing, and based on all I've witnessed so far, they suck at it.
I am not a parent, nor will I ever be one. I did help with my own community/ies, and still mentor/tutor/Chaperone babies and teenagers enjoying their H.S. Graduation events. Yes, I'm old. :-D
Being in the situations I've lived, I see a whole lot from both sides (up to and including the very religious, though not 'Catholic' here in my immediate area). I watch with interest how parents deal with their offspring across the board, and when I'm watching said childlets I have to remember what their parents approve/disapprove of (which can sometimes be a hassle. such is life.).
I'm all for people who are not hetero, or I.D. as whatever, wanting their voices to be heard and respected, and wanting to live their lives w/o prejudice/violence being committed against them. I stand behind that sentiment 100%.
Children are not adults and until they legally reach that age, it is the parents job and duty to raise them and include in that whatever they think should/should not be part of that curriculum. That is not what I'm seeing, and it's only gotten much worse over the prior two + decades.
This is a bad thing. A very bad thing, IMHO.
Teaching 'Sex Education' in H.S. was enough of a hassle, but I do see the wisdom of instructing young adolescents with raging hormones the basic facts and precautions against something that can totally destroy your life.
Teaching the variances of sex/social/political/theological should wait and be covered in H.S., at the earliest. Just the basics, mind. I'm not promoting some sort of indoctrination program for pete's sake!
Diving deeper into these things should be reserved for College, when said 'Children' are (mostly), legal adults.
Now, all of this gets really hairy giving our modern information and technology. I had none of this growing up, and to be honest, other than doing research for book reports/class instruction, I'm damned glad I didn't have 'This' added hassle! (social platforms? pffft). I got my info the good ole fashioned way- Ye Public Library! (or the THREE news channels that were on the TV). Did I mention I'm old? There ya go!
Lastly, as an adult?
I LOVE this modern information/technology, because I'm an avid bookworm/curious Soul, and my wanderings take me all over the damn graph! (NSA/Others, gtfo of my PC/telephone, ya snooping bastards!)
But, I'm an Adult, and as an Adult, I also approve and support freedom of information. I may not like what I see or stumble into, and that's quite alright! I try hard to live with the 'Live and let live' concept, along with the 'Do Unto Others...'
Just don't try to force me to agree or support it. I see someone that looks male, I'm going to refer to them as 'He/his', and if female, 'She/hers'. If THEY choose to call themselves something else, and politely ask me to, too? I'll try my damnedest to respect their request and preference. If they attack me because 'I' made an honest mistake, then they're just looking for a fight, and that will not end well for them, because I'm not the type to back down from a fight. 
I have gay friends from both genders. I've met, but don't know very many who I.D. as 'Trans'. All the other new words/phrases people are inventing? Not even going to TRY to keep up! lol What any adult chooses to do with another consensual adult (or group of), is none of my damned business, and I hope they have a good time! :-D
The world is a huge place. I don't see why there isn't room for all. (minding our population control or lack thereof).
To conclude-
Use logic and reasoning, I think folks will gain greater strides.
Use insult and violence? I think folks are just shooting themselves in the foot, in the long run.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 10, 2021)

I'm not exactly sure how a Pepe le Pew thread is a stepping stone into "And that's why sex education is bad, History and Foreign Language should be scrubbed from the curriculum, and minority representation should be removed keeping that 'woke' shit to High School at the earliest", but here we are.

I almost want to suggest making a new thread for this (since it very much does not fit into any pre-existing ones that I'm aware of in General ATM), but I feel like it's just going to go bad wherever the discussion's had. As even if it's somehow kept _civil_, it's _so_ blatantly political (Whatever one thinks it should look like: A school curriculum - particularly a national one - _is_ political) that I can't imagine staff are going to want _that_ undetonated atomic weapon sitting around.

Like, at least the "Is Pepe le Pew's behavior sketchy?" argument is related to the topic and you can vaguely steer it away from making it political. You can readily steer it _into_ being political too, but the default and possibility to refrain from as much is there. Conversely there is no discussion of "What should we teach our children in school, and for that matter what should we teach our children to treat as 'normal'?" that isn't going to end in Flamingo or Luffy getting the flamethrower.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jun 10, 2021)

Attaman said:


> I'm not exactly sure how a Pepe le Pew thread is a stepping stone into "And that's why sex education is bad, History and Foreign Language should be scrubbed from the curriculum, and minority representation should be removed keeping that 'woke' shit to High School at the earliest", but here we are.
> 
> I almost want to suggest making a new thread for this (since it very much does not fit into any pre-existing ones that I'm aware of in General ATM), but I feel like it's just going to go bad wherever the discussion's had. As even if it's somehow kept _civil_, it's _so_ blatantly political (Whatever one thinks it should look like: A school curriculum - particularly a national one - _is_ political) that I can't imagine staff are going to want _that_ undetonated atomic weapon sitting around.
> 
> Like, at least the "Is Pepe le Pew's behavior sketchy?" argument is related to the topic and you can vaguely steer it away from making it political. You can readily steer it _into_ being political too, but the default and possibility to refrain from as much is there. Conversely there is no discussion of "What should we teach our children in school, and for that matter what should we teach our children to treat as 'normal'?" that isn't going to end in Flamingo or Luffy getting the flamethrower.


I can only agree - children's media is relevant insofar as WB produces children's media, and I'm all for them taking a step back and looking at anything they consider rebooting to see what it really teaches children. I'll readily own that some of the blame for the sidetrack the thread went on is on me, though in my defense I was decidedly not expecting "actually inclusiveness in children's media is not force-feeding an ideology but preparing them for things they will encounter in life" to turn into "school curricula should be pared down to a minimum." Where I'm standing, there, is that while a certain degree of slapstick (especially blatantly fantastical - I'm less sure on things that correspond more closely to reality) can be acceptable, modeling unacceptable social behavior in a recurring character whose whole schtick is that behavior is irresponsible at best. There's a world of difference between "tee hee they dropped an anvil on his head and he got flat as a pancake" understanding of fantasy vs reality, and "this character is displaying antisocial behavior and at least sort of gets away with it." The latter requires a degree of critical thinking that especially smaller children need a bit of handholding through if they can grasp it at all. (Not saying kids aren't smart - they very much are - but rather that certain aspects of the reasoning required is something that's still developing.)

While I have mixed feelings on the reboots of old franchises that are popping up all over the place, I also believe that we have evolved, socially, in the thirty-ish years since I was the target audience of WB cartoons. Creating new content including the less savory part of the old media kind of defeats the purpose of a reboot - at that point you can just re-air the old stuff because you're doing nothing more than reiterating your old mistakes along with the successes. (I don't know if that makes sense. What I mean is basically that I can both accept that "this is what WB cartoons looked like in the 80s/90s, and I will take them for what they are" and "these aspects of the cartoons are problematic at best and maybe it's a good idea to not create more of that.") But then I was also the kid who could barely stand to stay in the room sometimes when "doing a bad thing" was a major plot point in a children's cartoon.


----------



## Kuroserama (Jun 10, 2021)

Attaman said:


> Conversely there is no discussion of "What should we teach our children in school, and for that matter what should we teach our children to treat as 'normal'?" that isn't going to end in Flamingo or Luffy getting the flamethrower.


But then we get to have s'mores over the dumpster fire. 
It's summertime, BBQs and s'mores time!


----------



## Yakamaru (Jun 10, 2021)

Goofy have a SON. He's actually been close enough to a woman to produce offspring. While Donald Duck only have nephews/nieces.

Let that sink in, gahyuk, gosh!


----------



## AniwayasSong (Jun 10, 2021)

Attaman said:


> I'm not exactly sure how a Pepe le Pew thread is a stepping stone into "And that's why sex education is bad, History and Foreign Language should be scrubbed from the curriculum, and minority representation should be removed keeping that 'woke' shit to High School at the earliest", but here we are.
> 
> I almost want to suggest making a new thread for this (since it very much does not fit into any pre-existing ones that I'm aware of in General ATM), but I feel like it's just going to go bad wherever the discussion's had. As even if it's somehow kept _civil_, it's _so_ blatantly political (Whatever one thinks it should look like: A school curriculum - particularly a national one - _is_ political) that I can't imagine staff are going to want _that_ undetonated atomic weapon sitting around.
> 
> Like, at least the "Is Pepe le Pew's behavior sketchy?" argument is related to the topic and you can vaguely steer it away from making it political. You can readily steer it _into_ being political too, but the default and possibility to refrain from as much is there. Conversely there is no discussion of "What should we teach our children in school, and for that matter what should we teach our children to treat as 'normal'?" that isn't going to end in Flamingo or Luffy getting the flamethrower.


You're correct.
It's a lateral shift in the OP, given the subject matter presented therein.
New thread is likely warranted.


----------



## Ramjet (Jun 10, 2021)

It never ceases to amaze me what gets people's panties in a knot nowadays lmfao.


----------



## AniwayasSong (Jun 10, 2021)

Ramjet said:


> It never ceases to amaze me what gets people's panties in a knot nowadays lmfao.


B, b, but, what if I LIKE knotty panties?!
?!
(I'm so going to Hell for that one)


----------



## TyraWadman (Jun 10, 2021)

Ramjet said:


> It never ceases to amaze me what gets people's panties in a knot nowadays lmfao.


_There he is... 
My precious little man..._


----------



## DieselPowered (Jun 11, 2021)

I personally belive altering the characteristics of cartoon characters from the 50s is the only way we can create a better future, so this is a victory for civilization in my book.

Hopefully Pepe's cancellation will serve as an example to the French, whose degenerate approach to both dating and bathing were encapsulated perfectly by that creepy little skunk.


----------



## Matt the Terrier (Jun 11, 2021)

This is all I have to say:




Wanna know how we can fix this? Just make a movie where he's actually doing something other than chasing Penelope around. Hell, have a movie or a TV series where the two of them are getting along, and maybe even working together. Like have a movie where he's parodying James Bond or "The Untouchables" or "The Rockford Files". You know. . .actually use him as a character, and develop him a bit more. Combat the problem by changing things up a bit, and use the character for something else; use him for something other than just the same gag we've seen over and over again. 

Spielberg and everybody else who wrote for Tiny Toon Adventures learned this lesson, and that's why Fifi La Fume is such a good character over her Looney Tunes counterpart. They actually used Fifi in stories that deviated away from her one reoccurring gag, and didn't just beat us over the head with just the one joke over and over again. She went to prom, she got "amazing" and went to a huge party where they made fun of "Carrie", she was involved in a slumber party with Babs and Shirley that ended in disaster, she narrated a deep sea diving adventure, and during one summer vacation, she met one of her idols, and learned the harsh reality of meeting people who look up to. There's more dynamics and character building to her as a result; she stands out better as a character, and is much stronger as a character.

Wanna know how we can fix this? Use characters as characters and have them do things that can hold our attention. Give them strong defined personalities. Give them some defined preferences, strengths, weaknesses, and insecurities that we as the audience can relate to. Personify them; don't just use them for the same thing over and over again.

Unfortunately, Looney Tunes didn't do that back in the day, but that's because the show writing was a little bit different. It was just there to make you laugh, and tell some quick funny, quirky stories. Nobody minded, and even I at an early age didn't mind. I enjoyed it immensely. People nowadays are reading way too much into it.

I just want you to know that rape, sexual assault, objectifying women, and such are wrong and immoral. I am highly against it, let alone making any kind of media that encourages it and says it's okay. But I am 109% sure it was NEVER their intent to encourage that kind of behavior when they made this character. They just wanted to tell a couple quick, funny stories; they weren't worried about offending or upsetting anybody at the time.

To [mis]quote Genesis:
"There's too many people"
"making too many problems"
"In this land of confusion"
"And there's not much left to go 'round."


----------



## DieselPowered (Jun 11, 2021)

The Pepe memes are coming out, i didn't realize this thread was so serious.

It amazes me that people care so much about something so shit. 

"Oh Mademoiselle, i am madly in love wit chu although we have just met. I must drag you back to my bedchambre for the utmost romance, regardless of your protests"

*70 years later*

"Uh, isn't that a bit rapey?" Asks anyone who understands societal attitudes change over the best part of a century.

"Pc CulTuRe iS DesTRoYinG SoCieTY!!!!!!" Cry the reactionary chorus.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 11, 2021)

DieselPowered said:


> The Pepe memes are coming out, i didn't realize this thread was so serious.
> 
> It amazes me that people care so much about something so shit.
> 
> ...


I wonder if 70 years from now, assuming we still exist, people are going to say "idk man, kissing girls seems a little rapey, and was once a symbol of sexual assault, got to get up with the times dude!". I'm kind of glad there's some objections to continuous goalpost shifting. I could care less about the looney toons, it's more of the fact that tiny changes over time affect the way people assess issues, and even nuanced situations.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 11, 2021)

Matt the Terrier said:


> I just want you to know that rape, sexual assault, objectifying women, and such are wrong and immoral. I am highly against it, let alone making any kind of media that encourages it and says it's okay.



So far so good. However...



Matt the Terrier said:


> But I am 109% sure it was NEVER their intent to encourage that kind of behavior when they made this character....they weren't worried about offending or upsetting anybody at the time.



That ain't the point. No doubt Al Jolson "wasn't worried about offending or upsetting anybody at the time" when he performed in blackface either, but that would hardly be acceptable anymore. Societal mores evolve; certain tropes that encompassed the diminution, disempowerment and degradation of a segment of society might have been considered acceptable in the past but can and should be called into question now. Also, as has been pointed out, when impressionable kids are your target audience, you have a certain responsibility for the messages you send and the lessons you teach.

(And I gotta say, your use of that meme makes me wonder if you're actually debating in good faith.)


----------



## Kumali (Jun 11, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> I wonder if 70 years from now, assuming we still exist, people are going to say "idk man, kissing girls seems a little rapey, and was once a symbol of sexual assault, got to get up with the times dude!".



Seems like a false equivalence to me...the question is, is there consent or isn't there? Consent is the bottom line, and "NO" is a complete sentence, needing no further justification. A character who continues stalking and invading after "No" is violating consent, which is unacceptable; two characters kissing consensually is obviously acceptable and beautiful.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 11, 2021)

Kumali said:


> Seems like a false equivalence to me...the question is, is there consent or isn't there? Consent is the bottom line, and "NO" is a complete sentence, needing no further justification. A character who continues stalking and invading after "No" is violating consent, which is unacceptable; two characters kissing consensually is obviously acceptable and beautiful.


I didn't make any equivalence, in fact, I don't think there should be delusional equivalences to cartoons and events that happen in real life, I'm just saying the train hasn't, and will not stop.


----------



## DieselPowered (Jun 11, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> I wonder if 70 years from now, assuming we still exist, people are going to say "idk man, kissing girls seems a little rapey, and was once a symbol of sexual assault, got to get up with the times dude!". I'm kind of glad there's some objections to continuous goalpost shifting. I could care less about the looney toons, it's more of the fact that tiny changes over time affect the way people assess issues, and even nuanced situations.


No, people aren't going to say that. Because that would be stupid. Consent's the issue here.

I imagine 70 years from now people will look back and laugh at the fact that the size of Lola Bunny's tits have become a culture war issue.
Pepe's rapey, deal with it.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 11, 2021)

DieselPowered said:


> No, people aren't going to say that. Because that would be stupid. Consent's the issue here.
> 
> I imagine 70 years from now people will look back and laugh at the fact that the size of Lola Bunny's tits have become a culture war issue.
> Pepe's rapey, deal with it.


Just like Pepe, Lola's tit size wasn't an issue until it suddenly became one, and before that, nobody probably even noticed or cared to, which goes back to my point, that if something is suddenly said to be an issue, people will hop on it, whether it's rational to do so or not.



DieselPowered said:


> No, people aren't going to say that. Because that would be stupid.



I think we established that it doesn't matter how stupid something is, people will jump on the issue, make a mountain out of a molehill, as soon as it's breaking news.


----------



## MechaMegs (Jun 11, 2021)

Who actually cares about pepe le pew? for real he was a terrible character who only serves as a reflection to the issue of excusing overly aggressive advances in the sexual tango as well as making a slap stick joke of ignoring consent.

Like being upset about being rid of PePe is like being upset about the Seuss foundation or whatever it is deciding to stop distribution of its racially problematic content.

And none of this stuff is comparable to "WOKE Inclusion" like giving inclusion and representation to a previously excluded and marginalized group is in fact a good thing because it hurts no body and helps everybody from those who identify within that group to those who may otherwise not understand that group to be more accepting and possibly curtail replicating bigoted nonsense they may otherwise be flooded with about those groups elsewhere. 

And just to be clear the PePe and Seuss stuff isnt this "cancel culture" stuff it is companies doing what they see as the most profitable path in capitalism... which also comically shows that the overton window has shifted a bit in society which is kinda nice.


----------



## aomagrat (Jun 11, 2021)

The 1948 cartoon "Odor of the Day" was the only Pepe cartoon where he did not chase a girl and used his stink as a weapon. He and a dog were battling over a warm bed.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Jun 11, 2021)

By the same logic as creepy gender identitarians use here, toons constantly normalize physical violence against overwhelmingly men, but I guess that's not as severe as *gasp* a woman getting an unwanted kiss


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 11, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> By the same logic as creepy gender identitarians use here, toons constantly normalize physical violence against overwhelmingly men, but I guess that's not as severe as *gasp* a woman getting an unwanted kiss


I don't even think that matters, because guess what? Still a cartoon, and the cartoon isn't trying to depict or instill malevolence in the real world; the very nature of cartoons usually crosses the boundaries of what's possible or acceptable, and this is also in entertainment or art in general, which, I should also add and remind people that these mediums exist as expressions outside of social norms and physical capabilities, which is in a large part their intended purposes, and why people like them so much, including both the most controversial and least controversial in these industries.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 11, 2021)

Can't we all just agree pepe le pew should chase boys instead of girls? :}


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Jun 11, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> I don't even think that matters, because guess what? Still a cartoon, and the cartoon isn't trying to depict or instill malevolence in the real world; the very nature of cartoons usually crosses the boundaries of what's possible or acceptable, and this is also in entertainment or art in general.


Just talking of consistency here, which is something these identitarians are terrible at. But that's to be expected from bigots.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 11, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Just talking of consistency here, which is something these identitarians are terrible at. But that's to be expected from bigots.


Expecting any kind of ideological consistency from sectarian groups is beyond rhetorical.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jun 11, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> I wonder if 70 years from now, assuming we still exist, people are going to say "idk man, kissing girls seems a little rapey, and was once a symbol of sexual assault, got to get up with the times dude!". I'm kind of glad there's some objections to continuous goalpost shifting. I could care less about the looney toons, it's more of the fact that tiny changes over time affect the way people assess issues, and even nuanced situations.



It wouldn't surprise me. We're at a point where both genders cannot even function within the same immediate workspace without sexual misconduct allegations manifesting and career-destroying lawsuits being fired off all willy-nilly.

This isn't really an issue in the blue collar scene. Women as a demographic tend to gravitate towards softer and more cushy office-type jobs or professions that deal with "people" rather than "things" (HR, administration, management, etc), so they haven't had the opportunity to get the MeToo inquisition fired up and rolling down here where I am. The women who do show up to work these shitty (but occasionally high-paying) jobs usually wash out soon enough because of the long hours and physically-demanding nature of these jobs.

That said, the growing WFH movement is the best thing to happen to the white collar scene. As it continues to gain momentum and secure success, it will save companies billions of dollars in business real estate costs and any litigation costs incurred from sexual misconduct lawsuits, weaken the image damage a particular company's brand would suffer from such lawsuits, spare men from having their hard-won careers obliterated by hysterical women and their social media/mainstream media/simp enablers, spare women from having to deal with any romantic advances and inappropriate sexual gestures initiated by their male coworkers, reduce transportation costs for commuters, reduce housing costs for commuters, reduce the overall carbon emission load from so many ICE-powered vehicles seeing reduced use or being pulled off of the road altogether, and push telecommunitions companies (particularly ISPs) to improve their services by forcing them to develop and/or adopt more reliable and efficient telecommunitions technologies in order to meet this new and ever-growing demand for telco services.

Win-win for everyone (except for commercial real estate owners, the automotive industry, and the petrol industry).


----------



## Attaman (Jun 11, 2021)

Warner: "Hm. We can't think of any reasonable ways to get a character infamous for skits _literally, directly and exclusively_ centered around sexual harassment tweaked enough to greenlight a new series / film. So we're going to keep them on the backburner for now."

Some Fucking People: "FALSE RAPE / HARASSMENT CLAIMS! HE'S NOT THAT RAPE-Y! IT'S JUST A JOKE! PC CULTURE!"

We get it. You're all upset that you increasingly need unambiguous consent before putting your hands on women. Are rustled that you can't make sexual assault / harassment a punchline. Are livid that society won't coddle "Boys will be boys" / "Office culture" style shit anymore and is increasingly deciding that "Actually, no: It's not okay to pursue somebody in broad daylight and hound them until either they 'come around to it' or somebody else catches your interest." Personal change is hard. I know. But maybe - just maybe - if you put the same effort into not being a total prat as you do justifying sexual harassment, going on about biotruths, or posting in Community threads on a Furry forum about how Incels deserve to be a protected class, maybe one day somebody who's neither family nor being paid by the hour will kiss you willingly. And if you play your cards right? Maybe they'll even do it again some time.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jun 11, 2021)

Attaman said:


> Warner: "Hm. We can't think of any reasonable ways to get a character infamous for skits _literally, directly and exclusively_ centered around sexual harassment tweaked enough to greenlight a new series / film. So we're going to keep them on the backburner for now."
> 
> Some Fucking People: "FALSE RAPE / HARASSMENT CLAIMS! HE'S NOT THAT RAPE-Y! IT'S JUST A JOKE! PC CULTURE!"
> 
> We get it. You're all upset that you increasingly need unambiguous consent before putting your hands on women. Are rustled that you can't make sexual assault / harassment a punchline. Are livid that society won't coddle "Boys will be boys" / "Office culture" style shit anymore and is increasingly deciding that "Actually, no: It's not okay to pursue somebody in broad daylight and hound them until either they 'come around to it' or somebody else catches your interest." Personal change is hard. I know. But maybe - just maybe - if you put the same effort into not being a total prat as you do justifying sexual harassment, going on about biotruths, or posting in Community threads on a Furry forum about how Incels deserve to be a protected class, maybe one day somebody who's neither family nor being paid by the hour will kiss you willingly. And if you play your cards right? Maybe they'll even do it again some time.



Why don't you just come out and say that you love me lol.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 11, 2021)

ASTA said:


> Why don't you just come out and say that you love me lol.


I love you.


----------



## Rimna (Jun 11, 2021)

ASTA said:


> It wouldn't surprise me. We're at a point where both genders cannot even function within the same immediate workspace without sexual misconduct allegations manifesting and career-destroying lawsuits being fired off all willy-nilly.



*Laughs in shithole country*

No workspaces, no problems here.


----------



## Punji (Jun 11, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> Can't we all just agree pepe le pew should chase boys instead of girls? :}


Pepe vs. Bugs pretty please


----------



## Xitheon (Jun 11, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> By the same logic as creepy gender identitarians use here, toons constantly normalize physical violence against overwhelmingly men, but I guess that's not as severe as *gasp* a woman getting an unwanted kiss



This is true.

Sexual violence is serious but as long as it isn't sexual, it's automatically okay?

Sexual violence is bad, very bad, but violence without the sexual aspect is normalised to a disturbing degree.

Kid's movies often have horrific violence but the sight of a nipple makes everyone freak out and fear that we're corrupting children. Weird.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Jun 11, 2021)

Xitheon said:


> This is true.
> 
> Sexual violence is serious but as long as it isn't sexual, it's automatically okay?
> 
> ...


I wonder if they're going to also cancel Helga Pataki, not only is she by the same standard a disturbing yandere but a violent one as well. Horrible, horrible cultural justification of violence

Anyway, you missed my point : maybe we could just let cartoons be cartoons instead of letting creepy anti-creative ideologues boss artists around


----------



## Xitheon (Jun 11, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Anyway, you missed my point : maybe we could just let cartoons be cartoons instead of letting creepy anti-creative ideologues boss artists around.


That's a valid opinion. (You're basically arguing against censorship, right? I think I get that.)


----------



## kelliegator (Jun 12, 2021)

I love Pepe le Pew. .w.

But I also understand it's a hard premise to sell in the 21st century. I'm gonna miss him, but I guess that's what fanart is for. Hue.

Also, I'm surprised anyone except me cared enough about Pepe to make a thread this long with heated arguments about rape and wokeness and so on. We need more chill, people!


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 12, 2021)

This is a thread about an animated fart squirrel.

But I find myself having to clarify that.

-Working with women colleagues is normal. All the work I've ever done has included female colleagues, including when I worked at Sea.
-'Masculine' demanding jobs are not too difficult for women to do.

These are attitudes that should have been left behind decades ago.



kelliegator said:


> I love Pepe le Pew. .w.
> 
> But I also understand it's a hard premise to sell in the 21st century. I'm gonna miss him, but I guess that's what fanart is for. Hue.
> 
> Also, I'm surprised anyone except me cared enough about Pepe to make a thread this long with heated arguments about rape and wokeness and so on. We need more chill, people!



He is the cutest stinkiest.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 12, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> He is the cutest stinkiest.


Good thing @Simo is still around.


----------



## DieselPowered (Jun 12, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> By the same logic as creepy gender identitarians use here, toons constantly normalize physical violence against overwhelmingly men, but I guess that's not as severe as *gasp* a woman getting an unwanted kiss


I imagine there's an interesting conversation to be had here, but it would be massively off topic.

Putting the wider cultural issues with male disposability aside, I shouldn't have to tell you there's a difference between a cartoon character seeing stars after having an anvil dropped on their head and a character whose defining characteristic is being sexually coersive.

That's not considered light hearted entertainment in current year, simple as.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Jun 12, 2021)

DieselPowered said:


> I shouldn't have to tell you there's a difference between a cartoon character seeing stars after having an anvil dropped on their head and a character whose defining characteristic is being sexually coersive.


If you go past this stupidly narrow way to frame it, the two cases are actually pretty similar


----------



## MaelstromEyre (Jun 12, 2021)

Part of the problem is that there are still people in this world who cannot separate fantasy from reality.  They see that something worked out for a character in a movie or show, and think the same will apply to modern life.  There are still guys out there who honestly believe that pursuing a woman even after she's said "no" will eventually win her over.  I don't know if they were influenced by Pepe le Pew or Clint Eastwood movies, or romantic comedies, or they've watched too many YouTube videos by "pick up artists."


----------



## Rimna (Jun 12, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> Can't we all just agree pepe le pew should chase boys instead of girls? :}



But... but... I don't wanna be chased by some farting squirrel D:


----------



## Pygmepatl (Jun 12, 2021)

Rimna said:


> But... but... I don't wanna be chased by some farting squirrel D:







Awww! The skunk just wanted a hug!


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 12, 2021)

Pygmepatl said:


> Awww! The skunk just wanted a hug!



If that skunk was on my property Sophia and Apollo would have killed it.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 12, 2021)

MaelstromEyre said:


> Part of the problem is that there are still people in this world who cannot separate fantasy from reality.  They see that something worked out for a character in a movie or show, and think the same will apply to modern life.  There are still guys out there who honestly believe that pursuing a woman even after she's said "no" will eventually win her over.  I don't know if they were influenced by Pepe le Pew or Clint Eastwood movies, or romantic comedies, or they've watched too many YouTube videos by "pick up artists."



I mean it seems they have have some underlying condition if they cannot separate a cartoon from reality, just look at Chris Chan. Censoring a cartoon will not "change" people to "act better", they'll just follow another medium.


----------



## DieselPowered (Jun 12, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> If you go past this stupidly narrow way to frame it, the two cases are actually pretty similar


You're welcome to elaborate on why.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 12, 2021)

MaelstromEyre said:


> Part of the problem is that there are still people in this world who cannot separate fantasy from reality.  They see that something worked out for a character in a movie or show, and think the same will apply to modern life.  There are still guys out there who honestly believe that pursuing a woman even after she's said "no" will eventually win her over.  I don't know if they were influenced by Pepe le Pew or Clint Eastwood movies, or romantic comedies, or they've watched too many YouTube videos by "pick up artists."


Of note: Studios will often very explicitly be told to present violence in a comical, gleeful way that explicitly _cannot be emulated under any plausible or reasonable circumstance_. So for instance you might have a character drive a monster truck through a home on a wild chase, or have a man-portable anvil launcher used to shoot at robots. They might use a UFO to raze an entire town in an instant, or a magic wand to turn a shopping mall into various appliances.

The point being that the violence chosen is _specifically_ exaggerated. And it isn't just cartoons or shorts, but games like _Doom (2016)_ too which isn't even aimed towards kids but explicitly an M-rated market.

And as somebody who has actually had to deal with little kids numerous times (three nieces, two nephews), I can say this is an _entirely grounded_ concern as it really does not take much for a three year old who struggles to even comprehend that they ate all the cookies _yesterday_ that picking up a bat and taking out somebody's kneecaps is not a funny bit of TV but actually pretty serious. And while they'll probably be mortified after the fact when they realize what they just did hurt somebody (and if they aren't, their parents will probably make sure they are when they hear about it), that's still after the fact.

That said, it's worth pointing out that a reason several people want to have this discussion (people emulating media, what they emulate from media, who is likely to emulate as much, etcetera) is that the longer the previous one drags on the harder it is to either continue the circle-jerk or justify its behavior. "Lol funny skunk man CANCELLED by COMMUNISTS"? Laughs are had, more from some than others. "And what were they really cancelled for anyways? His behavior's objectively funny!"? Some of the laughs start dying down as people in the crowd remember / are informed of aforementioned behavior. "You're not laughing? What are you, a violent ANTIFA thug?!"? Now more people aren't laughing, and some even getting concerned. "Bro. It's just a cartoon sku-" It's these damn women making men afraid in _their_ work places, I tell you! Can't do anything without being accused of sexual harassment."? Now people are beginning to have _questions_. Some of them ones they never would have thought to ask if they got off at the first or second stop.

Which is a shame, as... like: It is a discussion worthy of having. "In what ways do people normalize and internalize behavior they consume via media?" "Is there any obligation from media - or hosts of media - towards the mental well being of their audience, and / or responsibility from actions that follow from as much?" They may or may not be long lived on FAF depending on how long it takes them to get political, but they _are_ reasonable discussions none the less. But some people really don't want them so much as some breathing room for people to forget Heated Loony Toon Fan moments.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Jun 12, 2021)

DieselPowered said:


> You're welcome to elaborate on why.


Should be obvious, but anyway let's spell it out if you have difficulties. Case one : violence is played for laughs. Case two : "sexual" assault is played for laughs. You can nitpick about the specific example of the anvil all you want, doesn't make a difference, especially since Pepe's behavior also is less than "realistic" as well. Also he's not even human, contrary to say, Helga Pataki the deranged yandere from Hey Arnold (when is she getting cancelled...? oh wait gender identitarians are hypocrites).

The bottom line is that this is cartoony humor. It's funny partly for the same reason why cards against humanity is funny (not to me personally, I find it tedious, but that's besides the point. Also maybe people are getting too pathetically fragile for cards against humanity too now, I wouldn't be surprised) : because it displays abnormal behavior.

But we all know that these gender identitarians wouldn't know a joke if it hit them in the face. Most unfunny, un-creative people perhaps in the world. They shouldn't be let anywhere near comedy and creators.


----------



## Nexus Cabler (Jun 12, 2021)

A lot of people were joking around social media when Pepe le Pew was first found to be in hot water for his characteristics.

Gonna be honest here, some of these make a good point.


----------



## Muttmutt (Jun 12, 2021)

Sheesh bro I’ve gotta say, some users here have extremely archaic views on women, consent, and social dynamics. The world ain’t that narrow and nothing has ever, nor will ever be, black and white. Some of y’all should reevaluate your beliefs because they come off a slight concerning.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 12, 2021)

Muttmutt said:


> Sheesh bro I’ve gotta say, some users here have extremely archaic views on women, consent, and social dynamics. The world ain’t that narrow and nothing has ever, nor will ever be, black and white. Some of y’all should reevaluate your beliefs because they come off a slight concerning.



I do fine with respecting females, but I never took Pepe Le Pew seriously. Censoring a *cartoon *skunk just because some people are paranoid that it will contribute to "rape culture" is outright silly. If you need a "French" talking cartoon skunk to teach you how the world works, then there's probably something wrong with your mind.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 12, 2021)

Nexus Cabler said:


> A lot of people were joking around social media when Pepe le Pew was first found to be in hot water for his characteristics.
> 
> Gonna be honest here, some of these make a good point.
> 
> View attachment 113111



I didn't see Angelica as a "Karen", but more as a small time villainess. She is the antagonist of the story for a lot of episodes of Rugrats.


----------



## Muttmutt (Jun 12, 2021)

Jaredthefox92 said:


> I do fine with respecting females, but I never took Pepe Le Pew seriously. Censoring a *cartoon *skunk just because some people are paranoid that it will contribute to "rape culture" is outright silly. If you need a "French" talking cartoon skunk to teach you how the world works, then there's probably something wrong with your mind.


I was more referring to the posts about how women and men working together “leads to #metoo” and “women can’t work laborious jobs like men” rather than anything to do with the skunk. I don’t give a shit whether a skunk stays or goes but it is interesting to see which users here creep out of the frameworks to express bigoted beliefs.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 12, 2021)

Muttmutt said:


> I was more referring to the posts about how women and men working together “leads to #metoo” and “women can’t work laborious jobs like men” rather than anything to do with the skunk. I don’t give a shit whether a skunk stays or goes but it is interesting to see which users here creep out of the frameworks to express bigoted beliefs.



Funny enough, nobody I know in my many years of being on this earth with both genders ever had such "outrages" in actual public. Maybe I live in a nice rural state where people are more busy and have less time on their hands than to fret over a cartoon skunk, but honestly I've met many women in my life and none of them ever shown any sort of outrage over such crap.

If you think Pepe Le Pew is "bigoted", you probably need to go walk outside and get some fresh air. The world isn't black and white and if people get upset over a cartoon skunk they really either A) have an agenda and a motive to express outrage. B) are losers who have nothing better to do than to get upset over every little thing.

No women I have ever met in all my life gave a crap about Pepe Le Pew, hell some friends of mine love old cartoons and didn't mind him as well. These friends like my friend Kayla who has lower functioning autism (than what I myself have), and she loved the cartoon.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 12, 2021)

Muttmutt said:


> I was more referring to the posts about how women and men working together “leads to #metoo” and “women can’t work laborious jobs like men” rather than anything to do with the skunk. I don’t give a shit whether a skunk stays or goes but it is interesting to see which users here creep out of the frameworks to express bigoted beliefs.


I'm reluctant to think people, especially at least 60% of active users here who think they do not have any sort of bigoted beliefs aren't just vainest.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 12, 2021)

Nexus Cabler said:


> A lot of people were joking around social media when Pepe le Pew was first found to be in hot water for his characteristics.
> 
> Gonna be honest here, some of these make a good point.
> 
> View attachment 113111


Oh yeah, why hasn't Johnny Bravo been under that much fire, when his show is literally the pinnacle of this type of shit, more so than the looney tunes? Is it because he's a dinosaur that hasn't been resurrected into the public to cause outrage, like Pepe? Also, the old looney tunes have engaged in blatant racism in the near past, why haven't they been canceled all together? Unless, we set different standards for characters that were examples for various kinds of prejudices and social behavior which can be acceptable to keep, only when money is still to be made? I guess when people are outraged about one thing they forget about something else. Good thing Warner Bros have kept people in check, nobody would watch Space jam 2 if they were reminded that Bugs Bunny played blackface.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 12, 2021)

Nexus Cabler said:


> A lot of people were joking around social media when Pepe le Pew was first found to be in hot water for his characteristics.
> 
> Gonna be honest here, some of these make a good point.
> 
> [snip image for page size sake]


I'd argue a key difference might be that nobody here's particularly _defended_ them and said their behavior is just fine and that if they were 'cancelled' they'd be the victims of censorship. Heck, several of the same people in here _have_ (in other threads, admittedly) defended exactly what Dale was being accused of in his example!

Closest to a defense of any of these would be my bringing up of Bravo as an alternative to Pew, who... is still very much problematic, though - and people feel free to correct me, as I was wrong before in recollecting _F.R.I.E.N.D.S. _earlier in a different thread - to my understanding never crossed the line as far as le Pew (admittedly a low bar considering Bravo has less media and less time going for him, _and_ a different focus based on him being a dumpster fire with the punchline _his_ suffering for his advances).


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jun 12, 2021)

Attaman said:


> Of note: Studios will often very explicitly be told to present violence in a comical, gleeful way that explicitly _cannot be emulated under any plausible or reasonable circumstance_. So for instance you might have a character drive a monster truck through a home on a wild chase, or have a man-portable anvil launcher used to shoot at robots. They might use a UFO to raze an entire town in an instant, or a magic wand to turn a shopping mall into various appliances.
> 
> The point being that the violence chosen is _specifically_ exaggerated. And it isn't just cartoons or shorts, but games like _Doom (2016)_ too which isn't even aimed towards kids but explicitly an M-rated market.
> 
> ...


So much this, with a side of “violence is generally straightforward.” It’s relatively easy to explain to a child (especially once they’re old enough for basic empathy) that you don’t hit people, and hitting people is bad. There will be some kids that struggle with it, which is why cartoon violence ideally should be un-emulatable if the target audience is children, but it’s still a relatively simple concept. (Not that children’s media _needs_ violence, far from. But it’s at least easier to comprehend.)

Unwanted advances... aren’t. There’s too much context-sensitivity. Couple that with “oh, how cute, he _likes_ her!” being a too-common adult response to unwanted physical affection between children, and you’re sending out seriously mixed signals. Freaking adults have trouble understanding consent half the time, so why would we expect small children to?


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 12, 2021)

Attaman said:


> I'd argue a key difference might be that nobody here's particularly _defended_ them and said their behavior is just fine and that if they were 'cancelled' they'd be the victims of censorship. Heck, several of the same people in here _have_ (in other threads, admittedly) defended exactly what Dale was being accused of in his example!
> 
> Closest to a defense of any of these would be my bringing up of Bravo as an alternative to Pew, who... is still very much problematic, though - and people feel free to correct me, as I was wrong before in recollecting _F.R.I.E.N.D.S. _earlier in a different thread - to my understanding never crossed the line as far as le Pew (admittedly a low bar considering Bravo has less media and less time going for him, _and_ a different focus based on him being a dumpster fire with the punchline _his_ suffering for his advances).


Why don't you just name the people you want to make shitty, broad but slanderous accusations against instead of posting right under them?


Accuman


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jun 12, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> Why don't you just name the people you want to make shitty, broad but slanderous accusations against instead of posting right under them?
> 
> 
> Accuman



Because he'd be infracted or banned for doing this.


----------



## DieselPowered (Jun 12, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Should be obvious, but anyway let's spell it out if you have difficulties. Case one : violence is played for laughs. Case two : "sexual" assault is played for laughs. You can nitpick about the specific example of the anvil all you want, doesn't make a difference, especially since Pepe's behavior also is less than "realistic" as well. Also he's not even human, contrary to say, Helga Pataki the deranged yandere from Hey Arnold (when is she getting cancelled...? oh wait gender identitarians are hypocrites).
> 
> The bottom line is that this is cartoony humor. It's funny partly for the same reason why cards against humanity is funny (not to me personally, I find it tedious, but that's besides the point. Also maybe people are getting too pathetically fragile for cards against humanity too now, I wouldn't be surprised) : because it displays abnormal behavior.
> 
> But we all know that these gender identitarians wouldn't know a joke if it hit them in the face. Most unfunny, un-creative people perhaps in the world. They shouldn't be let anywhere near comedy and creators.


It's a shame you seem to be taking this more seriously than me.
I really don't care about Pepe le Pew. The "violent" example i gave i just pulled out of memory. It's a generalized view of Looney Toons violence. The generalized opinion of Pepe these days is that he comes across as rapey, it's why people aren't going to make silly cartoons about a 70 year old skunk anymore.

The idea that the cases are similar because they're both played for laughs is also a stupidly narrow way to frame it. So they're both supposed to be funny in this context, doesn't change what underpins the jokes or how poor they may be. Comedy is subjective, but this all seems to be beside the main points.

Why downplay the problems surrounding Pepe's outdated sense of humour?
It reads like you're willing to brush it off because people approach violence in media in a different way. 
Well, yeah. They're seperate topics that are perceived and treated differently.

The rest seems to be raging at imagined people for no discernable reason.
What's a gender identitarian supposed to be?

Feel free to treat me like i'm an idiot if it helps.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 12, 2021)

I might add that the humor is also a product of the times in a lot of other stories, ever heard all the sexual objectification in Animaniacs "hello nurse!",  or the "goodnight everybody!" line when something more adult was joked?


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Jun 12, 2021)

DieselPowered said:


> It's a shame you seem to be taking this more seriously than me.


My mistake, I thought you wanted to talk about this seriously


Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> Why don't you just name the people you want to make shitty, broad but slanderous accusations against instead of posting right under them?
> 
> 
> Accuman


To be fair that's what people do when they're very confident in the straws they're grasping at


----------



## DieselPowered (Jun 12, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> My mistake, I thought you wanted to talk about this seriously


I'm genuinely interested in your opinions here, and if you actually have any worth sharing.

If not ok, but the gender identitarian thing comes across as more than a little odd. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 12, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> To be fair that's what people do when they're very confident in the straws they're grasping at


If you said you liked '40s German cars, @Attaman will literally write a whole paragraph to build up a case for why you're somehow, some way shape or form, defending Nazis.


----------



## DieselPowered (Jun 12, 2021)

SOMEONE MENTIONED NAZIS FOLKS!!!!!!!


----------



## Attaman (Jun 12, 2021)

I mean, I'll be honest: While half a page of "Attaman is a giant stinkbutt liar who sees Nazis in the trees" is only further making my point as to the whole "People really don't want to linger on the subject of the OP", it _*is*_ at least better than defending incidents of sexual harassment, vomiting up biotruths, or pretending to care about violence in media or what whatnot. So, like, if you _have_ to keep throwing up flak, I'm not going to complain if this is the method you'd prefer to do so.


----------



## MechaMegs (Jun 12, 2021)

*scratches head confused*
Wow some people here are really something...
Like thinking the actions of capitalism are cancel culture and not the decree of those who control the product doing what they will with it and some people devolving it down to another false flag of identitarianism and even some people using talk of the antequated "two genders" fallacy in their arguments as well showing why they have a hard time grasping why the overton window in capitalism has shifted leading to these steps and actions by companies.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Jun 12, 2021)

DieselPowered said:


> the gender identitarian thing comes across as more than a little odd. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


That's how you can call people whose worldview revolves around broad identity categories


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 12, 2021)

Everyone is going way off the rails over a thread about a talking French cartoon skunk, and here I am playing Fallout 76.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 12, 2021)

Jaredthefox92 said:


> Everyone is going way off the rails over a thread about a talking French cartoon skunk, and here I am playing Fallout 76.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 12, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


>



I should have saw that one coming.


----------



## DieselPowered (Jun 12, 2021)

Frank Gulotta said:


> That's how you can call people whose worldview revolves around broad identity categories


And what is a "gender identitatian" if not a faceless individual you've put into a broad identity category?


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 12, 2021)

DieselPowered said:


> And what is a "gender identitatian" if not a faceless individual you've put into a broad identity category?



Women live longer than men. Men can acquire more muscle mass rapidly than women. Science.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 12, 2021)

@Attaman You really want me to just say how I feel about the cartoon? Okay fine, I don't think it's a big deal if Pepe was to stay in Space Jam 2 as a character alone, even if they have to to tweak his behavior, but quite frankly, Michael Jordan isn't in the movie, so it's not a true sequel to me anyway. Now, continue making your shitty cases against my character, as a human being, and make sure you dig up shit about MJ as well to assist in that. And to anybody who says shit like "adults and their shitty nostalgia is the reason why they want Pepe to stay", it's supposed to be a sequel for a reason.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jun 13, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> Working with women colleagues is normal. All the work I've ever done has included female colleagues, including when I worked at Sea.



Thanks for sharing. =]



Fallowfox said:


> These are attitudes that should have been left behind decades ago.



_Really _hard to let an attitude go when its validity is reasserted by things that you witness in your_ day-to-day life_, bud.



Muttmutt said:


> Sheesh bro I’ve gotta say, some users here have extremely archaic views on women, consent, and social dynamics. The world ain’t that narrow and nothing has ever, nor will ever be, black and white. Some of y’all should reevaluate your beliefs because they come off a slight concerning.



Honestly, in about three years time, you lot are going to drum up an entirely _new (_and probably even more nonsensical_) _litany of social views that will make today's spicy Twitter take look like yesterday's Daily Stormer post.

May as well cut my losses now and keep on trucking with my so-called "archaic" opinions.

Besides, what are you all going to do if I _don't _revaluate them?

Block me?

*Very important edit*: this shit made it to page 6 _without _a Flamingo showing?

Huh.


----------



## Muttmutt (Jun 13, 2021)

ASTA said:


> Honestly, in about three years time, you lot are going to drum up an entirely _new (_and probably even more nonsensical_) _litany of social views that will make today's spicy Twitter take look like yesterday's Daily Stormer post.
> 
> May as well cut my losses now and keep on trucking with my so-called "archaic" opinions.
> 
> ...


You know, the problem with attitudes like yours is that - instead of realizing the point at hand - you start ranting about how X leads to Y which leads to Z. If you think the past - a time period in which things like sexual assault/coercion were acceptable, owning human beings was legal, homosexuality was treated like a sickness, and women did not share equal rights - shouldn’t change and that when it does it’s some “progressive bullshit” then I am concerned for you. Society needs to evolve and adapt and we slowly become more aware of inappropriate behaviors. There was a time where the idea of giving women equal rights was called progressive bullshit and would lead to things like animals getting to vote. This is a common fallacy used by people to shut down intelligent conversation about changing the way we’ve done things in the past.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 13, 2021)

If Pepe le Pew is being retired, I would like to pitch a new character:









ASTA said:


> Thanks for sharing. =]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



During the second world war, men were called to fight, leaving factory jobs vacant.

Many roles had previously been believed unsuitable for women as they were physically demanding and it was believed women were too frail and swooning to be suitable.
By the _end_ of the war, British women were working as lathe operators, in heavy engineering and air craft construction, with the same training and performance expectations as men.
Women in Britain were forbidden from front-line roles, but if you'd looked to the bomb-pocked shores of Britain you'd have found _women _manning anti-aircraft guns.

*This was almost 80 years ago. *_80 years_ and you still find people who think the idea of women doing manual jobs is 'modern' nonsense.


----------



## MechaMegs (Jun 13, 2021)

Jaredthefox92 said:


> I do fine with respecting females, but I never took Pepe Le Pew seriously. Censoring a *cartoon *skunk just because some people are paranoid that it will contribute to "rape culture" is outright silly. If you need a "French" talking cartoon skunk to teach you how the world works, then there's probably something wrong with your mind.


It isnt censorship it is, again, a move by a company in interest of its own capital gain. the owner of an IP deciding to do as the wish with their IP isnt censorship.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 13, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> It isnt censorship it is, again, a move by a company in interest of its own capital gain. the owner of an IP deciding to do as the wish with their IP isnt censorship.



Corporate censorship is still censorship, yeah they can do it and it's legal. But it means the fans can just tell them to take a hike and they lose revenue. Get woke, go broke. Nobody has to buy or watch your product.


----------



## kelliegator (Jun 13, 2021)

Jaredthefox92 said:


> Corporate censorship is still censorship, yeah they can do it and it's legal. But it means the fans can just tell them to take a hike and they lose revenue. Get woke, go broke. Nobody has to buy or watch your product.


The idea of a boycott movement over a cartoon skunk is the funniest thing in the world to me. And I'm the Pepe le Pew fan. rofl.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 13, 2021)

kelliegator said:


> The idea of a boycott movement over a cartoon skunk is the funniest thing in the world to me. And I'm the Pepe le Pew fan. rofl.



You laugh, but this is why Disney, Warner, DC comics, and Marvel are sucking right now while anime and manga is kicking them to the curve. People are tired of this sort of non-issues being flaunted and thus they're seeking better forms of media alternatives, the Japanese won't go woke and thus they're not broke.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 13, 2021)

Jaredthefox92 said:


> You laugh, but this is why Disney, Warner, DC comics, and Marvel are sucking right now while anime and manga is kicking them to the curve. People are tired of this sort of non-issues being flaunted and thus they're seeking better forms of media alternatives, the Japanese won't go woke and thus they're not broke.


Tbh, the Japanese are kind of "been there, done that", and Japan is kind of a falling society in some aspects.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 13, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> Tbh, the Japanese are kind of "been there, done that", and Japan is kind of a falling society in some aspects.



Not in the entertainment industry now, they're absolutely destroying western media in terms of sales at the current moment.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 13, 2021)

Jaredthefox92 said:


> Not in the entertainment industry now, they're absolutely destroying western media in terms of sales at the current moment.


As much as I like Beastars, a relatively popular anime, you cannot unsee that the whole purpose of the show is kind of "woke", in a way.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 13, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> As much as I like Beastars, a relatively popular anime, you cannot unsee that the whole purpose of the show is kind of "woke", in a way.



The vast majority of anime is not woke. In fact I am very proud of how they have responded to Twitter attacks by crazed sjw's. Japan will maintain it's social standards until the day they drop. The vast majority of major anime are not going to be woke, and Japan will do nothing about it because none of their fans asked for wokeness in their products in the first place. DBZ, Pokemon, Street Fighter, Resident Evil, they're all selling like hotcakes despite the calls for social progressivism. Manga is souring now, whereas western media are having people go watch Japanese anime for this very reason. People want a good story, not politics shoved down their throats in places it has no need to be in.


----------



## MechaMegs (Jun 13, 2021)

Jaredthefox92 said:


> Corporate censorship is still censorship, yeah they can do it and it's legal. But it means the fans can just tell them to take a hike and they lose revenue. Get woke, go broke. Nobody has to buy or watch your product.


Again it isnt censorship it is the company taking what liberties it wishes with its own product. corpo censorship would be if a corporation used their resources and power to silence and block out content not controlled by them.

for the many years of the battle cry of "get woke go broke" from dude bros who can't seem to grasp that things progress times change society evolves and media will follow with that oddly those they scream about seem to not be going broke like mega corp Disney or like Netflix with their very successful She-Ra.

Also please don't talk about Japanese culture because you obviously don't understand nor have actually experienced or lived around it in your life and you couldn't sound anymore ignorant about it.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 13, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> for the many years of the battle cry of "get woke go broke" from dude bros who can't seem to grasp that things progress times change society evolves and media will follow with that oddly those they scream about seem to not be going broke like mega corp Disney or like Netflix with their very successful She-Ra.


I wouldn't exactly call the hatred of "maleness", white dudes or insecurity about one's own masculinity an "evolution".


----------



## MechaMegs (Jun 13, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> I wouldn't exactly call the hatred of "maleness", white dudes or insecurity about one's own masculinity an "evolution".


quite a reductive position on what is more so removing a slap stick effort to make sexual assault a comedic trope as it had been in the past with PePe
or if you mean diversifying and including more identities within media beyond heteronormative nuclear families and males being almost the only pillars of strength.

Either way its silly because showing displays of male models being soft is quite good showing them to have emotion is good that it is okay and normal to express it is good and if that makes you insecure in your masculinity maybe you should go on a spiritual journey and really explore what being a male actually means and not just ride on the 80's of tv sitcom representation.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 13, 2021)

While I know this is skirting dangerously close to the whole "No politics" blanket rule, the idea that Japanese media just sort of _exists in a vacuum_ and avoids subjects like LGBTQ+ or societal expectations or gender norms or whatnot (nay, actively refuses to bow against the barbarian menace!) is _absolutely hilarious_.

Like, "We should go back to the good old days of apolitical games like _Ecco the Dolphin_, _Final Fantasy VII_, and _Deus Ex_" levels humorous.

Like, do I need to remind people that 2019 featured gems such as "Elected UK officials getting in a tissy over a trans Zombie Idol on a picture saying 'STFU Terf'", last year (or was it this year? Time's a fucking wibbly-wobbly mess at this point) whole "We got to watch vTubers practically unionize in real time for the rights and treatment of coworkers abroad"? Or, hell, to go _back_ to the subject of games, things like the _Metal Gear_ series in and of itself (or, more recently, _Death Stranding)_?

I get that this was an attempt at spring boarding into a about the degeneracy of western media / its consumers, but folks: This ain't the winning argument.


----------



## Monsieur Lune (Jun 13, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> Can't we all just agree pepe le pew should chase boys instead of girls? :}


He canonically chases both. In one episode he chases Sylvester and when Sylvester screams but I'm male he responds with "I do not care" or something like that forgot which episode. Once again he is a French stereotype and bisexuality and promiscuity is one of those at the time.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 13, 2021)

malefeetguy said:


> He canonically chases both. In one episode he chases Sylvester and when Sylvester screams but I'm male he responds with "I do not care" or something like that forgot which episode. Once again he is a French stereotype and bisexuality and promiscuity is one of those at the time.



Also, if we're going with French stereotypes, Antoine from Sonic was sort of like that towards Sally and nobody batted an eye.


----------



## Monsieur Lune (Jun 13, 2021)

Jaredthefox92 said:


> Also, if we're going with French stereotypes, Antoine from Sonic was sort of like that towards Sally and nobody batted an eye.


Exactement, il y a beaucoup plus d'exemples de cela. Apparemment les Américains aiment ridiculiser l'ouverture des Français à la sexualité.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 13, 2021)

malefeetguy said:


> Exactement, il y a beaucoup plus d'exemples de cela. Apparemment les Américains aiment ridiculiser l'ouverture des Français à la sexualité.



Mon Francis est merde.


----------



## Monsieur Lune (Jun 13, 2021)

Jaredthefox92 said:


> Mon Francis est merde.


Do you want to improve your French? If so like they say practice makes perfect. I find that talking to or writing more with other French speakers is great. Most people don't improve because they don't try or give up.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 13, 2021)

malefeetguy said:


> Exactement, il y a beaucoup plus d'exemples de cela. Apparemment les Américains aiment ridiculiser l'ouverture des Français à la sexualité.



C'est pas une surprise, il semble que beaucoup des américains aiment ridiculiser tout les gens des autres pays. Et en fait, vraiment, c'est ce stéréotype français que Pepe le Pew représente que je trouve être offensant - j'ai beaucoup des amis français, et je n'apprécie pas ce genre de moquerie des gens français. Ils sont pas comme ça.


----------



## Monsieur Lune (Jun 13, 2021)

Kumali said:


> C'est pas une surprise, il semble que beaucoup des américains aiment ridiculiser tout les gens des autres pays. Et en fait, vraiment, c'est ce stéréotype français que Pepe le Pew représente que je trouve être offensant - j'ai beaucoup des amis français, et je n'apprécie pas ce genre de moquerie des gens français. Ils sont pas comme ça.


Je suis d'accord, c'est dommage surtout l'idée que les français sentent mauvais et l'idée de la pute française. Il est intéressant de noter qu'en France ils le faisaient aussi beaucoup, même envers d'autres Français surtout si ces personnes ne sont pas parisiennes. En fait, cela arrive encore à ceux qui parlent avec un accent français atypique qui diffère de ce que l'on trouve typiquement à Paris ou dans les journaux télévisés. Saviez-vous que dans la version française des Looney Tunes Pepé le Pew est italien. Intéressant, n'est-ce pas?


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 13, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> quite a reductive position on what is more so removing a slap stick effort to make sexual assault a comedic trope as it had been in the past with PePe
> or if you mean diversifying and including more identities within media beyond heteronormative nuclear families and males being almost the only pillars of strength.
> 
> Either way its silly because showing displays of male models being soft is quite good showing them to have emotion is good that it is okay and normal to express it is good and if that makes you insecure in your masculinity maybe you should go on a spiritual journey and really explore what being a male actually means and not just ride on the 80's of tv sitcom representation.


What's silly is how new tropes are being instilled as sort of a domineering replacement over the past ones, excessively so, and somehow entertainment has to reflect real life circumstances to a T (according to individuals who think their specific demographics and new constructs represent more than what's factual), so much that it has to be forced in everything, even though they technically don't represent a vast amount of people on average, in fact, they disproportionally add elements in many new TV shows and entertainment that there's a political reference every 5 seconds with misrepresentations of certain other demographics, and people take that for face value, however, I guess that's the beauty of artistic freedom in capitalism as you people say. Also, when you say "heteronormative" and "males being pillars of strength", it comes across as something that should no longer exist in art or entertainment, which goes back to my point of simply others wanting to replace ideas (which in many cases, are natural and instinctive of our species) with new ones to fit the standards of another sectarian group of people, hence instead of male strength in films, you have female strength and male weakness, instead of heterosexuals you have LGBT, and so on, rather than trying to show people as equals, or at least in a way that doesn't blatantly come across as reversing prejudices through indoctrination.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jun 14, 2021)

Muttmutt said:


> You know, the problem with attitudes like yours is that - instead of realizing the point at hand - you start ranting about how X leads to Y which leads to Z. If you think the past - a time period in which things like sexual assault/coercion were acceptable, owning human beings was legal, homosexuality was treated like a sickness, and women did not share equal rights - shouldn’t change and that when it does it’s some “progressive bullshit” then I am concerned for you. Society needs to evolve and adapt and we slowly become more aware of inappropriate behaviors. There was a time where the idea of giving women equal rights was called progressive bullshit and would lead to things like animals getting to vote. This is a common fallacy used by people to shut down intelligent conversation about changing the way we’ve done things in the past.



You know, it's legitimately _astounding _how someone can interpret someone saying "women tend to avoid physically-demanding jobs" as them also being in favor of society seeing homosexuality as a mental illness, institutionalized slavery as being just and proper, and regulating women to second-class citizenship as a totally groovy course of action to take. Quite a leap you took there.

But then again, _this is FAF in 2021._ Twisting the words of the opposition to make it look worse than what it actually may be is practically an art around here.

But no seriously, someone could waltz in here right now and actually have the unimitated gall to suggest that men, as a whole, have a noticeably higher tendency of being more into machinery than women are and I would more than likely witness at least four of you bozos hysterically pounding your keyboards and touchpads to drum up six woefully boring paragraphs explaining how such a statement is somehow deeply "problematic" and high-key misogynistic.

I've _never _been to an online space that housed such a high concentration of socially-maladjusted and therapy-prone human beings who are so jacked up on university-manufactured sociopolitical commentary that they now question major empirical components of everyday reality itself. 

Meanwhile, I'm going go to work tomorrow and watch one slammed, cammed, and straight-piped 1st generation Silverado truck roar down the street that my place of employment sits on _every fifteen minutes._ And_ every single one_ will be driven by a man.

Who do I believe? _You _bunch or my own two eyes?

Even more hilarious is your little tangent on the cons and perils of black-and-white thinking but then you turn around and insinuate that the past universally sucked in all measurable categories (or at least the measurable categories that you give two shits about) or that social norms in the past were effectively limited to Y demographic oppressing and/or killing X demographic (not to mention your thinly-veiled suggestion that "past = definitely bad" and "future = definitely good".)

This entire forum is packed to its rafters with black-and-white thinkers (and no, I don't think I'm an exception here). lmao, I can't even remember the last time_ any of you_ produced an original thought or position that _didn't _look like it came straight off of Reddit, Twitter, or a Guardian article.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 14, 2021)

malefeetguy said:


> Je suis d'accord, c'est dommage surtout l'idée que les français sentent mauvais et l'idée de la pute française. Il est intéressant de noter qu'en France ils le faisaient aussi beaucoup, même envers d'autres Français surtout si ces personnes ne sont pas parisiennes. En fait, cela arrive encore à ceux qui parlent avec un accent français atypique qui diffère de ce que l'on trouve typiquement à Paris ou dans les journaux télévisés.



Alors, c'est la nature humaine, je suppose... (Aux Etats-Unis il y a le même chose avec les accents, surtout les accents du sud.)



malefeetguy said:


> Saviez-vous que dans la version française des Looney Tunes Pepé le Pew est italien. Intéressant, n'est-ce pas?



J'ai pas savais ça ! C'est drôle.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 14, 2021)

How it started: “I have thoughts on Pepe Le Pew having his scene pulled from _Space Jam 2_, likewise the thoughts behind the changes to Lola Bunny and her design between movies.”

How it’s going: “Women can’t into machinery because I don’t see them driving trucks, also how dare you summarize the past as bad for many people! Sheeple Tweeter Guardian shill!”

At the very least can you pick an actual Leftist rag (like Jacobin) if you’re going to use it as an insult? Things people might actually be insulted to be compared with? “You sound like a line from the Guardian” And you sound like you eat gluten but I don’t think that’s going to make anyone clutch pearls. Now, “You sound like a CurrentAffairs” article? _Then _be fighting words!


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 14, 2021)

ASTA said:


> Meanwhile, I'm going go to work tomorrow and watch one slammed, cammed, and straight-piped 1st generation Silverado truck roar down the street that my place of employment sits on _every fifteen minutes._ And_ every single one_ will be driven by a man.


Uh, excuse me, are you defending the (typically white) males who are polluting the environment when humanity is facing a global warming crisis?


----------



## ConorHyena (Jun 14, 2021)

I feel this thread is proof that cancel culture doesn't work.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 14, 2021)




----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 14, 2021)

@ASTA
you spend so much time typing keyboard warrior anger-posts that are h_undreds of words long_ on the internet that I am legitimately surprised you actually _have time_ to fit a job in.

This is a thread about a cartoon skunk. It doesn't really matter. So I am at a loss to understand how it is generating such angry political commentary.

It's difficult to imagine how unpleasant and upsetting life would be...getting this emotional over the silliest of things.



ASTA said:


> You know, it's legitimately _triggered _



I couldn't help myself here!

But seriously. This doesn't matter. I _like_ pepe le pew, but children's animations aren't made for me to enjoy- so the amount I care about their content is limited! x3


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 14, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> @ASTA
> you spend so much time typing keyboard warrior anger-posts that are h_undreds of words long_ on the internet that I am legitimately surprised you actually _have time_ to fit a job in.
> 
> This is a thread about a cartoon skunk. It doesn't really matter. So I am at a loss to understand how it is generating such angry political commentary.
> ...


I think it's more so the fact that they took a cartoon's ambitions out of context to apply a modern political argument to it where it doesn't even seem fit, which happens to be a much bigger issue as an attempt to conflate sociopolitical woes, but in reality, make a false equivalency to further weaponize certain constructs, even though, after re-watching some of the old skits, I'm trying to figure out how it even became an issue this current year in the first place. Also, if some of these old cartoons are still too much for people, Warner Bros still found a way to modernize the characters and include them in an AT&T commercial, but not in a movie?


I'm still trying to figure out, how people can look at the Pepe cartoons, even by today's standards, in such a diabolical way, and compare them to real-world issues.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jun 14, 2021)

Attaman said:


> How it started: “I have thoughts on Pepe Le Pew having his scene pulled from _Space Jam 2_, likewise the thoughts behind the changes to Lola Bunny and her design between movies.”
> 
> How it’s going: “Women can’t into machinery because I don’t see them driving trucks, also how dare you summarize the past as bad for many people! Sheeple Tweeter Guardian shill!”
> 
> At the very least can you pick an actual Leftist rag (like Jacobin) if you’re going to use it as an insult? Things people might actually be insulted to be compared with? “You sound like a line from the Guardian” And you sound like you eat gluten but I don’t think that’s going to make anyone clutch pearls. Now, “You sound like a CurrentAffairs” article? _Then _be fighting words!




I want everyone to take the time to note that this is the guy who immediately launched into small pee-pee jokes/virgin shaming/"you can't secure sex from a woman without coughing up money for it because you're a bigot or something" (the last one is especially funny and stupid when you realize that *every dude on the planet* is paying for it with either *time* or actual *money* whether it's for dinner dates, emotional investment, alimony payments, car note payments on fancy status-signaling cars that were 'bought' for the sole purpose of impressing a potential mate, OLD subscription fees, wedding costs, new clothing and shoe purchases, etc) nonsense after I posted a comment that did not target anyone in this thread or anyone on the forum in general.

And isn't that sex-shaming/virgin-shaming though? Isn't that a no-no or does the consistent application of your beliefs and morals collapse whenever you're dealing with someone who isn't interested in putting up with the typical nonsense that you habitually traffic in? 


Fallowfox said:


> you spend so much time typing keyboard warrior anger-posts that are h_undreds of words long_ on the internet that I am legitimately surprised you actually _have time_ to fit a job in.



I have an aggressive and direct way of talking both irl and online.

And I know you're just being cheeky and all, but this is a tad rich coming from someone who has a 6.7 post-per-day average while mine is around 0.46.

Still love you, Fallow. Always and forever.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 14, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> I think it's more so the fact that they took a cartoon's ambitions out of context to apply a modern political argument to it where it doesn't even seem fit, which happens to be a much bigger issue as an attempt to conflate sociopolitical woes, but in reality, make a false equivalency to further weaponize certain constructs, even though, after re-watching some of the old skits, I'm trying to figure out how it even became an issue this current year in the first place. Also, if some of these old cartoons are still too much for people, Warner Bros still found a way to modernize the characters and include them in an AT&T commercial, but not in a movie?
> 
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out, how people can look at the Pepe cartoons, even by today's standards, in such a diabolical way, and compare them to real-world issues.



It's a children's cartoon, and you're typing on the internet about how warnerbros wants to 'further weaponise constructs'.

This is the only life you have and you're wasting it being upset about _nonsense_. S:



ASTA said:


> And I know you're just being cheeky and all, but this is a tad rich coming from someone who has a 6.7 post-per-day average while mine is around 0.46.
> 
> Still love you, Fallow. Always and forever.



This is a thread about a fart rabbit.  (butt) _Cheeky _is all it should be. Whether or not there's a pepe le pew character doesn't _really_ affect us because we're adults.
But for some reason this thread is full of essays about it as if it's a proxy for a wider political culture war.

Just make some fart jokes and enjoy remembering le pew's what I say.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jun 14, 2021)

7 pages. I know I am bored at times, but Jesus fucking Christ.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 14, 2021)

Yakamaru said:


> 7 pages. I know I am bored at times, but Jesus fucking Christ.


Hopefully we can all agree this thread stinks worse than pepe's butt ever did.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jun 14, 2021)




----------



## Attaman (Jun 14, 2021)

Since it apparently bears / needs repeating,


Attaman said:


> I mean, I'll be honest: While half a page of "Attaman is a giant stinkbutt liar who sees Nazis in the trees" is only further making my point as to the whole "People really don't want to linger on the subject of the OP", it _*is*_ at least better than defending incidents of sexual harassment, vomiting up biotruths, or pretending to care about violence in media or what whatnot. So, like, if you _have_ to keep throwing up flak, I'm not going to complain if this is the method you'd prefer to do so.


“Attaman doesn’t care about virgins and has totally made small-dick jokes, swear on me mum” is fine by me if it means we don’t have to see more warbling about how it’s a bio truth that women don’t like physical labor or that society is built around displays to boink who you like or the like.

It doesn’t, alas, but even a few page break is nice.


----------



## Balskarr (Jun 14, 2021)

And then everyone kept assuming the worst of each other. As is law around here.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 14, 2021)

I am surprised nobody's overall comment on this thread is that Warnerbros has tricked a bunch of people into discussing and revisiting lots of Warnerbros content.


----------



## JacobFloofWoof (Jun 14, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> It's a children's cartoon.


I mean, us furries are always one foot in a child's world anyway.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 14, 2021)

Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> I mean, us furries are always one foot in a child's world anyway.



My foot is in a child's world, *crushing its dreams*. >:}


----------



## Rimna (Jun 14, 2021)

What the hecc bro


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 14, 2021)

Rimna said:


> What the hecc bro


_At first_ I didn't understand, but then I found out that Warnerbros is making a false equivalency to further weaponize certain constructs.

And then I _really_ didn't understand.


----------



## TyraWadman (Jun 14, 2021)

I just recently remembered a similar argument made with the "Baby it's cold outside" song, where it was considered rapey. I enjoy the song, and I understand the playful  denial of the female, making all kinds of excuses as to why she shouldn't risk spending the night and then settling on the smallest excuse (it being cold outside) to remain as such.

I didn't know they made a modern adaptation of the song until last Christmas and the first thing I did was cringe when I realized it wasn't the original. On one hand, yea, people are allowed to modernize it if they want. But like... you could _hear_ it was so poorly/hastily made in _retaliation_ to the original.

Was the song outdated? For sure! The song is more than 50 years old!
Malicious and sinister? Uhhhhh, no. Just because there were some insane/unpleasant things going on, doesn't automatically mean this song was intended to brainwash women all around the world into submission.

After reading over more of the comments here, I do think it was probably the wiser choice to just let people assume they were cancelling Pepe in response to the no-consent concerns; because they brought a not-so-popular character into the spotlight, and it was just a matter of time before someone started pointing out harmful stereotypes. In the end, WB probably took it as a bigger win because less time spent animating/adding in additional characters is saving them money on something they know people are gonna go and watch despite the premature outrage. Less work, more money, more money, more money.

I don't think every change a company makes is them bending to the pressure of everyone on social media (even though they probably prefer to have everyone else think that to hide the real reason).

As for the censoring of Lola, I don't even know where this argument is coming from. Is it the fear of censorship? The 30-40 yr olds that were hoping for a nostalgic fap? Did some moms think she was a terrible influence on their children? Or did WB just decide to go 'hey, maybe we should just make her dress like all the other players?' and everyone fabricated their own story when they released the redesign?


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 14, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> Again it isnt censorship it is the company taking what liberties it wishes with its own product. corpo censorship would be if a corporation used their resources and power to silence and block out content not controlled by them.
> 
> for the many years of the battle cry of "get woke go broke" from dude bros who can't seem to grasp that things progress times change society evolves and media will follow with that oddly those they scream about seem to not be going broke like mega corp Disney or like Netflix with their very successful She-Ra.
> 
> Also please don't talk about Japanese culture because you obviously don't understand nor have actually experienced or lived around it in your life and you couldn't sound anymore ignorant about it.



Fun fact: My family has worked for a Japanese company before. It's called Katsushiro , or Advanced Steel. I've actually been to a baseball company picnic with them before, so yeah.

Also, I have a rather modest following on Pixiv with my characters too:   https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/65452951/artworks\

Oh, and my server has Japanese members in it. So I would say, you're dead wrong. I know a lot more about real Japanese culture than some person with some anime avatar. :3


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jun 14, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> I just recently remembered a similar argument made with the "Baby it's cold outside" song, where it was considered rapey. I enjoy the song, and I understand the playful denial of the female, making all kinds of excuses as to why she shouldn't risk spending the night and then settling on the smallest excuse (it being cold outside) to remain as such.


I find it really interesting that you brought up that song - which I happen to quite like, though that's beside the point - in this thread. _Baby It's Cold Outside_ has (arguably) aged poorly because it plays off of societal norms of years long past. There's no _actual_ allusions to non-consent there, knowing that context, but if it were written today it would _definitely_ be... questionable at best, because the cultural context isn't the same.

Contrast Pepe LePew. The conduct his character is built around has _also_ aged poorly - because we now have a greater awareness, as a society, that courtship is _not_ an excuse for non-consensual touching etc. Creating the character, in itself, is something that can be somewhat excusable - it's a trope that was considered acceptable at the time. I don't have a horse in the race in the sense that I don't give any fucks whether Pepe is included in new WB material or not, but I can still think that particularly big studios like WB have some degree of duty to at the very least consider the impact of creating material where protagonists are modeling undesirable complex social behaviors.


----------



## Troj (Jun 14, 2021)

My read is that the "cancellation" of Pepe Le Pew can be chalked up to a combination of laziness, virtue-signalling, and corporate greed.

Warner Brothers probably reasoned that Pepe wasn't marketable to DA YOUTH, and might_ potentially_ be a liability or a burr in their shoe, and didn't want to invest the time or creativity into reworking his character to be both familiar _and _contemporary. They also may've thought they'd receive acclaim and/or buzz (it doesn't matter!) for nixing him.

People have been quick to blame THE WOKES! but the wokest people I know have largely shrugged off his "cancellation." At most, some people have noted that his character is proooooblematic and that his schtick makes them personally uneasy, so it's probably easiest and safest to just bench him.

The toxic lesson corporations are learning is that they can get a ton of free advertising from doing something that appears even remotely "woke," because conservatives will wig out, brunch liberals will cheer, and leftists will engage in DISCOURSE. In the meantime, these corporations can continue being as corrupt and un-woke in actual practice as they please!

Meanwhile, the drama around Lola started largely due to people mistaking a piece of _fan art _for a screencap of the original film. I'll admit that I have been thoroughly amused to see a bunch of right-wingers rage about being deprived for BIG BUNNY BOOBIES.


----------



## Monsieur Lune (Jun 15, 2021)

ASTA said:


> I want everyone to take the time to note that this is the guy who immediately launched into small pee-pee jokes/virgin shaming/"you can't secure sex from a woman without coughing up money for it because you're a bigot or something" (the last one is especially funny and stupid when you realize that *every dude on the planet* is paying for it with either *time* or actual *money* whether it's for dinner dates, emotional investment, alimony payments, car note payments on fancy status-signaling cars that were 'bought' for the sole purpose of impressing a potential mate, OLD subscription fees, wedding costs, new clothing and shoe purchases, etc)


*???* "every dude on the planet?" I don't even know what you two are arguing about but that isn't true. Some guys don't have pay anything, not time or money. Believe it or not just like those women that you mentioned, some men have women pay up to secure them not the other way around. Have you never had a woman aggressively pursue you? Or ask you out? How about stalk you? Or multiple women fight over you? If not, have you at least *seen* it happen to another man or at least *heard* about it? It's not the most common but c'mon it happens. I mean haven't you seen those crazy fan girls?

Also, resulting to "haha you can't get sex" or the like as an insult especially online is extremely pathetic. Ad hominem tends to be. But this one and you must have a small penis or anything else that is unprovable online is just silly and particularly unintelligent. Unless you are trolling and just trying to do anything to get a reaction. If you are going to result to insulting someone at least be witty enough to insult something that you could prove to be true or at least use what you actually have as proof to do so. For example their lack of logic, fallacies, personality, immorality etc. It's really sad, I mean at least try to be clever instead of using insults so *primitive*, so *derived*, so *low* *effort*, so *overused*. I mean I guess it would be more excusable if the person using such a low caliber, low level of insult were *pubescent* but even then... I mean, even if, assuming the person you are insulting did indeed have a small penis and you can prove it because they posted a picture of it or something why resort to insulting something that is out of their control versus something that they are completely responsible for such as badly made points in an argument or something? I guess it's simply too difficult to accomplish for some online simpletons.


----------



## DieselPowered (Jun 15, 2021)

^ People who come to places like this just to mock the socially-maladjusted and therapy-prone human beings that make up these spaces are rarely worth engaging with properly. Reads like he just puts people down to feel better about himself, fairly sad and typical story.



Hi-FiWolf95 said:


> What's silly is how new tropes are being instilled as sort of a domineering replacement over the past ones, excessively so, and somehow entertainment has to reflect real life circumstances to a T (according to individuals who think their specific demographics and new constructs represent more than what's factual), so much that it has to be forced in everything, even though they technically don't represent a vast amount of people on average, in fact, they disproportionally add elements in many new TV shows and entertainment that there's a political reference every 5 seconds with misrepresentations of certain other demographics, and people take that for face value, however, I guess that's the beauty of artistic freedom in capitalism as you people say. Also, when you say "heteronormative" and "males being pillars of strength", it comes across as something that should no longer exist in art or entertainment, which goes back to my point of simply others wanting to replace ideas (which in many cases, are natural and instinctive of our species) with new ones to fit the standards of another sectarian group of people, hence instead of male strength in films, you have female strength and male weakness, instead of heterosexuals you have LGBT, and so on, rather than trying to show people as equals, or at least in a way that doesn't blatantly come across as reversing prejudices through indoctrination.


Believe it or not, we're seeing an influx of non traditional tropes in an effort to make the issues surrounding them irrelevant. May seem like you're being bombarded with some kind of propaganda because there's currently a heavy focus on stories that have been traditionally ignored, but the point is simple. The old stories aren't the only ones out there. It may seem overtly political or subversive to have black or trans people, for instance, write stories that explore historical or current events/issues from their perspective, but the question there is. Why?

It's not a case of saying "heteronormative pillars of strength bad", but it's a bizarre tangent modern conservatives focus on. No one wants to demonize or humiliate you for being who you are, the point is exactly the opposite of that. If you feel attacked because these stories explore ideas you don't want to hear, well that's another story.
I honestly don't get how people feel like they're being persecuted these days because, what? Schwarzenegger and Stallone aren't considered pinnacles of masculinity anymore? Or because Dr. Manhattan turned himself into a black guy?

It's really silly.


----------



## Troj (Jun 15, 2021)

ConorHyena said:


> I feel this thread is proof that cancel culture doesn't work.


Really, it depends on who gets cancelled and how.

It's harder to cancel someone or something with a lot of power, wealth, popularity, or clout than it is someone or something already unpopular or already weak.

In order for the cancellation to "take," the offense for which someone or something is being cancelled typically has to be greater and more compelling than the sum of their power, wealth, clout, and popularity.


----------



## kelliegator (Jun 15, 2021)

The funny thing is that WB probably didn't intend to "cancel" Pepe at all and just cut his scene for time or story flow or some other reason. I strongly doubt it was a political decision.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 15, 2021)

DieselPowered said:


> The old stories aren't the only ones out there. It may seem overtly political or subversive to have black or trans people, for instance, write stories that explore historical or current events/issues from their perspective, but the question there is. Why?



Bingo.



DieselPowered said:


> No one wants to demonize or humiliate you for being who you are, the point is exactly the opposite of that. If you feel attacked because these stories explore ideas you don't want to hear, well that's another story.



Bingo again.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jun 15, 2021)

malefeetguy said:


> "every dude on the planet?" I don't even know what you two are arguing about but that isn't true. Some guys don't have pay anything, not time or money. Believe it or not just like those women that you mentioned, some men have women pay up to secure them not the other way around. Have you never had a woman aggressively pursue you? Or ask you out? How about stalk you? Or multiple women fight over you? If not, have you at least *seen* it happen to another man or at least *heard* about it? It's not the most common but c'mon it happens. I mean haven't you seen those crazy fan girls?



Eminent men such as professional sports players, entrepreneurs, or entertainers all had to contribute something (almost always time but also money as well) to receive that sort of attention.

Michael Jackson was one of ten children from a working-class family. He signed multiple record deals, conducted countless tours, honed his talent, took part in one of 1960s/1970s America's most iconic pop bands, and participated in many interviews throughout the length of his entertainment career. Michael Jackson spent tens of thousands of hours becoming an icon that women the world over would come to practically deify.

So powerful was this dude's presence that he could stand in one spot and literally cause his adoring fans to faint in awe.






Even the atypical high school football stud has to offer something up. Being tall doesn't cut it (plenty of tall and lanky dudes are struggling in the modern dating market). He has to have charisma and maintain his social status (keeping on the team and winning matches with his mates). He also has to keep his looks (not get fat or otherwise unattractive). Perhaps she'll drive to his place to deliver the goods at the drop of a hat, but he still needs to make time (one of the most valuable and nonrefundable resources in the universe) for her out of his day to get what he wants. Maybe the sacrifice he's offering up isn't nearly as much as a bunch of shitty pickup lines or an extravagant dinner date or two, but he's still exchanging one thing for another.

The lesson here is that absolutely nothing in this world is free. Something, in some sort of amount, is sacrificed to yield one (or more) results.

That's what I meant when I say that every man is "paying" for it. If you meet a man who says that he isn't, he's either lying, ignorant, coping, or a combination of all 3.


----------



## kelliegator (Jun 15, 2021)

ASTA said:


> He also has to keep his looks (not get fat or otherwise unattractive).


What kind of incel nonsense is this? Ugly men (both on the inside and outside) get dates all the bloody time.


----------



## PercyD (Jun 15, 2021)

Troj said:


> Really, it depends on who gets cancelled and how.
> 
> It's harder to cancel someone or something with a lot of power, wealth, popularity, or clout than it is someone or something already unpopular or already weak.
> 
> In order for the cancellation to "take," the offense for which someone or something is being cancelled typically has to be greater and more compelling than the sum of their power, wealth, clout, and popularity.


Honey, sometimes  I wish canceling worked. It doesn't. Not for the people who are actually dangerous. 
And not for the people who annoy me either. =A= 
-Thats for certain.


----------



## PercyD (Jun 15, 2021)

malefeetguy said:


> ...I mean, even if, assuming the person you are insulting did indeed have a small penis and you can prove it because they posted a picture of it or something why resort to insulting something that is out of their control versus something that they are completely responsible for such as badly made points in an argument or something? I guess it's simply too difficult to accomplish for some online simpletons.


Also, can we talk about how small penis insults are like high caliber homo-erotic?
Like, my dude, why does it matter to you that my penis is small? Are you disappointed because it's not to your caliber? Are you actually a Size Queen (or King). To each their own, I guess. I'm not here to yuck any one's yum.


----------



## Troj (Jun 15, 2021)

The two cancellations that have actually "stuck" are Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, and I'm genuinely amazed by the former---though, that was probably aided by him actually going to prison for his crimes. (If you can think of any others, please share them!) Other "cancelled" people have either been regular people/relative nobodies or minor/niche celebrities, or they've bounced back or reinvented themselves in some form after being "cancelled."

This a much-older example, but I'd say that Sinead O'Connor's cancellation in the 90s was swift, definitive, and also (dare I say) extremely unjust and undeserved.


----------



## Rimna (Jun 15, 2021)

Damn it, I read this as "PewDiePie's Canceled" and I thought there was a new thread...

I have come to reconsider things. I actually wouldn't mind getting romantically chased by a french guy, who's fursona is a skunk.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 15, 2021)

ASTA said:


> Eminent men such as professional sports players, entrepreneurs, or entertainers all had to contribute something (almost always time but also money as well) to receive that sort of attention.
> 
> The lesson here is that absolutely nothing in this world is free. Something, in some sort of amount, is sacrificed to yield one (or more) results.
> 
> That's what I meant when I say that every man is "paying" for it. If you meet a man who says that he isn't, he's either lying, ignorant, coping, or a combination of all 3.



My contribution to the women of the world is amazing abdominals. :3

I hope you all appreciate my sacrifice, girls.


----------



## PercyD (Jun 15, 2021)

Rimna said:


> Damn it, I read this as "PewDiePie's Canceled" and I thought there was a new thread...
> 
> I have come to reconsider things. I actually wouldn't mind getting romantically chased by a french guy, who's fursona is a skunk.


This is a kink I shall not shame. B]


----------



## PercyD (Jun 15, 2021)

Fallowfox said:


> My contribution to the women of the world is amazing abdominals. :3
> 
> I hope you all appreciate my sacrifice, girls.


*Tosses an egg.*
*Onto the abdominals. For frying*


----------



## PercyD (Jun 15, 2021)

Troj said:


> The two cancellations that have actually "stuck" are Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, and I'm genuinely amazed by the former---though, that was probably aided by him actually going to prison for his crimes. (If you can think of any others, please share them!)


Bill Cosby's cancellation happened because he's black. Lets just be frank here. R. Kelly is in there too-
But it took DECADES because most if not all the victims were black women. Lets just be even more frank--
However, all this is another conversation unto itself. One about marginalized people, bias, how society values black women and girls, etc. 

Weinstein happened DECADES later because there was a hashtag. And other women actually felt emboldened to finally come forward. Though, thats a whole other conversation about powerful men and the safety of women in general. Powerful men just get away with shit. For decades . Elvis Presley had a documented obsession with prepubescent girls but he's still not cancelled. 



Troj said:


> Other "cancelled" people have either been regular people/relative nobodies or minor/niche celebrities, or they've bounced back or reinvented themselves in some form after being "cancelled."
> 
> This a much-older example, but I'd say that Sinead O'Connor's cancellation in the 90s was swift, definitive, and also (dare I say) extremely unjust and undeserved.



Cancellations just don't work for the people who actually have power. -The people who are actually dangerous. I feel like Kat Williams said it best. The majority of the things people are trying to cancel no one is trying to bring back any way. They're just crying about cancellation culture, which is not an actual profound thing.


----------



## MechaMegs (Jun 15, 2021)

PercyD said:


> Elvis Presley had a documented obsession with prepubescent girls but he's still not cancelled.


I am not even joking but like is there anything left to cancel of Elvis? like havent most of those who still listened to him gone off to advanced age or death at this point? Much like many who had listened to the Beatles whom were also quite terrible really?


----------



## Kuroserama (Jun 15, 2021)

ASTA said:


> This entire forum is packed to its rafters with black-and-white thinkers (and no, I don't think I'm an exception here). lmao, I can't even remember the last time_ any of you_ produced an original thought or position that _didn't _look like it came straight off of Reddit, Twitter, or a Guardian article.








I made sure to get the picture that was titled "REEEE Pepe"


----------



## TyraWadman (Jun 15, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> I am not even joking but like is there anything left to cancel of Elvis? like havent most of those who still listened to him gone off to advanced age or death at this point? Much like many who had listened to the Beatles whom were also quite terrible really?



I used to live in a part of Ontario that held an entire festival for him. Fans and impersonators would come from all around the world to compete. Luckily, I was working and didn't have to listen to the noise just a block over from my place. So... there's a good number of people still obsessing over him, for whatever reason.


----------



## PercyD (Jun 15, 2021)

MechaMegs said:


> I am not even joking but like is there anything left to cancel of Elvis? like havent most of those who still listened to him gone off to advanced age or death at this point? Much like many who had listened to the Beatles whom were also quite terrible really?


Lol, you have a point. Nobody in my community really cared about Elvis in the first place--


----------



## Nexus Cabler (Jun 15, 2021)

>_>
<_<

I enjoy some of his songs.


----------



## PercyD (Jun 15, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> I used to live in a part of Ontario that held an entire festival for him. Fans and impersonators would come from all around the world to compete. Luckily, I was working and didn't have to listen to the noise just a block over from my place. So... there's a good number of people still obsessing over him, for whatever reason.


I hear Elvis impersonators are still a thing in Vegas too, maybe... But I have a blind spot in this area cause everyone immediately around me never cared about Elvis. The musical heritage line is more like-
James Brown > Michael Jackson | Prince > Usher | Justin Timberlake > (Unfortunately, Justin Bieber, who was founded by Usher...)
...
Janelle Monae was inspired by Michael Jackson | Prince. I feel like that was a better result.


----------



## KimberVaile (Jun 15, 2021)

Nothing brings people closer together quite like ideological warfare over cartoons.


----------



## NFP (Jun 15, 2021)

I'm amazed ceelo green's cancellation stuck, since cancellations came up.

The reason he was cancelled after a date/drug rape is because he *wasn't* famous enough for the suits to look past it.

Much bigger celebrities have done worse and nothing happened to them.

I still refuse to listen to kung fu panda's full OST because that asshole sang the credits theme, and for me the movie has to end prematurely at the credits to not listen to him.


----------



## PercyD (Jun 15, 2021)

NFP said:


> I'm amazed ceelo green's cancellation stuck, since cancellations came up.
> 
> The reason he was cancelled after a date/drug rape is because he *wasn't* famous enough for the suits to look past it.
> 
> ...


I'll say it once and I'll say it again. Cancellations don't work on actually powerful people. Ceelo Green was suspendible, for a lot of reasons.


----------



## NFP (Jun 15, 2021)

Are you saying roman polanski who was hugely influential wasn't affected by raping a prepubescent girl?! I mean... he only got a standing ovation on the oscars (and the damn oscar) over a decade ago.

There's also a support letter signed by 200 A-list media personalities.

I hear he's in jail now, after escaping to france or something.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jun 15, 2021)

kelliegator said:


> What kind of incel nonsense is this? Ugly men (both on the inside and outside) get dates all the bloody time.



1) This has absolutely nothing to do with the overall theme expressed in my post.

2) I personally interact with between 75 and 100 new and different people during a typical work week. Almost every single male/female couple that I come across, at minimum, has both individuals being roughly equal to one another in terms of looks--but the woman is more often than not marginally to notably more attractive than her male companion. The male is never _profoundly _unattractive along conventional measurements (or at least not deeply unattractive relative to the attractiveness rating of his female partner).

The only time I've seen or heard of a conventionally ugly man getting dates on the regular (and scoring in the process) was when he had platinum-tier game (charisma) and/or was a high-earner. Both extremely charismatic and high-earning men are rare (less than 10 percent of the *total *male population in the US earns between 100,000 and 150,000 USD per).

3) Your inability to distinguish generalizations (which themselves are often derived from statistical averages and further backed up by anecdotal evidence) from absolutes is just yet another micro example of a greater societal problem that makes dicey conversations like these virtually impossible to have.

Then again, this is FAF. I can toss words like "tendency", "generally", and "often" around (all words that signal some allowance of variation within a stated position btw) and I will still get a sizeable count of booty-blasted furries having nuclear meltdowns over a non-offensive life fact that "normal" people have been aware of for generations.

In fact, we saw this exact scenario unfold back on page 4. Had the whole "incels REEEEEEEE!!!! bi0tro0fs" thing going on, too.


----------



## perkele (Jun 15, 2021)

I haven't read this thread yet; would you recommend it as a first thread? Why or why not? From what I've skimmed, someone named "male feet guy" has a lot to say about male attractiveness, which to me signifies a quality read.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 15, 2021)

I am real happy that by the infighting of this thread, society is now suddenly a better place. We all just survived a global epidemic and now we're all concerned over a talking cartoon skunk because he hurts our fee fees. Maybe the Fallout universe isn't so far fetched.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 15, 2021)

perkele said:


> I haven't read this thread yet; would you recommend it as a first thread? Why or why not? From what I've skimmed, someone named "male feet guy" has a lot to say about male attractiveness, which to me signifies a quality read.


Nah, too many contextual jokes. For example: If you start your journey here, you miss out on the hindsight bonus of users who've ranted about "a woman's slice of roast beef" (in reference to their sexual organs) and scholarly journals as "claptrap shat out by the APA" (APA in this case being "American Psychiatric Association") ranting about how it's _men_ who seem to suffer for fickle things like appearance and that society's problem is increasingly that nobody pays attention to anyone with _real_ experience interacting with people.

That said, it will at least give you a feel for the usual here. "Page about the topic, page about Attaman, page of spam and / or back on topic, rinse / repeat". Personally I'm looking forward to the next nasty thing I totally posted. I'm personally leaning towards another call to violence. Maybe I ran over somebody's second cousin.


----------



## Kuroserama (Jun 15, 2021)

Attaman said:


> Maybe I ran over somebody's second cousin.


I _knew _that was you!


----------



## Attaman (Jun 15, 2021)

Kuroserama said:


> I _knew _that was you!


Fuck. Can I get one of the fifteen moderators I have in my pocket (wait, now I'm letting slip the existence of my shadow mods) to delete evidence of crime please? Thanks.


----------



## TyraWadman (Jun 15, 2021)

Attaman said:


> Fuck. Can I get one of the fifteen moderators I have in my pocket (wait, now I'm letting slip the existence of my shadow mods) to delete evidence of crime please? Thanks.


Where did you get 15 Flamingos?


----------



## perkele (Jun 15, 2021)

Attaman said:


> Maybe I ran over somebody's second cousin.


He can't blame you for that. He should blame himself, or God.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 15, 2021)

TyraWadman said:


> Where did you get 15 Flamingos?


Just make me spill the beans on FA's secret cloning project too, why don't you?



perkele said:


> He can't blame you for that. He should blame himself, or God.


Did you get your end in all of this, perkele? I... got this.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 15, 2021)

NFP said:


> Are you saying roman polanski who was hugely influential wasn't affected by raping a prepubescent girl?! I mean... he only got a standing ovation on the oscars (and the damn oscar) over a decade ago.
> 
> There's also a support letter signed by 200 A-list media personalities.
> 
> I hear he's in jail now, after escaping to france or something.



Last I heard, Roman Polanski is still living in France as a French citizen. Still a fugitive from the US legal system, but France won't extradite him, and when he was arrested in Switzerland in 2009, Switzerland ultimately refused to extradite him to the US either because the US authorities wouldn't state their case to the Swiss, so the Swiss decided there was no case as far as they were concerned. (GWB was president at the time, and I guess his Justice Department thought they could just snap their fingers and other nations would do what they said. Switzerland didn't see it that way.)

Not to justify what he did, but there's more to the story. From Wikipedia, with emphases added:

"On 11 March 1977, three years after making _Chinatown_, Polanski was arrested at the Beverley Wiltshire Hotel for the sexual assault of 13-year-old Samantha Gailey. Gailey had modeled for Polanski during a _Vogue_ photoshoot the previous day around the swimming pool at the Bel Air home of Jack Nicholson. Polanski was indicted on six counts of criminal behavior, including rape. At his arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to all charges. Many executives in Hollywood came to his defense. *Gailey's attorney arranged a plea bargain in which five of the six charges would be dismissed, and Polanski accepted.*

"As a result of the plea bargain, Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", and was ordered to undergo 90 days of psychiatric evaluation at California Institute for Men at Chino. Upon release from prison after 42 days, Polanski agreed to the plea bargain, his penalty to be time served along with probation. However, *he learned afterward that the judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, had told some friends that he was going to disregard the plea bargain *and sentence Polanski to 50 years in prison: 'I'll see this man never gets out of jail,' he told Polanski's friend, screenwriter Howard E. Koch. Gailey's attorney confirmed the judge changed his mind after he met the judge in his chambers:

"Polanski was told by his attorney that 'the judge could no longer be trusted' and that the judge's representations were 'worthless.' Polanski decided not to appear at his sentencing. He told his friend, producer Dino De Laurentis, 'I've made up my mind. I'm getting out of here.' On 31 January 1978, the day before sentencing, Polanski left the country on a flight to London, where he had a home. One day later, he left for France. As a French citizen, he has been protected from extradition and has lived mostly in France since then. Since he fled the United States before final sentencing, the charges are still pending.

"In 1988, Gailey sued Polanski. Among other things, the suit alleged sexual assault, false imprisonment, seduction of a minor, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. *In 1993, Polanski agreed to settle with his victim. *In August 1996, Polanski still owed her $604,416; *court filings confirm that the settlement was completed by 1997 via a confidential financial arrangement.* The victim, now married and going by the name Samantha Geimer, stated in a 2003 interview with Larry King that the police and media had been slow at the time of the assault to believe her account, which she attributed to the social climate of the era. *In 2008, she stated, 'I don't wish for him to be held to further punishment or consequences.'"*

Again, not to defend him, but you can hardly blame someone who escaped the Holocaust for fleeing a corrupt judge. And if his victim feels he's been punished sufficiently...


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 15, 2021)

This thread's theme.


----------



## NFP (Jun 15, 2021)

Kumali said:


> Last I heard, Roman Polanski is still living in France as a French citizen. Still a fugitive from the US legal system, but France won't extradite him, and when he was arrested in Switzerland in 2009, Switzerland ultimately refused to extradite him to the US either because the US authorities wouldn't state their case to the Swiss, so the Swiss decided there was no case as far as they were concerned. (GWB was president at the time, and I guess his Justice Department thought they could just snap their fingers and other nations would do what they said. Switzerland didn't see it that way.)
> 
> Not to justify what he did, but there's more to the story. From Wikipedia, with emphases added:
> 
> ...


I don't give a damn if the judge was corrupt or not, for ONCE in human history "corruption" was going to work in favor of good and justice.

Him being a survivor of the holocaust doesn't give him immunity to be an evil piece of shit, he raped a child, he deserves to be beaten to death even to this day, a 1000 years into the future he would still deserve that. The holocaust has ZERO to do with anything here.

The victim was probably given a grotesque sum of money to say that what she said, notice how even larry king had a show to hold him in a positive or "water over the bridge" light. Money talks, money moves mountains, specially in the entertainment industry.

I guess last I knew of this asshole was in 2009, after which sounds like all he got was a slap on the wrist.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 15, 2021)

We go from Pepe Le Pew to the Holocaust..what a wild ride.


----------



## Eremurus (Jun 15, 2021)

I would like to remind everyone of the fact they spent 9 pages arguing with one another over this subject.

It is manufactured outrage. Corporations and business conglomerates do not care about these issues. They are pandering to a demographic for what they assume will earn them a profit- this is marketing 101.

It is not an authentic or genuine movement. Nothing will change because of this cartoon characters cancellation.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 15, 2021)

Eremurus said:


> I would like to remind everyone of the fact they spent 9 pages arguing with one another over this subject.
> 
> It is manufactured outrage. Corporations and business conglomerates do not care about these issues. They are pandering to a demographic for what they will assume will will them a profit- this is marketing 101.
> 
> It is not an authentic or genuine movement. Nothing will change because of this cartoon characters cancellation.



Yeah, that's the obvious. That's why this thread is so bizarre, it's like no duh everyone knows this is meant to just pander to a demography that they only care about $$$.


----------



## perkele (Jun 15, 2021)

Jaredthefox92 said:


> We go from Pepe Le Pew to the Holocaust..what a wild ride.



We did learn that many serial rapists either go to or come from the tiny nation of France. This is something they don't teach you on Carmen Sandiego.


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 15, 2021)

perkele said:


> We did learn that many serial rapists either go to or come from the tiny nation of France. This is something they don't teach you on Carmen Sandiego.



1.Rape happens everywhere, including to males too.

2.IF you take a talking skunk as something "real", then there is a problem you need to seek psychological therapy for.

I'm going to presume you're joking here, otherwise this is rather concerning that in the year 2021, after so many people have lost family and loved ones that people are _upset _over a fictional really bad French accented skunk from 1940's cartoons.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jun 15, 2021)

perkele said:


> I haven't read this thread yet; would you recommend it as a first thread? Why or why not? From what I've skimmed, someone named "male feet guy" has a lot to say about male attractiveness, which to me signifies a quality read.



Past page 4 is when the entertainment factor of the thread ramps up into overdrive. My man, we've got it all: reaction video clips posted by yours personally, ASTA stinking up the joint with his typical testosterone-fueled rageposting, Attaman being good'ol Attaman, Jared spamming Fallout and 40k memes/video clips, and Fallowfox talking about his sexy washboard abs while suggesting that everyone needs to spend less time on FAF arguing about useless and nonsensical things.

Stick around long enough -- or maybe even do a little detective work of your own using the forum's search feature-- and you'll probably see timeless classics such "ASTA _totally _called for incels to be a protected class guys!" or "Dude, you've GOT to believe me when I say that hyena-face over here is a vector to the Alt-Right!" or "ASTA is an angry white male and he's just really upset that minorities and women finally get to have an equal playing field to work with!" (though that last one doesn't come up much anymore after everyone around here eventually came to learn that I'm _really _not white at all).

…actually, I'm a _wee _bit surprised that _no one_ has publicly started up with the self-hating/confused minority accusations yet. Might need another black person for that one.

Bonus points if you see people tossing other bits of accusatory bile around with absolutely no receipts to back any of it up. That's _really _common around here.


----------



## Eremurus (Jun 15, 2021)

perkele said:


> We did learn that many serial rapists either go to or come from the tiny nation of France. This is something they don't teach you on Carmen Sandiego.







What an absolutely foolish post. My disappointment is immeasurable.


----------



## perkele (Jun 15, 2021)

ASTA said:


> …actually, I'm a _wee _bit surprised that _no one_ has publicly started up with the self-hating/confused minority accusations yet.


I had a few replies for someone accusing somebody of "black and white thinking," but I'm still workshopping it.

Maybe you can do something with Asian erasure there? A Michael Jackson race joke to work off the rape theme? There are many possibilities.


----------



## Nexus Cabler (Jun 15, 2021)

What...?


----------



## Jaredthefox92 (Jun 15, 2021)

Nexus Cabler said:


> What...?



My sentiments exactly.


----------



## Kuroserama (Jun 15, 2021)

_*prepares the S'mores*_

I sensed a match being dropped into the dumpster.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 15, 2021)

NFP said:


> I don't give a damn if the judge was corrupt or not



Duly noted.



NFP said:


> he deserves to be beaten to death even to this day,



You're entitled to your opinion.



NFP said:


> The victim was probably given a grotesque sum of money to say that what she said



All I know about his victim's view of the matter is her words: "I don't wish for him to be held to further punishment or consequences." If she was bought off, that's her choice, and no business of mine or yours.

Anyway, this subject is admittedly parenthetical to the original topic; I just wanted to clarify where Polanski is now and a few facets of the situation, since you mentioned him and thought he was in jail (inaccurately, as far as I know).


----------



## Monsieur Lune (Jun 15, 2021)

ASTA said:


> Eminent men such as professional sports players, entrepreneurs, or entertainers all had to contribute something (almost always time but also money as well) to receive that sort of attention.
> 
> Michael Jackson was one of ten children from a working-class family. He signed multiple record deals, conducted countless tours, honed his talent, took part in one of 1960s/1970s America's most iconic pop bands, and participated in many interviews throughout the length of his entertainment career. Michael Jackson spent tens of thousands of hours becoming an icon that women the world over would come to practically deify.
> 
> ...


Oh so you made your criterion for "payment" so general as to include *any* *time* used, *WOW* that it could be applied to *any* action even *fucking* *breathing. *How _*enlightening...*_ 

Nice job. I guess you are right things like having sex *do *require time...

On a serious note I had a bunch of examples typed up in a response to you demonstrating real life cases where that isn't the case with non "eminent" men, with "conventionally unattractive" men where they made no effort to hold charisma or status or any of that bullocks, in cases where the man wasn't interested, or shit even gigolos and way more, but according to your criterion you could probably just say "*ackshually*... even if that *was* the case taking time to get naked or to *ackshually* *have* sex would be a payment, because you are using, therefore sacrificing, *time* one of the most valuable and nonrefundable resources in the universe to do so." I could probably present a theoretical situation where a man literally doesn't do anything, where he just needs to want sex and he gets it yet you might still say "*ackshually* he still pays with *time* *having* the sex."

Congratulations, I guess according to your own criteria you are right. "Every dude on the planet" is paying to have sex in some way. Even in the case of a gigolo getting literally *paid* to have sex with a woman or if he has a sugar momma, even if the man theoretically has to do literally nothing to be able to have secure sex with a woman he still pays with *time* because it *takes time*... like *everything* with fucking *everyone, *even women.

Speaking of "one of the most valuable and nonrefundable resources in the universe" I'm not going to waste any more time bothering to prove it to you or convince you. Believe what you like. Whether you do or don't change your mind what do I care, all I know is that that isn't the case for me.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jun 15, 2021)

lmao


----------



## kelliegator (Jun 16, 2021)

ASTA said:


> 1) This has absolutely nothing to do with the overall theme expressed in my post.
> 
> 2) I personally interact with between 75 and 100 new and different people during a typical work week. Almost every single male/female couple that I come across, at minimum, has both individuals being roughly equal to one another in terms of looks--but the woman is more often than not marginally to notably more attractive than her male companion. The male is never _profoundly _unattractive along conventional measurements (or at least not deeply unattractive relative to the attractiveness rating of his female partner).
> 
> ...


My problem with your walls of text is that you assume you're some kind of expert on human behavior.

As cheesy as it sounds, everyone has a different way to view the world so I don't really buy into all this talk that you totally know how people work.


----------



## Ramjet (Jun 16, 2021)




----------



## DieselPowered (Jun 16, 2021)

kelliegator said:


> My problem with your walls of text is that you assume you're some kind of expert on human behavior.
> 
> As cheesy as it sounds, everyone has a different way to view the world so I don't really buy into all this talk that you totally know how people work.


He does give off heavy incel vibes, and he seems to invite contempt, but he's also good for a laugh.

Seems like he'd be a perfect replacement for Pepe Le Pew.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Jun 16, 2021)

DieselPowered said:


> He does give off heavy incel vibes, and he seems to invite contempt, but he's also good for a laugh.
> 
> Seems like he'd be a perfect replacement for Pepe Le Pew.



We need to come up with a new-and-improved insult for people with "archaic" and "problematic views". Chud never caught on outside of certain predominantly online communities and incel is already on the way out because it's liberal application to anyone with a phallic-shaped appendage has quickly resulted in the manifestation of a "cry wolf" effect within a large portion of the general Internet population.

You seem smart and original. Any suggestions? It needs to be something that's memorable and that rolls off the tongue easily enough.



kelliegator said:


> As cheesy as it sounds, everyone has a different way to view the world so I don't really buy into all this talk that you totally know how people work.


----------



## TyraWadman (Jun 16, 2021)

Ramjet said:


> View attachment 113569


WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY SON?!?! *beating with my purse resumes*


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 16, 2021)

ASTA said:


> We need to come up with a new-and-improved insult for people with "archaic" and "problematic views". Chud never caught on outside of certain predominantly online communities and incel is already on the way out because it's liberal application to anyone with a phallic-shaped appendage has quickly resulted in the manifestation of a "cry wolf" effect within a large portion of the general Internet population.



I _don't_ actually think your view, that ultimately basically all men 'pay' for sex because they have to 'sacrifice' time and effort to attract women,_ is_ a conservative view. The conservative view of relationships emphasises love, commitment and monogamy, sex is viewed as something sacred, intended to bring children into the world.

It's actually very romantic.  
Your version sounds like a cynical interpretation of the simplified biology that is taught to high school students to explain why peacocks invest effort in fancy tails to attract hens.
Nature in general _is_ a lot more complex than this single example, though. This idea isn't a comprehensive description of sexual behaviour in turkeys or grebes, for example, let alone in humans. 
I suspect real women will perceive this view that sex is 'transactional' for men as off-putting anyway. It's just not a very romantic idea- it gives the impression that he views a relationship, or keeping himself fit, as a 'price' for sex.

Now, compare this to Pepe le Pew. 

He is stinky and wonderful and I want to have his babies.


----------

