Seuss, Potatoes, and Cancel Culture

I grew up on the periphery of Dungeons & Dragons.  Meaning that I never really played it, but I somehow wound up drawn to it in every other way.  I liked the dice, I liked the miniatures, I liked looking through the Monster Manuals... I just didn't have enough friends who were allowed to play it.

My best friend in elementary school came from a family of Christian fundamentalists.  His mother was especially devoted, and reminded me a lot of the mother in Carrie.  My friend had an Intellivision, while I had an Atari, so we had a lot of fun playing new games when we'd visit each other's houses.

I was jealous because there was a Dungeons & Dragons game for the Intellivision.  I asked him if he was going to get it, and he said, "My family isn't allowed to play Dungeons & Dragons."  I pressed him on that, and learned about all the kids who had gone crazy playing the game.  

Of course we now know this was all just an urban legend.  Supposedly there was a kid who jumped off a roof because he thought he could magically fly.  Basically an updated version of an older legend about a kid who tried to fly after reading a Superman comic.  

Now, I was sure the video game was nothing like the tabletop game, but my friend's family decided to play it safe, avoiding anything with the D&D branding.  Though oddly enough, they did allow him to watch the cartoon.  (A side note:  Decades later I did get to play the Intellivision D&D game, thanks to a collection on the Playstation.  It sucks, so I'm glad I didn't miss much.)

Anyway, this is actual Cancel Culture.  Thanks to an urban legend, I wasn't able to collect enough friends to give D&D a try.  The game was effectively cancelled for me, as it was impossible to play without friends.

Recently, Mr. Potato Head got a new branding.  The character will still be called "Mr. Potato Head", but the actual toy line will just be called "Potato Head".  They weren't pressured to do this because of pitchfork-wielding "SJW commie Liberals" or whatever, they did it because they thought more inclusivity would expand their market.  In other words, more girls will buy them.

Also recently, the company that publishes Dr. Seuss books decided to stop printing six of them, due to racist imagery.  I'd only heard of two of them.  One of them, "And To Think That I Saw It On Mulberry Street", was a childhood favorite of mine.  I do hope that they edit the objectionable parts, so they can republish it someday.  But again, this was a business decision, from a company that wants to stay relevant.

And also recently, Warner Bros decided not to put Pepe Le Pew in the new Space Jam sequel.  If someone hadn't made a big stink about it (pun intended), I doubt most people would have noticed he wasn't there.  It seems kind of a random thing to complain about.  I mean, do you really expect every single Bug Bunny character to appear in every single Bugs Bunny cartoon?  I mean, there were 49 Road Runner shorts, none of which featured Elmer Fudd (as far as I know).  Is that also Cancel Culture?

Yes, Le Pew is problematic.  His older cartoons make light of sexual assault.  He's the Leisure Suit Larry of Loony Tunes, and I'm not surprised they want to phase out the character.  But it's still a company choosing not to include one character (out of hundreds of Looney Tunes characters) in an upcoming movie.  

If you really like Pepe Le Pew, feel free to get mad if/when they exclude his cartoons from future Loony Tunes DVD sets.  But you have nothing to get mad about right now.  He wasn't deleted from the movie, he just wasn't written into the movie.  And what do you want to bet that most of the people complaining never even planned to see Space Jam 2?

And also also also in recent news, in addition to the Muppet Warnings (which I already covered in an earlier blog), Disney+ is moving a couple of their animated movies out of the children's section of their app.  Not taking them down, just no longer putting them in the kid's section.  

None of these are Cancel Culture.  A company deciding not to continue publishing a product, is not the same as a book being banned.  A company relabeling a product isn't the same as taking it off the shelves.  A company deciding not to include a character in an upcoming movie isn't the same as erasing the character from history.  And content warnings are not censorship.

But when the religious right tries to make everyone live under their rules, effectively cancelling other religions so that there's is the only one left - That's the real Cancel Culture.  When someone says, "I find this movie offensive, so no one should be allowed to see it," that's Cancel Culture, and it's a lot more common among Conservatives than it is with Liberals.

I'm not saying people aren't easily offended these days.  There are a lot of people out there getting offended by things they probably shouldn't.  A few months ago I got reamed out on Twitter just for saying Barbara Gordon was my favorite Batgirl.  Apparently you're considered ableist if you don't think Babs belongs in a wheelchair.

Burger King came under fire recently from feminists, for tweeting a bad joke.  Except, I've heard feminists make the same joke in the past.  I'm one of the most feminist people I know*, but I do think people are going overboard here.  But that may just mean that I don't have the same life experiences as the offended parties.  There are some jokes that just get really old, really fast when they involve things that happen to you.  

(* Disclaimer: I'm not saying I'm a great feminist, I'm just saying I know a lot of really sexist people.)

I'm just sick of everyone pointing fingers at everyone else, when it's obvious both sides are just as brittle.  I'm sick of what used to be universal issues being split along party lines.  Everyone is offended, but everyone claims it's the other side that's too easily offended.  If you're a Liberal Democrat SJW, you're supposed to be offended by some of the Muppet humor that hasn't aged well.  If you're a Conservative Republican Christian, you're supposed to be offended by the warning labels before the Muppet show.  For some reason.

The thing is, getting offended because you think people are too easily offended... doesn't that seem hypocritical somehow?  (Side note: Is it hypocritical to write this blog, which is essentially me being offended by the hypocrisy of people getting offended by other people getting offended?  I'll have to say no, because I'm not the one claiming I never get offended.)

Instead of getting triggered by other people's "offensensitivity", maybe stop for a second, and try to see it from the other person's point of view.  So, you don't personally find the crows offensive in Dumbo.  But you're white.  Is it possible, at all, that the reason you don't find the crows offensive is because they aren't making fun of you?  Is it possible that the reason you're not offended by the Chinese caricature in a Dr. Seuss book, is because it's not making fun of you?  

And maybe you're thinking, "But if they made fun of white stereotypes, I'd laugh too.  Why can't they take a joke?"  Look, I could try to explain why "punching down" is bullying while "punching up" is satire.  But if you have to ask the question, you're not going to believe the answer.  You probably also don't believe in racial/sexual inequality or institutionalized bigotry, and I'm just not qualified to convince you.

But at the very least, don't be a hypocrite.  If you're going to gripe about other people being too sensitive, then you don't get to be triggered by Muppet warnings and rebranded Potatoheads.  At best it makes you look like a whiner, and at worst it makes you just as guilty as the people you accuse.