PC Police hit The Frog Princess

[imagineer boy]

From imdb.com:

Far from receiving congratulations from the African-American community for finally producing an animated feature with a black princess, Disney is finding itself embroiled in a new controversy every bit as bitter as the one that followed the release of its 1947 film Song of the South. According to published reports, the controversy has already forced the studio to change the title of the film and the name of the lead character. The film, originally titled The Frog Princess, is now being called The Princess and the Frog and the lead character is now called Tiana instead of Maddy. But the controversy has not ended. Charlotte Observer columnist William Blackburn comments: "This princess' story is set in New Orleans, the setting of one of the most devastating tragedies to beset a black community. And then they throw in the voodoo theme [the fairy-godmother character is a voodoo priestess] and an alligator sidekick. When you put New Orleans, alligators and voodoo together, there's no beauty there." The London Independent reports that Disney has now made the prince in the story a man of Middle Eastern heritage and "revised" the race of the villain.

Anyone else disgusted by this?

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Agreed...pathetic
Won't even go into how many levels of nonsense this is....

 

[unkadug]

one of the most devastating tragedies to beset a black community.

THAT I find offensive.

 

[clarksfan95]

I've not heard about this yet....if this is the case then this is pathetic.

 

[sbkline]

From imdb.com:



Anyone else disgusted by this?

I am. I'm sick and tired of these minority groups whining about not being represented, but then when they ARE represented, can they finally shut up and quit their whining? Heck no! Then they whine because they think they're being stereotyped or something.

As the old saying goes, damned if we do, damned if we don't. There's no way to make these people happy when they've been walking around with a chip on their shoulder all their lives, determined to find anything and everything to whine about.

 

[Disnut]

I am. I'm sick and tired of these minority groups whining about not being represented, but then when they ARE represented, can they finally shut up and quit their whining? Heck no! Then they whine because they think they're being stereotyped or something.

As the old saying goes, damned if we do, damned if we don't. There's no way to make these people happy when they've been walking around with a chip on their shoulder all their lives, determined to find anything and everything to whine about.

You said everything I have been thinking for years.

 

[EpcoTim]

Sounds like a publicity stunt to me, but who knows, maybe they really are offended. That's a call only they can make. Regardless, this is America and everyones voice has the right to be heard equally.

 

[sbkline]

Sounds like a publicity stunt to me, but who knows, maybe they really are offended. That's a call only they can make. Regardless, this is America and everyones voice has the right to be heard equally.

Exactly right.

We have to hear the voices of the whiners all the time. Now they can hear my voice when I tell them to suck it up and shut up!

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Exactly right.

We have to hear the voices of the whiners all the time. Now they can hear my voice when I tell them to suck it up and shut up!

Not to pick on you specifically (he said before doing just that :lol, but this is a dichotomy I've never understood...people saying they support free speech, while insisting that part of their own free speech is telling other people to shut up (i.e., not exercise their speech). I just don't see how that's possible. If you really support everybody's right to speak freely, then telling other people to shut up (as opposed to vocalizing your disagreement with them) doesn't really make sense. :shrug:

 

[sbkline]

Not to pick on you specifically (he said before doing just that :lol, but this is a dichotomy I've never understood...people saying they support free speech, while insisting that part of their own free speech is telling other people to shut up (i.e., not exercise their speech). I just don't see how that's possible. If you really support everybody's right to speak freely, then telling other people to shut up (as opposed to vocalizing your disagreement with them) doesn't really make sense. :shrug:

Perhaps because I see the right of free speech as referring to the relationship of the government to the people. I don't believe in government censorship...people should have the right to speak freely without fear of being fined or thrown in jail.

But that doesn't mean that on a person to person basis, I'm going to encourage someone to speak nonsense. If the government were to punish these whiners, then I would support the whiners under their first ammendment right to free speech. But I have my right to free speech, too, and I'm excercising that right by telling these idiots to suck it up and shut up. That's what free speech is all about...one side talking nonsense and the other side calling them on their nonsense and telling them to shut up.

I was speaking with a certain degree of humor in the above paragraph, but on a more serious note, in regards to free speech, here is my view on the first ammendment and how I would interpret it if I were a judge on the Supreme Court. As I said, it only refers to the relationship to the government and the one doing the speaking. Therefore, I see no violation of the first ammendment if a newspaper decides to censor itself (as in the editor refusing to print something that one of the newspaper employees submitted), then that's perfectly fair. If the school principal decides to veto something in the student newspaper, that's perfectly fair (even though I realize that the Supreme Court back in the 80s I believe, ruled contrary to my opinion on that when a case like that came before them). If the administrator of this site censors the posts of those on this site, that's perfectly fine, too. Like I said, I see the 1st ammendment as referring exclusively to the relationship between the government and the party engaging in the speech.

 

[Monty]

Mountain? Meet Molehill. Molehill, Mountain.

When the movie is released it'll be a Disney movie and no doubt very well done. And the kids who watch it will adore the story and the princess and hero and hate the villain and won't care, know about or give a hoot about all of this kerfuffle.

Adults could learn much from children, but we think we know what's best! :shrug:

Pity, that...

 

[Monty]

That's what free speech is all about...one side talking nonsense and the other side calling them on their nonsense and telling them to shut up.

And vice versa? :lookaroun

 

[Razmatazz]

I'm sorry, but I don't feel any sympathy for the PC police. Wait... No. I'm not sorry.

Anyway, do they honestly believe the setting of the movie was intentionally mocking Katrina? It's like it doesn't matter now, because no matter what route you take, you're going to be perceived as "racist."

A: You neglect to portray an ethnicity. You get called racist because of exclusion.
B: You DO portray said ethnicity, but get called out for it.

By all means, I am an open-minded person and strongly support equality of all kinds, but shouldn't there be some line between good thought and nonsense about this?

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Perhaps because I see the right of free speech as referring to the relationship of the government to the people. I don't believe in government censorship...people should have the right to speak freely without fear of being fined or thrown in jail.

I hear ya. I suppose there's a distinction between the concept of First Amendment Free Speech and everyday free speech. I try to respect both concepts generally. "Shut up" just generally strikes me as a weak response when a disagreement occurs...but to each his own, I suppose.

 

[sbkline]

I hear ya. I suppose there's a distinction between the concept of First Amendment Free Speech and everyday free speech. I try to respect both concepts generally. "Shut up" just generally strikes me as a weak response when a disagreement occurs...but to each his own, I suppose.

I guess the reason I have no respect for the "everyday" free speech of these clowns is that they have no respect for the "everyday" free speech of anyone else. Our right to say anything, or to see a movie, read a book, whatever, is contingent upon getting their approval. The whole world is supposed to revolve around these people and what they deem acceptable or offensive. It's called "tyranny of the minority". It's when a minority is somehow allowed to dicate to everyone else what they can say, read, watch, etc. Their concept of "free speech" is "you're free to say anything as long as it doesn't offend us". Such people, therefore, deserve no respect

 

[Monty]

Actually, it was more to point out that others may well disagree with your approach to free speech [which is unlikely to be universally accepted] and asking whether you would be accepting of the possibility that they might call you out and telling you to shut up.

It was stated much more briefly, but still reflected the sentiment.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

I guess the reason I have no respect for the "everyday" free speech of these clowns is that they have no respect for the "everyday" free speech of anyone else. Our right to say anything, or to see a movie, read a book, whatever, is contingent upon getting their approval. The whole world is supposed to revolve around these people and what they deem acceptable or offensive. It's called "tyranny of the minority". It's when a minority is somehow allowed to dicate to everyone else what they can say, read, watch, etc. Their concept of "free speech" is "you're free to say anything as long as it doesn't offend us". Such people, therefore, deserve no respect

Fair point.

*doff o' tha cap to ye*

 

[Monty]

The "minority" are white. Whites have ruled by force or by money for centuries. Perhaps "these people" who aren't actually minorities have started to be legitimately upset at being referred to as "these people"?

 

[sbkline]

The "minority" are white. Whites have ruled by force or by money for centuries. Perhaps "these people" who aren't actually minorities have started to be legitimately upset at being referred to as "these people"?

A "minority" doesn't necessarily refer to ethnicity. A minority can be any group who doesn't comprise a majority, regardless of skin color. In the context of my comments on "tyranny of the minority", I'm referring to the ability of anyone in the numerical minority (regardless of ethnicity) to be able to dictate to the rest of the group what can be said or done simply on the basis of what that one person (or persons) find offensive.

Take the Pledge of Allegiance for example. First off, I couldn't care less if they say the Pledge in school or not. But let's say there's one individual who objects to having to say the pledge, so in order to cater to that one person (who may be black, white, or whatever), they ban the pledge from all the classrooms. This is an example of what I mean by tyranny of the minority. It's when the policies of the entire group have to revolve around the whims of the few. Now on the flip side, I also recognize that the minority have rights that must be protected from being trampled on by the majority, but this is just getting ridiculous. It's at the point where the majority have to be held captive to the minority and their whims.

In this case, I'm referring to the PC group who, as far as I know (and I certainly hope) are in the minority...again, not necessarily having to do with ethnicity, but a minority of opinion. Why should the rest of us have to be held captive to their opinions of what is offensive or acceptable? What we can say, watch, read, etc, seems to be decided by these people and whether or not they will graciously allow these movies to be made, these books to be published, etc.

 

[The Mom]

Could we please keep this civil, polite, and without personal attacks? Thank you.