Speedy Gonzales and Pepe The French Spunk And Others Are Offensive!

by minimus 34 Replies latest jw friends

  • minimus
    minimus

    These cartoons have been labeled by the venerable New York Times newspaper as offensive. They offend Mexicans and Pepe is a womanizing French skunk too handsy enabling the “rape culture “.

    This stuff is getting so ridiculous it isn’t funny. Now cartoon characters they are going after! The crazy left strikes again! Who else will be on the chopping block??? That’s SKUNK NOT SPUNK! Lol

  • road to nowhere
    road to nowhere

    No more polak jokes. Dudley doright, Nell, roadrunner, boris and natasha,

    Soon the only open group for stereotypes will be JWs

  • minimus
    minimus

    Popeye is bad. I think he’s on steroids.

  • St George of England
    St George of England

    There was an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman. Sorry, that's probably racist.

    Did you hear about the blonde? That'll be sexist or stereotypical.

    So......

    Two Asian heroin addicts have injected themselves with curry powder by mistake - both are in intensive care... One has a dodgy tikka and the other one is in a korma!

    George who has never been PC and is too old to change.

  • Davros
    Davros

    NY Times artilce was written by Columnist Charles M. Blow.

    His name fits him.

  • ThomasCovenant
    ThomasCovenant

    ''If you rail against the country’s direction, go where you will be happier. If not , then shush.''

  • minimus
    minimus

    Thomas and your point is??

  • Athanasius
    Athanasius

    Back in the 60s I saw a film titled FAHRENHEIT 451. It was based on Ray Bradbury's novel of the same name. Anyway in the film the government decided that books had a negative effect on people. The government leaders claimed that reading books gave people the wrong ideas and therefore books were banned and burned.

    Looks like it is about to happen here in the USA.

  • Brock Talon
    Brock Talon

    While I too am concerned about all the "cancel culture" shenanigans going on in the world today,, we ex-JWs know that being "cancelled" because of some perceived moral failing comes not only from the left, but the right as well. How many are disfellowshipped (cancelled) because of a perceived moral failing? Does that come from the right or the left?

    The most extreme on either side come from not a live and let live mentality, but rather a mentality of "hey, you're wrong and I will cancel you for it."

    From the right comes groups like "the Moral Majority" that attempts to quash based on religious ideology. The humorous thing to me with groups like that are these always pick and choose the sins they want to focus on. "Gay marriage will destroy marriage itself and ruin the family unit!" they cry. Completely ignoring that it is the heterosexuals themselves, with their cheating and beating, their casual marry/divorce/remarry again and again attitude who are the ones destroying marriage and the family unit. JW elder excel in this hyprocacy: sex sin = instant DFing while overeating means you have a "glandural problem," that is, if their own spouses struggle with it. (The Bible clearly says "greedy persons" will not inherit God's kingdom.) Drink a little too much? Oh, just look the other way unless it becomes a problem. An elder is abusive in speech? Well, that's just the way he is, he means well.

    Even the latest example of Colin Kaepernick being "cancelled" because of his perceived moral failing as a properly patriotic citizen. As the former president recommended for all who decided to kneel during the national anthem: "Fire those sons of bitches!"

    Anyway, yes, the far left have lost their collective minds. I won't argue with it at all. But let's not blame on this cancel culture on them. It is just that now the right and the conservative groups have been extremely weakened (at least for the time being) and the far left are having a field day.

    Get used to it; it's going to be happening for awhile.

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro

    The original op-ed piece is behind a paywall and not worth my time or money. Though it seems this thread is based on responses in the Murdoch press rather than the original source. Both sides of the ‘debate’ are trivial divisive nonsense.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit