5 ms·

None of this stuff makes any sense to me. New kids are born every day. My 9 year old watched Tom & Jerry for the first time a few months ago and loved it. It’s

None of this stuff makes any sense to me. New kids are born every day. My 9 year old watched Tom & Jerry for the first time a few months ago and loved it. It’s an evergreen market. I cannot fathom how these companies aren’t making money showing cartoons that were made 60 years ago. Everyone’s dead who made them, presumably they own the rights. If they don’t want them on their platforms, put them on YouTube and promote them.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
More and more of these are getting censored. Save them while you can. The Black maid in many of the Tom & Jerry cartoons is going to be a reason to cancel these. Funny, we don’t cancel books from the 19th century (eg Tom Sawyer), but we cancel cartoons from mid-20th.
- marcos100 4y ago
  Crazy parents don't read books.
- Jtsummers 4y ago
  You might be able to make a better case that "we don't cancel books from the 19th century" if you'd used something other than Tom Sawyer as an example, which has been banned/censored at various times in the US.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    True. But in 2022, no one bans books like Tom Sawyer et. al. even though they are inarguably more offensive to minorities than Tom & Jerry. Such books are considered art and in the American Parthenon of literature. Perhaps in 50 more years, Tom & Jerry and Looney Tunes will reach similar artful status.
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      > no one bans books like Tom Sawyer et. al. even though they are inarguably more offensive to minorities than Tom & Jerry. Not in the traditional sense of the word. The strategy used today is more of a soft damnatio memoriae. For example, the estate of Dr.Seuss has decided not to publish or sell certain titles over supposedly racist content. https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/books/exclusive-dr-seuss-stepdaughter-speaks-out-about-books-removed-from-print/amp https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/books/exclusive-dr-seuss-st... Even the author of Captain Underpants (Dan Pilkey) and his publisher withdrew from sale an entire decade-old issue of a series spinoff due the use of a stock kung-fu master character in a few scenes. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-race-captain-underpants/captain-underpants-author-pulls-book-due-to-racist-imagery-apologizes-to-asian-readers-idUSKBN2BL2QM https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-race-captain-underpan... The last one is rather surprising because the Captain Underpants series has been one of the most challenged and censored books. In an article penned by the author himself, he had this to say: "To set the record straight, I should point out that my books contain no sex, no profanity, no nudity, no drugs, and no graphic violence (at least nothing you wouldn't see in a 1950's Superman comic book). So what's the big deal? Well, most of it boils down to the fact that not every book is right for every person. There are some adults out there who are not amused by the things that make most children laugh, and so they try to stomp these things out. We've all met people like that, haven't we?" Rather ironic.
      - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
        Excellent point. Banning through cancelation. I have “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” by Dr. Suess. It's in bad condition, but I can show my son what the fuss is about. We can talk about it and have a discussion. As I recall, there is only one "offensive" page (displays a "chinaman" in a way that is not politically correct)
      - BHSPitMonkey 4y ago
        Isn't it possible / even reasonable to assume that every now and again, a publisher will need to re-tool their printing operations to optimize for different things? Are they obligated to continuously produce new copies of each and every previously-sold work in perpetuity? Could the number of existing copies of those works floating around in the world... maybe just be enough already? Surely there is a difference between 'no longer producing new copies of books we've been printing and selling for decades' and 'retracting / censoring / canceling' the work to erase it from existence. Getting worked up and calling the former the latter seems like an overreaction to me.
- themadturk 4y ago
  Isn't it also because those books from the 19th century are in the public domain, so it's unlikely (I won't say "impossible") for them to be canceled because no one controls them. The films from the 40s and 50s still belong to someone.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    I hadn’t thought of that. But they can still be “canceled” by libraries and schools choosing to exclude them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Foobar8568 4y ago
  [dead]
- tzs 4y ago
  You can't really compare books and cartoons because of the big difference in how they are consumed, especially by kids. Kids seek out cartoons and will happily watch them for hours. A problem parents often face is getting their kids to stop consuming so much video entertainment that the kid doesn't want to do things like go outside or exercise. Most kids on the other hand have no interest in books like "Tom Sawyer" and are only going to read them when they get assigned in school. There the books will be accompanied by lectures and class discussions that put them in historical context.
crooked-v 4y ago
In the Looney Tunes case, it's because the content was licensed to the HBO Max subsidiary from Warner Bros (now Warner Bros Discovery), and they didn't renew the licensing. Or, in other words, it's just stupid numbers games to make HBO Max's balance sheet look better, under the premise that consumers are too dumb to realize that it's actively making the service worse.
- mFixman 4y ago
  But Warner Bros owns HBO Max! How does this change the balance sheet at all?

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago

More and more of these are getting censored. Save them while you can. The Black maid in many of the Tom & Jerry cartoons is going to be a reason to cancel these. Funny, we don’t cancel books from the 19th century (eg Tom Sawyer), but we cancel cartoons from mid-20th.

marcos100 4y ago
Crazy parents don't read books.
Jtsummers 4y ago
You might be able to make a better case that "we don't cancel books from the 19th century" if you'd used something other than Tom Sawyer as an example, which has been banned/censored at various times in the US.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  True. But in 2022, no one bans books like Tom Sawyer et. al. even though they are inarguably more offensive to minorities than Tom & Jerry. Such books are considered art and in the American Parthenon of literature. Perhaps in 50 more years, Tom & Jerry and Looney Tunes will reach similar artful status.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    > no one bans books like Tom Sawyer et. al. even though they are inarguably more offensive to minorities than Tom & Jerry. Not in the traditional sense of the word. The strategy used today is more of a soft damnatio memoriae. For example, the estate of Dr.Seuss has decided not to publish or sell certain titles over supposedly racist content. https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/books/exclusive-dr-seuss-stepdaughter-speaks-out-about-books-removed-from-print/amp https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/books/exclusive-dr-seuss-st... Even the author of Captain Underpants (Dan Pilkey) and his publisher withdrew from sale an entire decade-old issue of a series spinoff due the use of a stock kung-fu master character in a few scenes. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-race-captain-underpants/captain-underpants-author-pulls-book-due-to-racist-imagery-apologizes-to-asian-readers-idUSKBN2BL2QM https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-race-captain-underpan... The last one is rather surprising because the Captain Underpants series has been one of the most challenged and censored books. In an article penned by the author himself, he had this to say: "To set the record straight, I should point out that my books contain no sex, no profanity, no nudity, no drugs, and no graphic violence (at least nothing you wouldn't see in a 1950's Superman comic book). So what's the big deal? Well, most of it boils down to the fact that not every book is right for every person. There are some adults out there who are not amused by the things that make most children laugh, and so they try to stomp these things out. We've all met people like that, haven't we?" Rather ironic.
    - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
      Excellent point. Banning through cancelation. I have “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” by Dr. Suess. It's in bad condition, but I can show my son what the fuss is about. We can talk about it and have a discussion. As I recall, there is only one "offensive" page (displays a "chinaman" in a way that is not politically correct)
    - BHSPitMonkey 4y ago
      Isn't it possible / even reasonable to assume that every now and again, a publisher will need to re-tool their printing operations to optimize for different things? Are they obligated to continuously produce new copies of each and every previously-sold work in perpetuity? Could the number of existing copies of those works floating around in the world... maybe just be enough already? Surely there is a difference between 'no longer producing new copies of books we've been printing and selling for decades' and 'retracting / censoring / canceling' the work to erase it from existence. Getting worked up and calling the former the latter seems like an overreaction to me.
themadturk 4y ago
Isn't it also because those books from the 19th century are in the public domain, so it's unlikely (I won't say "impossible") for them to be canceled because no one controls them. The films from the 40s and 50s still belong to someone.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  I hadn’t thought of that. But they can still be “canceled” by libraries and schools choosing to exclude them.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Foobar8568 4y ago
[dead]
tzs 4y ago
You can't really compare books and cartoons because of the big difference in how they are consumed, especially by kids. Kids seek out cartoons and will happily watch them for hours. A problem parents often face is getting their kids to stop consuming so much video entertainment that the kid doesn't want to do things like go outside or exercise. Most kids on the other hand have no interest in books like "Tom Sawyer" and are only going to read them when they get assigned in school. There the books will be accompanied by lectures and class discussions that put them in historical context.

crooked-v 4y ago

In the Looney Tunes case, it's because the content was licensed to the HBO Max subsidiary from Warner Bros (now Warner Bros Discovery), and they didn't renew the licensing. Or, in other words, it's just stupid numbers games to make HBO Max's balance sheet look better, under the premise that consumers are too dumb to realize that it's actively making the service worse.

mFixman 4y ago
But Warner Bros owns HBO Max! How does this change the balance sheet at all?