Gone With The Wind removed from HBO Max

[Badger]

Sadly, this is the type of thing that are going to get swing voters more likely to be concerned over overreaching political correctness or whatever, rather than actually undermine racist Notions.

Of a simple disclaimer like Warner Brothers is doing prior to Old Looney Tunes movies would be more than sufficient.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Sadly, this is the type of thing that are going to get swing voters more likely to be concerned over overreaching political correctness or whatever, rather than actually undermine racist Notions.

Of a simple disclaimer like Warner Brothers is doing prior to Old Looney Tunes movies would be more than sufficient.

If they can't recognize the nuance in this, that's on them. This is one of those situations of people hypocritically being outraged about outrage which isn't even really outrage.

[Gass3268]

It's back, was the outrage necessary?

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1276173324620619776?s=20

[Mr. Reactionary]

It's back, was the outrage necessary?

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1276173324620619776?s=20

Why take it down for weeks just to add a 1 sentence trigger warning  that this is an 80 year old movie, other than to virtue signal and pretend something noteworthy and virtuous was being done?

[Storebought]

Don't act as if Gone With the Wind isn't a prima facie example of virtue signaling itself.

[Badger]

It's back, was the outrage necessary?

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1276173324620619776?s=20

Why take it down for weeks just to add a 1 sentence trigger warning  that this is an 80 year old movie, other than to virtue signal and pretend something noteworthy and virtuous was being done?

Or, maybe adding a one-sentence disclaimer that the movie reflects racial attitudes from a by gotten time isn't worth getting bothered in the least about?

I mean, I'm really not seeing a slippery slope between such an act and toppling statues of Washington and Jefferson, personally.

[Fight for Trump]

It's back, was the outrage necessary?

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1276173324620619776?s=20

Why take it down for weeks just to add a 1 sentence trigger warning  that this is an 80 year old movie, other than to virtue signal and pretend something noteworthy and virtuous was being done?

Or, maybe adding a one-sentence disclaimer that the movie reflects racial attitudes from a by gotten time isn't worth getting bothered in the least about?

I mean, I'm really not seeing a slippery slope between such an act and toppling statues of Washington and Jefferson, personally.

They could've added the disclaimer without taking it down.

[Badger]

It's back, was the outrage necessary?

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1276173324620619776?s=20

Why take it down for weeks just to add a 1 sentence trigger warning  that this is an 80 year old movie, other than to virtue signal and pretend something noteworthy and virtuous was being done?

Or, maybe adding a one-sentence disclaimer that the movie reflects racial attitudes from a by gotten time isn't worth getting bothered in the least about?

I mean, I'm really not seeing a slippery slope between such an act and toppling statues of Washington and Jefferson, personally.

They could've added the disclaimer without taking it down.

No argument there. As much as I've always thought the movie was a silly glorification of the lost cause, it's undeniably cinematic history and should have never been lifted my HBO.

Besides, while it's certainly objectionable, or at least cringe-worthy at Parts on that score, it's hardly Birth of a Nation.

[QAnonKelly]

Disney+ covering up the butts in Splash with cgi hair is honestly much more troubling on censorship grounds.

There's a DCOM from the 90s where a 30yo lady kisses an 11yo boy on the mouth that for some Disney put up on the platform instead of burying.

[pbrower2a]

Available in a budget bin in DVD for $5 in a box store.

Hardly a rare item... about every film buff has it already.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Gone with the wind is one of the most overrated movies ever as I find it pretty boring .

[pbrower2a]

A white Southerner wrote the novel, and she probably believed the stuff about the Klan protecting white womanhood and saving the South from the 'barbarity' of freed slaves.

Yes, the 'political meeting' was a Klan rally.

One could argue that few blacks at the time of the American Civil War, at least those kept under bondage, were literate and sophisticated, let alone able to lead  any state to the satisfaction of any white people other than "carpetbaggers". The depiction of African-Americans was objective in view of what slave-owners had done to them.

Obviously, freedmen were trying to do things right -- like learning to read and right, learn trades and start businesses, and vote. Blacks in fact had a short window of opportunity in which to do that, at least in the South.

We all know blacks who act as differently from the superstitious, ignorant plantation slaves as is possible. Black people like that were extremely rare in the 1860's, at least in the South.

Also note well: a story set in Louisiana would have been very different.

[Andrew]

Why take it down for weeks just to add a 1 sentence trigger warning  that this is an 80 year old movie, other than to virtue signal and pretend something noteworthy and virtuous was being done?

Why complain about them adding “a 1 sentence trigger warning” when that isn’t what they did?