Conservatives freaking out over the removal of Aunt Jemima

[Jimmy Higgins]

I wish these companies would just do the right thing and not issue a press release about how they are finally gonna stop doing the wrong thing. Those press releases ARE "virtue signaling". Whereas, the actual rebranding is simply "virtue". Thus, what's really upsetting the right wingers isn't "liberalism", it's commercialism and capitalism.

Is it? You do raise a great point of "Hey look at us! We are going to stop allowing inertia to justify using these unbelievably outdated marketing icons! Aren't we great?!"

But I think Bronzeage is right about the influence aspect of it.

Okay, not completely, they're upset b/c they're racists who don't like that humanity is leaving them behind in the 17th century.

Nevermind, you already were there.

 

[Toni]

Of course the shame belongs to white people.

The whole life philosophy of faux-liberal self-flagellators like you!

You know you’ve lost any pretense of having a point when you resort to name calling.

Or should know. It’s been pointed out to you often enough.

Exactly what harm is done to racists when companies decide to rebrand and discard the racist images that represent their brand?

And why are your hurt little feelings more important than the feelings of people who see these images and are reminded, yet again, that their ancestors were property and treated as slightly more intelligent livestock? And that plenty of white people want to keep it as close to that state as possible.

 

[Derec]

Is it? You do raise a great point of "Hey look at us! We are going to stop allowing inertia to justify using these unbelievably outdated marketing icons! Aren't we great?!"

I fail to see how modern incarnations of these icons are outdated. I guess the only politically correct advertising icons that are black would be rappers, like Snoop Dogg shilling for Dunkin'. We'll probably end up with YNW Melly's rice ("It's to die for!") or Rihanna's pancakes.

It's your side that's racist. I want same rules to apply to blacks and whites. For example, I am opposed to treating black and white kids differently when they apply to college or graduate schools. You support discrimination based on race, as long as it helps the races you prefer.

And unlike you, I think equal treatment should extend to advertising icons. Uncle Ben should not be treated any differently than the nameless Quakers Oats guy or Mister Clean.
And before you chime in with the pseudoargument about titles, having "Mrs." in her title is not saving Mrs. Buttersworth from the politically correct purge either.

 

[Derec]

You know you’ve lost any pretense of having a point when you resort to name calling.

It's not name calling. You think white people are bad because we are white. Since you are white yourself, self-flagellation is what you are doing.

Exactly what harm is done to racists when companies decide to rebrand and discard the racist images that represent their brand?

What harm is done to anybody by keeping these non-racist brands?
And you are the one calling people who disagree with you names, specifically 'racists'.

And why are your hurt little feelings more important than the feelings of people who see these images and are reminded, yet again, that their ancestors were property and treated as slightly more intelligent livestock? And that plenty of white people want to keep it as close to that state as possible.

Again, bullshit. I still would like to see any polls about these names. I bet the only ones offended are the hyperwoke types of any race, such as yourself.

And unlike you, I support people being treated the same regardless of race. What you don't understand, or perhaps don't care, is that hypersensitivity about everything to do with black people, even fictional black people on a rice package, prevents us from achieving that ideal.

Human images on a boxes of product should be treated the same regardless of whether they are white or black.

 

[laughing dog]

Is it? You do raise a great point of "Hey look at us! We are going to stop allowing inertia to justify using these unbelievably outdated marketing icons! Aren't we great?!"

I fail to see how modern incarnations of these icons are outdated. I guess the only politically correct advertising icons that are black would be rappers, like Snoop Dogg shilling for Dunkin'. We'll probably end up with YNW Melly's rice ("It's to die for!") or Rihanna's pancakes.

Nevermind, you already were there.

Except it's your side that's racist. I want same rules to apply to blacks and whites. For example, I am opposed to treating black and white kids differently when they apply to college or graduate schools. You support discrimination based on race, as long as it helps the races you prefer.

And unlike you, I think equal treatment should extend to advertising icons. Uncle Ben should not be treated any differently than the nameless Quakers Oats guy or Mister Clean.
And before you chime in with the pseudoargument about titles, having "Mrs." in her title is not saving Mrs. Buttersworth from the politically correct purge either.

What does extending equal treatment to advertising icons mean?

 

[Derec]

What does extending equal treatment to advertising icons mean?

What it says.
Is Uncle Ben really more stereotypical than the Lucky Charms guy?

But he's white, so that's ok ...

 

[Derec]

society is becoming less openly supportive of racism.

No. The society is becoming more openly hypochondriac on race issues.

 

[Politesse]

What does extending equal treatment to advertising icons mean?

What it says.
Is Uncle Ben really more stereotypical than the Lucky Charms guy?
View attachment 28247
But he's white, so that's ok ...

Umm, no, it isn't really.

 

[Derec]

Umm, no, it isn't really.

You think I made up the stereotypical Irishman on the boxes of Lucky Charms?

 

[ZiprHead]

Umm, no, it isn't really.

You think I made up the stereotypical Irishman on the boxes of Lucky Charms?

Irishmen have wings? Whodu thunkit.

 

[Derec]

Irishmen have wings? Whodu thunkit.

Are you blind? That's a scarf.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What does extending equal treatment to advertising icons mean?

What it says.
Is Uncle Ben really more stereotypical than the Lucky Charms guy?
View attachment 28247
But he's white, so that's ok ...

Umm, no, it isn't really.

Okay a tiny thing to keep in mind, black people are real, leprechauns are not. Now, if they were using Shemus, the drunk Irish Catholic Dad with 32 children to sell them, then there could be an argument.

 

[laughing dog]

What does extending equal treatment to advertising icons mean?

What it says.
Is Uncle Ben really more stereotypical than the Lucky Charms guy?
View attachment 28247
But he's white, so that's ok ...

If you can provide evidence that people of Irish descent find leprechauns insulting or their use as icons for advertising insulting, you have point. Otherwise that is a nothingburger of an example.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I fail to see how modern incarnations of these icons are outdated.

Yes, we see that.

Except it's your side that's racist.

Here we go.

I want same rules to apply to blacks and whites. For example, I am opposed to treating black and white kids differently when they apply to college or graduate schools.

That is very interesting. I mean completely unrelated, but interesting. Do go on.

You support discrimination based on race, as long as it helps the races you prefer.

And how does this make you feel.

And unlike you, I think equal treatment should extend to advertising icons. Uncle Ben should not be treated any differently than the nameless Quakers Oats guy or Mister Clean.

Yes, Mr. Clean isn't spoken enough of. Finally, Telly Savalas has an advocate!

And before you chime in with the pseudoargument about titles, having "Mrs." in her title is not saving Mrs. Buttersworth from the politically correct purge either.

When will the madness end. It seems only a matter of time before PETA gets Sonny set free.

 

[Derec]

That is very interesting. I mean completely unrelated, but interesting. Do go on.

No, very related. It goes to the core of Left's views on race - if you don't treat blacks better than whites (by giving them racial preferences in admissions for example), you are being labeled as "racist".

And how does this make you feel.

That is irrelevant. What is relevant that you support racial discrimination.

When will the madness end. It seems only a matter of time before PETA gets Sonny set free.

Who is Sonny?

 

[Derec]

If you can provide evidence that people of Irish descent find leprechauns insulting or their use as icons for advertising insulting, you have point. Otherwise that is a nothingburger of an example.

You provide some evidence first that most blacks find Uncle Ben insulting.

 

[Derec]

Okay a tiny thing to keep in mind, black people are real, leprechauns are not. Now, if they were using Shemus, the drunk Irish Catholic Dad with 32 children to sell them, then there could be an argument.

The LC icon has stereotypical Irish trappings - shamrock, green color, ginger hair.
On the other hand, Uncle Ben as well as modern Aunt Jemima are stereotype-free.

So why this hypersensitivity toward the latter?

 

[laughing dog]

If you can provide evidence that people of Irish descent find leprechauns insulting or their use as icons for advertising insulting, you have point. Otherwise that is a nothingburger of an example.

You provide some evidence first that most blacks find Uncle Ben insulting.

I asked you first. I take it you have no evidence to support your position.

My position is that Quaker Oats and Mars made business decisions that they feel is in their best interests. I have repeatedly asked you what evidence you have that would indicate they are mistaken or that they don't what their best interests are with crickets as a response.

 

[ronburgundy]

Whereas, the actual rebranding is simply "virtue".

Not when the rebranding is stupid.

Of course, but getting rid of a brand definitively created to convey a highly racist caricature from her appearance to her speech to her name isn't "stupid", unless you are a white supremacist. And merely changing the appearance but keeping the name with it's established historical ties to dehumanized black servants doesn't cut it in the eyes of all non white-supremacists.

 

[ronburgundy]

Whereas, the actual rebranding is simply "virtue".

Not when the rebranding is stupid.

Of course, but getting rid of a brand definitively created to convey a highly racist caricature from her appearance to her speech to her name isn't "stupid", unless you are a white supremacist. And merely changing the appearance but keeping the name with it's established historical ties to dehumanized black servants doesn't cut it in the eyes of all non white-supremacists.