Why Only One Type of Racist?

Someone posed an interesting question to me the other day: why are racists always portrayed in films as snarling, one-dimensional neanderthals? You know the types. They're losers who work in manual labor jobs or athletics (e.g. coaches). They're stupid. They spout racist quotes freely to everyone around them. Their families don't respect them. Their kids hate them. Why is that the only type of racist you see on film?

Here's the thing. The world is full of all kinds of people and all kinds of racists. Sure, you have the snarling idiots, but outside of Appalachia or a Black Panther meeting, you just don't find those people anymore. Instead, you find casual racists. These are people, typically liberals, who condemn racists and talk about how not-racist they are and how racist everyone else is. Yet, these people talk condescending about minorities, whom they view as childlike, and they think nothing of whipping out a racist joke at a party because "I'm not racist, I can tell this joke." These people also get racist when things go wrong for them economically: "Why is the government helping them (insert preferred racial epitaph) when we real Americans need help!"

You also have racist professionals. These are people like lawyers (or Harry Reid) who publicly profess disdain for racists, but wouldn't hire a minority on a bet and will whip out all the stereotypes when amongst friends... remember the Duke Brothers from Trading Places? Or how about the liberal artisan, like a fashion designer or movie star, who whips out the n-word when drunk?

Then you have an elite black class who profess all kinds of liberalism, but think nothing of describing interracial marriage and non-black adoption as "racial genocide" and smearing black conservatives in terms that would make the KKK blush. Obama invited some of these to the White House last year. They also falsely scream racism as if it were the phone-a-friend lifeline whenever they start to lose arguments.

If Hollywood really wants to oppose racism, why doesn't it show any of those people? Why only the neanderthals?

Ultimately, I think there are two things going on here. First, the problem with portraying these kinds of racism is that this would implicate most of the liberals I've met... and I'm sure Hollywood liberals are no different. Thus, admitting that people who don't hire blacks, who tell racist jokes, who spout racist stereotypes to their friends and who believe the government should care for "real Americans" first before it cares for minorities even as they profess hatred for racism are actually racists would point the finger at much of the liberal world and probably most of Hollywood. That's no good. Liberals don't do self-reflection.

Secondly, I think there is a fear of being accused of being racist by showing a racist as something other than a monster. Essentially, if you wrote a character who is otherwise charming or funny or likeable, but that character also says or does racist things amongst close friends, then I suspect that the thought-police would come down on you for making a racist out as a nice person. They would accuse you of being a racist yourself, and all kinds of problems would follow. Who wants that?

In some ways, this reminds me of the way portrayals of Nazism have changed in Hollywood. In the 1950s and 1960s, you still saw films with good Nazis. The Great Escape is a classic example. The commander of the camp is a decent man. He doesn't like Hitler or the SS, but he is doing his duty as a German soldier. Today, such characters no longer exist. If you are a German circa-1933-1945, you can be one of three characters: (1) a blood thirty monster, (2) a member of the underground who smuggles Jews to Uncle Gunter's cabin, or (3) a Jew in hiding. I can't think of the last average German from that era Hollywood portrayed as just a normal, decent person. And I think the reason is that all it takes is one member of the hive-mind that is liberalism to decide that you were too nice to an presumed evil group and they will start screaming about you being a Nazi-lover. That's bad press. I think it's the same thing here. Subtlety is lost on the permanently offended and if you make a racist anything other than blatantly evil... why, then you must be saying racists are good people! You're a racist!!!

This is why I think Hollywood only shows racists as monsters even though those racists no longer exist outside the meth industry. I think they genuinely don't want to recognize their own racism and they are afraid that presenting someone who is defined as evil as something less than 100% evil means you are endorsing that evil.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Is Superman Going Gay?

According to the publishers of DC Comics, they are about to reveal that one of their “most recognizable” and “iconic” superheroes is gay, and will be coming out of the closet in June. Everyone seems pretty sure it will be Superman, which makes sense. DC claims they are doing this because their views have evolved like Barack Obama’s (I guess Biden gets around), but this reeks of desperation to me.

Comic book sales have been falling steadily for decades and have suffered considerably since 2007. In 2011, DC Comics managed to turn that around and make a 1% increase in sales by re-launching all 52 of their properties, but odds are this isn’t enough to stem the time. So they need something else. Enter the oldest and dumbest trick in the book: revealing a shocking secret.

Making Superman (or Batman or some else) gay is nothing more than an attempt to upset conservatives and fans, and to get them to give the series a publicity boost. In effect, it’s the same lousy cynical strategy reboots try when they do something offensive to the characters people love just to get the audience angry and buzzing about the series. The hope is this will cause people to return to the series. But this stinks as a marketing strategy. Sure, you may get a couple of lost readers to return for an issue or two, but what happens after that? The slump continues plus you lose the people who don’t like the idea. If you really want to win fans, you need to offer them stories which they can’t resist, not try to trick them into buying an issue to see how big of a jerk you were.

And make no mistake, this is disrespectful to the legion of fans who grew up worshiping these heroes. Changing the fundamental natures of these characters is akin to desecrating a national symbol or historical figure by claiming that person or symbol for your own political beliefs. Hitler did that with Roman symbols like the swastika and racists have done it with the flags of the Confederacy and Great Britain.

In the end, I suspect this will make big news and might sell a few more copies of the edition where he comes out. After that, I expect the downward trend to accelerate.

Would this make any of you more likely to buy a comic book?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Save Our Heroes!

I miss heroes. For decades now, liberals have waged a war against the idea of heroes. Indeed, they’ve systematically tried to destroy the meaning of the word by defining the most banal and often involuntary conduct as “heroic.” It’s gotten so bad that not killing yourself when you find out you have a disease is now trumpeted as heroic. Give me a break. And Hollywood isn’t helping by stripping heroes of all the things which make them heroic.

In the modern parlance, a hero is someone who undertakes selfless conduct at great personal risk. To be selfless, the conduct must be for the benefit of others, and more importantly, the hero needs to have a choice in the matter, i.e. they must be free to walk away without consequence. If the “hero” has no choice but to act, then they aren’t really heroic because they aren’t acting courageously or nobly, they are acting desperately or out of self-interest. That’s why it’s heroic to stop an armed killer from killing someone else, but it’s not heroic to defend yourself against an armed killer.

Interestingly, while the conduct must be voluntary, there is no requirement that the hero be happy about it. Some heroes, like Superman, happily seek out danger, while others only reluctantly rise to the occasion. Similarly, while there is no requirement that the hero act alone, the more the hero achieves by themselves, the greater the challenge they faced and the greater their heroism.

But Hollywood is changing this formula.

Modern heroes like Perseus in Clash of the Titans 2010, Hal Jordan in Green Lantern, and whatshisname in Tron Legacy are none of these things. For one thing, they have no choice but to act because their own lives are being threatened. Hence, none of them are undertaking selfless, voluntary conduct, and by definition they cannot be considered heroes. Heck, Perseus is even given a sub-motive of revenge. Further, each of these “hero” is supposedly a “reluctant hero.” But unlike reluctant heroes of the past, who were reluctant because of promises they made to loved ones or some other moral qualm, these guys are reluctant because they are slackers. They have no particular opposition to being the hero, they just don’t want to bother. Thus, rather than having a character who must overcome some deep personal conflict, these films use heroes who just need motivation to get off their butts.

Moreover, modern Hollywood has stripped these heroes of their independence. Perseus in 1981 had to solve each puzzle he faced on his own. He had advice from his friends, but they had no special knowledge or skills to help him. The same is true of every other hero in the past -- they all had help to one degree or another, but when it came time to overcome challenges, all the pressure and responsibility was on them.

But compare that to the modern “hero.” In Clash 2010, Perseus’s friends kill all the monsters or set them up for an easy kill-shot from Perseus. They also tell him what to do next -- at no point does he ever work anything out for himself. Basically, he’s a prop for the others to solve the film. In Green Lantern, Hal gets saved time and again by everyone around him. He does finally destroy the bad guy, but again, he does exactly what his Jedi-trainer told him to do earlier in the film. He’s essentially an idiot-proof superhero. Whatshisname from Tron is the worst of the three. He gets led by other characters from location to location until they bring him to where the film ends. Then whatshisname’s dad and Tron stop the bad guy while whatshisname fires a gun which never hits anything. He is essentially a passenger in the hero car.

And these films aren’t unique. In Percey Jackson & the Lightening Thieves, Percey walks around as everyone around him solves all the problems -- lots of deus ex machina. Harry Potter pretty much just hangs out as everyone else does the work. Voldemort even essentially accidentally kills himself to solve the story. Matt Damon is declared a hero by God himself in Adjustment Bureau even though Damon’s actions are entirely involuntary and all he does to “solve” the film is run for his life using tricks the angels told him to use. Alice in Alice in Wonderland is true plug and play as she gets moved from scene to scene and then, in her big fight at the end against the Jabberwocky, we are told that she is merely a tool for the sword she wields. . . anyone could have taken her place. And so on.

Genuine heroes aren’t dead on film, but there is a new breed of slacker-heroes who do little more than move from scene to scene as the smarter, stronger and more motivated people around them set up the final battle and then let the “hero” take the credit. This is pathetic. It’s no wonder these films stink.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Cube (1997)

I know. . . I know. . . you’ve never heard of Cube. Well, you should have. Cube is a Canadian science fiction/psychological thriller that’s become a cult classic. It's got an interesting story, a very believable atmosphere, and it's surprisingly gripping. It’s also got a fascinating take on the nature of evil. Sadly, it squanders a bit of its potential with political correctness, but overall it’s absolutely worth seeing.

** spoiler alert **

1. The Plot:

Imagine you wake up in a strange room shaped like a cube. You have no idea where you are or how you got there or even why you are there. In the center of each wall (including the floor and ceiling) are hatches you can open. Each hatch leads to an apparently identical room, except for color. Only, some rooms are booby trapped in ingenious ways. That’s the premise of Cube as a group of people find themselves stuck inside this deadly maze.

Beyond this, Cube is a sort of character study mixed with a mystery about the nature of the cube -- both what it is and why it is? It’s in the character study that political correctness rears its ugly head and hurts an otherwise fine film. It’s in the nature of the cube that this film truly excels. But before you read ahead, be warned that I need to discuss the two significant twists to address these points.

2. The Characters:

Cube focuses on six people who find each other inside the cube. There is Quentin, a level-headed police officer who is looking for practical solutions. David Worth (David Hewlett of Stargate Atlantis) is the voice of surrender. Joan Leaven (Nicole de Boer of Star Trek DS-9) is an expert mathematician. “The Wren” is a criminal who has escaped from seven prisons. Kazan is an autistic man. And Dr. Hellen Holloway is a big time leftist. She’s bitter, paranoid, and spouts off conspiracy theories and oppression theory.

As a group, these characters are well chosen to provide plenty of drama. They have conflicting personalities and the actors bring a lot of tension to their interactions. But the writers fail to exploit this excellent choice of characters because they opt for doctrinaire political correctness rather than character development. Thus, rather than watching these characters grow and evolve, we are instead given shallow and predictable leftist clichés.

Quentin is the prime offender in this regard. Cube was made before 9/11 when the left still openly described all police officers as lovers of violence who beat their wives and get a sexual thrill from imposing “the man’s fascist system” on minority communities. Thus, police officer Quentin very quickly transforms from an interesting character into a mindless cliché psychopath who beat his wife and likes to impose fascism on an unwilling society. Naturally, at least if you think like a leftist, Quentin becomes an over-sexed murderer who revels in violently oppressing the other characters. This is both annoyingly predictable and squanders what started as a well-written character. And lest you think Quentin being black is unexpected, you need only listen to Holloway to understand that he's been brainwashed to think he's part of whitey's club. The other characters fall into similar patterns too. The white guy is complicit in the evil, the leftist is the only one speaking truth to power, and only the retarded kid can save them all.

Don't get me wrong, this is still a good movie and it's not as annoying as it sounds, but Cube would have been so much better if they had gone for real characters instead of predictable leftist PC clichés.

3. The Cube:

Where Cube really gets interesting is in the nature of the cube itself. Who made the cube? The evil military? Nope. Some crazed James Bond villain? No. The answer is that no one in particular made it and that’s a pretty original idea. Indeed, as the story goes on, Worth admits that he saw the plans for the cube when he was hired to work on part of it. From him, we learn the cube was essentially put together on autopilot. Someone in “the system” got the ball rolling. From that moment on, the system did its thing and thousands of people were put to work making the cube without ever knowing what they were building. It might even have evolved as individual designers and workers made changes to their parts. Now it exists and it does what it was designed to do even though no one is out there directing it.

Obviously, this was meant as social commentary about the dangers of individuals not asking enough questions, with the point being that if we don't know exactly what we are doing, then we could be aiding "the system" in creating something evil. Ok, point taken. What I find more interesting though, is the idea that something evil could be created by sheer momentum. Indeed, the cube is the first "villain" I can think of that wasn't intentionally created, isn't being used for some specific evil purpose, and doesn't have any particular motivation. It's not trying to take anything over or oppress anyone, it's not motivated by revenge or greed, nor is it even just trying to survive. . . it just is.

This is also strangely believable. Indeed, we constantly hear of government programs that have fallen through the cracks and which continue for decades before anyone discovers they are there. It isn't hard to envision this cube doing its thing for decades until some bean counter stumbles upon an unexplained "maintenance charge" on some balance sheet. So in many ways, this is a criticism of overly expansive government where the government has become so big and complex that the right hand no longer knows there even is a left hand. That’s what makes this film so fascinating.

I absolutely recommend this film (despite its PC failures). It's got good action and is surprisingly gripping, and it leaves you with plenty to think about. Avoid the two sequels, however! They completely miss the point of the cube and they turn it into nothing more than a standard military conspiracy to eliminate undesirables.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Avatar (2009)

Avatar, a.k.a. Dances With Smurfs, is a crappy movie. There is no other way to say it. If someone tells you they liked this film, punch them in the face. Not only is this the most politically correct film ever, but it’s poorly acted, poorly written and deathly dull. I feel like I’ve lost a portion of my life watching it.

** I would insert a spoiler warning here, but you can’t spoil this film. **

The "Plot"

Oh where do I begin. An evil corporation has invaded some planet (the unoriginally named “Pandora”) so they can mine something called “unobtainium” -- a word stolen from the infinitely better yet still crappy movie The Core. This unobtainium does something. We don’t know what exactly because James Cameron wasn’t smart enough to come up with anything, but just take it on faith that it’s important.

The main character, Jake Sully (we’ll call him “Lifeless” in honor of the acting non-talent of Sam Worthington), is a former Marine who lost the use of his legs. . . probably from sitting through this film. He takes a job on planet PandaOdor where he will be an avatar operator. What's an avatar you ask? Basically, Ripley from Alien came up with the idea that if you want to exploit a native people, you gotta look like the native people, then you can trick them into trading their land for your beads. So she invented these body-suit things that look like the locals. We aren’t really sure how the suits work or how they’re made because Cameron didn’t care about this aspect of the film. But don’t worry about it, you won’t care either because your mind will be numb by this point in the film. . . ten minutes in.

Lifeless’s job is to operate his avatar in such a way that he endears himself to the locals, a tall blue race called the Na’vi, who look an awful lot like Smurfs who’ve spent time on a Medieval torture rack. After a boring, boring, boring 20 minutes of watching animators try to make Lifeless emote as he runs through the forest of this standard videogame world, Lifeless comes up with a plan. He decides to get himself attacked by wild animals in the hopes that some borderline-retarded princess of the Na’vi happens by and saves him. Of course this works because you can’t swing a dead panda on PandaOdor without hitting a Na’vi princess and because chicks can’t resist a dude who is helpless, rude and stupid.

After a few more minutes of scenery and some pidgin English, these two fall in love and the Smurfs make Lifeless a trusted member of their tribe. Retarded-Princess then mates with Lifeless’s avatar. . . somehow. . . before we are “treated” to another thirty minute scene where Lifeless runs through trees and learns to fly on the backs of creatures on Smurfback Mountain as the other Smurfs learn to accept him and see him as the chosen one.

Suddenly, it’s back to the plot. For reasons Cameron never bothers to explain, the evil US Military decides that since they can now succeed with their plan of gaining the Na’vi’s trust, now would be the perfect time to ditch that plan and instead start killing them for fun. What?! Those aren’t the US military, you say? Well, you could have fooled me. Then the “plot” stops, a fight ensues, a lot of people die, as do many Smurfs, and forty minutes later the evil military loses and Lifeless becomes the leader of the Na’vi. Roll credits.

The Characters

Now that you know the plot, let’s talk about the characters. The characters are awful.

First, you have Lifeless. He’s a pointless character with little to add to the movie despite being the main character. His role is clearly a copy of Kevin Costner’s role from Dances With Wolves, but Worthington comes across more like a mental patient whose thorazine wears off every once in a while. Indeed, he seems incapable of displaying any emotions, despite suffering wild mood swings -- “I hate this place,” “no, I love this place, it’s paradise,” etc. etc. His character also is prone to saying really stupid things, but that’s ok because the other characters aren’t listening. In fact, one of the first things you’ll notice about this film is that none of the characters speak to each other, they deliver speeches to the audience. If it weren’t for the fact they do touch each other once in a while, you’d almost swear they filmed their parts separately and never met. Even simple lines, like "good morning fellow capitalist oppressor," seem to be spoken past the other characters.

The main bad guy is Colonel Cliché, who has a severe disability which prevents him from saying any line you haven’t heard in another film. He loves to kill. Sigourney Weaver plays a woman who occasionally uses scientific terms and then dies. She likes to be rude to people. And there are a whole bunch of other actors too, who presumably do something plot-wise, though it’s not really clear what. Finally, there are the Smurfs, whose main job is to speak like cliché American Indians, while pretending they aren’t American Indians. Not much more to say about them.

The “Writing”

The writing is awful. In fact, there wasn’t really a single line in the film that didn’t make me cringe. Every sentence was cliché-ridden and predictable. The word choice was around a fifth grade level. There was nothing subtle in the writing either. If they want you to know a particular character can’t be trusted, they will literally have multiple characters come on screen and say, “You cannot trust Character X.” And the only memorable line in the film was “The End,” words for which I was truly thankful.

The Political Correctness

Now that we’re done talking about the good parts of the film, let’s talk about the most serious problem with this sucker: this film is pure leftist propaganda. Every single line delivered in this film is crawling with politically correct bullsh~t. Seriously, these people can’t say good morning without making some leftist crack. These characters don’t speak, they make speeches. And here’s what they say: corporations are evil. The military is evil. Scientists who do the bidding of evil corporations or the military are evil. The American Indians are noble creatures who lived in an ideal world where no one died and their gods literally existed and everyone was a vegetarian and loved each other until whitey came along and killed them all and herded them into casinos. Save the environment from capitalist whitey and the military. The war on terror is evil. The American military are terrorists, shock and awe is evil. Shave the whales! Down with whitey!

The anti-white message in this film was particularly obnoxious. All the bad guys were white. In fact, the only minorities on staff (the Indian dude and the Hispanic chick) quickly changed sides and betrayed whitey to aid the Smurfs, as did all the women and the handicapped guy (what, no gays?). Whitey Colonel Cliché even asks Lifeless how it feels to betray his race, which may have meant “human” in this instance, but sure sounded like "white."

But before James Cameron goes patting himself on the back for being a full-blown worshiper of oppression theology, let me point out one irony. Why is it, James, that the only person who can save the backwards Na’vi is the white dude? And why would these peaceful people make him their leader, as they apparently do at the end of the film, when his only qualifications are being a solider and being a white dude? Are you saying that a moronic white dude is the best and brightest on their planet? That seems kind of racist. Seriously James, it’s amazing how easily your screed against white oppression seamlessly morphs into the noble savage fantasy that was so popular among empire builders in the late 1800s. I guess you see yourself as the man who would be king?

The anti-military message was obnoxious as well. All the soldiers are drawn entirely from the paranoid Hollywood clichés of soldiers. They are bloodthirsty and irrational and long for nothing more than subjugating the scientists and businessmen who run the show, just so they can kill the Na’vi because. . . well, just because. Sounds to me like James Cameron must have had a bad experience with a solider at one time. . . in a mensroom.

Unfortunately, these messages permeate everything you see and hear in this crap-fest. Indeed, there wasn't a line of dialog that didn't push these ideas. And that was a big enough turn off to anger me, whenever I awoke from my periodic movie-induced comas.

Conclusion

To sum up this film, all I can really say is that it swings wildly between boring and offensive, with a pretty lame videogame thrown in between. I am glad this turkey will be forgotten in a couple years, but saddened that James Cameron made any money. Maybe he’ll get robbed. . . now that is a happy thought!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Scooby Doo Exposes The Politically Correct

I’m a huge fan of Scooby Doo. No doubt, you are as well. I mean seriously, how can you not love a talking dog? But Scooby Doo has been changing of late, and not for the better. Scooby Doo has become politically correct. Interestingly, these changes tell us a lot about the true nature of political correctness.

Political Correctness Is About Victimization And Thought Crime

We all know what political correctness means. The term “politically correct” was coined to describe the left’s attempts to force people to accept identify-politics by making it a thought crime to express any view that upsets the victimization cult. This cult, consisting of various self-anointed identity groups (e.g. black groups, women’s groups, disability advocates, homosexual activists, etc.), would challenge anyone who expressed a politically incorrect thought and would demand that they be sent to sensitivity training to “correct” their thinking. If they persisted, cult members would shout the person down and seek to have them fired from their jobs. The idea, as with all thought crimes, was that if people could be kept from expressing ideas, they would stop having those ideas. Stupid.

Well, as the minions of political correctness made their whiny ways into the real world, most found themselves slapped down hard by reality. But some found comfort among the fruits and nuts of academia, or in the weak-willed halls of corporate “human resource” departments, or in Hollywood, where the need to be worshiped mixes with leftwing politics like a nauseous potion. And having found a place where they could revel in their victimhood, they set about inserting that victimhood into films. . . and cartoons.

But a “strange” thing happened when these victims began spewing their idiocy onto celluloid -- they showed themselves to be hypocrites. Rather than being mere victims trying to end the oppression of others, they proved to be expert victimizers and hatemongers. Imagine that! Who could have guessed that a group of people that wants to control the thoughts of others and will happily destroy anyone who does not submit, could somehow turn out to be nasty, vindictive sh..ts?

And nothing exposes their hypocrisy better than what they’ve done to Scooby Doo.

Classic Scooby Doo

Before we can show how Scooby Doo has changed, let us first establish a baseline by describing what classic Scooby Doo was.

Scooby Doo is the story of four friends and their dog, who solve apparently supernatural mysteries. These friends include Fred, the well dressed preppy, athlete type. Daphne the hottie. Velma the nerd. Shaggy the sort of hippie. And Scooby, their talking dog.

Now the first thing to realize is that this is not a normal pairing of high school kids. They represent a cross section of school cliques that would typically despise each other. But instead, this group really were fast friends. They cared about each other, they were intensely loyal, they worked together extremely well, and they treated each other with respect. In that regard, Scooby Doo presented a hopeful vision of the future, of a time when even high schoolers would stop forming cliques and would all just get along.

Moreover, none of these characters fit the well known stereotypes. Fred, despite being handsome and athletic, was also very intelligent and friendly. He was brave and loyal, and he treated his friends with respect. Velma, the nerd, was actually the co-leader of the group. She was smart, clever and brave, as well. Daphne, the hottie, was stylish and personally attractive, and she also was smart, brave and capable. She was at times clumsy, earning her the nickname “Dangerprone Daphne” but she could hardly be called helpless. Shaggy was a gymnast and a track star, but he’s also a bit of an early hippie. He is much more easily frightened than the others, but he too proves himself brave time and time again. And of course, there was Scooby.

Classic Scooby Doo also had a positive, simple message. Don’t be afraid. All the ghosts and monsters they encountered always proved to be a guy in a costume. Thus, the message was obvious, don’t fall for crazy, paranoid or supernatural explanations and never let your fears control you. There was also a strong undercurrent of trusting your friends and that, by working together as a group, one can overcome all obstacles.

But all that’s changed. . . now that they’ve made it “better.”

How Political Correctness Warped Scooby Doo

Somewhere along the way, angry feminists got their hands on Scooby Doo. And they warped this show beyond recognition. But what they did gives us an interesting mirror into their thinking.

First, they hated Fred. The idea that a handsome, athletic male would lead this group was enough to cause their little, hate-filled hearts to burst. Clearly, this was old-school male oppression, and it was keeping little girls everywhere down. So they changed Fred. Did they make him more egalitarian? No. They made him into a barely competent fool. None of Fred’s ideas make sense any more, and everyone ridicules them. He is seen as muscle, when needed, comic relief when not -- he can't even drive well. And every time he comes up with a plan, the others need to demand to know why he thinks he’s the leader.

They also like to make Fred out as sexist (when they aren’t suggesting that he’s gay). See, in the original series, whenever he wanted the group to separate to find clues, he always chose to take Daphne and leave the ugly girl (Velma) to go with Shaggy and Scooby, right? Hence, sexism!!! Boo hoo hoo. Actually, no.

In the original series, they rarely broke the group up this way. Usually, Shaggy would take Scooby in one group and the other three would go in the other group. Moreover, what the feminists miss, is that Velma is the second leader of the group. Thus, forming groups around Fred and Velma would be natural. Third, there was a suggestion that Fred and Daphne were dating, which again would be a reason for them to stay together. But because the feminists can’t see past their victimology, they assume this pairing (which rarely happened) had to be sexism. So now every new cartoon or live action movie has to include a scene where Fred proposes to break the group up and he selects Daphne, only to be harshly slapped down by Daphne and Velma for being sexist.

But Fred wasn’t the only victim of politically correct hate. Daphne’s character has suffered as well. Because she’s attractive, the same people who made Fred incompetent decided that she needed to be made vapid and vain. After all, we can’t have little girls believing that good looking people might be anything other than shallow, because then they would feel oppressed by the good looking. Consequently, hardly a new Scooby Doo movie goes by without Daphne obsessing about her make up, her hair or her clothes.

But there was the inescapable problem that Daphne, being female, also needed to be a role model. So they set about forcing her to act out the feminist obsession with being good at all things men can do, and being independent from men in the process. Despite her obsession with beauty she is now made to reject any hint that she’s interested in men -- she’s not a lesbian, she’s just become anti-sexual (“frigid” in the ancient parlance). She is also required to have an independent career, and to engage in whatever masculine hobbies fit the plot. And she must always be seen to be better than everyone around her, except when she’s being vapid. The message to little girls, you better become better than boys if you want to succeed.

Velma too has suffered, and in the strangest way of all. Of all the characters, you would have expected Velma to have undergone the best transformation at the hands of the politically correct. Are we not told that we should not judge people according to their looks? Apparently, that’s a myth. First, the politically correct stripped Velma of her leadership role. She’s now a full-on modern nerd, which apparently includes confused thinking and social insecurity. . . but not leadership. In the latest incarnation, they’ve even gone so far as to cast an Asian girl to play her -- reinforcing the stereotype of Asians as tech savvy nerds. What’s more, they’ve made Velma into the only sexually active character. In movie after movie, she now lusts after some male (always a geek, of course, because looks do matter and you don’t want to encourage ugly girls to go for attractive males). But even more insulting, she remains flummoxed by the experience of lusting after boys until Daphne steps in and teaches her the art of seduction, which always includes make up, new hair, tight clothes and a scene where she stumbles around learning to walk in high heels.

And what makes this really sick is the fact that the people who have done this, honestly believe that little girls are influenced by the girls they see on cartoons. Think about that. What that means is that these are conscious choices. And yet, rather than offering two different yet intelligent and capable female characters (as they were in classic Scooby Doo), they’re now offering a frigid, vapid, neurotic loner with a chip on her shoulder, and a nerd girl who needs to learn to mimic the vapid chick to get the attention of boys.

Moreover, as a consequence of these changes, these “friends” are no longer really friends. They fight and argue and act out petty jealousies. Daphne is obsessed with showing she can be independent. Velma is obsessed with proving she’s smart and satisfying her nerd lust. Fred sulks for his lost masculinity. Only the relationship between Shaggy and Scooby remains unscathed.

Of all the characters, Shaggy actually escapes with the least harm. Shaggy’s lost his core, particularly his hidden bravery, but he’s little changed otherwise -- having gone from proto-hippie to quasi-stoner. Apparently, stoners love their dogs.

And It’s Not Just The Characters That Have Changed

In addition to the dramatic and disturbing changes in the characters, there have been two other dramatic changes wrought by political correctness. First, each new cartoon is crawling with politically correct information. Rather than just solving mysteries, we now learn about global warming. We learn how Wicca is a religion, not just something for goth kids to jerk themselves with, and that all witches were wrongly accused. We learn that greedy American developers are destroying wonderful third world paradises like Mexico. And so on.

Secondly, the monsters are now real. That’s right. The monsters and ghosts are now genuine. This is truly despicable because it replaces the comforting and rational message of “don’t be afraid” with the disturbing message of “fear the dark, for there be monsters in it.”

Conclusion

Look what political correctness has wrought upon Scooby Doo! Gone is the show about a group of kids, who have shattered stereotypes and ignored peer pressure to become friends, and who work diligently as a team, using the best virtues of mankind to solve mysteries and expose to children that there is truly nothing to fear. In its place, we have a group of highly stereotypical, self-centered unpleasant people who barely get along and who prove time and time again that monsters are real.

This is the fruit of political correctness. The self-appointed victims of oppression have not shown us a world free of victimization as they promised, they just victimized those they don’t like. And in their anger, they have shown a startling jealousy. Could it be that political correctness is not about correcting injustice so much as it is about getting even with those who make us feel inadequate?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...