Alright. I am going to lay things out as I see them, and try to get this cleared up.>>5731
We'll start with the thread premise. I sincerely doubt that 4chan is responsible for the removal of Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima. I think this is a matter of corporations being the amoral entities they are, and seeing that they can make more money by removing depictions of African-Americans that in the modern day are seen as problematic.
As for why they're problematic, it is summarized decently, here.>>5739>>5793
In this post, while your interpretation of the characters is charitable, for many, especially African-Americans, the depiction of these characters is too steeped in the harmful character archetype of the "happy slave."
So we get to here. >>9311
Where the examples of Uncle Ben, Uncle Remus, and Aunt Jemima are all lumped in together as "happy slaves." The sentiment is that these are all characters with their creation absolutely drenched in sentiment many in the modern day feel is racist.
Swan is pointing out a technicality that, no, Uncle Ben isn't literally an example of the Happy Slave like Aunt Jemima and Uncle Remus are. While this is technically true, I think this is ignoring that the Uncle Ben character, while debuting in 1946 well after abolition and even portrays him as the producer of the rice, it is ignoring that there is still a lot of coding in the Uncle Ben character that harkens back to the idea of the Happy Slave. In no small part due to the use of "Uncle" rather than "Mr."
This, according to my attempt to follow sources until I hit a paywall, was a tactic used by white southerners to avoid using the Mr., Ms. and Mrs. in reference to African Americans by substituting those honorifics for "Aunt" and "Uncle" instead. I would think that, given the timeframe, it is likely that the, again amoral corporation used this coding to ensure they would be able to market in places like the South and sell their product there.
So, Uncle Ben isn't literally a Happy Slave, but I think it's fair to say that he's adjacent, which is the contention that Brainy Griffon has with pointing it out in the way Swan has done here. I think that it's fair to consider Uncle Ben to be coded to invoke the idea of the Happy Slave, even if he doesn't meet the criteria of the archetype perfectly.
I believe glossing over that coding like here >>9325
is what has Griffon upset. While Griffon is making the point less than perfectly, I think this is the point that is being attempted.
I note here: >>9331>Fuck you you disengenuous hypocritical cunt. >You're deliberately ignoring the point I made desperately trying to grasp at some "gotcha". Plus, you accused me of "going to great lengths to see something negative that doesn't exist". I should report your original reply to me for how fucking bad faith it is. >It's also cowardly.
With these sentences you're just lashing out.>You're deliberately ignoring that pretty explicit part of my post.
With this, I think you're offering a criticism of Swan's reading of your posts that could be fair if you weren't wording it to make Swan out as malicious.
The rest, the majority of the post, and notably is where you're arguing your point rather than attacking Swan directly, is fine. If the first three greentexts were omitted and the fourth rephrased to not be as inflammatory, this would be a completely fair rebuttal. The first three however, I think warrant warning you to tone it down.
Then we go through !!Fluttershy's post, and then to Raven here:>>9333
I get where you're coming from. But leave this sort of thing to the reports, and let a mod assess.
I'd also say that while I understand that you are trying to use just what people say, I'd ask you try to take in the intent of the argument as well. Try to be charitable. Uncle Ben isn't literally the Happy Slave, but as I have said, it's perfectly reasonable to see him as having the Happy Slave coding. Instead of jumping in on someone who is in essence just technically incorrect, ask for clarification, offer your interpretation of what has been said and if that's what they mean. Rather than jumping straight into>"Why are you getting so offended at being called out on that?">"Why do you find it necessary as to act like that's some far-fetched presumption, when it's literally in your post?"
If you instead gave your interpretation of what is being said, asked for clarification, and then Griffon continued to jump down your throat, then yeah, there's a problem there, but I can see where Griffon is coming from that it can seem like you're deliberately hanging on one point as, do use Griffon's word, a "gotcha." Though Griffon used that directed at Swan. I will also say I feel this applies to Swan.>>9337
So, this is where I come in and start trying to figure this out. And, yeah. This post is pretty out of line, even more than the one I greentexted above.
So. I'm going to say that !!Fluttershy's warning to Cheerful Swan stands as is. You're right that Uncle Ben isn't literally in the Happy Slave archetype, but I think it's certainly fair to see Happy Slave coding in his design.
To Magnificent Raven, I'm giving you a warning, I think you're strawmanning Griffon. You need to try to be charitable to the other posters here and the arguments they're attempting to make. If you think there's a problem, report it and let the mods handle it.
Brainy Griffon. Just stop attacking them. Because of this last post, I'm banning you from /townhall/ for one week. After this, please, tone it down, make your points. Attack arguments, not people.
Furthermore. I'm going to keep the thread locked for the duration of said ban. I will unlock the thread around 10:00am CST on May 28, around when Griffon's ban is finished.