zqps

Have you tried the recent trilogy since 2016, now rolled into World of Assassination?

Anno 1404, Hades, the recent Hitman series, and now also Satisfactory. Help.

You are my source, you dense MFer 🤦‍♀️

You posted the Yle article which you now have to pretend doesn’t contain that exact quote which disproves your chosen narrative.

I’m done explaining this circumstance and why it matters. You’re so far down this rabbit hole not even Alice could get through to you. Enjoy yourself in there - but don’t make a mess.

Source: [email protected] lmao.

You’re not hurting my feelings by calling me autistic as an insult, sorry. It just makes you look like a 13-year-old on 4chan.

You have abandoned all integrity if you need to lie about something so easily checked as the age of my account.

Okay, that was an Incredibles reference, but here’s why you’re actually a dense motherfucker. Your source does not disagree with my point in any way.

Here’s the quote that actually literally explains what happened:

“One of their supporters had thought Stinky could be seen as a racist symbol,” said Roleff Kråkström, CEO of Moomin Characters, the company that manages the rights to Tove Jansson’s beloved Moomin universe.

Your Bodenheimer quote above is in complete agreement with this. It works either way.

It’s plain dishonest to pretend someone approached them and said the character is racist. That is just not what happened.

But at this point you are too emotionally invested in this fight to acknowledge this. So instead you pretend that Herald disagrees with the YLE article, when in reality it at most implies what you think must have happened because you didn’t carefully read the quote.
Meanwhile you yell something about social security numbers and resort to calling me an “autistically screeching burner account”. Very classy and not at all desperate way to undermine your position I have to say.

And here’s why I said this is advancing right-wing propaganda:
Because that’s exactly what this narrative is about “the left” or “woke mobs” going around calling everything racist under the sun and cancelling people left and right. It is an incredibly pervasive and successful avenue of right-wing “culture war” propaganda in recent years.
I was being fair with you by saying it’s unconscious, even added that I’ve been there myself. I know how good it feels to rhetorically dunk on ignorant fools like that. But… well, everything above.

Don’t be a troll. The reason is stated clearly in the second sentence of the article.

Moomin character has been dropped from a major exhibition at Brooklyn Public Library in New York after one of the institution’s supporters raised concerns that the character might be perceived as racist.

“One of their supporters had thought Stinky could be seen as a racist symbol,” said Roleff Kråkström, CEO of Moomin Characters, the company that manages the rights to Tove Jansson’s beloved Moomin universe.

So what’s the point of that comment then lmao. Can you argue in good faith please

We’re citing the same source, you dense motherf*cker. You’ve been missing the point for the past dozen comments. And now you’re literally ignoring my whole reply. Great job!

So a supporter “voicing concerns” is “coming after” the thing they’re supporting? Yeah I don’t think so.

This isn’t about a technicality.

The widespread narrative about “the left” or “woke mobs” going around calling everything racist under the sun is one of the most successful bits of right-wing culture war propaganda. Which people in this thread are unintentionally spreading as they jump on the chance to dunk on those ignorant fools (that in many cases such as this one don’t even exist).

That’s called preemptive compliance and that’s exactly the issue as I keep pointing out.

Once again, your beef should be with the people who made this decision. That’s the fucking problem here. And what you and others here are doing instead is unconsciously advancing right-wing propaganda.

Yeah that’s the part with the ambiguous wording. This is clarified elsewhere in the same article as concerns by a supporter that someone else might see it that way. That’s the part you are stubbornly pretending not to understand.

Once again. Your beef should be with the people who made this decision.

But you’re too busy dunking on hypothetical people, probably not noticing how you’re advancing right-wing propaganda in the process. And I get it because I’ve been there myself. But this narrative and mindset is harmful and unproductive.

WTF? The article explicitly says why this decision was made. So this tangent of yours is made up nonsense.

Do I need to cite your own source to you again?? Seriously.

So why is everyone discussing this as if there was an external complaint?

The issue here seems to be how lazily this was handled by the organization.

But many comments here are jumping to conclusions and fighting windmills instead.

Not to rain on anyone’s parade, but: We should pump the brakes a little on this culture war narrative and recognize that there was no actual complaint, nor did anyone say the character is a racist caricature.

What deserves scrutiny is who made the decision to remove the character in preemptive compliance. Clearly there were other options on the table.

There is no issue with the article.

The issue is people here in the comments making false assumptions, jumping at the chance to fight a quixotic bullshit reactionary culture war against a woke mob that doesn’t exist.

What? I literally don’t get what you’re trying to say about telepathy.

I’m not assuming anything, I’m directly citing the article you posted. Your point rests entirely on an assumption that is already disproven in the article itself.

They literally didn’t.

“One of their supporters had thought Stinky could be seen as a racist symbol”

This is a hypothetical. Nobody mentioned in the article holds that position. This person did not complain about the character. They raised concerns as a supporter that they thought someone else might complain in the future.

But everyone here is upset at a hypothetical person filing a hypothetical complaint, rather than the real person that made the decision to remove the character outright, instead of putting in the work to address the supporter’s concern in more constructive ways.

Yeah. Who said otherwise? I feel like I’m going crazy here, because the article you posted makes no mention of anyone that did.

This question is answered in the article: No one.

Also “They’re the real racists!” is a very narrow-minded if not bad-faith take on institutionalized racism, the history of racial caricatures, and people who may be more sensitive to racial stereotypes than yourself.