"Cuties"
-
I saw another clip from this movie yesterday. The scene was an adult white male arguing with a little black girl wearing a short shorts and a cut off T shirt. Apparently the man was up to nothing wrong, just trying to get her to not do something she wanted to do but shouldnt, she got mad and decided to do something that would get him in trouble. She grabbed his cell phone from him, then ran into the bathroom and locked the door. She then proceeded to pull her shorts down, squat in the floor, and stick the phone between her legs and take a picture of her hoohah. Then she opened the door and threw his phone at him.
-
wrote on 14 Sept 2020, 16:22 last edited by Jolly
She then proceeded to pull her shorts down, squat in the floor, and stick the phone between her legs and take a picture of her hoohah
What the actual FUCK???
It doesn't actually show her nether regions, but yeah, that's the scene as I've heard it described.
-
wrote on 17 Sept 2020, 05:45 last edited by
I disagree with canceling this show.
It's the right wing version of cancel culture.
It's also hypocritical given that nobody complains about these disturbing beauty contests for kids, which are just as sexualized.
-
I disagree with canceling this show.
It's the right wing version of cancel culture.
It's also hypocritical given that nobody complains about these disturbing beauty contests for kids, which are just as sexualized.
wrote on 17 Sept 2020, 11:42 last edited byI disagree with canceling this show.
It's the right wing version of cancel culture.
It's also hypocritical given that nobody complains about these disturbing beauty contests for kids, which are just as sexualized.
Several people on this forum have, correctly, imo, complained about the "beauty pageants" for kids.
My understanding of "cancel culture" is that it is based on what one considers a politically incorrect idea. This seems to be outrage over the sexualization of young girls. Would you agree that there's a difference between those?
-
wrote on 17 Sept 2020, 12:08 last edited by
All this stuff gives me the creeps. Middle school and HS cheerleaders, beauty pageants for kids, the whole lot.
Apart from anything else, it sends a pretty miserable message to girls about their role in the world.
-
I disagree with canceling this show.
It's the right wing version of cancel culture.
It's also hypocritical given that nobody complains about these disturbing beauty contests for kids, which are just as sexualized.
Several people on this forum have, correctly, imo, complained about the "beauty pageants" for kids.
My understanding of "cancel culture" is that it is based on what one considers a politically incorrect idea. This seems to be outrage over the sexualization of young girls. Would you agree that there's a difference between those?
wrote on 17 Sept 2020, 12:09 last edited byMy understanding of "cancel culture" is that it is based on what one considers a politically incorrect idea. This seems to be outrage over the sexualization of young girls. Would you agree that there's a difference between those?
The difference, as far as I see it, is merely that "politically incorrect" is replaced by a different "trigger", in this case titillating depiction of minors (from what I hear - haven't seen the trailer or anything).
Are we going to ban "Lolita" and the movies based on it, too?
Netflix shouldn't have removed "Gone with the wind". It shouldn't remove "Cuties" either. All the book burning and person/institution canceling leads to a dark place, regardless of whether it's "left-wing" or "right-wing". The only proper position, in my opinion, is that everything that's legal is fair game, and any bans/cancelllation/... should be restricted to the most extreme cases.
-
wrote on 17 Sept 2020, 12:15 last edited by
I would have thought it quite likely that having the movie on Netflix would cause more backlash against these dreadful events, but I haven't seen it.
-
My understanding of "cancel culture" is that it is based on what one considers a politically incorrect idea. This seems to be outrage over the sexualization of young girls. Would you agree that there's a difference between those?
The difference, as far as I see it, is merely that "politically incorrect" is replaced by a different "trigger", in this case titillating depiction of minors (from what I hear - haven't seen the trailer or anything).
Are we going to ban "Lolita" and the movies based on it, too?
Netflix shouldn't have removed "Gone with the wind". It shouldn't remove "Cuties" either. All the book burning and person/institution canceling leads to a dark place, regardless of whether it's "left-wing" or "right-wing". The only proper position, in my opinion, is that everything that's legal is fair game, and any bans/cancelllation/... should be restricted to the most extreme cases.
wrote on 17 Sept 2020, 12:23 last edited byeverything that's legal is fair game, and any bans/cancelllation/... should be restricted to the most extreme cases.
I agree.
(haven't seen the film, so I can't comment on whether it's extreme or not)
Would you consider Larry's description of the telephone incident "extreme?"
-
I would have thought it quite likely that having the movie on Netflix would cause more backlash against these dreadful events, but I haven't seen it.
wrote on 17 Sept 2020, 12:24 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in "Cuties":
I would have thought it quite likely that having the movie on Netflix would cause more backlash against these dreadful events, but I haven't seen it.
Yet. If it does that might be a good thing.
-
everything that's legal is fair game, and any bans/cancelllation/... should be restricted to the most extreme cases.
I agree.
(haven't seen the film, so I can't comment on whether it's extreme or not)
Would you consider Larry's description of the telephone incident "extreme?"
wrote on 17 Sept 2020, 12:41 last edited by KlausWould you consider Larry's description of the telephone incident "extreme?"
I don't know. I'd have to actually watch it.
But in any case, many of us are annoyed about how meaningless the word "racism" has become since it has been applied to way too many things that are not actually racist. It would be wise to not make the same mistake with "pedophilia". In both cases it is tempting to misuse the great power this word gives to the speaker.
-
wrote on 17 Sept 2020, 14:26 last edited by
It is OK to censor child pornography.
Even if it creates some false-positive racism accusations.
-
It is OK to censor child pornography.
Even if it creates some false-positive racism accusations.
wrote on 17 Sept 2020, 15:18 last edited by -
wrote on 17 Sept 2020, 15:34 last edited by
Imagine if they started censoring movies that glorified and/or glamourised violence and/or criminal behaviour.
Netflix would be out of business in a week.
-
wrote on 17 Sept 2020, 15:38 last edited by Klaus
OK, I watched the trailer now. Calling this "child pornography" is just ridiculous and insults the victims of actual child pornography.
Link to video -
wrote on 17 Sept 2020, 15:46 last edited by
Well, California just enacted a change in the law, where what used to be a misdemeanor if 4-years between the "couple" is now 10 years. I don't know: is that part of the slippery slope?
-
wrote on 17 Sept 2020, 15:57 last edited by
There are various definitions of pornography.
This is within some of them.
Maybe not in others.
-
There are various definitions of pornography.
This is within some of them.
Maybe not in others.
-
wrote on 17 Sept 2020, 17:03 last edited by
OK, I'll give you 2 definitions wiki and google
The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters. The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio.[1][2] In explaining why the material at issue in the case was not obscene under the Roth test, and therefore was protected speech that could not be censored, Stewart wrote:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.[3]
-
OK, I watched the trailer now. Calling this "child pornography" is just ridiculous and insults the victims of actual child pornography.
Link to videowrote on 17 Sept 2020, 21:08 last edited byOK, I watched the trailer now. Calling this "child pornography" is just ridiculous and insults the victims of actual child pornography.
Link to videoIf that was as bad as it got I would agree with you. Unfortunately, that trailer was so well cherry picked that it makes it look like a Disney movie.
-
wrote on 17 Sept 2020, 21:25 last edited by
||
Link to video||