>>92181082>Anon, don't bring the SJW things hereIf you can't see it, you are deliberately blocking it out on some level, if you don't want to analyze drawn literature, why are you even on /co/? Either way, the post blocking functions are your friends.
>>92185069>Why did I even notice that?Because you are either woke, something is causing you to momentarily process input fully, or your wearing special sunglasses.[/fnord]
>And why does it bother me so much?Because puppets hate seeing the strings, or you dislike seeing things that actively harm children released into the environment; perhapse especially when it is marketed as "good for kids."
>Pretty good besides that.It WAS friggen awesome, wasn't it? The overt message was presented in a fun and memorable way, and is practically top tier marketing firm advertising for life survival lesions! [/fnord]
>there's always a small uproar.Like there would be if you publicly produced emancipation propaganda in the AnteBellum Confederacy, that doesn't make it bad, just dangerous to do.
>I can separate cartoons/movies from reality, so I don't really draw parallels to real life.But this is intended as "life educational, for kids."
And the really dangerous thing wasn't that they took X-Men posters down, it is that they successfully taught advertisers, filmmakers, and the public there are negative consequences for portraying women as superheroes, rather than fragile flowers to be protected, and moved us closer to a certain regime that legislated women could only be portrayed as unimitatable Mary Sues, or sheltered baby-factories.
Likewise, the impossible "co-incidence" of reinforcing the false public perception of where the real threat statisticaly lies (to avoid censure for violating the double standard), ESPECIALY in an "educational" short INTENDED to paint a picture of supposed reality for its intended audiance, SHOULD be upsetting to you...to the same degree as if movie villains could only be Black, to avoid an uproar.
