>>96646967I never said I was offended by the disclaimer. I just disagree with them being a necessity (short of seizure warnings). I went into watching the Whoopi disclaimer expecting to be outraged while actually agreeing with the content and delivery, as she pays tribute and acknowledges the importance of the craft, its legacy as well as even the concerning character. It feels more like an acknowledgment that the beloved Mammy character bears roots in inherent prejudice, rather than an outright condemning. I take much greater beef with the plain text that prefaces the Looney Tunes material. Just plastering a "this is a product of their time" and "this was and is wrong" sets a tone that sours a viewer's taste before the media is even consumed. Those who read a disclaimer have their minds forced from a lens of curiosity and entertainment, to political analysis. They unconsciously start searching for dated sins of the work instead of enjoying it. There's also the issue of consistency, as there are plenty of other media from an old time period that might be deemed problematic, on top of a lot of things we have now.
A disclaimer's purpose is to soften the blow of the potentially offensive, or at the very least make people understood why its there. It's akin to warning that a book contains a graphic scene of rape, or that a movie contains old propaganda material and historical racism. A disclaimer potentially spoils plot material or content or shift your expectations.
This applies to all disclaimers, I should clarify. Like your police story "this show contains scenes of graphic violence, viewer discretion is advised"... I still think that's silly. You're watching crime shows about serial killers. What did you expect?
Maybe I thought differently from most kids. Maybe I simply underestimate how stupid most people are. Or perhaps my threshold of disclaimers are different. I don't know though, that's just my perspective.
At least we can agree with the censorship thing.
