First, I didn't call you George W. I said he would agree with your statement, and judging by his presidential history he would. Don't know why that irks you so much or how you could validly disagree.

Second, I'm not going to apologize not because I was joking but because you're misconstruing my words. I didn't point you out as a lyncher. I was speaking in broad strokes about anyone so quick to declare there's no possible way there's any reasonable doubt and we should discount any evidence to the contrary and go ahead with the banination.

Third, when I used (and use) the term "lynch" I never mean it in what is apparently the manner you're taking it, to mean a white lynch mob out to hang an innocent black man. I always use the term in it's generic form. (In fact, the first image that comes to my mind when I hear lynch mob is the crowd of villagers in Beauty and the Beast heading to the castle to rescue Belle and murder the beast.) I was referring to the mob mentality where there's no room for reason and we should all get together and go after the accused under any circumstances.

I didn't launch an ad hominem attack against you or anyone. I'm simply stating that vehemently going after the accused like there is evidence proving him guilty despite the fact that there is evidence to the contrary is action taking on mob mentality. "Who cares about your evidence?! There's no reasonable doubt even though you listed the reasons there is! Screw him! Let's get him!" Are my thoughts really so heinous when I say, "I have evidence to cast reasonable doubt" and you essentially say, "If you wait for a smoking gun you're fucked - I want him banned! I say he's guilty enough!" ?

Finally I'll just state that all my opinions should not be taken as holy word of the Sift. As I said above, I wasn't really arguing the case in either direction, just stating the evidence as I saw it in a somewhat objective manner. I even said specifically if everyone wanted to punish the guy I wouldn't have a problem with it, and I wouldn't.

I just felt compelled to speak to the apparently intentional ignorance of the evidence presented in the case.

Alright, had the movies told us to be alpha males/females (beings, if you will) then that would still account for about zero to one percent of gender role and body perception views if you ask me. There are lots of ways to raise ones child/children without them growing up to be either a Gaston, a Milton (see Office Space), or a suicidal emo goth person. Key here is communication, talking to the kids and not overanalyzing.
The kind of stories Disney portray in their movies are classical tales of heroes, and as we all know the story would be painfully boring for children to watch if the hero was Milton Waddams (Office Space) going to work in the office basement, battling hordes of Mongol marauders or even a hydra, or whatever else Disney has to throw at him. Actually, as a parent I'd be more concerned that my children would get a distorted view of modern day Englishmen from watching Pokahontas than I'd be of them becoming brawling alphamales from watching The Lion King.
Point is that YES, Disney films would be bad for kids if that's the ONLY interaction with the world they got. However, that's not a realistic scenario.

As for acceptance, I think that was the whole point of the Beauty and the Beast. Showing kids that a beautiful girl can fall in love with a monster instead of the buff alpha man-hulk goes a long way in showing acceptance, especially taking into consideration the backstory to the Beast becoming what he was.

My main gripe with this video is how it spins the reality of the movies, blatantly ignoring the obvious messages of them aswell as taking scenes out of context and adding their own to the scenes they've taken out. I can garantuee you that no kid in the world would see any Disney movie (neither consciously nor subconsciously) in the way shown in this video.
This is a fear monger's wet dream, much like saying that reading Donald Duck would promote indecency because he's not wearing any pants, or how showing kids the Smurfs will indoctrinate them into becoming communists.
In the end, I think that grownups see alot of things in cartoons that kids don't. And even if you see something in a comic that you don't agree with, shielding ones children by not letting them watch it won't protect them. All it will most likely do is truly give them a distorted world view in believing these issues does not exist. Key here, as I'd like to point out, is talking to ones kids about it.

As a closing note I'd also like to say that one of my very favourite films to date is the animated (in those days called cartoon) movie "Wizards". A highly destructive film for children to watch by today's standards. In all fairness it's not really a films for younglings, which needs to be said in hopes for me to not get misinterpreted.

Jeez, stop making it seem like Gaston is the hero of Beauty and the Beast!

Beauty and the Beast is one of my favorite movies. And yeah, Gaston is the villain of it. But some of the things in this video make sense.

I didn't like this video and would downvote if I could, simply for the fact that they bring up stereotypical gender roles as something Disney tries to imprint in children (which I actually can agree with to some point).
However, my gripe with the creator of this video is when he shows us the scenes from "Beauty and the Beast" where Gaston shows his worst behaviour. This is what I have a problem with, as Gaston obviously is the bad guy and is clearly depicted as such even to the extent that small children can understand it. His advances also fails quite miserably, and in a humorously manner, which would also reinforce the lesson that acting like a man's man and treating women like objects (which is exactly like he does) is bad, especially when you take into consideration the mutually respecting relationship between Belle and the Beast.

EDIT: And the Mulan bit just made me laugh out loud. She quickly learns that masculinity is primarily defined by strength and physical prowess, does she? Never mind the pathetic try to imply that masculinity equals sexism, does the commenter actually try to say that Mulan somehow teach children to fall into the classical gender roles? Seriously, that's the dumbest thing I've heard this millennium.

The only thing that I can imagine the creator of this video would find completely PC would be 90 minutes of those little ghost creatures from Princess Mononoke. However, we couldn't possibly have the word "princess" in the title as it would subconsciously force all girls watching it into becoming subordinate to boys.

Westy, cheers mate, those new Merck spelling pills are doing a great job!!!!


hey krupo...heard of a woman who got an infection cause her husband was hittin'the nappy livestock dugout, on the side....Blame Hollywood man, Beauty and the Beast, Swampthing, the Fly, Elephant Man...they got white women fucking all kindsa stuff.......

Well, after spending a good decade working on Beauty and the Beast, I think they deserved the break. Besides, Robin Hood was one of their best movies anyway.

Wikipedia:

"Heroes" (the quotation marks are part of the title, for reasons of irony)[1] is an album by David Bowie, released in 1977. Serving as the second installment of Bowie and Eno's "Berlin Trilogy" (the other two being Low and Lodger) "Heroes" is similar in sound to Low but more robust and visceral. Of the three albums, it was the most befitting of the appellation "Berlin", being the only one wholly recorded and mixed there. The mood of the record reflected the zeitgeist of the Cold War, symbolised by the divided city.

The title track remains one of Bowie's best known, a classic story of two lovers who meet at the Berlin Wall. The album is considered one of Bowie's best by critics, notably for the contributions of guitarist Robert Fripp (for which he flew in from the U.S. to record in one day).[2] It was marketed by RCA with the catch phrase, "There’s Old Wave. There’s New Wave. And there's David Bowie…"[3] The album made #3 in the UK and stayed in the charts for 26 weeks, but was less successful in the U.S. where it peaked at #35.

With "Heroes", Bowie again paid tribute to his Krautrock influences: the title is a nod to the track "Hero" on the album NEU! '75 by the German band Neu! while "V-2 Schneider" is inspired by and named for Kraftwerk's Florian Schneider; earlier in 1977, Kraftwerk had name-checked Bowie on the title track of Trans-Europe Express. The cover photo was inspired by Erich Heckel's Roquairol, as was that of The Idiot, one of Bowie's collaborations with Iggy Pop that was released the same year.[4]

Though "Heroes" included its share of dark and atmospheric instrumentals such as "Sense of Doubt" and "Neuköln", as well as the sprawling confessional "Blackout", after the melancholy and inward-looking Low it was regarded as a highly passionate and positive artistic statement.[5][6] This was evident not simply through "Heroes" the song but in the rocking opener "Beauty and the Beast" (released as the second single in January 1978), the raucous "Joe the Lion" and the light-hearted closer "The Secret Life of Arabia".

A number of the album's tracks were played live at Bowie's concerts the following year, captured on record as Stage (1978). Philip Glass adapted a classical suite, "Heroes" Symphony, based on this album, a companion to his earlier Low Symphony. The title track has been covered by numerous artists, whilst "The Secret Life of Arabia" was sung by Billy Mackenzie in 1982 on the British Electric Foundation LP Music of Quality and Distinction."