Netflix sexualising children.

hots · 21-08-2020 02:06PM

donaghs wrote: »

If we've learned anything from shows like this, and the "minipops" in the 80s, there are people like that with a penchant for these shows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minipops

e.g. the poet Philip Larkin in his (private) letters revealed an "unhealthy" interest in the minipops.

That couldn't be any more different than this film

nthclare · 21-08-2020 02:20PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You asked what the problem was, I answered.

Acceted, you presented a different ignorant crass generalisation,

None of this is relevant, because it's based on an unproven premise that you think we should all blindly accept: that the trailer/poster is sexualising children.

What if we don't accept the premise?

Who's we ?

You're just triggered now and trying to get personal with me,so there's no point in engaging with someone who's "triggered" rather than able to discuss.

Saying I'm at Ignorant crass generalisation is just a dig at the poster rather than an opinion.

I know your type, best avoided at all costs and unwilling to be able to discuss something without looking for a reaction rather than a response.

You've expressed your views and it's quite clear to see that you're on the side of something harmful rather than harmless.

There's a dark vibe coming from your defense of the subject matter it's not good that's for sure.

Psychiatric Patrick · 21-08-2020 02:24PM

hots wrote: »

That couldn't be any more different than this film

You haven't seen the movie yet

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 21-08-2020 02:44PM

nthclare wrote: »

Who's we ?

Everyone but you.

You're just triggered now and trying to get personal with me,so there's no point in engaging with someone who's "triggered" rather than able to discuss.

Saying I'm at Ignorant crass generalisation is just a dig at the poster rather than an opinion.

I said you "presented a different set of crass generalisations", which is the posts. Here are several examples.

nthclare wrote: »

We'll that's why the liberals have fallen on their own sword.

In fairness the hard right stood back for a long time because they knew dam well if they started riot's they'ed be rounded up and jailed and beaten down by the establishment.

The liberals aka Antifa are pussies and very weak in both numbers and when they stand alone.

If the far left got into power it would be worse because they'ed put stupid boring people like themselves in power and you'd have no life.
Living in a city and lining up for everything, we'd be all vegan cucks, cycling around on bike's like in China

None of your green party gob****es or liberal pricks.

So make a choice, a boring 1984 novel lifestyle with the liberals bolloxing up

I know where I'd prefer to be ruled by... definitely not the green weirdo liberals that's for ****ing sure...

nthclare wrote: »

Yes the liberals are very similar to their arch enemy.

They're not well and never win any argument or cause.

So **** you liberals and alt right, only a fool sits on the fence.

nthclare wrote: »

The liberals defend depravity

The SJWs and liberals try to take over feminism, and others who fight for freedom and equality.

The SJWs and liberals today are very sick,but there's nothing wrong with going to a psychotherapist for help.
They're very understanding and will help them untie all the knots in their heads...

nthclare wrote: »

This thread stinks, absolute stinks and its just a prime example of what people are suspecting about liberals and lefties all along.

Wait and see what the liberals will be screaming for next, it'll be shockingly unsurprising.

Ignorant crass genralisations against liberals instead of "lefties", presented, as I said, by you.
Case closed on that one.

I know your type, best avoided at all costs and unwilling to be able to discuss something without looking for a reaction rather than a response.

Oh, I have a "type" now? Or is that you saying you can't debate with me logically, so you have to assign me a "tpye"?

You've expressed your views and it's quite clear to see that you're on the side of something harmful rather than harmless.

There's a dark vibe coming from your defense of the subject matter it's not good that's for sure.

Then explain this:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This is what I got from the comparison too - it's about the superficiality of it. Which is not the same as sexualisation, I know, but it's getting there.

Hardly "on the side"!

----

How about you actually read what the person is writing, rather than geenralising and assuming?

conorhal · 21-08-2020 02:47PM

Yo-ho, it's back to the 'high seas' for my Netflix content so...

Truth be told I had been meaning to cancel anyway, but I was procrastinating and lazy, so thanks Netflix for reminding me to ditch my subscription! (not that I'm under any illusion that doing so will make a damn bit of difference but at least I'll feel better about the fact that my hard earned cash isn't funding this $h1t).

i_surge · 21-08-2020 02:50PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Everyone but you.

No, it's a statement of fact. Here are several examples.

Ignorant crass genralisations, there you go. And very much attacking the posts.

Oh, I have a "type" now? Or is that you saying you can't debate with me logically, so you have to assign me a "tpye"?

Then explain this:

Hardly "on the side"!

----

How about you actually read what the person is writing, rather than geenralising and assuming?

Well you are the one still hypothesising that it is not sexualised in any way.

You have to pretend that as it is foundational to your house of cards argument not collapsing, which it already has, to everyone but you.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 21-08-2020 02:59PM

i_surge wrote: »

Well you are the one still hypothesising that it is not sexualised in any way.

Loads of people are.

You have to pretend that as it is foundational to your house of cards argument not collapsing, which it already has, to everyone but you.

What argument?

conorhal · 21-08-2020 03:00PM

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Would the posters who jumped on the OP for raising his concerns about this issue care to come back on the thread and give their opinions now that nearly a day has passed and the issue has been clarified somewhat?

He got some fairly nasty abuse that he didn't deserve; particularly the insinuation that he was a paedophile.

They'e probably too busy clearing their internet history and microwaving their flash drives at the moment... :pac:

i_surge · 21-08-2020 03:03PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Loads of people are.

What argument?

Good question, it was lost on me whatever you were saying.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 21-08-2020 03:05PM

i_surge wrote: »

Good question, it was lost on me whatever you were saying.

So, the arguemnt you claimed had collapsed is one that you never understood in the first place? Thank you for making me waste two posts!

Between people claiming that don't generalise diespite using "lefties" this and "liberals" that, poeple making up arguments and then attibuting them to random people (I assume I'm not the only one) and now people claiming arguments that were lost on them (which were very simple and starightforward) but they somehow knew had "collapsed", I've had enough for one night.

I've made my arugments simply and esily, I've backed them up, no one has contradcited them yet. Contradicted other arguments, I didn't make, yes; but not the ones I did make.

Never aruge with pigeons, as they say.

I'm done here.

Ten of Swords · 21-08-2020 03:13PM

GarIT do not post in this thread again

nthclare · 21-08-2020 03:32PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Everyone but you.

I said you "presented a different set of crass generalisations", which is the posts. Here are several examples.

Ignorant crass genralisations against liberals instead of "lefties", presented, as I said, by you.
Case closed on that one.

Oh, I have a "type" now? Or is that you saying you can't debate with me logically, so you have to assign me a "tpye"?

Then explain this:

Hardly "on the side"!

----

How about you actually read what the person is writing, rather than geenralising and assuming?

Ok point taken, we'll leave it there so.

I'm up a tree today in South Galway, trying to cut a limb that's hanging down after the storm.
I can't be reading everything.

I'll apologize if I was generalising and it pissed anyone off, it's hard to keep up with the different options and translation of how people think and what they mean.

I was never great on roundabouts, and reading sign post's tbh.

So Princess Consuela I hope we can leave it here and enjoy the weekend.

I had no intention of upsetting you or anyone for that matter, take care...

nthclare · 21-08-2020 03:36PM

conorhal wrote: »

Yo-ho, it's back to the 'high seas' for my Netflix content so...

Truth be told I had been meaning to cancel anyway, but I was procrastinating and lazy, so thanks Netflix for reminding me to ditch my subscription! (not that I'm under any illusion that doing so will make a damn bit of difference but at least I'll feel better about the fact that my hard earned cash isn't funding this $h1t).

Lol I was never on Netflix, but since YouTube are moving Cobra Kai to Netflix I'm tempted to get the free month, that's if it's still free for the first month.

Cobra Kai what a show, now there's a real good show that's worth watching.
That's if you're a an 80's kid and enjoyed The Karate kid saga...

Tony EH · 21-08-2020 03:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

This shouldn't be anything to do with politics. That poster and blurb is giving completely the wrong message, regardless of the film's content. It reads and looks like an old school porn video cover. About 11 year olds.

There's one problem here and that's all the Mary Whitehouse's hastily clutching their pearls and whinging and whining about a program THEY HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN and conjuring up a whole host of depraved ideas that they have floating around in THEIR OWN HEADS and then trying to make a load of bogus points about "tHe lEft" as usual. Despite the fact that this have bugger all to do with the left, the right or anyone in between.

At best, that lazy and awful photoshop pic in the OP was an ill thought out, quickly rattled off, 5 minute job, that nobody stopped to think further on other getting it out the door.

But this entire thread is a lot of hullabaloo over nothing.

Until someone has actually seen the program and can comment on it's content, there really isn't much to talk about here.

Tony EH · 21-08-2020 03:45PM

keano_afc wrote: »

There's a strange phenomenon these days that some people are so full of hate for those on the opposite side of the political spectrum to them that they will literally defend ANYTHING that the other side oppose.

The only reason people defended a poster of 11 years old in sexually provocative positions was because people on the other side to them were offended by it. I mean, they didnt even check to see if the poster was genuine. The first reaction was that it was fake, because there was no way they could (anonymously) agree with "American Nazi" types.

Its absolutely hilarious.

This is where we're at today. Team A and Team B politics and the only thing that matters is that your team "wins".

rossie1977 · 21-08-2020 03:47PM

What a mess this thread is, a thread about an innocuous French movie turned into one about liberals and antifa, right wing corporate sponsored Youtube has a lot to answer for.

Netflix must be laughing their hole off. A film that nobody would have watched has now turned into something that will like be most popular thing in the channel.

nthclare · 21-08-2020 03:53PM

rossie1977 wrote: »

What a mess this thread is, a thread about an innocuous French movie turned into one about liberals and antifa, right wing corporate sponsored Youtube has a lot to answer for.

Netflix must be laughing their hole off. A film that nobody would have watched has now turned into something that will like be most popular thing in the channel.

lol I was part of the mess, I put my hand up.
I was part of the Antifa and far right brigade's.

My fault I get caught up with my distain for both Antifa and the far right.

I was the guy in school who didn't like rag-tag virtue signaling hippy dippys and bullies...

I think I have a problem

AndrewJRenko · 21-08-2020 03:53PM

Errashareesh wrote: »

I'm more interested in the topic at hand than trying to score points in relation to what others might think about other stuff.

And much as I have no time for the first communion ceremony, it isn't sexual. Now if some folk want to spray tan the girls and get their nails and hair done garishly, that's their family, not the church.

Surely the whole 'bride of Christ' thing in their little bridal gowns is fairly creepy sexualisation of these young girls?

Gruffalux · 21-08-2020 03:54PM

Tony EH wrote: »

There's one problem here and that's all the Mary Whitehouse's hastily clutching their pearls and whinging and whining about a program THEY HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN and conjuring up a whole host of depraved ideas that they have floating around in THEIR OWN HEADS and then trying to make a load of bogus points about "tHe lEft" as usual. Despite the fact that this have bugger all to do with the left, the right or anyone in between.

At best, that lazy and awful photoshop pic in the OP was an ill thought out, quickly rattled off, 5 minute job, that nobody stopped to think further on other getting it out the door.

But this entire thread is a lot of hullabaloo over nothing.

Until someone has actually seen the program and can comment on it's content, there really isn't much to talk about here.

Tony, I am going to have to call out this hand waving of yours as bull sh1t.

It is not a photoshop picture. It is professional promotion material that was published by Netflix, a major global media corporation. Such promotional material is never rattled off in 5 minutes. It passes through lots of hands and involves time and money. There is plenty of scope to be critical of the published professional promotional material for an upcoming show on Netflix without watching the film - all one has to do is look at the advertisement and know it is unsuitable. I don't have pearls to clutch. I would like them, I think. I have some malachite, but clutching my malachites sounds weird.

stinkypinky · 21-08-2020 04:02PM

seamus wrote: »

The image in the OP is a fake created to make it appear like this is a pageant-style movie about dancing 11 year olds being sexy. It's not an image that Netflix has produced.

The "specialising in twerking routines" is also made up nonsense that has little to do with the film.

Look at the trailer and you'll see very little connection with the fake posters the OP has posted.

An absolute spoof post as per the usual from this poster. There's nothing fake about the images posted in the OP.

https://deadline.com/2020/08/netflix-apologizes-inappropriate-cuties-poster-criticized-sexualizing-children-1203018498/

Netflix recently began promoting the movie ahead of its September 9 release on the platform. However, the accompany artwork has provoked a storm of online criticism, with many saying the poster sexualizes children. One Twitter user called it “disgusting,” while another said, “Netflix really messed up here.” Here’s the poster that sparked the backlash:

I.e. Same poster in OP.

statesaver · 21-08-2020 04:05PM

Is there a tv classification / rating for the show ?

Age restriction ?

Tony EH · 21-08-2020 04:06PM

Gruffalox wrote: »

Tony, I am going to have to call out this hand waving of yours as bull sh1t.

It is not a photoshop picture. It is professional promotion material that was published by Netflix,

That, more than likely was made with Photoshop. :rolleyes:

It's the most common design package used for photo editing.

stinkypinky · 21-08-2020 04:07PM

Tony EH wrote: »

That, more than likely was made with Photoshop. :rolleyes:

You don't see the paradox is using the term "more than likely" and roll eyes smiley?

Tony EH · 21-08-2020 04:12PM

stinkypinky wrote: »

You don't see the paradox is using the term "more than likely" and roll eyes smiley?

There is no "paradox" here.

Photoshop us a professional photo editing tool used to create images. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the OP's image was created in it.

Gatling · 21-08-2020 04:13PM

statesaver wrote: »

Is there a tv classification / rating for the show ?

Age restriction ?

15s going by their own rating if I read correctly ,

stinkypinky · 21-08-2020 04:14PM

Tony EH wrote: »

There is no "paradox" here.

Photoshop us a professional photo editing tool used to create images. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the OP's image was created in it.

A straw-man, it doesn't matter if the picture was touched up by photoshop or not. It sexualizes kids. The "OP's image" was the one used by Netflix to promote the movie, as per my previous post.

Tony EH · 21-08-2020 04:16PM

stinkypinky wrote: »

A straw-man, it doesn't matter if the picture was touched up by photoshop or not. It sexualizes kids. The "OP's image" was the one used by Netflix to promote the movie, as per my previous post.

^
This entire post is a strawman.

Gruffalux · 21-08-2020 04:16PM

Tony EH wrote: »

There is no "paradox" here.

Photoshop us a professional photo editing tool used to create images. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the OP's image was created in it.

Photoshop as you well know in the way you used it implies that the image was cut and pasted to create a false ensemble. Photoshopping an image to enhance it in various ways is a given. But not what you meant.

stinkypinky · 21-08-2020 04:18PM

Tony EH wrote: »

^
This entire post is a strawman.

Whatever floats your boat buddy.

statesaver · 21-08-2020 04:18PM

Gatling wrote: »

15s going by their own rating if I read correctly ,

WOW so not appreciate content for U15's.

Netflix sexualising children.

Comments