Animal Crackers are Capitalist Oppression ZOMG!

[lunchstealer]

Oh my fucking god you guys animal crackers are problematic because capitalism and exploitation.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/08/29/new- ... box-is-pro

[nicole]

Do not fucking get me started on Robby's complete clickbait trash writing

[Eric the .5b]

Eh. It's not a great piece, but it notes the current point on the pendulum between "there's no real alternative to capitalism, so let's make the best of it" and "capitalism is obviously obsolete and dying" that the left swings between....OK, it's inane H&R filler.

[nicole]

It completely misrepresents the Vox post

[Eric the .5b]

It completely misrepresents the Vox post

Somewhat, but far from completely. I sympathize with the writer being frustrated that only completely meaningless changes are doable, but as her hand-wringing and rhetoric are indistinguishable from any other yutz arguing to tear down capitalism, I don't favor the meaningful changes she presumably wants.

Naturally, she's a social media consultant and blogger who writes about things like how"2018 was not the year for Wes Anderson to make an apolitical film".

[Pham Nuwen]

Like a true 'murican I haven't read the article. But let me assure you I am riled up. Now. Could someone I agree with already post a summary I can misunderstand and, more importantly, misrepresent to others?

[nicole]

It completely misrepresents the Vox post

Somewhat, but far from completely. I sympathize with the writer being frustrated that only completely meaningless changes are doable, but as her hand-wringing and rhetoric are indistinguishable from any other yutz arguing to tear down capitalism, I don't favor the meaningful changes she presumably wants.

Naturally, she's a social media consultant and blogger who writes about things like how"2018 was not the year for Wes Anderson to make an apolitical film".

"Presumably" being key, because she didn't actually call for any changes, let alone "full socialism" as Robby claims.

[Eric the .5b]

It completely misrepresents the Vox post

Somewhat, but far from completely. I sympathize with the writer being frustrated that only completely meaningless changes are doable, but as her hand-wringing and rhetoric are indistinguishable from any other yutz arguing to tear down capitalism, I don't favor the meaningful changes she presumably wants.

Naturally, she's a social media consultant and blogger who writes about things like how"2018 was not the year for Wes Anderson to make an apolitical film".

"Presumably" being key, because she didn't actually call for any changes, let alone "full socialism" as Robby claims.

That's on her. She used left-wing rhetoric and complaints and just whined about how we can't do the big., important changes without saying what she meant by that.

Really, looking into her, she's probably more of a marketer to lefties than a true-believer, but then I'm just taking her at what she's trying to sell.

[nicole]

Capitalism isn’t mentioned at all until paragraph nine. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are examples of how Mondelez specifically is using the box change to whitewash its corporate image. Then it goes back to being a story about the status of commercial art in society, and ends with her declaring the animal cracker box her “personal Balthus.” I don’t get seriously coming away from that with “she’s demanding full socialism because changing the box isn’t enough for her.”

[lunchstealer]

It completely misrepresents the Vox post

The Vox post really is deeply stupid. I actually first heard about it from a left-liberal friend, not Reason, but in googling to find the actual story, Reason's take popped up.

ETA: And part of the blame on that falls on Vox's headline writers/editors. Hell, the editors should've just squelched the 'capitalism is teh evuls' paragraph altogether, just on relevance grounds. It is kind of a non sequitur and leads to exactly this sort of thing. Except, of course, that nobody would've ever clicked on an article about how mean it is that her great granduncle's art got perverted/whitewashed if it weren't there and they couldn't slap a Bernista spin on it.

[Hugh Akston]

I pity the headline writer because that piece is kind of all over the place. This is presumably the thesis statement:

I don’t believe that what PETA’s animal cracker box campaign has done is censorship, but I do believe it places an unfair burden on an artist’s contribution without addressing any of the deeper ethical issues in play.

Which is a heavy distillation of an article that touches on animal exploitation, income inequality, corporate archival policies, and the sort of trivial family history that you politely nod along to while deciding whether to get another drink.

If anything is wrong with this article, it's that it is the sort of aimless thinkpiece where everything is problematic and why doesn't somebody do something that Vox is rightly mocked for publishing.

[Aresen]

ETA: And part of the blame on that falls on Vox's headline writers/editors. Hell, the editors should've just squelched the 'capitalism is teh evuls' paragraph altogether, just on relevance grounds. It is kind of a non sequitur and leads to exactly this sort of thing. Except, of course, that nobody would've ever clicked on an article about how mean it is that her great granduncle's art got perverted/whitewashed if it weren't there and they couldn't slap a Bernista spin on it.

I think it is compulsory for Vox writers to insert some form of 'capitalism is teh evuls' into every article the same way that every PBS story about the natural world has to contain a reference to 'anthropogenic climate change'.

[Tuco]

Like a true 'murican I haven't read the article. But let me assure you I am riled up. Now. Could someone I agree with already post a summary I can misunderstand and, more importantly, misrepresent to others?

You, sir, are a true patriot.

[Pham Nuwen]

Like a true 'murican I haven't read the article. But let me assure you I am riled up. Now. Could someone I agree with already post a summary I can misunderstand and, more importantly, misrepresent to others?

You, sir, are a true patriot.

*waves tiny american flag*

[Warren]

Like a true 'murican I haven't read the article. But let me assure you I am riled up. Now. Could someone I agree with already post a summary I can misunderstand and, more importantly, misrepresent to others?

You, sir, are a true patriot.

*waves tiny american flag*

Tuco is right about Pham being right!

[Highway]

Like a true 'murican I haven't read the article. But let me assure you I am riled up. Now. Could someone I agree with already post a summary I can misunderstand and, more importantly, misrepresent to others?

You, sir, are a true patriot.

*waves tiny american flag*

Tuco is right about Pham being right!

Now who can argue with that. I think we're all indebted to Warren Johnson for clearly stating what needed to be said!

[Jasper]

I agree with Highway.

[Pham Nuwen]

When do we work up a number 6 on them?

[Number 6]

When do we work up a number 6 on them?

What now?

[Warren]

When do we work up a number 6 on them?

What now?

Well, that's where we go a-ridin' into town, a-whompin' and a-whumpin' every livin' thing that moves within an inch of its life. Except the women folks, of course.

[Pham Nuwen]

When do we work up a number 6 on them?

What now?

Well, that's where we go a-ridin' into town, a-whoppin' and a-whumpin' every livin' thing that moves within an inch of its life. Except the womenfolks, of course.

[Pham Nuwen]

Dammit warren!

[Ellie]

Like a true 'murican I haven't read the article. But let me assure you I am riled up. Now. Could someone I agree with already post a summary I can misunderstand and, more importantly, misrepresent to others?

You, sir, are a true patriot.

*waves tiny american flag*

Pham, your flag is so ... small.

[Jennifer]

I didn't think the Vox article was that bad -- but then, long before I read it or saw this thread, all I knew about the Barnums redesign was that it was a PETA suggestion, and PETA seems to think this is a victory for suffering animals, which is of course asinine because, while IMO there are legit anti-cruelty arguments to make against keeping zoo or circus animals in those little prison-like cages the way we did a century ago ... altering a cartoon picture on a snack box of course does exactly fuck-all about such problems now. So I already had/have the attitude "Yeah, this is stupid precisely because it does nothing at all to fix any sort of injustice or unfairness or cruelty, anywhere, to anyone or anything... despite the hosannas pretending otherwise." But that does not come from any idea "Barnums should change their box design in a way that does something to fix injustice or unfairness or cruelty, somewhere."

[Pham Nuwen]

Like a true 'murican I haven't read the article. But let me assure you I am riled up. Now. Could someone I agree with already post a summary I can misunderstand and, more importantly, misrepresent to others?

You, sir, are a true patriot.

*waves tiny american flag*

Pham, your flag is so ... small.

You know what they say about people with tiny flags ...