The Energon Pub

o.supreme wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Because many, many have said something similar and were dead serious. "They" even demanded to cancel Paw Patrol!

Kind of sad. My sons first experience with TF was Rescue Bots. Such a great show for kids...I can't speak to Academy since my son obviously out grew it before then. But it's no doubt sadly on someone's list somewhere to be cancelled. Makes me even more disappointed SF! never realeased proper DVD seasons, just random one offs. This show may well become harder for TF fans to see legally than RiD soon enough.

The paw patrol thing was fake news.

High Command wrote:Both parties need a good kicking from where I'm sitting. They're both complacent and too detached from what really matters.

Amen to that.
Too much pandering, too much laisser faire.
And way too much corruption.

It's sadly the same thing all over the world, no matter the political party nor the country.
It's the human factor I guess.

Still, better this than being ruled by Skynet.
(Or is it?)

Absolute Zero wrote:

o.supreme wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Because many, many have said something similar and were dead serious. "They" even demanded to cancel Paw Patrol!

Kind of sad. My sons first experience with TF was Rescue Bots. Such a great show for kids...I can't speak to Academy since my son obviously out grew it before then. But it's no doubt sadly on someone's list somewhere to be cancelled. Makes me even more disappointed SF! never realeased proper DVD seasons, just random one offs. This show may well become harder for TF fans to see legally than RiD soon enough.

The paw patrol thing was fake news.

The problem here is that fake or not, some people will believe it. And right now people are insane. We've all heard the stories of people that have been harassed or even hit because of simply wearing a red hat. Now I feel like I have to watch out for my nephew in case someone who, believing that there's something racist about paw patrol, goes after my nephew or sister because he's wearing Chase today.

it's the same people that think the OK gesture is suddenly the new Seig Heil, and those people are **** crazy.

ShadowKatt wrote:it's the same people that think the OK gesture is suddenly the new Seig Heil, and those people are **** crazy.

That was a very effective 4Chan troll campaign.

But the craziest thing is that the media and organisations (like the ADL) KNOW it's a 4Chan prank. But they just can't let go of the racist golden goose.

boyatlarge wrote:Considering the current climate, you would think Hasbro would remove PROWL from the image...

Haha, I know this is in jest and I'm pretty sure he's just there because hasbro wasn't gonna redo a poster and just use what they have instead, but I am happy Prowl is there. It brings the idea of Unity.
Actually, of all the corporate posts I have seen on this topic, this is my favourite one. While they do mention the cause for Black people, since it's in response to a crisis that is on everyone's mind at the moment, they use well known quotes from the brand that have a nice message of inclusiveness (both quotes talk about "all"). Plus the blue lives are represented with Prowl, showing the ideal of having the police present in our lives as heroes. And to top it all off, their avatar is representative of the LGBTQ movement as well. So it's a nice message of inclusiveness in making sure there is justice for all while addressing the current distress.

Thanks to your post, Will, I discovered that Optimus quote. I know about Megatron's before, but not that one.

So thanks to that, I have a new sweet-ass sig. It represent very well the clashing of ideologies.

Still, the Transformers didn't end their civil wars after MILLIONS of years. At this point, it's a cultural thing I guess.

High Command wrote:Both parties need a good kicking from where I'm sitting. They're both complacent and too detached from what really matters.

Probably the most true thing said this week in this thread.

ShadowKatt wrote:

Absolute Zero wrote:

o.supreme wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Because many, many have said something similar and were dead serious. "They" even demanded to cancel Paw Patrol!

Kind of sad. My sons first experience with TF was Rescue Bots. Such a great show for kids...I can't speak to Academy since my son obviously out grew it before then. But it's no doubt sadly on someone's list somewhere to be cancelled. Makes me even more disappointed SF! never realeased proper DVD seasons, just random one offs. This show may well become harder for TF fans to see legally than RiD soon enough.

The paw patrol thing was fake news.

The problem here is that fake or not, some people will believe it.

That's why you gotta tell people it's fake and point them to the articles that show it's fake. Fake news can only spread if the truth isn't shared.

Absolute Zero wrote:

ShadowKatt wrote:

Absolute Zero wrote:

o.supreme wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Because many, many have said something similar and were dead serious. "They" even demanded to cancel Paw Patrol!

Kind of sad. My sons first experience with TF was Rescue Bots. Such a great show for kids...I can't speak to Academy since my son obviously out grew it before then. But it's no doubt sadly on someone's list somewhere to be cancelled. Makes me even more disappointed SF! never realeased proper DVD seasons, just random one offs. This show may well become harder for TF fans to see legally than RiD soon enough.

The paw patrol thing was fake news.

The problem here is that fake or not, some people will believe it.

That's why you gotta tell people it's fake and point them to the articles that show it's fake. Fake news can only spread if the truth isn't shared.

In principle, you're right. In practice...

I'm tempted to go through this thread and count up the words I've typed. Just morbid curiosity, I wonder if I hit the 10k mark. All that work, and have I swayed a single person to my way of thinking, or even made them question their own? We as a culture have lost the ability to debate and sometimes even to think critically and logically about almost anything. I'd like to think that the people I've talked to here are a cut above the rest, but that means that the rest of the peope out there...the only fact that really matters much anymore is that facts don't really matter anymore. I could present someone with an entire thesis, supported by statistics, testimonials, and a case study, and the first questions asked would be who did the data analysis and which way did they lean. The entire arguement hinged on sociopolitical opinions of the person doing it rather than the information itself. Bias is omnipresent, lies and half truths are the new currency of our generation, and there's really no countering the fake news out there. Not to be hyperbolic, but 5g causing the corona virus, the planet being round is an elaborate conspiracy theory, and you expect me to somehow convince someone that watches CNN or Fox that what they saw on TV was wrong? I think I'd have an easier time leveling out the Himalayas and building an beach condo.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:the best, optimal place to raise children is in the nuclear family, one mom, one dad married raising children.

This is the 2nd time I've seen this. Are you saying this as an opinion, or a fact?

Because I have to disagree somewhat. While I believe that a family with 2 parents is a more optimal situation for children, especially younger ones, there are exceptions (such as Burn's example). However, I believe that the 2 parents in question can be just as good at providing for children emotionally and financially if they're the same sex. As long as those children know the situation and the reasons why their parents are not in the same familial setting as some of their friends. Same sex couples can raise children just as well as married heterosexual couples. A family does not depend on a piece of paper issued by a church or even a government agency. Yeah, legally they have to have a piece of paper saying they're together, and it's for the benefit of medical insurance and some other things, so it might give them an advantage financially, but it all comes down to the personalities of said parents. How responsible they are, emotionally, financially and socially.

As I said, single parents can also achieve this, but it is more difficult. It is better to have 2 parents for children, but they don't have to be a male and female pair.

This is getting off topic. So I will only respond to this once more. PM me if you want to continue the discussion.

Yes, the traditional nuclear family is the optimal place to raise children. Logically one man and one woman is required to make a baby. Thus, one man and one woman in a stable marriage will be the optimal environment to raise children

I am NOT saying single parents are evil. I am NOT saying homosexuals are evil or their parenting is evil.


This is supported by scientific evidence.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/fede ... ealth.html

This site provides the link to the federal study, "Family Structure and Children's Health in the United States." 

ShadowKatt wrote:you expect me to somehow convince someone that watches CNN or Fox that what they saw on TV was wrong? I think I'd have an easier time leveling out the Himalayas and building an beach condo.

Contrary to what Brian Stelter of CNN have once said (Don't watch other channels for your info, just watch only us) one must read and watch the news form both Left and Right news outlets for at least half the picture. The other half is to find the actual raw footage and testimonies that are unfiltered and unedited. Big Brother is everywhere thanks to the smartphone so finding the real truth can be easy... for those who are willing to put in the effort.

boyatlarge wrote:Considering the current climate, you would think Hasbro would remove PROWL from the image...

dont give the "Cancel Nazis" any ideas they already canceled Paw Patrol because of the police dog AND
took away Yosemite Sam's and Elmer Fudd's guns

Ultra Markus wrote:

boyatlarge wrote:Considering the current climate, you would think Hasbro would remove PROWL from the image...

dont give the "Cancel Nazis" any ideas they already canceled Paw Patrol because of the police dog AND
took away Yosemite Sam's and Elmer Fudd's guns

Fake news or not, Cancel Culture have existed since FOREVER. It's always a power and control game. I remember in the 1990's and before that, it was the Christians who had the "power". This resulted in a (hilarious today) literal demon witch hunt. MTG cards had to ban the word "demon" from the cards, and there even had "which trials".

But today's Cancel Culture have been cranked up to 11 due to social media and the banning of the "far right", meaning not only the crazies from the Right, but the moderates from all over the spectrum. So all that remain on Twitter and such are the crazy far-leftists. Corporations on Twitter bafflingly think the world revolve around that Twitter.

Oh, and speaking of ancient cancel culture, there's the Iconoclasts. The kind to erase and destroy ancient monuments and icons, like toppling statues, to achieve total dominance and control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm

History is repeating itself. Over and over again.

-Kanrabat- wrote:Say what you will about Trump, but he was right to ask them to vote Republican for once because "What do you have to lose?"

For over a hundred thousand people, that answer turned out to be "my life".

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:the best, optimal place to raise children is in the nuclear family, one mom, one dad married raising children.

This is the 2nd time I've seen this. Are you saying this as an opinion, or a fact?

Because I have to disagree somewhat. While I believe that a family with 2 parents is a more optimal situation for children, especially younger ones, there are exceptions (such as Burn's example). However, I believe that the 2 parents in question can be just as good at providing for children emotionally and financially if they're the same sex. As long as those children know the situation and the reasons why their parents are not in the same familial setting as some of their friends. Same sex couples can raise children just as well as married heterosexual couples. A family does not depend on a piece of paper issued by a church or even a government agency. Yeah, legally they have to have a piece of paper saying they're together, and it's for the benefit of medical insurance and some other things, so it might give them an advantage financially, but it all comes down to the personalities of said parents. How responsible they are, emotionally, financially and socially.

As I said, single parents can also achieve this, but it is more difficult. It is better to have 2 parents for children, but they don't have to be a male and female pair.

This is getting off topic. So I will only respond to this once more. PM me if you want to continue the discussion.

Yes, the traditional nuclear family is the optimal place to raise children. Logically one man and one woman is required to make a baby. Thus, one man and one woman in a stable marriage will be the optimal environment to raise children

I am NOT saying single parents are evil. I am NOT saying homosexuals are evil or their parenting is evil.


This is supported by scientific evidence.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/fede ... ealth.html

This site provides the link to the federal study, "Family Structure and Children's Health in the United States." 

I have a feeling you are a lousy teacher

Does anybody know how to block people here?

-Kanrabat- wrote:

High Command wrote:I haven't seen anyone blaming the republicans so far.

Thinking about it, that's true. But obviously, I never, ever heard someone from "the left" blame the Democrats from their own failure.

Also, if it the policies in a Democrat city just don't work, why does the people of that city keep voting Democrat over and over, decades after decades like a beaten wife who can't leave her abusive husband?

Say what you will about Trump, but he was right to ask them to vote Republican for once because "What do you have to lose?"

At least they could shift every 8 years "just because" like in many places. Some may think people would be tired to live Groundhog Day over and over...

then you really haven't been looking, lol

like, even aside from the fact that the Democratic Party isn't actually left-wing (it's center-right) and thus actual leftists don't really feel any actual loyalty or obligation or anything to it, and have historically been spurned by it...

have you really seen none of the left-wing backlash against the Democratic governors/mayors/etc. on this topic? There's been so, so, so much. So much.

william-james88 wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Say what you will about Trump, but he was right to ask them to vote Republican for once because "What do you have to lose?"

For over a hundred thousand people, that answer turned out to be "my life".

wheres the link to that claim i would like to see it

fanguy99 wrote:I have a feeling you are a lousy teacher

That's uncalled for. Disagree with the points if you feel the need, but don't make personal attacks.

"Big Company chases political Headlines to make Money"

There, fixed that for you.

Regardless of what you believe, taking a side in a politically charged atmosphere does more harm than good when you're a company, or a platform. Especially when you stand to prophet from it. This is asinine, and I'd argue that is isnt even news... every company has made one of these posts, Hasbro isnt special.

fanguy99 wrote:Does anybody know how to block people here?

It'll be a feature that isn't available to you.

Will be in a few more posts though ...

Ultra Markus wrote:

william-james88 wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Say what you will about Trump, but he was right to ask them to vote Republican for once because "What do you have to lose?"

For over a hundred thousand people, that answer turned out to be "my life".

wheres the link to that claim i would like to see it

I believe he is talking about covid-19

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... in-us.html

fanguy99 wrote:Does anybody know how to block people here?

Go to your profile, friends and foes, and drop them into foes to ignore them.

Or

Click on their name, scroll down and click add foe.

william-james88 wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Say what you will about Trump, but he was right to ask them to vote Republican for once because "What do you have to lose?"

For over a hundred thousand people, that answer turned out to be "my life".

Trump is not a GOD.
Because if he alone and his party were sorely responsible for those COVID deaths, it would mean that the Republicans are the only rulers of the USA and the Democrats don't exist.

Like, come on.

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:the best, optimal place to raise children is in the nuclear family, one mom, one dad married raising children.

This is the 2nd time I've seen this. Are you saying this as an opinion, or a fact?

Because I have to disagree somewhat. While I believe that a family with 2 parents is a more optimal situation for children, especially younger ones, there are exceptions (such as Burn's example). However, I believe that the 2 parents in question can be just as good at providing for children emotionally and financially if they're the same sex. As long as those children know the situation and the reasons why their parents are not in the same familial setting as some of their friends. Same sex couples can raise children just as well as married heterosexual couples. A family does not depend on a piece of paper issued by a church or even a government agency. Yeah, legally they have to have a piece of paper saying they're together, and it's for the benefit of medical insurance and some other things, so it might give them an advantage financially, but it all comes down to the personalities of said parents. How responsible they are, emotionally, financially and socially.

As I said, single parents can also achieve this, but it is more difficult. It is better to have 2 parents for children, but they don't have to be a male and female pair.

This is getting off topic. So I will only respond to this once more. PM me if you want to continue the discussion.

Yes, the traditional nuclear family is the optimal place to raise children. Logically one man and one woman is required to make a baby. Thus, one man and one woman in a stable marriage will be the optimal environment to raise children

I am NOT saying single parents are evil. I am NOT saying homosexuals are evil or their parenting is evil.


This is supported by scientific evidence.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/fede ... ealth.html

This site provides the link to the federal study, "Family Structure and Children's Health in the United States." 

It also has a very specific end goal:

We point to this evidence in support of policies which would discourage divorce, cohabitation, and out-of-wedlock pregnancies, while encouraging sexual abstinence until marriage-as well as in opposing efforts to change the fundamental definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

For the sake of argument however, let's say the single federal studies cited is correct and the multiple contradictory ones, I had previously quoted from were all wrong and a family unit comprised of a man and a woman is best for a child. The logical next step would be then to say that a polyamorous relationship would be even better. Perhaps a family unit consisting of two men and two women would provide even more emotional and economic support for a child. That way they'd have even more examples of male and female role models and healthy examples of m/f m/m and f/f relationships all in one household. Surely we must think of the children and normalise polyamory, as that's only logical. Hadn't we better redefine the legal status of marriage to include this for the sake of the children. Sounds like a lifestyle that isn't for you? Great, so does a nuclear marriage for plenty of folks too. Just because your approach is the way it's been done for a long time (and thereby society has been set aup around it that way traditionally) doesn't make it best or the only way.