http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-hill/disney-controversial-cartoon-characters_b_1028420.html
>that time where Disney — at great expense — reframed several scenes in The Lion King (So that — when the VHS version of this 1994 theatrical release finally hit store shelves — the hyenas who were parading in front of Scar in that animated feature’s “Be Prepared” number wouldn’t look quite so much like Nazi stormtroopers passing in review for Hitler)
Wait, what did the original shot look like?
I thought that was the point.
>>81014382
>what did the original shot look like
there were huge banners on the cliff face behind scar and and the hyena's had arm bands
in that bit in the middle of the song where scar just talks the hyenas salute with a loud sig heil
>>81014382
>huffpo
Not clicking that.
Anyway yes, the whole nazi lion scene was intended, so what.
Why this author thinks he deserves my click over something that is so obvious?
>>81014603
According to the text, it was somehow even more obvious in the original theatrical print.
>>81014382
How DARE you link that trash site here?!?
I've never heard about this, even when hardcore Lion King fans bitch about shit like the crocodiles in a music sequence being reanimated. I kind of wonder if the author mixed up some of the background information about the film, as the hyenas were supposed to be reminiscent of sequences from Triumph of the Will.
Like, apparently the Pridelands going to hell under Scar's rule would've been much darker and like a "concentration camp" (maybe not literally, but that was the phrasing used), but it was changed because the animators and others thought that was way too much.
I've never heard this either. It's so obviously a reference to Nazis. I knew it was referencing something sinister when I was a kid before I had even heard of Nazis. I would love for someone to find a source about this.
Is it supposed to just be the VHS version or all following versions? PTP has a LaserDisc-sourced video as well as two workprint videos. I wonder if those differ from the Blu-Ray for that scene.
>>81014382
>bad guy is a visual nazi parallel
>it's used to emphasize how he's the bad guy
>they remove the imagery later
>either because they don't want nazis to be associated with "bad guys"
>or because they don't want scar to be associated with "bad guys"
political correctness is weird.
>>81016503
Humans have a remarkable knack for interpreting things in whatever manner best suits them. There's no such thing as absolute truth.
>>81017088
>There's no such thing as absolute truth.
Check back when you've read something a bit older than Nietzsche.
Truth exists. Reality is not tethered to our interpretation of it. The orbit of planets and the mechanics of cells will persist regardless of what your opinion of them are.
>>81017131
I didn't think I needed to except math since I was specifically talking about human interpretation.
>>81017315
Human interpretation is irrelevant. Truth exists.
>>81017349
Fact exists.
>>81014424
It was the point. Goddamn it Disney.
>>81017088
>There's no such thing as absolute truth.
False. Or rather, contradictory statement.
>>81014382
I'm not giving huffpo hits, but if that image you posted is supposed to be what the "reframed" shot looks like, then I remember that the original had the camera off to the side, not behind the Hyenas.
Which is weird, because I'm pretty sure I had the VHS and that's what the shot always looked like.
>>81017411
Heh, make of that what you will.
>>81017131
>asserting that existence precedes essence
>asserting that truth is unaffected by perception
>posting Plato
nigga, get back when you aren't dreaming of a plane of ideals
>>81017369
Poop exists. Poop = shit. Shit is often false. Shit = false. BUT truth also exists. So truth = poop =shit... but then truth = false. Checkmate, I win philosophy!
>>81017411
>>81017446
>>81017485
>>81017445
only a pleb deals in absolutes.
The huge fucking tangent this thread went on is making me laugh pretty hard, thanks /co/.
>>81017445
Contradictions aren't reality. They are fiction. Make of that what you will.
>>81017547
But I am a scrub.
>>81017131
Unless reality is tethered to our interpretation of it. How can I know, objectively, that the orbit of the planets or the mechanics of the cells will persist regardless of my existance? I experience the external world through the lens of my own consciousness and senses which may well be decieving me. Perhaps all that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
But enough of that, I'm looking forward to seeing everyone at SolipsismCon.
>>81017634
>But enough of that, I'm looking forward to seeing everyone at SolipsismCon.
>everyone
>solipsism
Please don't.
>>81017131
>this philosophy is older, therefore it is true
Sound logic, m8.
>>81017596
Everyone likes to dickwave about philosophy, but I like to dickwave about philosophy without having actually studied. :^)
>>81017634
>How can I know, objectively, that the orbit of the planets or the mechanics of the cells will persist regardless of my existance
By not being an idiot. Your living does not predicate the processes and mechanics that allow for your living to happen. Your experience of the world is irrelevant.
>>81017446
Essence is a function of human perception, which is fallible. Truth is unaffected by perception, our understanding of truth is entirely perception.
>>81017666
>Ignoring the argument beneath.
Go back to your hugbox, tumblrite.
>>81017743
Dear lord, you are retarded.
>>81017666
If you take it without context, certainly you'd end up with that interpretation. However, what I find interesting is that the older philosophers were generally more correct than post-Enlightenment era ones.
The ideas were more than wanking.
>>81017772
>Whines about fallacies
>Continues to use them
>>81017718
Unless only one of us is real, and the rest are inventions. I would think that I was the real, because all I can sense is myself. No one else exists... which means I can do anything! I can fly! I can fly! Watch me, Ma! I'm gonna fly!
>>81017718
>By not being an idiot.
Naivism, everybody. Is this one caused by autism, immaturity or lack of understanding?
>>81017547
You were the chosen one! It was said that you would destroy the plebs, not join them!
>>81014382
I'm just offended that the hyenas look more like dogs in that scene
>>81017794
Why do you continue to ignore arguments?
>Your living does not predicate the processes and mechanics that allow for your living to happen. Your experience of the world is irrelevant.
Piss and moan about that.
>>81017821
Consciousness is the basis from which we derive everything else. We can not doubt the existence of our consciousness, but can everything else.
What if we are in a matrix? Or on a long trip of cosmic acid?
We need axiomatic beliefs to go further than ourselves. You for certain have copypasted modern world view pretty well. Too bad there is nothing worth defending in those, and it will crumble because it forgot the older ones.
Glorious age of Feminist Truth will come to your science.
>>81017915
>Consciousness is the basis from which we derive everything else.
But it is not the basis from which everything else is derived.
>>81017974
>But it is not the basis from which everything else is derived.
How do you know? It needs to go to your consciousness for you to know; it is filtered by your consciousness (and in case you are right, your biology etc. as well).
Where do you get the absolute trust you place upon it?
>>81017974
For all I know it is.
I came on /co/ to avoid my Philosophy work. What the hell is going on here?
>>81017718
My experience of the world is the only thing of relevence. And the basis of emperical science. You speak of the orbit of the planets? You know of this, I would assume, because someone told you about it, because you read it in a book, etc. back to the first person who observed the relative motion of the planets and made deductions.
And that is the basis of all emperical science, you use your senses to observe and experiment, to acquire data and evidence with which you amass knowledge. Something is true because you observe it to be so.
Are there things we can not observe but may be true? Possibly, but since anything that can effect you, you can observe, then these things can not effect us. They exist, for want of a better term, outside my light-cone. It's these things, not experience, which are irrelevent and merit no serious consideration.
>>81018025
>How do you know
Repeated observation by multiple observers, negating inefficiencies in my own perception by exposing a physical process or procedure to other perceptions.
>Where do you get the absolute trust you place upon it?
I do not trust my perception. I trust that there exists an objective truth that is beyond my ability to perceive.
>>81018037
Your perception is not reality.
>>81018046
Your experience of the world is irrelevant. Empirical science is not based on personal experience at all, but rather a tightly controlled and restricted experience shared between multiple observers to minimize the risk of an unequal or misinformed perception.
You collate existence with truth, demonstrating your lack of understanding regarding either topic.
The existence of a visual phenomenon that makes it appear the horizon is the end of the Earth is not the truth. Your perception is not the basis for anything other than your perception.
>>81014382
Remember, it was edited not for PC reasons, but because Disney got sued by zoologists for defamation of character of Hyenas.
>>81018147
You still trust to something else though because there's no way to empirically prove to yourself that your perception is correct.
>>81018147
As you say, "repeated observation by multiple observers" and "experience shared between multiple observers". Experience and observation are key.
One can percieve the earth is round. You can observe, visually from a sufficient height, the curvature of the earth. One can circumnavigate it. Or one can observe that two shadows cast by a rod the same length, at the same time, but located miles apart differ.
I can tell you that there's a rock orbiting the sun beyond neptune that looks comically like an erect penis complete with glans and veins. But until our telescopes and probes find my boner comet, until a part of humanity experinces and chuckles at the low-resolution images of it, that statement can not be said to be true.
>>81014382
>Hitler and Nazis were the first people to hold military parades
>What is a Roman Triumph?
>>81018408
Which would mean my perception is not the only thing that matters and cannot constitute reality.
>>81018506
The Earth was not flat because a lot of people perceived it to be. Your perception is not the basis of reality.
>>81017131
If it's a fucking interpretation then yes, there is no such thing as absolute truth. Because it can simply be denied. And no matter how much you post pedantic, dead, Greeks, it will not stop me from denying your absolute truth.
>>81018691
Not mine, "a." Truth exists. One can deny anything; denying the existence of someone or something does not cause that thing to not exist.
>>81018664
But it doesn't mean the observable reality is the true reality.
>>81018724
Correct. Which is why there must be something beyond my perception. The basis of empirical science is the acknowledgement that observable reality is not necessarily reality as is.
>>81014382
Well yeah its referenci lng Nazis, nobody would deny that
>>81018839
You can't prove it. The truth, perhaps once understood, could now simply be too complicated for your now-limited perception to comprehend or realize.
>>81018931
But it does exist. Else the Earth would actually be flat, since that's what I perceive it to be when I stare at the horizon.
My perception is not reality. That is the truth.
>>81017131
Thank you /his/ for derailing the thread
>>81018986
You're right, as far as you perceive. But because your perception appears to be limited there's no way for you to absolutely prove it.
>>81017416
that side shot is also in the final film
i saw the film during it's original theatrical run and I've no fucking clue what this article is talking about.
>>81018986
>>81019064
Actually when you stare at the horizon you percieve a convex plane. This is why things dip below the horizon and vanish from the bottom up as opposed to just growing infinitely small.
>>81019064
Correct. The basis for my understanding of the universe is entirely physical. A destruction of any single one of my physical senses, however, does not change the entire universe. It only changes my ability to perceive the universe.
The Allegory of the Cave demonstrates that perception and reality are divorced. This is the only truth.
>>81019095
According to several people in this thread, you're wrong. If you think the Earth is flat then that's the truth.
>>81014913
So they went with "typical African shithole run by a tin pot dictator" instead and thinking about it now, it's all works pretty well.
>>81014382
Is it just me or do people seem to not realize that Nazi Germany wasn't the only horrible regime in history and Hitler wasn't the only dictator? Everyone's views of history are really shallow and meme-based I'm realizing. Hitler is always the bad guy in fiction so they seem to think he's the only bad guy in real life.
>>81018664
Belief and perception are not the same. If you experienced the edge of the world, saw it, heard it, felt it, fell over it and broke your bones as you impacted on the shell of a large turtle then does your belief matter? What's the difference between dying on the shell of a turtle on a flat earth and being a brain in a jar on a spherical earth trapped in a simulation of dying on the shell of a turtle on a flat earth?
And if you think there is a difference, how do you know you're not hallucinating a spherical earth while living on a flat one? After all, would a real person in the real world put this much effort into shitposting on an internet image board?
>>81014424
It LITERALLY is the point.
>>81019135
>The Allegory of the Cave demonstrates that perception and reality appear to be divorced
You could be tricking yourself and not know it, and thus have no way to prove it.
You can prove things as far as the observable reality is concerned but you cannot prove or disprove what you cannot observe.That is the only truth.
>>81019339
You've been arguing that believing something and seeing something are equivalent states of being for the entire thread.
I know I'm not hallucinating a spherical Earth while living on a flat one because the Earth is, objectively, spherical.
The Greek philosophers you so disdain actually figured this out thousands of years ago.
>>81017547
middle ground fallacy is how Europe ended where it is today..
>>81019421
But you cannot prove your observation of reality is correct. Of course, at that point, you can not prove anything beyound yourself exists - so, we have to take certain axioms on faith.
>>81019421
No, perception and reality are divorced. There are numerous ways to prove this, and I've used several famous examples to do so. Your perception does not constitute reality.
>You could be tricking yourself and not know it.
You are agreeing with me and you don't understand why or how.
Man this thread went places fast.
>>81019591
It's actually going nowhere. This argument about reality and perception could just be perpetuated by a guy who really wants his waifu to be real.
>>81019462
No, I've been arguing that experiencing something is the only way to assign truth values to it.
How do you know the Earth is, objectively, spherical? As I have said, you can observe it to be so. You can walk around it. You can see how objects at the horizon vanish from the bottom up. You can see how shadows differ at different points on the surface.
Or, at the very least, someone else has experienced it and relayed that information to you. They've spoken to you about it. They've written it down. Or it's affected you in some other way. Your friend wandered past the horizon and came back.
I can say my dick is, objectively, huge. But the only way to assign a truth value, to have this statement be true (or -indeed- false) is to provide proof. And the only proof is for people to experience it. For people to experience my dick.
>>81019501
You think because there are observable constants some constants must exist beyond your observation. You're probably right. But you can't prove it in any reality beyond the one you can currently observe so it doesn't matter.
>>81019753
>No, I've been arguing that experiencing something is the only way to assign truth values to it.
Yes, you've been arguing that seeing something and believing it are the same thing. You have established this.
You are now arguing that the only reason the Earth is spherical is because it can be experienced as spherical. You are, as you have been for the entire thread, arguing that if I perceive or experience the Earth as flat, then it is flat.
>>81019911
Nihilism is for dummies, anon. You don't come across like a dummy.
>>81020244
Nah I'm not a nihilist, I squarely believe that the best approach to life is to concern one's self with the observable reality. Worrying about anything else just gets in the way of what we're programmed to do.
>>81020215
You are both wrong and right.
>You are, as you have been for the entire thread, arguing that if I perceive or experience the Earth as flat, then it is flat.
Correct. If you truly experience the earth as flat, if your experience is indistinguishable from what you would experience living on a flat earth, if there is no possible way you can experience the earth as round - then the earth is flat.
>Yes, you've been arguing that seeing something and believing it are the same thing.
Visual observation is one form of observation, but not the only one. I can use my other senses and observation to demonstrate that what I see isn't an accurate reflection of reality. Similarly what I believe and what I experience can be different. But no matter how much I believe something, I can only show something to be true if it is capable of being experienced.
>>81017131
By the dog, I am worried about you!
Talking about absolutes is dangerous, my friend. You say that "Truth exists", fine. Then you talk about the orbits of planets and the mechanics of cells which I am not going to disagree upon. If I look at the skies I do see planets racing our skies with a magnificent percision and when I look through the microscope I do see cells going on their business throughout the season. But are they the truth then? If a senseless madman runs around the the tree every season does it mean it is the truth then? What about the endless shitposting on /tv/? Is that the truth?
Let's go back to the original statement: "Truth exists". What is truth? Truth is something absolute in it's term. If you change the truth, then it means it wasn't the truth to begin with. And if we take the material world around us, it is constantly changing. New discoveries in science throughtout time constantly show us that we were wrong about something and the deeper we go the bigger the changes in our self stated "truths".
But if "Truth exists", in it's absolute meaning, it also says that something doesn't exist. Absolutes exclude the opposites. If we take a "lie" as an opposite, just as an example, we can say the opposite "Lie doesn't exist" or as in, "a lie is lack of truth". But when the material things do change constantly, does that mean they do not exist if we cannot see them as truth? Is the only truth the the truth is everchanging?
I do not know and I know at least that.
Stay well, my friend.
>>81014382
Um, that was the point?
"Stick with me and you'll never go hungry again" was a direct quote from Adolf himself.
The point of the scene was to show how much of an evil dick Scar was, so they used Hitler and Nazism to illustrate that point.
Huffpo is a rag that I use to wipe my ass with anyway; don't read too much into this article.
This thread became unusually enlightening
