Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Government Politics

G.I. Joe No Longer the Real American Hero? 548

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the pussification-of-the-modern-male dept.
Advocate123 writes "Clearly, Hollywood has forgotten the, 'Real American Hero.' G.I. Joe originally symbolized the American WWII soldier and a great generation. Now Hollywood celebrities are going to turn him into a international multicultural coed task force with no government affiliations. Isn't anything sacred to these people?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

G.I. Joe No Longer the Real American Hero?

Comments Filter:
  • by MonorailCat (1104823) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @01:40AM (#20518163)
    President Bush has signed a $100 million appropriations bill to supply soldiers in Iraq with red lasers.
    • by MagusSlurpy (592575) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @01:46AM (#20518201) Homepage
      Well, now, that's good news, but when is he going to send them the sharks?
    • by famicommie (1118707) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @03:29AM (#20518727)
      In other news... ? I would sincerely like to know who qualifies a blog with the following mission statement as news:

      This political blog is dedicated to informed citizens who understand the benefits of limited government, capitalism, private property rights, and plain common sense. If you disagree with any or all of the political satire on this blog, we apologize for the intellectual abuse inflicted upon you by your university professors."
      So, what? If I feel that capitalism allowed to be unrestrained by a hampered limited government is bad news, then I have clearly been tainted by university professors? Whatever. I'll just pass on reading your blog and instead ask the moderators why the Hell this article was accepted at all (let alone promoted to front page material).
      • by thegsusfreek (769912) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @04:51AM (#20519041)

        So if I believe that having a small, limited government is good (as the founding fathers did) and that capitalism (not unrestrained, but not heavily restricted either; just minimal intervention) is a good thing, just because you believe in Socialism or some other such system means that this article (having little to do with either of these beliefs) should not be accepted?

        Wow.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by colmore (56499)
        Yeah, if these guys are holding G. I. Frikkin' Joe to be "sacred" then I really have to ask how sacred they're holding the idea of sacredness.
  • Damn It! (Score:5, Funny)

    by rossz (67331) <ogre@@@geekbiker...net> on Saturday September 08, 2007 @01:41AM (#20518167) Homepage Journal
    Now those bastards are turning him into a euro-pussie. They already have Ken, what more do they want?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by wamerocity (1106155)
      Are you suggesting that a Greenpeace Soldier action figure would not be manly?!
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by rossz (67331)
        A greenpeace action figure would eat tofu, wear earth shoes, and run screaming like a school girl at the first sign of any real danger.
        • Re:Damn It! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by arivanov (12034) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:47AM (#20518509) Homepage
          Really,

          Wanna try to picket a UK naval base and not let the whole fleet group out to go and kick some Iraqis for a week? Want to stand in the way of a frigate coming out of harbour?

          Wanna run the gauntlet of Japanese whaling boats and stand between them and a whale? Each harpoon has at least one pound of TNT in it by the way. Granted, it is not a cannon shell, but it can do some hefty damage...

          Wanna stand in the way of French towboats towing an asbestous ladden ship to India for disassembly? We all very well know how much they value protestors life...
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Baumi (148744)
          You know, I have lots of issues with Grenpeace, namely their tendency to concentrate on issues that'll get them media exposure instead of those which may be more pressing, but exactly that tendency has driven them to do anything but run away from danger. For better or worse, this chase from the G8 summit [youtube.com] e.g. doesn't look like running away to me. (It's debatable whether it serves any purpose besides grabbing headlines, but that's another issue.)
        • Re:Damn It! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Scrameustache (459504) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @11:23AM (#20520879) Homepage Journal

          A greenpeace action figure would eat tofu, wear earth shoes, and run screaming like a school girl at the first sign of any real danger.
          Let's see you get between an explosive harpoon and the whale it's meant for, internet tough guy.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by gwaawg (962886)
      lol! first Jesus Christ and now G.I. Joe.... Those darned Europeans.
    • Re:Damn It! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Seumas (6865) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @03:04AM (#20518611)
      What is it exactly that makes the WWII generation better than every other generation that has ever existed? Is it that they spent themselves into an enormous debt habit? Is it that they gave themselves Social Security so they'd always be taken care of? Is it that they fought in a popular war?

      What makes them better than today's generation? Today's generation is the one PAYING their self-given Social Security. What about the interment camps? What about the massive racism? Sure, racism still exists today, but we scorn it as a society wherever it creeps up. Were they a better generation than the current generation and the one before us, because they died fighting the Japanese and Germans while the generation after them merely fought a bunch of Vietnamese in an unpopular war and the current generation is fighting an extremely unpopular war? Is my death any less valiant and my sacrifice any less, because those in power send me to fight for different things in a different place than they sent YOU?! In fact, isn't it exactly THAT generation that sent the Vietnam generation to Vietnam and the current generation to... everywhere?

      Just because Tom Brokaw tells them that they're the saving grace of an entire nation doesn't mean they are.

      As for GI Joe... Who fucking cares?! It's a god damned half hour long advertisement that used to run on Saturdays. Who the hell is dumb enough to sit and actively watch a commercial for a toy? (And yes, the toy company that puts out GI Joe used to slot GI JOE as an advertisement; not a "show").

      The WWII generation is the "greatest generation" the way that Guliani is "America's Greatest Mayor". Not so much because of doing anything great, but just happening to be alive during a period that certain events happened in the world.
      • Re:Damn It! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Reapman (740286) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @03:23AM (#20518701)
        You realize GI Joe wasn't about a cartoon, and existed before yours (and my) generation cared about GI Joe? I don't think that their generation was better, per say, but being in an extraordinary situation, lead to extraordinary people standing out. What their generation did should not be taken lightly, however. The "wars" we do now, honestly, pale compare to the wars of WW1 and WW2.
      • Re:Damn It! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by iamacat (583406) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @04:03AM (#20518843)
        Perhaps those later wars would be more popular - in US and abroad - if people remembered that prior to WWII americans didn't want any part of world politics or being a global policeman. It's too bad that Japanese attacked Perl Harbor and Hitler had stupidity to declare unnecessary for him war on US. After the war it became apparent that Stalin's regime was as bad as Hitler's. Thus the cold war to deny any turf to the Soviet block.

        Now we are attacked again - this time by muslims rather than soviets (let's separate communism as an economic decision possibly made democratically from totalitarian government and military aggression). Perhaps american support of Israel was foolhardy, but becoming neutral in respect to Israel vs Palestine will not stop all terrorists attacks now. And Muslims clearly believe in imposing their Sharia law on the rest of the world by force. Well, not everyone who calls himself a muslim, but the more "devote" one is, the more he is likely to advocate violence. To preserve ourselves, we have to fight another cold war aimed to sabotage existing muslim governments and prevent emergence of new ones.

        Obviously Bush is an idiot. Saddam Hussein was preventing Iraq from being a Muslim state. Now it's an insanity to support a government based on Islamic laws. But all the same, the new cold war needs to be fought. The last one involved many unethical actions such as atomic bomb tests that harmed many civilians. At the same time, it protected freedom of many countries, including ones that hate US now, to determine their own future. It's naive to expect that the new war will be bloodless.
        • be fair now.. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by rucs_hack (784150) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @04:31AM (#20518975)
          So what about the fundamentalists Christians who want to impose their religion on the rest of the world?

          You can't criticize Muslim extremism without realizing that it's just their build of a tool we also employ, and have so employed for many centuries. Only in the past we had no competition that mattered (to those doing the conversions by force anyhow).

          They're using bombs and stuff (we've done that), killing themselves to kill others (ok, we haven't usually done that one), but that's because they believe that this is a proper way to die, and their god approves. Odd then that the Koran makes no such claim.
          • Re:be fair now.. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by iamacat (583406) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @05:00AM (#20519079)
            So what about the fundamentalists Christians who want to impose their religion on the rest of the world?

            They should be likewise contained. Fortunately, if there are US christians who openly advocated violence against other countries in order to convert their population, they are not in positions of power. I understand that things were different during crusades.

            As for Koran, it advocates killing people who commit adultery weather or not they want to follow Islam. While I also consider the Bible to be a work of fiction, any reasonable reading implies that since coming of Jesus killing is questionable even as a self defense. Bush and any proponents of death penalty or abortion doctor killing should be immediately expelled from their Church. From a civilian standpoint though, war, even a strategic war rather than straightforward self-defense, is sometimes necessary to prevent a greater evil.
            • Is that right? Plenty of people have read the bible to show that Jesus permits killing in a wide range of circumstances, and plenty of other people have read the bible to show that Jesus forbids killing, even in self defence...
            • Re:be fair now.. (Score:4, Interesting)

              by SLi (132609) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @08:31AM (#20519851)
              While I also consider the Bible to be a work of fiction, any reasonable reading implies that since coming of Jesus killing is questionable even as a self defense. Bush and any proponents of death penalty or abortion doctor killing should be immediately expelled from their Church.

              Really? I'm a pacifist Christian who opposes the death penalty and Bush, so let me respond from my point of view.

              I do not believe the Bible condemns fighting in a war, at least not clearly. The New Testament talks a lot about (Roman) soldiers, and neither Jesus or the Apostles had anything bad to say about them. A centurion even converted to Christianity, and there's nothing there about him having to leave his job. As much as I consider myself pacifist, I do not attribute that to Christianity.

              Death penalty is a punishment for a wide variety of crimes in the Old Testament. That's where it says, "Thou shalt not kill". From what is told in the OT, it seems obvious to me that the alternative rendering of "Thou shalt not murder" captures the intent better. All sides in the Old Testament fight lots of wars and kill a lot, there are even death penalties, and no bad words about that by any profets or anyone else.

              In one sense you might be right. You talk about self defense, and that's an issue that's not so clear in Bible. It would be, in my opinion, a fair reading that you should not resort to killing even for self defense. But when commanded by your legitimate king (who got his authority from God, as did all authorities), I believe the Bible tells you to follow the orders of your king unless the orders are in direct contradiction with the Bible - and that would be the Bible as it stands, and you have to weigh what it is credible it means instead of reading into it stuff you'd like to be there, like in my case pacifism and opposition to death penalty.

              As much as I'd like to say the Bible condemns wars and the death penalty, I cannot.
            • Re:be fair now.. (Score:4, Informative)

              by Scrameustache (459504) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @11:31AM (#20520911) Homepage Journal

              Fortunately, if there are US christians who openly advocated violence against other countries in order to convert their population, they are not in positions of power.
              "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

              Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

              Mr Bush, who became a born-again Christian at 40, is one of the most overtly religious leaders to occupy the White House, a fact which brings him much support in middle America. [guardian.co.uk]
        • Re:Damn It! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by enrevanche (953125) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @11:55AM (#20521111)
          What a bunch of crap. This is just a bunch of neocon myths. But lets go through your BS.
          • The U.S. already knew what was happening in the Soviet Union before WWII
          • The U.S. has been interfering in Middle East politics forever causing orders of magnitude more harm than 9/11 ever caused. We were "attacked" by dissidents from our "allies".
          • Support of Israel (not in as that it has a right to exist but in the way it deals with its neighbors) has been to US advantage (or at least in power). The neocons hated Nixon and Kissinger because they were pragmatists. They pushed Israel and Egypt to peace. (they've also done their share of war crimes).
          • Your view on Muslims is totally jingoistic, you place all of them in the same bag. Most of them just want us to stop interfering in their lives.
          • Bush (actually those behind him, he is a figurehead) want Iraq to be a mess. They want there to be an increase in terrorism because they want you to be scared and angry so that they can pursue their policy against you and those abroad. They use this to keep you under control. So that you don't question what they're doing. So that you don't ask for a better life.
          • This "cold war" like the last one, is just an invention. It will become real only if they get you to believe it is.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ricegf (1059658)

        "The Greatest Generation" did much more that just show up in the right place at the right time. It's easy to look back now and say how easy it was to make so many right decisions at such a critical time in history, but back then they struggled with overwhelming issues and yet managed to be united and purposeful - and therefore overcame.

        Among other accomplishments, they:

        • Fought and won a two front war against two powerful, highly immoral military dictatorships that not only sought to conquer the world (
    • Re:Damn It! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Carewolf (581105) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @03:04AM (#20518613) Homepage
      Hey!! Ken is an all-american pussy. You made him, he is your responsibility.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dbcad7 (771464)
      I find the term euro-pussie amusing, only because it is coming from someone complaining about what they are doing to the image of their doll. Funny stuff really. Don't know why it has to be "euro-pussie" though, but I'll just let that go, I am not European and I am sure they can defend their own honour.
  • Money Talks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Derling Whirvish (636322) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @01:42AM (#20518175) Journal

    Isn't anything sacred to these people?"
    Yes, there is something sacred to them. Money.
    U.S. branded GI Joe's may not sell as well outside the US as a multinational task force would.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Propaganda13 (312548)
      Cobra as a terrorist organization founded in Springfield has been a hit worldwide though.

      God have mercy on the souls on anyone mentioning the retarded money grab of an organization ending in -la.
    • U.S. branded GI Joe's may not sell as well outside the US as a multinational task force would.

      Just replace him with Guile and we're set. :)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PCM2 (4486)

      U.S. branded GI Joe's may not sell as well outside the US as a multinational task force would.
      Random trivia for U.S. readers: G.I. Joe sold reasonably well in the UK, where he was known as Action Man.
  • No... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Omnedon (701049) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @01:43AM (#20518179)
    Nothing is ever "sacred" to Hollywood.

    Legends are "re-imaged" (and usually ruined).

    History is "re-imaged" (and usually ruined).

    Classic movies are "re-..."... (Notice a trend?)

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by poopdeville (841677)
      I've got a bad feeling that Jerry Bruckheimer, Michael Bay, Uwe Boll, or W.S. Anderson is going to direct. This has the potential to make Team America: World Police the world's first parody of a chronologically later film.
  • Old News (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sakusha (441986) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @01:43AM (#20518181)
    Apparently the author of that incredibly lame blog article missed the 1980s, when GI Joe cartoons were full of multicultural characters and fought abstract non-national enemies like COBRA.
  • Holy cow. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Valar (167606) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @01:46AM (#20518203)
    I think my hosts file might have been tampered with... I typed in slashdot, but somehow I ended up at free republic. This looks kind of like slashdot though. Hmm...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 08, 2007 @01:48AM (#20518205)
    I mean, really, Slashdot. I understand the need to compete with Digg, and the whole firehose thing, but, really, shit like this is ridiculous and it only works to drive people like me away.
  • This is comforting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by victim (30647) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @01:48AM (#20518209)
    It is comforting to know that if I ever receive a debilitating head injury, lose most of my faculties and embrace the victim complex wing of the libertarians I will still be slashdot-worthy.

    Oh no! Maybe I'm out to get the libertarians! Quick! Pen a screed!
    • by Harmonious Botch (921977) * on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:00AM (#20518265) Homepage Journal
      Anyone who holds the opinions that he does, and calls himself a libertarian, is clearly brain damaged. Any sane libertarian would look at the GIJoe issue and say 'The producers bought the rights, they can do anything they please with it. They're consenting adults, it's none of my business."
      • by Wordsmith (183749) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:50AM (#20518519) Homepage
        Not really. Libertarianism isn't all about "live and let live." It's more like "live and don't let the government interfere with your or anyone else's living."

        Libertarians who fondly remember GI Joe wouldn't be hyopcrites if they, say, actively boycotted this movie and encouraged others to do so. They could still be upset over what's happening. They just wouldn't see any reason why the government should get involved.
  • Our new international multicultural coed overlords!
  • A novel idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slobarnuts (666254) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @01:50AM (#20518215) Homepage
    Why dont they release two different versions of the film. One international, one U.S... Seriously, there cant be that many scenes where the actual name behind the acronym comes up. It couldn't cost that much more. As it sounds now they might as well call it 'Rainbow Six: The Movie'.
    • by Scoth (879800)
      Considering it was done for the original cartoon, should be possible: Action Force Intro [youtube.com]
  • Mmm, bias (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ameyer17 (935373) <slashdot@ameyer17.com> on Saturday September 08, 2007 @01:52AM (#20518225) Homepage
    I don't even know where to start here...
    Headline from TFA:

    Hollywood Seeks to Change "G.I. Joe" into an International Feminazi: Disgraces our Greatest Generation
    from the first paragraph:

    Yes, Hollywood limousine liberal idiots are exceeding my patience. I can handle their unabashed socialism, even their global warming insanity, but when they attack G.I. Joe, enough is enough.
    From the second paragraph:

    Well, if we look at the facts, the rest of the world would be controlled by Nazis if it were not for the G. I. Joe.
    From the final paragraph:

    Now Hollywood celebrities are going to turn him into a politically correct Feminazi.
    Seems to be a bit biased to be "news". Also, someone needs to introduce the guy who wrote this to Godwin's Law [wikipedia.org]
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)

      Hollywood limousine liberal idiots are exceeding my patience. I can handle their unabashed socialism, even their global warming insanity, but when they attack G.I. Joe, enough is enough.
      If GI Joe can't fight off a bunch of 'limousine liberals' then he is already a pussy.
    • Feminazi. I knew one of those lady in Germany. She wore those leather boot, leather underwear which left little to imagination, a nine-tail whips, and I asked her to call me animal name, told her I have been a bad boy, etc... Mhhhh.... Although he might not speak about the same type of person actually....
  • by taniwha (70410) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @01:54AM (#20518235) Homepage Journal
    G.I Joe is a doll
  • i'm rolling my eyes as hard as i can. it hurts, but i dare not stop.
  • General Infantry?
  • Nothing sacred (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TaleSpinner (96034)
    > Isn't anything sacred to these [Hollywood] people?"

    Umm...in a word, no. Is this something you just noticed?
  • by Black Copter Control (464012) <samuel-local@nOSpAm.bcgreen.com> on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:04AM (#20518301) Homepage Journal
    1. My understanding was that GI stood for General Infantry.
    2. It wasn't just Arayan gay model types that fought against Hitler and his crew.
    3. The one unit type that the germans really hated being thrown against was the Russian Female reserves. Those babes took and gave no quarter! (and they really knew what to do when they had their their enemy by the balls.)
    4. Canada, Australia, Britain, India ... and even Russia (once Hitler turned on Stalin).
    5. It's the 21st Century buddy -- Get with the program!
    • What? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Your comment is nearly incoherent. It looks as if you've been cutting and pasting random quotes from some sort of badly translated alternate history comic book.
    • It wasn't just Arayan gay model types that fought against Hitler and his crew.

      Haven't you seen the WWII movies. It was all male models.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by xs650 (741277)
      "1. My understanding was that GI stood for General Infantry."

      It stands for Government Issue.
  • by hob42 (41735) <jupo42@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:16AM (#20518379) Homepage Journal
    Maybe, perhaps, some of us would rather live in a less self-centered world than our ancestors?

    Maybe there are a few other souls out there that don't think the American military is the right answer to all of the world's problems? That perhaps cooperation with our fellow beings on this small little planet, not unilateralism, would be a good idea?

    Then again, I thought we were only one of several allied nations who won World War II, and don't believe that France should forever worship us for liberating them from Germany. I might just be crazy.
  • by Bieeanda (961632) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:36AM (#20518459)
    Some random person's screechy blog is news by nerds, not news for nerds.
  • by coaxial (28297)
    He's no hero. [salon.com] He always let Cobra Commander -- the leader of a ruthless terrorist orgainization determined to rule the world -- get away. A real leader like George W. Bush would never let that happen [csmonitor.com].
  • by 6Yankee (597075) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @03:26AM (#20518713)
    "Without my rifle, I am nothing." GI Joe stopped being a hero the day he surrendered his rifle to airport security [bbc.co.uk].
  • I Don't Know... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Comatose51 (687974) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @03:40AM (#20518767) Homepage
    "Isn't anything sacred to these people"

    I don't know... maybe a sense of morality, compassion for other human beings, a desire for learning? Those are pretty important values to me. But more importantly, the freedom to choose my own values and believes are among my most cherished "things". So I guess if plastic dolls is your thing, go for it.

    Just don't expect the rest of the grown adults to care about it.

  • by commodoresloat (172735) * on Saturday September 08, 2007 @04:02AM (#20518833)
    WTF is up with this article? Some wingnut freeper whining in his blog about the demise of G.I. Joe? Get a grip (yeah, like the GI Joe with the Kung Fu Grip). I present you GI Joe's real finest moments:
  • Chuck (Score:3, Funny)

    by chiller2 (35804) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @04:23AM (#20518919) Homepage

    So they emasculated GI Joe? We still have Chuck Norris. Balls of steel!
  • by Goth Biker Babe (311502) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @04:23AM (#20518921) Homepage Journal
    For decades Hollywood has been changing European history or having the US taking claim for discoveries, victories and so on (capturing the Enigma machine, changing a brave member of crew on the Titanic in to a villain, etc). Where was the outcry. Now this is happening and you're all up in arms...

    Tough. It's just the movies. Stop crying in your weak chemical beer and live with it.
  • From Fox News (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mr100percent (57156) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @05:18AM (#20519137) Homepage Journal
    It's source is a Fox News piece. You remember them, they're the ones who claimed beloved children's television host "Mr Rogers destroyed an entire generation of children's lives. [rawstory.com]"

    Once I got to "Hollywood limousine liberals" in the article, my eyes started to glaze over. The blogger is like The Rude Pundit, only not being as sarcastic.

    To the merits of the discussion: Hollywood does not like to get too mired in political controversies. Show me a pro-Palestine movie from Hollywood. They may be socially liberal, but know that certain things won't make them money and will only bring trouble. Still, they support the troops, and get outraged when someone tries to blame the troops. Maybe the fact that the troops have changed in demographics, becoming more black and hispanic and female, means that the G.I. Joe is no longer that representative?

  • Jesus Christ (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dcollins (135727) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @08:32AM (#20519863) Homepage
    What a fucking idiotic fruitcake. The G.I. Joe toyline was only U.S. military-specific for an extremely brief time in the 1960's.

    By 1970, when I had my own G.I. Joe, they'd translated him to -- get this -- an international "adventure team" of explorers. Anyone who's ever mentioned "Kung Fu Grip" is talking about this line of G.I. Joe's. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Joe_Adventure_Te am [wikipedia.org] ).

    This editorial is almost 40 full years out of date! Excellent case study on the fact-challenged neanderthal-ism of the right wing psychos who've stolen our country. And thanks for the sidebar offer to sign up for super-cunty Anne Coulter's email newsletter, I'll pass, thanks.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @09:11AM (#20520067) Homepage Journal
    Who is ScuttleMonkey? [slashdot.org] A Slashdot editor who will post a story about "feminazis" from a site featuring a Climate Change denier "cartoon" charging _The Weather Channel_ with some kind of paranoid conspiracy. A weekend Midnight shift Slashdot drudge.

    Sure ScuttleMonkey's in love with GI Joe, and the myth of the "Greatest Generation". Why does he think the rest of us share their fetish?
  • by arthurpaliden (939626) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @10:06AM (#20520385)

    GIJoe has always been multi-national and multi-gender.

    In 1966's you could get the 12" G.I. Joe SOLDIERS OF THE WORLD SERIES which included:German, Japanees, Russian, British , Australian, Canadian and French

    In 1967 you could get the Action Nurse (Female)

    In 1967 he was also a race car driver and state trooper.

    In 1967 he was also a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

  • Sigh. (Score:3, Informative)

    by stonecypher (118140) <stonecypher&gmail,com> on Saturday September 08, 2007 @10:52AM (#20520667) Homepage Journal
    GI Joe was just the American branch of the Joes, has been since the 1970s. They're not dropping the Americanism, they're just aiming the camera higher up the tree. We got a dozen Joes (and Viper the matching villains) from other countries, including every eight year olds' favorite opponents, Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes. If you're going to be nationalistic about the history of a toy series, at least know the history of the toy series. (Indeed, in the 1980s cartoon block about the energy pyramids, several people comment that there aren't that many Americans on the group, and ask Duke why he's still calling them GIs.)

    If you think calling GI Joe an American is "sacred," you really need to read some books.
  • by Jeremy_Bee (1064620) on Saturday September 08, 2007 @02:03PM (#20522021)
    What happens to our favorite childhood toys is definitely "stuff that matters" to any (male) nerd, but one look at the front page of the site this story comes from immediately begs the question as to why this inflammatory, hate site should be taken seriously by anyone at all and why it's posted on slashdot.

    Unless it's satire (that I missed because I left in disgust too soon), the author of this piece is a raving loon and the site seems angled towards the gun-toting, "bunker in the basement" crowd. I mean he (and I feel 100% safe in assuming this is a "he"), manages to refer to Hollywood liberals, Socialists, and "Femi-Nazi's" before he even gets out of the first paragraph. Do you think he might have a bit of a bias there?

    I would expect to find a link to such a site as backup to a Digg story, but as entertaining as the raving might be to some, it doesn't belong here. Free speech is a great thing, but allowing crazy people to have their own web-site, and promoting that craziness as "news" and trying to engage the lunatics in a debate on a science related news site are two totally different things. I wouldn't ban it, but the very fact that this kind of tripe can be posted to slashdot and commented on as if it's just another web site is distasteful at best.

    Kudos for the (aprox. 20% of) posters that recognise this hate-speech drivel for what it is and a big thumbs down for the other 80% that think this garbage is worthy of engaging in a debate.

Are we running light with overbyte?

Working...