Iconic WWII photo canceled, then uncanceled

You know we don't do that here. You'll only get banned for breaking the conditions of service, and even then you'll be warned nicely and invited to correct the error. The only people that have been banned here are those that insisted on posting material contrary to those conditions (which basically means legally questionable in decent jurisdictions) repeatedly even after being asked to desist.

To you maybe. People are allowed to follow the discussion in the direction they want, so long as they keep to the conditions of service. We do mve things to the dumpster if they seem to be too much of a diversion - but this thread was following an overtly political agenda from the get-go, so it's not surprising that it went the way that it did.

I was familiar with it before in any case, since I do have some experience in image processing. A (small) number of journals decided as an editorial policy not to use this as a test image any more. That is their right. No-one 'cancelled' the image. It's still available and can be reproduced, as you did here. It seems to me like a big fuss about nothing.

What we have here is a group of people who enjoy being outraged about things having fun being outraged about another group of people who enjoy being outraged about things being outraged about things.

Are you joking? The Speedo (aka 'banana hammock') is an Australian invention.

Sure, everyone has the choice to not participate in threads that they don't like. Saying it should be banned because you don't like it surely is 'cancel culture'. If you don't like it, just don't participate. It only takes a teeny bit of self discipline.
Incidentally, as one does I went through the thread to find out where it diverged into the subject area that you don't like. It was this one. Strange to say, it has but one 'like'. From you.

I didn't want to 'confuse' anyone, and I don't believe that I did. All I am saying is that the image has not been 'cancelled' because it is still available and can be used. The fact that a number of publications have exercised their editorial right not to use it is all that has happened. They exercise their editorial rights in many ways. They insist that the text be formatted in accordance with their style guide. They usually have rules about usage of certain terminology. They won't knowingly publish plagiarised material, and so on. I don't see that deciding that they don't like that image is a big thing, certainly not one for people to be outraged about. I actually used to use that image in my teaching. A colleague pointed out that some people found it offensive, so I stopped doing it. It didn't affect what I was teaching, because there were other images equally as good for the purpose, and at the same time people were not offended. I think there are times that people need to be offended, but insisting on a particular test image when perfectly good ones exist is not one of them. So that's what I just don't understand. Why the fuss? Unless people just want to make a fuss. If that's what you want to do there are much more important things to be making a fuss about.

The problem is determining what is the 'lamestream mediatards brainwashing mantras' and what is the real information. That's what people here can't agree on. Both groups think the other is full of 'inept thinkers' swallowing away.