NationStates

Aclion wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:First of all: you made those up to be mad about diversity. Those are not real problems. No-one is turning away white people because they are white. Your views force you to believe that British TV, dominated by white men, is somehow averse to white men.

I do have two questions:

1. Why are you only worried about this ‘problem’ when it concerns white males, but not when the same thing happens to minorities?
2. Why do you make up these convoluted, unsupported theories about something just to make yourself mad?

What an insufferably conceited straw-man.

The progressive left pretends not to understand the point so they can gaslight people. See above.

Galloism wrote:I'm certainly not convinced by this argument, but I also wasn't convinced of the argument back in the 90s or whatever that 6% of people on US TV are black while they make up 12% of the population and that's therefore unjust somehow.

This argument is the same argument about proportional representation stuck to statistical specifics, where no amount of proportional representation is enough for people who are dancing monkeys for the public's entertainment tv stars anyway.

Best person for the job. Come on people.

^this

Any problems with portrayals and actors and shit aren't going to change by the numbers fitting.

People didn't fully buy into the pure stats reasoning back then and don't really give a shit now.
Using it ain't going to convince people either about your cause or how other people are dumb.

Galloism wrote:Best person for the job. Come on people.

How do we determine who is the best person for the job?

Jello Biafra wrote:

Galloism wrote:Best person for the job. Come on people.

How do we determine who is the best person for the job?

By having a standard that everyone is held to and using that standard to compare candidates?

Bear Stearns wrote:

Jello Biafra wrote:How do we determine who is the best person for the job?

By having a standard that everyone is held to and using that standard to compare candidates?

When casting a TV show?

Bear Stearns wrote:

Jello Biafra wrote:How do we determine who is the best person for the job?

By having a standard that everyone is held to and using that standard to compare candidates?

So then if there is an audition for a barista at Starbucks, and an audition for a biopic of Martin Luther King Jr., and the same actor is the best by that standard, then that actor should win both roles, no matter who he or she is?

Jello Biafra wrote:

Galloism wrote:Best person for the job. Come on people.

How do we determine who is the best person for the job?

By rejecting progressive gaslighting lik e people have argued for decades? They are either good or not

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
By having a standard that everyone is held to and using that standard to compare candidates?

When casting a TV show?

For really anything in life.

Jello Biafra wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
By having a standard that everyone is held to and using that standard to compare candidates?

So then if there is an audition for a barista at Starbucks, and an audition for a biopic of Martin Luther King Jr., and the same actor is the best by that standard, then that actor should win both roles, no matter who he or she is?

What's the problem? :^)

Bear Stearns wrote:

Jello Biafra wrote:So then if there is an audition for a barista at Starbucks, and an audition for a biopic of Martin Luther King Jr., and the same actor is the best by that standard, then that actor should win both roles, no matter who he or she is?

What's the problem? :^)

I suppose that by the smile here you're being facetious with the question, but in case someone else reads this and would legitimately ask this question, the problem is that talent alone is not enough to be able to realistically portray a particular character.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Jello Biafra wrote:How do we determine who is the best person for the job?

By rejecting progressive gaslighting lik e people have argued for decades? They are either good or not

That's not what gaslighting means.

There seems to be an assumption that when a film or series features a non-white/non-hetero/non-male, there just has to be a political agenda. The fact that it seems beyond comprehension that anyone would want to create a character who isn't a straight white male does so just because they want to.

And people complain about "forced diversity" regardless of the proportion of representation. When Mass Effect 3 came out back in 2012, people complained that there was an option for male Shepard to have a male lover. The fact that male Shepard had 4 female lovers to choose from didn't seem to matter, nor the fact that female Shepard had female romance options from the first game (because in the eyes of homophobic men, gay guys are disgusting while lesbians are sex objects that exist for male pleasure).

People said Star Wars having an Asian woman as a character was "forced diversity."

Meanwhile, plenty of films, series, and video games that feature white men are out there, many of them highly acclaimed. Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Red Dead Redemption.

Heloin wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
By rejecting progressive gaslighting lik e people have argued for decades? They are either good or not

That's not what gaslighting means.

I mean if people are trying to convince someone they're racist for not picking the insert opinion that is probably gas-lighting.

Heloin wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
By rejecting progressive gaslighting lik e people have argued for decades? They are either good or not

That's not what gaslighting means.

When the progressives argue if you domt support womens shelters because women are more likely to face DV (despite all,evidence suggesting its eqqul) that ie gaslighting. This is their main engagement in politics at this point. Acting like it it established and unconvterevertible fact that white men are evil and treating you like you are evil or insane when you note this isnt true. They are a psychologically violent political movement.

Satuga wrote:

Heloin wrote:That's not what gaslighting means.

I mean if people are trying to convince someone they're racist for not picking the insert opinion that is probably gas-lighting.

That's not gaslighting. Gaslighting is manipulation, manipulation isn't gaslighting.

Julia Roberts could have played Harriet Tubman if not for those damn SJW progressives.

Gormwood wrote:Julia Roberts could have played Harriet Tubman if not for those damn SJW progressives.

Don't be silly. Having a woman in that role is SJWism. They should've cast Chuck Norris as Harriet Tubman.

Jello Biafra wrote:

Gormwood wrote:Julia Roberts could have played Harriet Tubman if not for those damn SJW progressives.

Don't be silly. Having a woman in that role is SJWism. They should've cast Chuck Norris as Harriet Tubman.

It all went downhill once the Globe Theater started casting women to play women, I tells ya.

Page wrote:There seems to be an assumption that when a film or series features a non-white/non-hetero/non-male, there just has to be a political agenda. The fact that it seems beyond comprehension that anyone would want to create a character who isn't a straight white male does so just because they want to.

And people complain about "forced diversity" regardless of the proportion of representation. When Mass Effect 3 came out back in 2012, people complained that there was an option for male Shepard to have a male lover. The fact that male Shepard had 4 female lovers to choose from didn't seem to matter, nor the fact that female Shepard had female romance options from the first game (because in the eyes of homophobic men, gay guys are disgusting while lesbians are sex objects that exist for male pleasure).

People said Star Wars having an Asian woman as a character was "forced diversity."

Meanwhile, plenty of films, series, and video games that feature white men are out there, many of them highly acclaimed. Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Red Dead Redemption.

Umm have you played RDR one or two? There's a pretty diverse cast there, especially in 2, the crew comprises of a Native American, African American, Caucasians, and even an Austrian.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Heloin wrote:That's not what gaslighting means.

When the progs argue if you domt support womens shelters because women are more likely to face DV (despite all,evidence suggesting its eqqul) that ie gaslighting. This is their main engagement in politics at this point. Acting like it it established and unconvterevertible fact that white men are evil and treating you like you are evil or insane when you note this isnt true. They are a psychologically violent political movement.

Still not gaslighting. Gaslighting means a very specific thing. If you think it's manipulative to cast non white actors in films and telly (for some reason) that's your problem.

Also every time you say Progs I can only think of this.

Jello Biafra wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
What's the problem? :^)

I suppose that by the smile here you're being facetious with the question, but in case someone else reads this and would legitimately ask this question, the problem is that talent alone is not enough to be able to realistically portray a particular character.

So you're saying race is a crucial component of how well a character is portrayed?

Great, then let's stop remaking Euro-American historical/folk stories with shoehorned-in Africans.

Jello Biafra wrote:

Gormwood wrote:Julia Roberts could have played Harriet Tubman if not for those damn SJW progressives.

Don't be silly. Having a woman in that role is SJWism. They should've cast Chuck Norris as Harriet Tubman.

Ofcouree I didnt beat you, you're so comical for suggesting it. It never happened and you're so crazy for suggesting g it I'll compare you to antivaxxers.

Heloin wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:

When the progs argue if you domt support womens shelters because women are more likely to face DV (despite all,evidence suggesting its eqqul) that ie gaslighting. This is their main engagement in politics at this point. Acting like it it established and unconvterevertible fact that white men are evil and treating you like you are evil or insane when you note this isnt true. They are a psychologically violent political movement.

Still not gaslighting. Gaslighting means a very specific thing. If you think it's manipulative to cast non white actors in films and telly (for some reason) that's your problem.

Also every time you say Progs I can only think of this.

It's gaslighting to say that discrimination against white actors isn't happening in one breath and then actually doing it another.

Jello Biafra wrote:

Gormwood wrote:Julia Roberts could have played Harriet Tubman if not for those damn SJW progressives.

Don't be silly. Having a woman in that role is SJWism. They should've cast Chuck Norris as Harriet Tubman.

ngl I'd watch that.

Heloin wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:

When the progs argue if you domt support womens shelters because women are more likely to face DV (despite all,evidence suggesting its eqqul) that ie gaslighting. This is their main engagement in politics at this point. Acting like it it established and unconvterevertible fact that white men are evil and treating you like you are evil or insane when you note this isnt true. They are a psychologically violent political movement.

Still not gaslighting. Gaslighting means a very specific thing. If you think it's manipulative to cast non white actors in films and telly (for some reason) that's your problem.

Also every time you say Progs I can only think of this.

The gaslighting occurs in the progressive left response to criticism. See above.