Wokeism of the day Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users

kildare lad · 02-01-2021 02:22AM

Rothko wrote: »

That's bodyshaming, similar to what Adele went through when she lost weight. It's absolutely nuts.

What a world we live in nowadays , Imagine putting all that effort in to lose weight , get healthy , cut down your risks of getting diabetes, heart disease and early death, then have to listen to fatso's giving out it because it makes them feel fat and lazy .

Quantum Erasure · 02-01-2021 03:08AM

kildare lad wrote: »

How would you feel about Al pacino playing martin luther king on film

bit old now

Quantum Erasure · 02-01-2021 03:18AM

Tony EH wrote: »

But, Idris Elba won't ever pass for Hitler just because he puts on a funny moustache.

id love to see him try though,

02-01-2021 05:37AM

46 Long wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Repealist_/status/1344442123404390405

'Gardai actively killing POC'

I wonder what kind of grasp on reality do these people have. You'd swear the auld Guards were typing foreign sounding names into Pulse looking for a few black lads to shoot next.

Its the leftist enablers i blame. Fcuk them into a ghetto along with these low life dirtbags and let them be cannibalised. Enrich the sh1t out of them.

02-01-2021 05:43AM

pickarooney wrote: »

Audiences will overlook the entire cast of a film about Jesus being white and speaking English (Gibson made an effort to address half of that, at least) but some makey-uppy period drama has a few black people in it and it's not authentic.

Cate Blanchett played Bob Dylan a while back and the sky didn't fall in.

Gandhi? Played by an English bloke. Should have been a massive insult. Acclaimed as a masterpiece. You're surely being tongue in cheek bringing him up? Maybe he's actually Indian though, given his origins, in which case why the hell did he play Richard III?

No one probably bothered watching it. Tree falling in the woods etc

pickarooney · 02-01-2021 09:10AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well done. You [kinda] addressed my examples. Not the content on my post though. On either attempt. Great job there.

Much of your post was silly. 'Giving jobs to black actors takes jobs away from white actors' is just brain-dead reasoning.

pickarooney · 02-01-2021 09:11AM

kildare lad wrote: »

How would you feel about Al pacino playing martin luther king on film

I don't think he'd have the range but he might surprise me.

Gruffalux · 02-01-2021 10:28AM

kildare lad wrote: »

How would you feel about Al pacino playing martin luther king on film

Personally I favour Elliot Page for the role.

kildare lad · 02-01-2021 10:34AM

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't think he'd have the range but he might surprise me.

What about brendan gleeson playing the role, I reckon he'd make a great MLK ? In the film The wind that shakes the barley " say half of the flying columns were chinese do you not think that'd look a bit stupid ??

99nsr125 · 02-01-2021 10:43AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No one probably bothered watching it. Tree falling in the woods etc

Probably because Blanchet is a beyond şhitē actress

kildare lad · 02-01-2021 10:53AM

Gruffalux wrote: »

Personally I favour Elliot Page for the role.

I think he'd have trouble growing a mustache

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 02-01-2021 10:54AM

kildare lad wrote: »

What about brendan gleeson playing the role, I reckon he'd make a great MLK ? In the film The wind that shakes the barley " say half of the flying columns were chinese do you not think that'd look a bit stupid ??

Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman playing Irish migrants worked out nicely, so why not?

02-01-2021 11:24AM

pickarooney wrote: »

Much of your post was silly. 'Giving jobs to black actors takes jobs away from white actors' is just brain-dead reasoning.

Exactly... considering it was you that essentially suggested as much first.

For a mod, your posts are really odd sometimes.

pickarooney · 02-01-2021 11:47AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Exactly... considering it was you that essentially suggested as much first.

For a mod, your posts are really odd sometimes.

How is being an equal-opportunities employer 'talking jobs from white people and giving them to black people' ?

Absolute horse****, and well you know it. You don't even believe that, I'm almost certain you posted something along the lines of believing in picking the best person for the job a few pages back. You're just being contrarian for the sake of it.

02-01-2021 12:38PM

pickarooney wrote: »

How is being an equal-opportunities employer 'talking jobs from white people and giving them to black people' ?

Absolute horse****, and well you know it. You don't even believe that, I'm almost certain you posted something along the lines of believing in picking the best person for the job a few pages back. You're just being contrarian for the sake of it.

There's more white actors (or other non-black races combined with white people) than black actors. In the general population, there's more white people than black people.. and there's more roles in movies/TV, for white people to fill. That's simple logic. Numbers. As I said before, if/when Black people represent a greater population than white people, then there will be the demand for more black roles.

When you claim that black people aren't being cast in roles designed for white or other racial groups, because of racism... which you did... that's not about equal opportunity. It's about elevating one race over others, solely due to the color of their skin.

For someone claiming I'm being "contrarian for the sake of it", you're doing a rather good job yourself. And drop the "horse****", "brain-dead", whatever comments. You're the one who keeps avoiding dealing with the simple logic, and deflecting each time.

Rothko · 02-01-2021 12:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

No one probably bothered watching it. Tree falling in the woods etc

Nobody watched I'm Not There? Really?

Gruffalux · 02-01-2021 12:47PM

Amazingly most of the actors in Bollywood are Indian :eek:

02-01-2021 12:53PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman playing Irish migrants worked out nicely, so why not?

We’ve a couple of Brits and an American trying it out in that mess that’s currently doing the rounds. Nearly make those two look competent.

Tony EH · 02-01-2021 05:41PM

pickarooney wrote: »

How is being an equal-opportunities employer 'talking jobs from white people and giving them to black people' ?

Equal opportunities employment is a fine thing. The best person for the job should always be the way to go. However stunt casting to generate cheap publicity isn't, and it ends up demeaning everyone, including the actress that got the gig just because the producers wanted to put black face into their show.

Could Channel 5 really not find a decent white actress to portray a white 14th Century English queen...really?

This kind of shit is just intellectually insulting to every viewer and especially one that has an interest in seeing historical figures and stories put on the screen with, at least, a modicum of accuracy and there is absolutely nothing to be gained in the way of "progression" with this type of nonsense.

99nsr125 · 02-01-2021 09:30PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Equal opportunities employment is a fine thing. The best person for the job should always be the way to go. However stunt casting to generate cheap publicity isn't, and it ends up demeaning everyone, including the actress that got the gig just because the producers wanted to put black face into their show.

Could Channel 5 really not find a decent white actress to portray a white 14th Century English queen...really?

This kind of shit is just intellectually insulting to every viewer and especially one that has an interest in seeing historical figures and stories put on the screen with, at least, a modicum of accuracy and there is absolutely nothing to be gained in the way of "progression" with this type of nonsense.

Also you're damaging history for black or asian people etc giving a false impression that they had equal standing in society damaging the very thing supposedly being advocated.

IAMAMORON · 02-01-2021 09:41PM

99nsr125 wrote: »

Also you're damaging history for black or asian people etc giving a false impression that they had equal standing in society damaging the very thing supposedly being advocated.

Advanced historic malapropistic hypocrisy.

AllForIt · 02-01-2021 10:19PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There's more white actors (or other non-black races combined with white people) than black actors. In the general population, there's more white people than black people.. and there's more roles in movies/TV, for white people to fill. That's simple logic. Numbers. As I said before, if/when Black people represent a greater population than white people, then there will be the demand for more black roles.

.

I was listening to a race debate on UK media recently. They were talking about black visibility, for e.g. in soap operas (yawn) and that sort of thing, mostly TV.
Proportional representation is not what they are after, it's equal representation, i.e. the same number of black ppl on TV whether it's news, drama, weather forcasting. 50/50 b/w and noting less.

"Why not have a soap opera where everyone is black" one contributor said, to give you the jist of where they're now coming from. I'm really not sure if they are serious; more likely they are just stirring it up for the sake of creating controversy.

I don't watch much general TV myself, but when it comes to black representation on general TV I think they get a lot, from black politicians asked on discussion panels regularly, Bame characters in soap operas, TV commercials, in the UK and even more so on US TV. You do get that 'we will never be satisfied' vibe off them.

Tony EH · 03-01-2021 12:03AM

99nsr125 wrote: »

Also you're damaging history for black or asian people etc giving a false impression that they had equal standing in society damaging the very thing supposedly being advocated.

And this is one of the worst outcomes of the current want to have diverse casts in historical productions. It creates an anachronism of the most egregious kind and engenders the idea that there wasn't institutionalised racism in the world for most of human history in the minds of people who are unaware of the period they are looking at. And, in the end, I don't know who this is trying to appeal to. Black people certainly don't want their history to be abused in this way, that's for sure. They've spent years trying to tell people how crap things really were for them in the western world. I cannot imagine any minority person looking at something that has an out of place black face show up (as in this Channel 5 Anne Boelyn thing) and being completely comfortable with it. It looks absurd, to say the very least.

It ends up being the worst form of "whitewashing" that I can think of. The whitewashing of truth and fact, in favour of being seen to be right on and, at the end of the day, that's what this is all about. It isn't a "leftie" thing or a "progressive" thing. It's merely optics to try and look good, as current things stand.

I understand, completely, the desire to diversify casts in film and TV. It looks silly to have entirely white casts in everything. It especially looks ridiculous in a case, whereby, you have white actors portraying Indians in a western. Looking at Chuck Connors in 'Geronimo' looks preposterous today. It probably looked preposterous in the 60's and it's something that is, rightly, considered so in modern times. So, if a film or TV show is made today about that place and period, it's sensible to try and use native Americans in the cast, as much as possible. Nowadays, having a white guy do redface just looks awful and completely unconvincing. Not that it was convincing in the first place.

But adding to nonsensical casting like that, by engaging in more nonsensical casting in modern TV and cinema isn't rectifying anything. It's just adding to the nonsense. Casting Eddie Murphy as King James I isn't going to make casting Chuck Connors as Geronimo any better or make things more evened up.

It'll just look stupid in both cases.

johnnyfoxy · 03-01-2021 12:11AM

Never again will we see a tv series with an all-white main cast. If Sex and the City was being made now the 4 leads would consist of a black woman and an asian.

A SATC reboot has been confirmed so I'm sure it will get the same woke treatment as the rebooted Gossip Girl.

03-01-2021 01:07AM

It just struck me that while we, of whatever age, write this off as tokenism or whatever, for the generation coming in say 30 years, everything they've ever seen will probably be like this..

There will be no knowledge of the world before multiculturalism..

o1s1n · 03-01-2021 01:14AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It just struck me that while we, of whatever age, write this off as tokenism or whatever, for the generation coming in say 30 years, everything they've ever seen will probably be like this..

There will be no knowledge of the world before multiculturalism..

Unless things revert, of course. For all we know this is the high point of multiculturalism in human history.

03-01-2021 01:16AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It just struck me that while we, of whatever age, write this off as tokenism or whatever, for the generation coming in say 30 years, everything they've ever seen will probably be like this..

There will be no knowledge of the world before multiculturalism..

I suspect that this is the plan, to rewrite history such that "multiculturalism" is the only way that the past is portrayed.
Unless you actually study history thoroughly and read the source information, you'll never know.

Fr Tod Umptious · 03-01-2021 11:21AM

AllForIt wrote: »

I was listening to a race debate on UK media recently. They were talking about black visibility, for e.g. in soap operas (yawn) and that sort of thing, mostly TV.
Proportional representation is not what they are after, it's equal representation, i.e. the same number of black ppl on TV whether it's news, drama, weather forcasting. 50/50 b/w and noting less.

"Why not have a soap opera where everyone is black" one contributor said, to give you the jist of where they're now coming from. I'm really not sure if they are serious; more likely they are just stirring it up for the sake of creating controversy.

I don't watch much general TV myself, but when it comes to black representation on general TV I think they get a lot, from black politicians asked on discussion panels regularly, Bame characters in soap operas, TV commercials, in the UK and even more so on US TV. You do get that 'we will never be satisfied' vibe off them.

This is something I noticed in America in the late 90s when I lived there.

You would have TV shows with exclusively black casts.
Moesha and The Bernie Mac Show are two that come to mind.
And then you would have shows with exclusively white casts, Seinfeld, Frasher, Friends etc.

And they were pitched at two different ethic audiences.

The Fresh Prince of Bel Aire and The Cosby Show were earlier examples.

Interestingly I never watched or knew any white people who watched the black shows in the US but I watched the latter two no bother when I lived in Ireland.

pickarooney · 03-01-2021 11:29AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There's more white actors (or other non-black races combined with white people) than black actors. In the general population, there's more white people than black people.. and there's more roles in movies/TV, for white people to fill. That's simple logic. Numbers. As I said before, if/when Black people represent a greater population than white people, then there will be the demand for more black roles.

When you claim that black people aren't being cast in roles designed for white or other racial groups, because of racism... which you did... that's not about equal opportunity. It's about elevating one race over others, solely due to the color of their skin.

For someone claiming I'm being "contrarian for the sake of it", you're doing a rather good job yourself. And drop the "horse****", "brain-dead", whatever comments. You're the one who keeps avoiding dealing with the simple logic, and deflecting each time.

You're deliberately and repeatedly misinterpreting everything I've said. 'racism' and 'roles designed for white people' are two things I haven't mentioned at all.

03-01-2021 11:44AM

pickarooney wrote: »

You're deliberately and repeatedly misinterpreting everything I've said. 'racism' and 'roles designed for white people' are two things I haven't mentioned at all.

That's not necessarily the point of it. You have loads of young black actors these days competing for roles and when you repeatedly tell them they can't be cast in big productions because of the colour of their skin despite the fact they might be brilliant actors it's a bit of a **** situation, frankly.

Actors by their nature are playing a role and their job is to convince the audience that they are this character. Audiences will overlook all manner of historical discrepancies - actors being 20 years older or a foot taller or with long red hair as opposed to the short black style of the historical person. They will still go nuts over skin colour though. It's just a barrier they can't get over. There is no suspension of disbelief on that one issue. And it's pathetic.

The same people will blather on about 'best man for the job' whenever any mention of race quotas is made, completely oblivious to their enormous hypocrisy.

"It's pathetic" that people won't suspend their disbelief over the breaking of roles... , and Black actors don't get work because of the color of their skin, aka racism.

Anyway, to be fair, I introduced the aspect of roles 'designed for white people'... because it's how casting is done. Scripts are usually written with specific characters in mind, where the gender, race, etc will be important for the overall theme of the story. You wanted for black people to get more roles, and saw no problem with replacing white roles/people with those black actors. Hence, the reference to roles designed for white people.

I don't believe that I have misrepresented your posts..

Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

Comments

Wokeism of the day Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users