Deranged Rhino Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 I'm not arguing for censorship. I'm arguing for common sense. There is no need to have sound bites from public personas about politics or that which spew hate or negativity toward individuals or groups just because you or anyone has a different opinion. I think sterling is an idiot right there with james. Right there with the Vikings punter and the NBA player that was on the radio saying he hates gays. They're idiots who shouldn't get the light of day upon their words. They have every right to say them but society is better off casting them aside when they prove to be the bigots they are. The only way to do that is to let them speak. That's what you're missing.
boyst Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 The only way to do that is to let them speak. That's what you're missing. i know this might be asking you to repeat this but i'd like to hear it again. How so? I understand what you are saying and fully support them saying it but when in the course of pop culture Sterling gets lamb basted while James and the Rams are symbolic of the times.... I just don't fully agree. When they say it, anything, whatever... it needs to be weighed individually and accounted for equally. To say that what Sterling said is worse then James or the Rams, for instance, is ignorant of the truth. The truth is that neither did anything to further the cause of equality and only spread the flames of injustice.
Deranged Rhino Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 i know this might be asking you to repeat this but i'd like to hear it again. How so? I understand what you are saying and fully support them saying it but when in the course of pop culture Sterling gets lamb basted while James and the Rams are symbolic of the times.... I just don't fully agree. When they say it, anything, whatever... it needs to be weighed individually and accounted for equally. To say that what Sterling said is worse then James or the Rams, for instance, is ignorant of the truth. The truth is that neither did anything to further the cause of equality and only spread the flames of injustice. Well, you're equating Sterling and James when they're not the same issue. So let's focus on James. You might not agree with the statement he made by wearing the shirt, but this is an ongoing conversation being held within the country right now. Especially within the black community. James is the most powerful athlete in the world and as a black man he probably has pretty strong opinions on this issue. He also happens to be the face of a league that's 80% black, meaning he's looked to for statements on issues within that community often -- if not by fans then by reporters. It's up to James whether or not he wants to embrace those kind of roles, and we've seen plenty of super stars who have refused. Namely Jordan who turned down requests by the black community to endorse Democrat Harvey Gantt for the NC Senate because "Republicans buy shoes too". We've also seen many super stars that spoke out: Ali, Jim Brown, Kareem are the first that leap to mind. They all took hits because of it, none more than Ali who lost the prime of his career -- the key money making years in boxing. This is an issue that's being discussed everywhere and it's larger than just one case. You've formed your opinion on it and made it quite clear -- but it's still only an opinion. You're upset because James has formed the opposite opinion and thus his words/actions can only hurt or inflame the situation in your eyes. Instead you should be welcoming his voice into the discussion. If your opinion is as correct as you presume, it'll hold up to honest back and forth in the marketplace of ideas. That's how it's supposed to work. But if you don't let James speak first, you're perverting the discussion. You're denying not only James the opportunity to exercise his freedom of speech, you're also denying any challenge to your own.
Deranged Rhino Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 I guess folks are upset at Sir Ridley for his Bible movie. I really haven't paid attention to that, but I saw this just now and felt it had a home here.
meazza Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 I guess folks are upset at Sir Ridley for his Bible movie. I really haven't paid attention to that, but I saw this just now and felt it had a home here.
LeviF Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 I guess folks are upset at Sir Ridley for his Bible movie. I really haven't paid attention to that, but I saw this just now and felt it had a home here. I don't get it. What's her issue? PS The only celebrity I follow on twitter is 50. Dude is hilarious.
Deranged Rhino Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 I don't get it. What's her issue? PS The only celebrity I follow on twitter is 50. Dude is hilarious. Apparently the casting in the movie was a big issue: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/12/08/ridley-scott-christian-bale-defend-casting-white-actors-in-exodus/
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Apparently the casting in the movie was a big issue: http://www.foxnews.c...tors-in-exodus/ But nobody complained when Morgan Freeman was cast as a friggin' Irishman.
Jauronimo Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Apparently the casting in the movie was a big issue: http://www.foxnews.c...tors-in-exodus/ Upset about the lack of roles for people of Arab or African descent in Gods and Kings, but then they get upset about the casting in Black Hawk Down, The Siege and Raiders of the Lost Ark which offered lots of roles for Arabs and North Africans. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Right?
/dev/null Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Apparently the casting in the movie was a big issue: http://www.foxnews.c...tors-in-exodus/ But nobody complained when Morgan Freeman was cast as a friggin' Irishman. Back in the 80s, Egypt boycotted movies from Columbia Pictures for awhile because they weren't too happy with casting a black actor (Louis Gossit Jr) to play Anwar Sadat
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Ancient Egyptians weren't black anyway. I don't think that was that dingbat's point, though. I think she was making the more general point that black actors should make movies about black kings. The ones that started the slave trade, I guess...
LeviF Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 I don't think that was that dingbat's point, though. I think she was making the more general point that black actors should make movies about black kings. The ones that started the slave trade, I guess... Askia the Great! That would be a bloody movie.
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Askia the Great! That would be a bloody movie. They'd white-wash (black-wash?) it. Look what they did with Shaka Zulu...turned him into a mystic, where by ANY standard he was a bloody-minded maniac.
GG Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 I don't think that was that dingbat's point, though. I think she was making the more general point that black actors should make movies about black kings. The ones that started the slave trade, I guess... Which would have been on the other side of the continent in any event.
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Which would have been on the other side of the continent in any event. No, black kingdoms in East Africa sold slaves as well. Just to the Arabs, not Europeans. And there was plenty of slavery in North Africa. Hell, the entire Egyptian army in the time of the Crusades consisted of an enslaved caste of professional soldiers (the Mamluks). They ultimately revolted and founded a dynasty...and they weren't black, either (Turkic and Georgian, mostly).
/dev/null Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Turkic and Georgian, mostly You mean like Jimmy Carter?
boyst Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 How come no one is upset they recast Annie from ginger to black girl? The whole cast seems to have been changed? What about Peter Pan being played by a girl the other week? That probably confused a lot of kids and made them misidentify genders, etc. But I guess if you raise concern or express the notification you're racist, sexist and homophobic.
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 How come no one is upset they recast Annie from ginger to black girl? The whole cast seems to have been changed? That has some very interesting potential...the little orphan black girl taken in by a black rich man. I'm actually looking forward to seeing what they do with it. But I still have a hard time wrapping my head around a non-redheaded Annie. What about Peter Pan being played by a girl the other week? That probably confused a lot of kids and made them misidentify genders, etc. But I guess if you raise concern or express the notification you're racist, sexist and homophobic. Peter Pan is traditionally played by a woman. Having an androgynous boy (or Robin Williams) play Peter Pan is a relatively recent development, unsurprisingly coinciding with the development and perceived attraction of androgynous boys (and Robin Williams).
Recommended Posts