I'm pretty sure you didn't stop and think about what I actually said or you wouldn't be having to try and backpedal and play out your normal back of tricks.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Oh and apparently he's in Rehab and Jadda has finished with him or something.:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(719x359:721x361)/Will-Smith-Academy-905d0a002bae4018a9b0294b9a7145d2.jpg)
Will Smith Banned from Oscars Ceremony for Next 10 Years After Chris Rock Slap, Academy Decides
Will Smith formally resigned from the Academy a week ago, saying he would 'accept any further consequences the Board deems appropriate'people.com
Now that he's been banned from Academy events for the next decade, resigned from AMPAS, lost most of his upcoming movie roles, had his talent agency threaten to drop him, and had plenty of people call for his Oscar to be revoked, can we finish cutting our pound of flesh from Will Smith?
A big topic for kindergarteners are their parents.
Unless you are banning words like mummy and daddy, you (the kindergarteners) are going to be talking about straight/gay relationships without ever using those words
Pretty sure we saw how you stated, on numerous occasions, that you don't like certain things and you dont want them in any media.
There is a difference between asking for more than JUST cis hetero white people in media and saying they all need to be white cis hetero to meet my own sensitivities.
Lastly, it would be realy cool if you apply your 'they only got their role based on gender/race/minority' logic and start applying that to cis hetero white people. Because, the only reason why they got the job is because of people like you who ONLY want that particular thing. Not because of talent etc, just that you got offended
More specifically, romantic and sexual love are related, but not the same. That's how it's possible for some people to be ace or aro (or both). Romantic love is different from platonic love which is different from filial love. They're all different ways of expressing an emotion we all fundamentally feel, but they are distinct enough that occasionally you get someone who's just wired differently and doesn't feel one or more of those expressions.
yes, now go back and read what they actually are rather than presenting the easy, lazy and flimsy strawman arguments, then getting increasingly tetchy when I refuse to step into the strawman.
Yes because replacing one kind of preferential treatment with another is such a good plan as is reducing people down to basic stereotypes or screaming people out of the room the moment they try to have character face struggle when they're a special "Protected class"
You know I don't know why I bother.
I'm on record on this forum numerous times stating shows I like but it's always ignored when it becomes convenient.
So can you or some of the others in here explain to me quite why you're so adamant people must defend and love 2 dimensional characters in media who are often reduced down to a sole trait pushed above everything else normally by self proclaimed progressive writers who seem to want to do nothing more than make the world very much aware they wrote a character that's a "Minority" of some kind thus making it almost the entire personality of said character in a horribly stereotyping way?
Why am I the bad guy again for not blindly supporting such characters?
Maybe if some of the so called progressive lot put their money where their mouths (and tweets are) then some of the actually fleshed out well written characters would take off more than the hollow 2 dimensional personality ones that people blindly support out of some loyalty to some belief somehow they're doing good or fear that stepping out of line will make them the next target for the proverbial alligator they've been working to feed others to for so long.
Yeah. We're not blindly doing anything
For example, I'm not blindly believing that this is nothing more than what you've been told to do
2 dimensional character is most of Hollywood characters. But it's only a problem with they have less than white skin. If you actually saw movies, you could quite easily see that.
Most of Hollywood characters are bare boned sterotypes. But it's only a problem if it also includes two guys kissing
You have been giving white cis hetero preferential. You do not attack them then utterly suck and you do not attack the fact they were cis whitr heteros and should never have even been in the movie. You do not demand better story telling or flesh out characters for cis white men.
You do not convince anyone because there are so many logic flaws in your own argument no one can possibly follow it unless they were blind
You dont like them. Your offense is got nothing to do with minorities. Your problem is that you show clear preference to cis white men. No one is making you watch them. No one has to pander to your whims. Apply your own logic to all character not just to ones you dont like
Little kids ask questions. Little kids will also make mistakes and bully others, and (in a school setting) it is up to the teacher to explain things so that it doesn't happen again. If you think that doesn't include a boy maybe looking like a girl, or a girl like a boy, or a child having two dads or two moms, or just one parent, what school did you go to? What do you think teachers are there for, just to be education robots? It's not just going to be the school curriculum, orientation and a whole host of other things is going to come up.
Well, hope no teacher mentions they're married or have kids. Wouldn't want to teach the kiddos anything sexual
Then by your logic, teachers are not allowed to be married or have to remove their wedding bands. If we introduce the concept of romance to these kids, then sex is next and everyone knows that makes you a groomer.
Dude, be real. I knew I liked girls in 1st grade. I just didn't know what to do with those feelings yet.
Not really. People can be aromantic but not asexual and vice versa.
And as has been mentioned, most of us knew we liked the opposite or same sex (or both or neither) before we even knew what sex was.
Also, kids will see the romance section at a greeting card stand, or see stuffed animals hugging each with a big red heart right at the toy store. Most girls toys are about romantic shit, you know, Barbie and Ken. And I don't know about your school, but at mine we did things for Valentine's Day, like arts and crafts stuff. Typically for our parents, but we knew what Valentine's Day actually was.
Ah yes clearly I've been told to post here by the all powerful organisation of the "No Good Nicks" and am being paid in Bison Coin for doing so.
No it seems to be becoming a more recent trend in Hollywood again as Hollywood at one sage had grown past boys own adventure comic heroes that Buckaroo Banzai was parodying.
Most in the modern age where everyone had to be included in one piece of media.
I dunno who out there would argue Blade was a stereotypical black character. Or Dutch in Killjoys or the way they took Margo in the Magicians series.
Here's a small challenge for you.
Based on this description which fairly new female Marvel hero am I describing?
She wanted to go into stem but a character told her she couldn't so to prove them wrong she went and did it anyway while also fighting villains using her skills.
You know what's funny.
Watching you and others have to try and expand things. Watching as what I actually said is replaced by a strawman.
Seeing how what I've previously said has been ignored and brushed aside.
So I said gay characters in the way they're being done in media mostly do nothing for me because they don't have much character beyond that one characteristic. I noted some shows that actually do gay characters better and examples of ones that do it badly such that they do nothing for me.
So suddenly the only characters I can possibly enjoy are Cis White Straight men?
When did I say that again?
Please quote where I said specifically that again?
Or can you finally stop putting out the flame of the strawman you made that I keep burning.
And yet you can't actually point any of them out.
You claim they're there but you act like a Q anon person claiming it's there hoping people see the same as you.
If they are truly there then start pointing out the flaws don't just tell me Bigfoot exists without some proof.
*Sounds of crackling fire as I put another lit torch to the strawman*
No-one has to pander to my whims I agree.
So care to tell me why I'm apparently obliged to give people making stuff that doesn't appeal to me money?
I mean the people strongly pushing a lot of this stuff aren't bothering it seems if ratings and sales and other stuff are to be looked at so why am I who explicitly am being told it's not for me meant to be paying for it again?
Gay characters are no more involved in sexual stuff in media than straight characters.
In fact, much less so.
But you equate gay characters with gay sexual practices.
Because to right wingers, gay people have no identity outside of sex. Makes it easier to dehumanize them.
Really ? That sounds strange.
I know we got a mandatory crashcourse at school around the age of 8 and i surely didn't know about my sexuality then.
I'm not saying you'll have a firm grip on it, I didn't even know about sexuality all throughout elementary school. But I still wanted to show off to girls, and felt that getting attention from them was more special than from boys. And at the same time not wanting to show that to the boys, because then you'd get labeled 'a girl'.
And this is what you want classroom instruction to be? You're arguing for the continued socialization of girl's as sex objects?
What bill/law bans anything that you would use to teach people about systemic racism? I just listed red-lining as an example. If Republicans really wanted to ban CRT, I'm sure something like red-lining would be banned from being taught, right?
It wasn't my argument. My argument was that John Oliver lied when claiming several states have banned CRT, nothing else. Someone else brought up republicans lying in news clips and whatnot, which doesn't pertain to my argument at all. I don't care if someone I like or dislike lies, lying is bad. If someone who's views I agree with lies, I'm not going to deflect and be like well, the other people I don't like lied more so my guy lying less is fine. You know what that is... consistency.
List an example. People here are against censorship but OK with it for silencing misinformation, censorship is always bad. Funny how nowadays the only difference between a conspiracy theory/misinformation is about 6 months, give or take. Things we were banned from talking about on platforms is now just, you know, information. People also don't like when an agenda is pushed they don't like (like say straight men being video game protags) yet when an agenda is pushed that they likr, they are all for it, I'm against the pushing of any agendas regardless if I like the agenda or not.
The only thing that should have happened was him being escorted out by security. His punishment should have been him not being able to receive his award in person and not being able to enjoy his night as if nothing happened. That is all. If people disliked the incident so much that they don't see his next movie, then he should lose roles because of profitability. People being outraged on rather minor incidents needs to stop, be outraged at the major things that nobody seems to be outraged about.Will Smith Banned from Oscars Ceremony for Next 10 Years After Chris Rock Slap, Academy Decides
Will Smith formally resigned from the Academy a week ago, saying he would 'accept any further consequences the Board deems appropriate'
Now that he's been banned from Academy events for the next decade, resigned from AMPAS, lost most of his upcoming movie roles, had his talent agency threaten to drop him, and had plenty of people call for his Oscar to be revoked, can we finish cutting our pound of flesh from Will Smith?
But gay people can be married and have kids...