Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Dwarvenhobble]

^ telling me what everyone else thinks, immediately after moaning about other people doing exactly that.

No pointing out the existing precedent of it happening. You know using this thing called evidence and actual argument techniques beyond ad hominem.

 

[Trunkage]

And got it's ass Kicked by Legends of Tomorrow ones of the CW DC shows with the lower audience numbers.


And no-one noticed for the most part



some of which were splitting a season in 2 to make 2 seasons an set up an arc they ended up rushing to a not really tied up finish


And yet the axed the sequel and spin off Slime patrol Cartoon that was apparently already made. Also the stated budget doesn't include marketing which can be 50% additional on the films budget


Yet had a lot of push with the "This time it' for women and not men" and the whole "The sexists hate this film so it must be great and everyone should go see it"


3 seasons and hitting the lowest ratings ever seen since the start of the reboot.



And?

Sorry precedent so far suggests it would have been a lot of yelling and noise and not get the returns WB wanted and not likely even have managed Snydercut numbers

I thought we were doing the 'woke bad' thing?

Why would you use viewership of Legends of Tomorrow as your argument?

Are you arguing for something else?

Anyway, the rest of these points seem to be normal TV stuff that happens that you are turning into identity politics

 

[Silvanus]

No pointing out the existing precedent of it happening. You know using this thing called evidence and actual argument techniques beyond ad hominem.

I'm aware of it-- that's why when I was describing what you believed, I literally used your own words, and you complained that I was making it up anyway.

You, on the other hand, have offered absolutely nothing except ridiculous strawman descriptions of what you assume your enemies think.

 

[Trunkage]

2) Are we really at the point of arguing Vox media network the network, who own sites like the verge; which tried to claim people critical of their PC building video were just racists and not calling out a massive company who put out a video that had error that if followed by some-one building their first PC would likely damage or seriously reduce said new PC's lifespan, are not seen as woke?

Polygon a site that was readily joked about for being woke or presenting itself as such.....

3) I didn't say they were only right wing, just kinda funny the hypocrisy because apparently the Vox Media public face has always been pro vaxx and publishing pieces saying how deluded antivaxxers are and how social media platforms needed to ban then all

4) Polygon is owned by Vox Media.

5) Do what you like, you're welcome to join in the Schadenfreude of watching one of the big corporations that's been making every move it could to look publicly woke is now alleged to be harbouring and covering up far worse problems than the issues they lay blame at the feet of poor unenlightened unwoke people for. Laugh as the façade crumbles and sit back watching the fires going "told you so, told you the actual monsters were already in the building and were there all along but you wouldn't listen to us"


6) Does it matter whose they are? I'd say the main issue is the allegation of them being sexually abused and the refusal to investigate it at all

7) People and in this case apparently those actions being covered for and the person seemingly protected from repercussion thus likely able to just carry on with some other kids due to the corporation in question...... what was it the saying was "There is no neutral on a moving train" and "If you're not part of the solution you're therefore part of the problem" and the even popular "Silence is violence".

Just to be clear. You have provided nothing for or against this claim

I'm going to be against corporations, I dont care if you call them woke or not. You take jokes as proof of wokeness is cute though

I'm also not going to take a person's word against a corporation, because they can be wrong. Eg. The walkout over a union boss being fired at Starbucks (I think in Oregon) last week. I dont like Starbucks and their treatment of employees in general. A union stipulations for that site is for employees to recieve medical training to deal with a sudden increase medical incedents in the last few years at the store. Drug overdoses, mental health issues etc. Starbucks says no, it's not their responsibility to look after these people. So the assumption is they've been trying to fire the union boss. I agree with Starbucks here, it shouldn't be their responsibility to look after state responsibiliies (Looking after health, including mental). I disagree with how Starbucks dealt with the union boss

Asauming no one is lying here, I can
A) Dislike a company
B) Understand the companies point of view
C) Disagree with parts of a companies point of view
D) Make a rational choice that is not based on A
E) Still think that even though Starbucks is right, it shouldn't their responsibility to look after these medical cases, agree that they should provide medical training if this issue is so common

If Polygon/Vox did the wrong thing, great - I'll back you. Provide something of substance please and thank you

Also, let's say something happen at La Boulange, someone accuses a staff member of rape. Do you go see Howard Schultz about that?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

See, ya gotta read past the first sentence

I did and it says exactly what I said it said literally all over. Tom Hanks said a straight man shouldn't play that role today and that's stupid.


“Could a straight man do what I did in Philadelphia now? No, and rightly so,” Hanks said to The New York Times Magazine. “The whole point of Philadelphia was, ‘Don’t be afraid.’ One of the reasons people weren’t afraid of that movie is that I was playing a gay man.”
“We’re beyond that now, and I don’t think people would accept the inauthenticity of a straight guy playing a gay guy,” he continued. “It’s not a crime, it’s not boohoo, that someone would say we are going to demand more of a movie in the modern realm of authenticity. Do I sound like I’m preaching? I don’t mean to.”

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I did and it says exactly what I said it said literally all over. Tom Hanks said a straight man shouldn't play that role today and that's stupid.


“Could a straight man do what I did in Philadelphia now? No, and rightly so,” Hanks said to The New York Times Magazine. “The whole point of Philadelphia was, ‘Don’t be afraid.’ One of the reasons people weren’t afraid of that movie is that I was playing a gay man.”
“We’re beyond that now, and I don’t think people would accept the inauthenticity of a straight guy playing a gay guy,” he continued. “It’s not a crime, it’s not boohoo, that someone would say we are going to demand more of a movie in the modern realm of authenticity. Do I sound like I’m preaching? I don’t mean to.”

Hilariously, it's the parts you didn't underline that refute your statement

 

[Agema]

I did and it says exactly what I said it said literally all over. Tom Hanks said a straight man shouldn't play that role today and that's stupid.

You said: "Why are people saying a straight person can't play that role in Philadelphia today?" #3360. You've then shifting slightly to saying "shouldn't" instead of "can't", very dubiously employed a specific single example to claim a general rule, and apparently deliberately misinterpreted a quotation to suit your own ends.

All in all, your argument here is a bit of shitshow, for reasons previously explained to you.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Hilariously, it's the parts you didn't underline that refute your statement

No they don't, you just read what you want to. Where's Tom Hanks say that he would play that role today or it's perfectly fine for a straight person to play that role today? All he says is the opposite of that. Nobody cares about the sexual orientation of the actor playing the role of a character.

You said: "Why are people saying a straight person can't play that role in Philadelphia today?" #3360. You've then shifting slightly to saying "shouldn't" instead of "can't", very dubiously employed a specific single example to claim a general rule, and apparently deliberately misinterpreted a quotation to suit your own ends.

All in all, your argument here is a bit of shitshow, for reasons previously explained to you.

OMFG, Tom Hanks said a straight person shouldn't play the Philadelphia role today (and I'm sure there's others that agree with that) and that is such a fucking asinine comment to make. You're just complaining that I used slightly different words.

 

[Agema]

OMFG, Tom Hanks said a straight person shouldn't play the Philadelphia role today (and I'm sure there's others that agree with that) and that is such a fucking asinine comment to make. You're just complaining that I used slightly different words.

Tom Hanks supplies a rationale that is not the same as you are making out, so using him to bolster your prejudice doesn't really work.

Fucking deal with it.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I thought we were doing the 'woke bad' thing?

Why would you use viewership of Legends of Tomorrow as your argument?

Because that show oddly has never really had the backing of the woke crowd lol

Are you arguing for something else?

Anyway, the rest of these points seem to be normal TV stuff that happens that you are turning into identity politics

Funny because they heavily leaned into the woke aspect in the marketing.

I'm aware of it-- that's why when I was describing what you believed, I literally used your own words, and you complained that I was making it up anyway.

You, on the other hand, have offered absolutely nothing except ridiculous strawman descriptions of what you assume your enemies think.

Except you didn't you threw out an interpretation of my words that required extra works added on too to mean what you said it meant.

And you know evidence like how Star Wars social media manager got harassed off social media by ReyLo shippers.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Just to be clear. You have provided nothing for or against this claim

You mean other than the claims of an ex staff member who was willing to go public about it.

I'm going to be against corporations, I dont care if you call them woke or not. You take jokes as proof of wokeness is cute though

Because so often the "Jokes" only get called that when backlash happens it's

"Hahahaha I will literally refuse to help anyone I deem privileged, wait what do you mean I'm in trouble for not doing my job properly, it was a joke it was all a joke even though I was doing it to brag for clout and attention".

I'm also not going to take a person's word against a corporation, because they can be wrong. Eg. The walkout over a union boss being fired at Starbucks (I think in Oregon) last week. I dont like Starbucks and their treatment of employees in general. A union stipulations for that site is for employees to recieve medical training to deal with a sudden increase medical incedents in the last few years at the store. Drug overdoses, mental health issues etc. Starbucks says no, it's not their responsibility to look after these people. So the assumption is they've been trying to fire the union boss. I agree with Starbucks here, it shouldn't be their responsibility to look after state responsibiliies (Looking after health, including mental). I disagree with how Starbucks dealt with the union boss

So to be clear you're saying Ben Kuchera's kids weren't being abused and him or they are just misinterpreting what happened?

Asauming no one is lying here, I can
A) Dislike a company
B) Understand the companies point of view
C) Disagree with parts of a companies point of view
D) Make a rational choice that is not based on A
E) Still think that even though Starbucks is right, it shouldn't their responsibility to look after these medical cases, agree that they should provide medical training if this issue is so common

So Polygon and Vox media shouldn't be responsible for even trying to look into claims of child abuse being done by staff members using said position?

If Polygon/Vox did the wrong thing, great - I'll back you. Provide something of substance please and thank you

Also, let's say something happen at La Boulange, someone accuses a staff member of rape. Do you go see Howard Schultz about that?

Depends if other lower managers are bothering to look into it or now.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Tom Hanks supplies a rationale that is not the same as you are making out, so using him to bolster your prejudice doesn't really work.

Fucking deal with it.

I don't care about the rationale because it was stupid. I have prejudice when I'm saying that roles shouldn't be restricted based on sexuality?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Iran starting to sound like woke world by implying Salman Rushdie brought the stabbing on himself as freedom of speech has limits such that you can't use it to offend people or else you should face whatever come your way.

Iran denies involvement and says Salman Rushdie is to blame for own stabbing

Sir Salman is in critical condition after being stabbed nearly 10 times on stage

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Casual Shinji]

So murder in the name of one's religion is "woke" now too, huh?



I guess we should also believe Russia telling us they're a safe haven from the evil "cancel culture".

 

[Gordon_4]

Iran starting to sound like woke world by implying Salman Rushdie brought the stabbing on himself as freedom of speech has limits such that you can't use it to offend people or else you should face whatever come your way.

Iran denies involvement and says Salman Rushdie is to blame for own stabbing

Sir Salman is in critical condition after being stabbed nearly 10 times on stage

www.independent.co.uk

“Iran denies involvement”, must have taken them a few practice tries behind the curtain to say with a straight face.

 

[Silvanus]

Except you didn't you threw out an interpretation of my words that required extra works added on too to mean what you said it meant.

"Happy to see it burn". Not really sure how I could've fit in any more petty spite than you already put into it yourself, champ.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

"Happy to see it burn". Not really sure how I could've fit in any more petty spite than you already put into it yourself, champ.

The worst thing you can do to Dwarvenhobble is quote him. It's just not fair, you know.

 

[Agema]

“Iran denies involvement”, must have taken them a few practice tries behind the curtain to say with a straight face.

Well, it can say it didn't order a hitman to take him out.

That fatwa that's not been revoked and the $3 million bounty issued by an Iranian government-associated foundation are surely just coincidental.

 

[Gordon_4]

Well, it can say it didn't order a hitman to take him out.

That fatwa that's not been revoked and the $3 million bounty issued by an Iranian government-associated foundation are surely just coincidental.

Well there’s involvement and there’s “involvement”. Either way, the Iranian government is likely in some way responsible for this.

 

[Trunkage]

Because that show oddly has never really had the backing of the woke crowd lol

You are right. 'Woke' people didnt care one way or the other

I don't know why you needed the lol. This was clearly true

Funny because they heavily leaned into the woke aspect in the marketing.

See, this is what you call a lie. It was just marketing. You're putting the woke into it