2020: Gina Carano being in The Mandalorian is SJW woke culture ruining Star Wars!
2021: Gina Carano not being in The Mandalorian is SJW woke culture ruining Star Wars!
Quote from: Professor Bear on 11 February, 2021, 01:22:41 PM
2020: Gina Carano being in The Mandalorian is SJW woke culture ruining Star Wars!
2021: Gina Carano not being in The Mandalorian is SJW woke culture ruining Star Wars!
Gina Carano dropped from Mandalorian after 'abhorrent' posts (https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-56022084)
Cynical me is wondering if Disnae saw an opportunity to drop her because her performance is so wooden, or one-note. She is exactly the same whether at a round-table actor-chat or in the middle of a battle scene.
The in-universe explanation is that she resembles wood all the time because it was essential camouflage in the Endor campaign.
I haven't watched one second of Star Wars since The Last Jedi, so couldn't comment on Gina Carano's acting chops.
I do know however that she could crush 98% of us between her legs, and that we'd die with a grin on our face.
Rather depending on a few factors, but I'll let M.P. have the final say (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDu-fGp_A9Y).
How are you supposed to get into or out of an AT-ST, anyway?
Quote from: Funt Solo on 11 February, 2021, 08:10:12 PM
How are you supposed to get into or out of an AT-ST, anyway?
As poorly as the Empire designs things, you would have to assume there would at least be some manner of door or hatch?
(https://www.mumsnet.com/uploads/talk/201707/large-22468-can-opener-14859743.jpg)
Quote from: Funt Solo on 11 February, 2021, 03:14:37 PM
Gina Carano dropped from Mandalorian after 'abhorrent' posts (https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-56022084)
TBH I'm wondering if what I've read of this is somewhat truncated. The Grauniad appeared to reproduce more of the allegedly abhorrent post, leading me to question the reaction.
What I read was actually reasonably valid, to whit that one of the issues with the rise of National Socialism in Germany and the Holocaust was the ability of politicians to effectively harness grievances, exploit division and direct it accordingly.
Pointing to the complicity of the average citizen (and "Hitler's Willing Executioners" is well worth a read on this point) and questioning the current political climate / social situation from the perspective of avoiding past mistakes is not without merit.
As I say though, having not read the full posting, it is a little difficult to comment. That said, putting it in the background of some of her other postings and statements ....
I see what you mean, but I feel Carano's approach to discussing this was way out of line.
First of all, re her being fired, my place of work has a pretty standard clause in the contract of employment that my words and actions must not bring the company into disrepute.
So, if I went on a years-long social media spree saying such things as no-one should wear masks in the middle of a pandemic, trans rights are irrelevant and inconsequential, and, as a finisher, claiming that being called out on right-wing politics is the same as the abuse Jews received in the 30s in Hitler's Germany, then my employer would get shot of me sharpish, and have every right to do so.
While I agree we should be incredibly wary of this polarisation of society given history's lessons, any right-wing commentator speaking from a position of privilege who likens their 'struggle' to the appalling, vile treatment of Jewish people in Hitler's Germany, needs to be massively called out on it. Its a horrendous thing to say, which trivialises one of the most awful things to have happened to a group of human beings at the hands of other human beings.
^ All of that, which is what I'd been writing but put down way better than I did. What she did was not OK. What she did should not be normalised. However, the entire industry needs to apply rules evenly when it comes to behaviour. Frankly, Whedon should be nowhere near anything, given what's come out about him now.
Yeah, Whedon - what grim things I've been reading about him. It massively taints Firefly and Buffy, two productions I've really enjoyed previously.
Yesterday was just a hugely disappointing day for those with a love of sci-fi and fantasy TV and film.
There's also something interesting — and horrible — about the way in which open secrets are tolerated, notably among powerful men. We got this with Scott Allie. When things became just too much, people were all "yeah, well, we've known that for a decade". Mignola came off badly. He knew Allie had problems but didn't want to confront them nor him. We heard the usual BS from various parties about a man who claimed he was all better, despite continuing to do the exact same things people were complaining about in the first place.
With Whedon, there was clearly a different kind of shielding. People were petrified of calling him out because he could end their careers. So they didn't. That means people — mostly women — worked under intolerable conditions, he convinced young actresses to fuck him, and even people in make-up were scared of losing their jobs. That's not how any workplace should function.
For me, two things in particular stand out. The first is Kai Cole's article (https://www.thewrap.com/joss-whedon-feminist-hypocrite-infidelity-affairs-ex-wife-kai-cole-says/), which outlines what went on and some of Whedon's responses, and that is casually hand-waved away by a spokesperson. The wording is very careful — enough to avoid being litigious but also plenty enough to cast doubt and result in people arguing onesideism. It's a standard tactic of abusers. (Also, creepily, Michelle Trachtenberg elsewhere has said there was a rule which was "He's not allowed in a room alone with Michelle again." Yikes.)
However, the second thing is when you look at his productions with new eyes. For every moment of empowerment in Buffy/Angel, there is some kind of strange fetishism about keeping women down. Throughout those series, several women die in childbirth (of varying types) as a punishment. All of them are effectively 'erased' from existence. This in itself could arguably be a statement, but those deaths are not for the benefit of boosting women but to drive the male character arcs. Fridging, but in a particularly nasty manner.
With Charisma Carpenter, we know there were behind the scenes issues driving this. Whedon's actions there were abhorrent and unforgivable. He took a character who'd grown and changed and dismissed that as her having had no agency in those changes. He created a hideous set of plotting regarding her character, seemingly just to teach Carpenter a lesson for, what, getting pregnant? (And after months of ignoring her agent's calls.) What would have been feminist: having Cordi kick arse WHILE pregnant or WHILE a mum. But too often in Whedonland, only fathers really matter.
But even beyond that, treatment of women in his other work varies. We've just been going through the MCU on Disney+ and, frankly, what the fuck is happening with Black Widow in Age of Ultron? I mean, that's a dreadfully scripted and plotted movie anyway, but, seriously, it's baffling. Then there are the little sexist 'jokes' and put downs peppered about. Even Firefly, arguably his best work, has troubling things to say about women. (Note: I'm not saying productions should be free of sexism. My problem is when the productions themselves are sexist or misogynistic. Long-time boarders will know about me making that distinction with the horror that was Skyfall.)
It's sad. Some of Whedon's work was a big part of my 20s. I've enjoyed (at the time) a lot of Whedon's work. But, frankly, fuck him. And going forward, I'm not sure I'll be able to approach or revisit any of his output with a great degree of enthusiasm. I guess if nothing else, the modern world at least lets us know who our 'heroes' really are, but it's painful finding out. (See also: legions of Harry Potter fans, now trying to figure out how they align their love for those books with the person who created them.)
Quote from: shaolin_monkey on 12 February, 2021, 08:45:12 AM
... any right-wing commentator speaking from a position of privilege who likens their 'struggle' to the appalling, vile treatment of Jewish people in Hitler's Germany, needs to be massively called out on it.
I'm with you 100% on that one. My only thing is what I've read so far doesn't come across that way. Rather that the treatment of Jews in Germany in the 30's arose out of a political climate that is very similar in some respects to that of today.
It's not so much a case of casting right-wing 'struggles' in the same light as drawing parallels between such extremist positions. Of course the greater irony is that she fails to see that the positions she is supporting far more closely parallel those she is using as analogies. Right-wing populism both then and now is extremely dangerous.
This is why I say that I loathe to comment too much as I haven't seen the full statement. That said, having seen some of the other stuff she has posted online I can understand the reactions.
We also face the same issues with regards to social media use at work. It is one of the reasons why I am so careful myself. Not to mention good old fashion human decency ...
I'd argue it's also about context. We see this a lot from people at the far right. They make a statement and it's _just_ written carefully enough to be theoretically innocuous or both-sides or attempting to challenge thinking or any other excuse. But in context with everything else, you can see a very clear pattern.
In this case, it's not an accident—it's the latest post in a string of posts. Here, a comparison was being drawn, in a manner that is completely unacceptable. We as a society can either continue to hand-wave this shit away and look on, shocked, as liberal values continue to crumble, or we can actually start pushing back against it.
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 12 February, 2021, 09:57:28 AM
I guess if nothing else, the modern world at least lets us know who our 'heroes' really are, but it's painful finding out. (See also: legions of Harry Potter fans, now trying to figure out how they align their love for those books with the person who created them.)
I hope you don't mind but I'd like to deal with this point first and separate to that of Whedon. I want to be a little careful as I know there are quite few folks around these parts that have strong personal reasons for their positions on Rowling's remarks.
Whilst I get the point about struggling with positions, views and behaviours of public figures, what Whedon appears to have engaged in and what Rowling has done are not even close to being comparable.
Rowling has raised questions about the implications of Trans rights for women's rights. Understandably that has caused distress and offence. That said, there are strong views on both sides of the argument.
Whedon has allegedly engaged in prolonged predatory and abusive behaviour. The implications of comments from other cast members is that this may have crossed into pedophilia. These behaviours are a not just an order of magnitude worse but in a whole different dimension.
The other thing is the way in which these behaviours have been 'enabled' down through the years. Back in the 70's and 80's sexist, sexualised and abusive behaviour went on at terrifying levels. Common practice was to gloss over, hide and protect. The legacy of these practices is only barely understood to my mind.
So the 'revelations' are not even close to surprising. Nor is the way it was managed.
I wonder if it is worth splitting the conversation about Whedon and the discussion about the entertainment industry hiding/defending those behaviours into a new thread?
Coming back to Carano, there's pretty good write-up of what she said, and how various groups have reacted here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/gina-carano-mandalorian-disney-cancel-culture-b1800886.html?fbclid=IwAR0Jrt6Lrw5tST0W8EM6m4BRpT55x5_GfIR7W27DS-bWaXN8YThHBT6YtFQ
By and large I agree with the article, in that what some see as 'cancel culture' is just decent folk pushing back against elitism, discrimination, prejudice, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc etc etc. Basically restating a belief in a progressive moral code.
Agreed on splitting threads. I'll do that. As for Rowling, I don't see it as a competition, but I don't see her fight against trans people as being something to approve of to any degree. What she's doing is essentially no different from the same shit gay people went through, or black people in the middle of the last century.
Gina Carano's post was not an innocent comparison of like for like.
First off: hiding abhorrent views behind a mask of politics is a cheap (yet common) trick. Having a desire for less central government control over localized financial decisions - that's politics. White supremacy - that's not politics. Or, to put it another way - absolutely everything anyone ever talks about
is politics, so using "you're just attacking me because of my political views" as the basis for an argument is meaningless.
What she actually said is important:
QuoteJews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors... even by children... Because history is edited, most people today don't realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?
To decompress that: she first states that Jews weren't beaten by Nazi soldiery. That's just factually incorrect. Take Kristallnacht (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht) (which, of course, was an event of culmination, rather than a beginning - but taken as an example) - "a pogrom against Jews carried out by SA paramilitary forces and civilians".
Carano is both right (civilians were involved) and wrong (because soldiery were involved) - and misses the point. The hatred of Jews was being driven by central government (and the Church, frankly) through an organized misinformation campaign. She actually walks back her own argument by mentioning later that there was government involvement - so she's not making much sense anyway.
How is that different (asks Carano) than hating someone for their political views? Does she mean "how is a nationwide pogrom resulting in [at least] hundreds* of deaths different than voting in a democratic election"? She's also suggesting that the current Biden administration hates their political opponents (and is oppressing them), but all the signs are of pity, fear and a desire for change. So, her point ("people hate me unfairly") is empty.
Nobody in the Biden administration is currently planning any sort of a mass incarceration and liquidation campaign against any group. White, right-wing nutters aren't a subjugated minority anyway - they're an over-privileged but often woefully under-educated gang that's a mixture of backwater banana beliefs and right-wing evil. They are the Nazis in waiting, painting themselves (as the Nazis did) as victims.
I'm not sure I agree with her being (effectively) sacked - it seems that rather she is in need of education, because she's making spurious, fascistic arguments that don't hold water. I suppose if I went public with similar views I might find myself under a difficult work spotlight as well.
---
Disnae got rid of her because the "disagreeing with me makes you a Nazi" was just the straw their camel-back was waiting for after all her other bullshit, right-wing nut-job posts, and (my theory) she's not a very good actress.
*Note that I'm still referring to Kristallnacht here, and not the Holocaust, and its approximate figure of six million Jewish deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime.
How are people like Carano empowered to post this shit? Why does hiding under the scabrous veneer of "political views" even WORK? What the fuck is happening?
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 12 February, 2021, 01:03:30 PM
Agreed on splitting threads. I'll do that. As for Rowling, I don't see it as a competition, but I don't see her fight against trans people as being something to approve of to any degree. What she's doing is essentially no different from the same shit gay people went through, or black people in the middle of the last century.
I find that needs some decompression to make sense of, though. It doesn't seem helpful to say "if you see something of worth in Rowling's position then you're the equivalent of a racist homophobic" - which (of course) isn't what you
actually said. But you are making quite a sweeping statement and there is some inference. Ultimately, without some meat on the bones, it's difficult to make out what your argument actually is - so all we can do is infer.
I do have some sympathy for an argument that situates itself around the word view of there being males and females - and that often that's linked to biological reality. Or, a bull has a willie, and a cow doesn't, to make it really, really simple. I mean: they're standing right there, in the field.
Now, Eddie Izzard is (currently, which is important) a she. But (and this is quite important), she was a he. Clearly, in squaring the circle of a person who is both a he (historically - so, you know, in print, as it were) and a she (currently), who may later become a he again (she's hinted this is possible), we are being asked to engage in something of a game of cognitive dissonance, at the behest of, well, anyone.
Which is fine, I suppose. But I have sympathy for people who can't quite keep up and go "Eh? What's happening now?" A lot of people have never had the thought "actually, I feel more like a gender that's different than the one I've been labeled with, that's probably linked to my junk", so it's a bit of an alien feeling.
I was doing a mind game earlier with myself - if you put a hundred people in a room who've never met Eddie Izzard before and are unaware of her current preferred pronoun, and asked them to guess it...
So: there is that cognitive dissonance. In some cases. And so the situation is unusual. And people (some) find that difficult to come to terms with. I find it difficult to blame them for finding it difficult.
I have sympathy for people who find the position difficult. Heck, I find the subject tricky to grasp at times, but then I've never had to deal with any question of my own identity. It has to date always been very straightforward. So I talk with trans friends and I listen. What I don't do is, say, use my platform as a hugely famous person to make the same old spurious arguments again and again, under the guise of protecting women. (This isn't just Rowling, obviously. Graham Linehan took it to a bewildering extreme.)
Also: I'm not saying people struggling to understand things like trans are racists. What I am saying is there's a link between people who seek to remove normalisation from such individuals who don't fit their worldview. Remember that not long ago, people were attempting to dismiss gay people in a similar way. They were attempting to eradicate their rights. And this was so often under the guise of protecting a section of society rather than protecting those being vilified (who tend to have alarmingly high levels of suicide).
I don't care what the "updated science" and experts say. It was the truth when I was taught it in school and it's the truth now and forever: Pluto is a planet. Just look at it - it's right there in the sky. I refuse to update Pluto's pronouns to "dwarf planet" - this is political correctness and/or more precise scientific categorization based on discussions among experts in the field and their subsequent agreed consensus
gone mad.
Quote from: Tjm86 on 12 February, 2021, 11:37:37 AMRowling has raised questions about the implications of Trans rights for women's rights. Understandably that has caused distress and offence. That said, there are strong views on both sides of the argument.
A cynic might suggest Rowling has ulterior motives for preemptively gunning for the exact lobby that was going to take issue with her novel that has a plot about a serial killer who wears dresses to lull women into a false sense of security. A cynic might go so far as to suggest that while she does indeed hold troubling views based on outdated essentialist notions of gender as a binary and have a vested interest in preventing the public holding wealthy celebrities to account, Rowling has been doing nothing more than running a long con as a gender critic during the writing of her novel to ensure that eventual criticisms of her work can be dismissed as irrational or based on quote-unquote "trans ideology".
If you have 90 minutes to spare - God help us all, who
doesn't these days? - then centrist pin-up girl Contrapoints covers JK Rowling's public statements in depth and explains why, in her opinion, Rowling's arguments are neither good faith nor reasonable (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT_l2us).
Well, Rowling essentially agreed with Maya Forstarter, the scientist. Rowling hasn't started the trans thing.
But Gina, I do not know how she gets roles. Neither she is sexy, nor slim. For tough physical roles, you need someone who is not "elegantly filled).
I understand precisely the square root of fuck all about gender politics, but that's OK because addressing someone by their preferred pronouns is not difficult. Whether or not another person should have the same rights as everyone else is not a question I need to think too hard about.
I've noticed a trend developing for people including preferred pronouns in their work email signatures, I think some employers even mandate it. One local guy's even included Ulster Scots: "he/him/thon fella". But if you're inventing your own special pronouns, you need to get the fuck over yourself. Latinx is one, and I don't know if it's pronounced "lah-tine-ecks" or "lah-tinks". I suspect it was invented by someone who doesn't speak much Spanish, and doesn't speak enough English to know the genderless terms "Latin American" and "Hispanic" exist. Should we call Mexican chavs "cholx"? Should we call tables "lxs mesx"? Should I stop being so facetious?
Things get messy with sports. World Rugby banned trans women from playing women's rugby last year. This was controversial, because whatever decision they made was going to be controversial. It's an easy cop out to say that decision doesn't affect me so my opinion doesn't matter, because it really doesn't. However I think I support the decision. There isn't even a debate about whether trans men can play men's rugby because as far as I'm aware none have tried.
While I'm on rugby, a few years back Australian Rugby sacked their (arguably) best player, Israel Folou. He posted on twitter* that homosexuals were going to burn in hell**. He then tried to sue Australian Rugby for religious discrimination, but got nowhere because he had signed a contract that included a clause about conduct on social media, a clause which Australian Rugby had introduced to all their player contracts precisely because he had been at this nonsense before, and even though he had been made aware he would be sacked if his behaviour continued, he went ahead and made a tit of himself anyway.
No doubt these social media clauses are now boilerplate for high profile jobs. No doubt Gina Carano had been warned the first couple of times she acted*** like a tit on twitter. No doubt some people find victimhood intoxicating.
*You know, that website that's a bit like youtube, but with just the cool comment section and no silly videos.
** And also alcoholics, which is obviously why the 'strayans took issue.
***for lack of a better word
Quote from: milstar on 12 February, 2021, 05:56:05 PM
Well, Rowling essentially agreed with Maya Forstarter, the scientist. Rowling hasn't started the trans thing.
But Gina, I do not know how she gets roles. Neither she is sexy, nor slim. For tough physical roles, you need someone who is not "elegantly filled).
Uhm...all my arguments against Gina Carano are to do with her extreme views on things like Covid, and the lack of serious substance in her public ponderings (and that I don't think she's a particularly good actress) - but being sexy or slim are not prerequisites for getting roles in shows, Shirley? And, anyway, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think she is beautiful, but what I think of her physical attributes isn't really relevant for the part. I don't fancy Carl Weathers, so he shouldn't have the role? Huh?
I have no idea what you mean by "for tough physical roles, you need someone who is not elegantly filled". Are you calling her fat? She's a wrestler - so I'm guessing her bulk is mostly muscle. I'd say she's (physically) perfectly suited for the role.
---
Bear - your Pluto thing is funny. In reality, some people did battle for Pluto to remain a planet, but mostly it was either tongue in cheek or just a sort of nostalgia drive. Even there: you can understand a level of cognitive dissonance as people re-calculate their thinking (eight planets now, not nine).
I'm arguing that giving people space to discuss the changes should be allowed without belittling them - but then that's probably just my liberalism
gone mad.
After all the arguments, I still don't know Rowling's motives. I only know what some people think her motives are. Just because they're thinking of things, doesn't make them correct. I am sitting on this here fence, not quite knowing.
---
Note: I haven't read Pops post yet.
Quote from: Mister Pops on 11 February, 2021, 11:17:54 PMQuote from: Funt Solo on 11 February, 2021, 08:10:12 PMHow are you supposed to get into or out of an AT-ST, anyway?
As poorly as the Empire designs things, you would have to assume there would at least be some manner of door or hatch?
Reach out with your keyrings...
Quote from: Funt Solo on 12 February, 2021, 06:29:31 PM
Quote from: milstar on 12 February, 2021, 05:56:05 PM
Well, Rowling essentially agreed with Maya Forstarter, the scientist. Rowling hasn't started the trans thing.
But Gina, I do not know how she gets roles. Neither she is sexy, nor slim. For tough physical roles, you need someone who is not "elegantly filled).
Uhm...all my arguments against Gina Carano are to do with her extreme views on things like Covid, and the lack of serious substance in her public ponderings (and that I don't think she's a particularly good actress) - but being sexy or slim are not prerequisites for getting roles in shows, Shirley? And, anyway, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think she is beautiful, but what I think of her physical attributes isn't really relevant for the part. I don't fancy Carl Weathers, so he shouldn't have the role? Huh?
I have no idea what you mean by "for tough physical roles, you need someone who is not elegantly filled". Are you calling her fat? She's a wrestler - so I'm guessing her bulk is mostly muscle. I'd say she's (physically) perfectly suited for the role.
Well, she should do wrestler movies then. And yes, I called euphemistically. Because she objectively is. And in (most) movies of today, especially Hollywood, handsome look is required. Being fat does not look well on the screen when you are required to run, jump, roll over etc. This is primary reason why I hate xXx 2.
Quote from: Mister Pops on 12 February, 2021, 06:19:04 PM
I understand precisely the square root of fuck all about gender politics, but that's OK because addressing someone by their preferred pronouns is not difficult. Whether or not another person should have the same rights as everyone else is not a question I need to think too hard about.
I've noticed a trend developing for people including preferred pronouns in their work email signatures, I think some employers even mandate it. One local guy's even included Ulster Scots: "he/him/thon fella". But if you're inventing your own special pronouns, you need to get the fuck over yourself. Latinx is one, and I don't know if it's pronounced "lah-tine-ecks" or "lah-tinks". I suspect it was invented by someone who doesn't speak much Spanish, and doesn't speak enough English to know the genderless terms "Latin American" and "Hispanic" exist. Should we call Mexican chavs "cholx"? Should we call tables "lxs mesx"? Should I stop being so facetious?
Things get messy with sports. World Rugby banned trans women from playing women's rugby last year. This was controversial, because whatever decision they made was going to be controversial. It's an easy cop out to say that decision doesn't affect me so my opinion doesn't matter, because it really doesn't. However I think I support the decision. There isn't even a debate about whether trans men can play men's rugby because as far as I'm aware none have tried.
While I'm on rugby, a few years back Australian Rugby sacked their (arguably) best player, Israel Folou. He posted on twitter* that homosexuals were going to burn in hell**. He then tried to sue Australian Rugby for religious discrimination, but got nowhere because he had signed a contract that included a clause about conduct on social media, a clause which Australian Rugby had introduced to all their player contracts precisely because he had been at this nonsense before, and even though he had been made aware he would be sacked if his behaviour continued, he went ahead and made a tit of himself anyway.
No doubt these social media clauses are now boilerplate for high profile jobs. No doubt Gina Carano had been warned the first couple of times she acted*** like a tit on twitter. No doubt some people find victimhood intoxicating.
*You know, that website that's a bit like youtube, but with just the cool comment section and no silly videos.
** And also alcoholics, which is obviously why the 'strayans took issue.
***for lack of a better word
Funny thing about latinx, I noticed that a lot of latino(a) people find the term offensive. I thought what the hell. I found it universal, where you describe these people generally. Instead of latino for male, latina for female. But that was maybe my misconception.
Social networks are toxic.
Quote from: milstar on 12 February, 2021, 06:38:04 PM
Well, she should do wrestler movies then. And yes, I called euphemistically. Because she objectively is. And in (most) movies of today, especially Hollywood, handsome look is required. Being fat does not look well on the screen when you are required to run, jump, roll over etc. This is primary reason why I hate xXx 2.
Do you realize you are using silly arguments? Like, Arnie should only have done body-building movies, by your logic. And The Good, The Bad & The Ugly must be bad because not everyone's handsome? And people you consider overweight shouldn't do anything dynamic on screen? Of all the reasons to dislike XXX^2, you are blaming body shape?
I guess we can all rest easy that you're not in charge of talent scouting for any movie companies.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 12 February, 2021, 05:43:16 PM
A cynic might suggest Rowling has ulterior motives for preemptively gunning for the exact lobby that was going to take issue with her novel that has a plot about a serial killer who wears dresses to lull women into a false sense of security. A cynic might go so far as to suggest that while she does indeed hold troubling views based on outdated essentialist notions of gender as a binary and have a vested interest in preventing the public holding wealthy celebrities to account, Rowling has been doing nothing more than running a long con as a gender critic during the writing of her novel to ensure that eventual criticisms of her work can be dismissed as irrational or based on quote-unquote "trans ideology".
Thank you for that. My issue around Rowling / TERF is the intersection with women's rights, largely as a result concerns raised by colleagues. Picking through the debate it is a little unclear who started what but it 'appears' that Rowling incited the ire of those who had since been quite aggressive in their responses.
Possibly one of the reasons that I didn't consider the subtext here is that actually I don't rate her as a writer at all. To me there is far too many recycled tropes ranging from Blyton, through Feist to Tolkein. Not to mention that she does it far poorly. So linking the 'controversy' to her writing escaped me for precisely that reason. I would sooner read the Express (sorry, that is quite offensive, isn't it?).
If that is the case then my low levels of respect fall even further. If she has taken issues that some women are struggling with and used them for personal career gain ...
As always I appreciate when people provide more information / context to controversy. Thank you sir (or not, I don't know any more ...)
Quote from: Funt Solo on 12 February, 2021, 09:00:18 PM
Quote from: milstar on 12 February, 2021, 06:38:04 PM
Well, she should do wrestler movies then. And yes, I called euphemistically. Because she objectively is. And in (most) movies of today, especially Hollywood, handsome look is required. Being fat does not look well on the screen when you are required to run, jump, roll over etc. This is primary reason why I hate xXx 2.
Do you realize you are using silly arguments? Like, Arnie should only have done body-building movies, by your logic. And The Good, The Bad & The Ugly must be bad because not everyone's handsome? And people you consider overweight shouldn't do anything dynamic on screen? Of all the reasons to dislike XXX^2, you are blaming body shape?
Nonsense. Do you really quote Arnie whose body of work are movies that exclusively require great physical shape? How a chubby can play in a film and make you believe while climbing up the ladder, after running half a mile, only to jump across other point? And I've seen movies with behemoth guys, but that was pure muscle. And I don't say these movies dub in realism, but a line must be drawn. Besides, it wasn't the case just with Gina Carrano or Ice Cube. I like Moore's Bond films, but in his later entries, it was almost embrassing to watch an old, wasted man as secret spy.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 12 February, 2021, 09:00:18 PM
I guess we can all rest easy that you're not in charge of talent scouting for any movie companies.
Well, it's their loss.
JFC at your description of her body. We should be aiming for diversity of body types and looks on-screen, not casting women in the basis of whether men would like to fuck them and whether they are skinny enough.
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 13 February, 2021, 12:10:14 AM
JFC at your description of her body. We should be aiming for diversity of body types and looks on-screen, not casting women in the basis of whether men would like to fuck them and whether they are skinny enough.
Except these movies aren't really the movies where diversity of body types should be welcome. What if it's some historical movie and you obviously cast the wrong person in terme of age, gender, race, etc? Besides, who's gonna see an action film where main stars are all fatties?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW0fLdHbH9w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW0fLdHbH9w)
Ugh. Milstar, you're using pretty openly offensive terminology for people that you consider to be overweight - things like "fatties" and "chubby". Please stop.
Add onto that this idea you proposed that Carano is somehow overweight - she's 143lbs and 5.8" - which places her BMI smack bang in the middle of the "normal" category.
I know I'm not going to turn you into a nice person by pointing this out, but ... you could try.
Going a bit Daily Mail there Milstar. I've no time for her odious opinions, but Gina Carano isn't fat.
A number of women (and men) I know were very excited to see a badass character being played by an actress with the build of someone who could legit smash somebodys face in, rather than the usual 'sexy and slim' type. It's one of the reasons the character was so beloved, and amplified the disappointment, I think, when she turned out to be a rightwing nutjob.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 13 February, 2021, 02:50:26 AM
Ugh. Milstar, you're using pretty openly offensive terminology for people that you consider to be overweight - things like "fatties" and "chubby". Please stop.
I am sorry, but I never heard anywhere that these words are offensive. Overweight on the other hand...
Quote from: Barrington Boots on 13 February, 2021, 06:03:58 AM
Going a bit Daily Mail there Milstar. I've no time for her odious opinions, but Gina Carano isn't fat.
A number of women (and men) I know were very excited to see a badass character being played by an actress with the build of someone who could legit smash somebodys face in, rather than the usual 'sexy and slim' type.
When I see action stars of today and before, I must disagree. I bet Gina Carano wouldn't be so likeable among conservatives if she didn't say what right wingers love to hear.
Btw, I love DM. They always about things nobody (sane) is interested in.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 12 February, 2021, 05:43:16 PM
If you have 90 minutes to spare - God help us all, who doesn't these days? - then centrist pin-up girl Contrapoints covers JK Rowling's public statements in depth and explains why, in her opinion, Rowling's arguments are neither good faith nor reasonable (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT_l2us).
Thanks for posting that link - I got twenty minutes in (before, ironically, my daughter needed to borrow the computer to listen to an audiobook of The Philosopher's Stone) and I need to come down off the fence - it's clear that Rowling is transphobic. I just needed it explained to me.
Thinking back to Pluto's reclassification as a dwarf planet made me realize that I need to mentally reclassify woman by allowing it to encompass more types of woman. And man. Man.
Gotta say - I did not think this thread would provide a personal epiphany.
Let's get one thing clear, there's nothing genuine in Rowling's "questioning" of trans identities. She has effectively allied herself with the Gender Critical movement, which is essentially using feminism as a shield to belittle and denigrate trans people. You may have seen them referred to derogatorily as TERFS (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists). They are basically an online hate mob stoking up fear and suspicion of trans women (who according to the anti-trans lobby are all male sex offenders in disguise) under the guise of "just asking questions."
Although it's still a small minority of individuals online propagating this stuff, the danger is that high profile figures like Rowling give this kind of bigoted thinking a legitimacy it in no way deserves.
Oh and don't me started on Graham Linehan. That's a rabbit hole of madness that never ends.
Well, it sort of ended when Twitter finally banned him. :D
What an idiot Carano is. She basically fluked her way into a lucrative acting gig that would basically be her retirement plan and she burns it all by posting nonsense. I don't massively care about her either way but I almost pity her for being so stupid.
Absolute self-sabotage. While I'm not one who agrees with "cancel culture" as such, it often reminds me of the Black Adder episode with the puritans in it, and have very little belief that Disney care either given their history, but they were well within their rights to let her go and she gave them plenty of reasons.
I've not looked into the Whedon thing but it'll be a shame if he's some sort of bastard. I liked Buffy and Angel. Not so much Dollhouse though.
Quote from: repoman on 14 February, 2021, 01:13:19 PM
I've not looked into the Whedon thing but it'll be a shame if he's some sort of bastard.
Grade-A shithouse. He treated Charisma Carpenter like crap when she had the audacity to get pregnant, then did his level best to ruin her career. Michelle Trachtenberg says there was a rule on the Buffy set that "Joss isn't allowed to be alone in a room with Michelle again". All the Ray Fisher stuff from Justice League. A lot of stuff from his ex-wife a few years back that I managed to miss at the time.
Buffy, Angel, Firefly... all this stuff is more than just the product of Whedon's efforts and I think it's still possible to appreciate the end product
in spite of Whedon's shitbaggery.
Quote from: Funt Solo on 12 February, 2021, 09:00:18 PM
Quote from: milstar on 12 February, 2021, 06:38:04 PM
Well, she should do wrestler movies then. And yes, I called euphemistically. Because she objectively is. And in (most) movies of today, especially Hollywood, handsome look is required. Being fat does not look well on the screen when you are required to run, jump, roll over etc. This is primary reason why I hate xXx 2.
Do you realize you are using silly arguments? Like, Arnie should only have done body-building movies, by your logic. And The Good, The Bad & The Ugly must be bad because not everyone's handsome? And people you consider overweight shouldn't do anything dynamic on screen? Of all the reasons to dislike XXX^2, you are blaming body shape?
I guess we can all rest easy that you're not in charge of talent scouting for any movie companies.
Totally agree with this.
I don't agree with most of Gina's posted views, although I was very much in the 'don't fire her for having them brigade'... until that last ridiculous statement comparing her experience to Jew in the Holocaust, etc. Yeah, she went way too far there.
But from a physical point of view I welcome the fact they cast someone who isn't the usual slim stereotypical view of female beauty. (That makes it seem like I don't think she is attractive. That's not what I mean, in fact I think she looks quite lovely. Just not sure how else to phrase what I mean there.) And I thought she fit the role of an ex rebel shock trooper well in that regard. And yes, got the impression, like you that much of her size is muscle not fat. I wouldn't even describe her as fat, although she's a whole lot of woman. :-[
I hope a lot more women (or men for that matter, although there isn't as much bias with them) of all body types and shapes are employed in more mainstream roles in future.
I didn't even mind her acting. It was a bit wooden, but for the role I thought it was okay.
So... I liked the character. Mixed view considering her firing, but it's her own fault. Totally understandable why they did it.
Yes. All that. The point is, she's not fat. She has an average BMI, which means from a wrestling standpoint she's reasonably slender. (By contrast, many female rugby players are technically overweight, even though they're mostly muscle.) The problem is, we've been trained to think rakes are normal. People talk of "plus size" models, who in reality are just slightly on the right side of not having an actual health condition.
With men, we appear to be in a similar space but with muscle. I saw someone recently refer to Sam in Quantum Leap as "fat". Back then, he was considered quite dishy. But today. you must have zero body fat and look chiselled. None of this stuff is healthy. All of it is toxic male gaze. And although there needs to be a level of correlation between role and look, I'm fucking sick of every male lead needing to look like a bodybuilder and every female lead like a stick with boobs.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9257109/amp/Buffy-star-David-Boreanaz-wipes-Instagram-account-fans-urge-actor-speak-up.html
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 14 February, 2021, 01:22:57 PMMichelle Trachtenberg says there was a rule on the Buffy set that "Joss isn't allowed to be alone in a room with Michelle again".
Christ! And there was me thinking the worst thing he ever did was create the character of Dawn.
I've never seen The Mandalorian so I can't say anything about Carano's acting. I don't use twitter (anymore) so her comments are all new to me but reprehensible nonetheless. What I find interesting are the views of certain groups of people.
On this board, where one of the primary topics of conversation is about a law enforcer for one of the most brutal and authortarian regimes ever conceived of, is made up of people whose general mindset seems to be a more liberal and inclusive world. Whereas another board I frequent, where a primary topic is about a free roaming and liberal barbarian, seems to think Carano has been unfairly sacked and proof of cancel culture.
I wonder if there isn't a PhD thesis in there somewhere.
I guess with Dredd the issue is whether you see it as a warning or something you'd like to occur in the real world. Also, people can like drama of a certain ilk without wanting it to come true. See also things like The Man in the High Castle.
Quote from: von Boom on 14 February, 2021, 05:34:47 PM
On this board, where one of the primary topics of conversation is about a law enforcer for one of the most brutal and authortarian regimes ever conceived of, is made up of people whose general mindset seems to be a more liberal and inclusive world.
I think it's a bit like enjoying Starship Troopers - anyone genuinely going "yay - squash the bugs!" has entirely missed the point of the movie. We can enjoy it at multiple levels - big kapowee space battles, that ridiculous drill sergeant pinning the guy's hand with a casual dagger throw to prove a point - and also as a subversive warning against fascism.
Part of the genius of Dredd is in the OTT nature of the strip, but also in the inherent dichotomy. He must uphold the law so that every citizen can live in peace ... under the harsh rule of the law that restricts their freedoms. You can tell any story in there - a story where he's the hero, saving innocents from nefarious villains. Or you can make the citizens the heroes fighting against the oppression of the Judges.
You can see some writers missing the point when they have Dredd summarily execute people just to prove a point. This happens rarely, but it's like a sudden irregular heart rhythm for the character, because it breaks the rules of why it's okay to be a fan of Judge Dredd the comic.
My dad missed this subversion in the comic (when I was growing up) and was just worried because he thought I was a fan of a violent thug of a law enforcer, and was worried about all the phallic, thrusting imagery. Give him his dues - he wasn't quite getting Dredd because he wasn't reading it, but he was actually quite spot-on about the artistic semi-obsession with dickery pokery...
(http://www.2000ad.org/covers/2000ad/mediumres/167.jpg) (http://www.2000ad.org/covers/2000ad/mediumres/164.jpg) (http://www.2000ad.org/covers/2000ad/mediumres/173.jpg)
(http://www.2000ad.org/covers/2000ad/mediumres/181.jpg) (http://www.2000ad.org/covers/2000ad/mediumres/176.jpg) (http://www.2000ad.org/covers/2000ad/mediumres/267.jpg)
Quote from: Funt Solo on 14 February, 2021, 06:03:49 PMYou can see some writers missing the point when they have Dredd summarily execute people just to prove a point. This happens rarely, but it's like a sudden irregular heart rhythm for the character, because it breaks the rules of why it's okay to be a fan of Judge Dredd the comic.
Nicely put!
Quote from: Mardroid on 14 February, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: Funt Solo on 12 February, 2021, 09:00:18 PM
Quote from: milstar on 12 February, 2021, 06:38:04 PM
Well, she should do wrestler movies then. And yes, I called euphemistically. Because she objectively is. And in (most) movies of today, especially Hollywood, handsome look is required. Being fat does not look well on the screen when you are required to run, jump, roll over etc. This is primary reason why I hate xXx 2.
Do you realize you are using silly arguments? Like, Arnie should only have done body-building movies, by your logic. And The Good, The Bad & The Ugly must be bad because not everyone's handsome? And people you consider overweight shouldn't do anything dynamic on screen? Of all the reasons to dislike XXX^2, you are blaming body shape?
I guess we can all rest easy that you're not in charge of talent scouting for any movie companies.
Totally agree with this.
I don't agree with most of Gina's posted views, although I was very much in the 'don't fire her for having them brigade'... until that last ridiculous statement comparing her experience to Jew in the Holocaust, etc. Yeah, she went way too far there.
But from a physical point of view I welcome the fact they cast someone who isn't the usual slim stereotypical view of female beauty. (That makes it seem like I don't think she is attractive. That's not what I mean, in fact I think she looks quite lovely. Just not sure how else to phrase what I mean there.) And I thought she fit the role of an ex rebel shock trooper well in that regard. And yes, got the impression, like you that much of her size is muscle not fat. I wouldn't even describe her as fat, although she's a whole lot of woman. :-[
I hope a lot more women (or men for that matter, although there isn't as much bias with them) of all body types and shapes are employed in more mainstream roles in future.
I didn't even mind her acting. It was a bit wooden, but for the role I thought it was okay.
So... I liked the character. Mixed view considering her firing, but it's her own fault. Totally understandable why they did it.
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 14 February, 2021, 03:39:20 PM
Yes. All that. The point is, she's not fat. She has an average BMI, which means from a wrestling standpoint she's reasonably slender. (By contrast, many female rugby players are technically overweight, even though they're mostly muscle.) The problem is, we've been trained to think rakes are normal. People talk of "plus size" models, who in reality are just slightly on the right side of not having an actual health condition.
With men, we appear to be in a similar space but with muscle. I saw someone recently refer to Sam in Quantum Leap as "fat". Back then, he was considered quite dishy. But today. you must have zero body fat and look chiselled. None of this stuff is healthy. All of it is toxic male gaze. And although there needs to be a level of correlation between role and look, I'm fucking sick of every male lead needing to look like a bodybuilder and every female lead like a stick with boobs.
I hate to write this comment as we digressed a bit much from the topic. Maybe to create a thread solely dedicated to Ms Carano. Anyway, when I see her in Deadpool, her bulky appearance inclines me to think that not all is muscle. And is fairly known that men muscle grow bigger than when it's women in question. And when it comes to overweight and being thin as toothstick, both to me are - I'll be blunt here - gross, and unhealthy. I recall when some people were angry at Adele when she decided to loose weight.
And I am saying as someone who is a bit tired of seeing hot leads, just to fullfull audience's kicks. Whether it's a woman or man. Men want to see a slim chick in tight outfit, but who is also badass, while women look for the hot guy in; and if he appears bare chested (with muscles). But watching a person, scrawny or overweight acting like a superhero - that I can't swallow.
As for her comments, I gotta credit to her for not going extreme. I mean, she hasn't said anything that you might hear out of some far right politician, or extremist, like Jared Taylor, Laura Towler or Ann Marie Waters (just an example). That is pure deep end side.
I, like, totally get that. I have the same problem when I see someone who's an intellectual lightweight try to punch above their level. Everyone else is like "logical point, sensible counter-argument" and they're like "fatties make me feel icky".
It just grosses me out.
Quote from: milstar on 14 February, 2021, 10:38:07 PM
...Men want to see a slim chick in tight outfit, but who is also badass...
I had never realized this, thank you for telling me what I'm supposed to think. There's me thinking women are people, but it turns out they're just objects to fulfill my primitive desires and expectations.
Boy do I feel* silly now.
*Actually not, because only sissies have feelings
Quote from: Funt Solo on 14 February, 2021, 11:16:13 PM
I, like, totally get that. I have the same problem when I see someone who's an intellectual lightweight try to punch above their level. Everyone else is like "logical point, sensible counter-argument" and they're like "fatties make me feel icky".
It just grosses me out.
Yeah, and well, some people are born to whine.
Quote from: Mister Pops on 14 February, 2021, 11:19:43 PM
Quote from: milstar on 14 February, 2021, 10:38:07 PM
...Men want to see a slim chick in tight outfit, but who is also badass...
I had never realized this, thank you for telling me what I'm supposed to think. There's me thinking women are people, but it turns out they're just objects to fulfill my primitive desires and expectations.
Boy do I feel* silly now.
*Actually not, because only sissies have feelings
Did you really draw only that out of everything I wrote?
Quote from: milstar on 14 February, 2021, 11:26:27 PM
Quote from: Mister Pops on 14 February, 2021, 11:19:43 PM
Quote from: milstar on 14 February, 2021, 10:38:07 PM
...Men want to see a slim chick in tight outfit, but who is also badass...
I had never realized this, thank you for telling me what I'm supposed to think. There's me thinking women are people, but it turns out they're just objects to fulfill my primitive desires and expectations.
Boy do I feel* silly now.
*Actually not, because only sissies have feelings
Did you really draw only that out of everything I wrote?
Yes, what did I miss?
Quote from: milstar on 14 February, 2021, 11:26:27 PM
Yeah, and well, some people are born to whine.
There's some well-known phrase about holes, digging, and the stopping thereof, that I just can't bring to mind right now...
(https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/2/a/b/l/e/image.related.StuffLandscapeThreeByTwo.1464x976.12abi8.png/1418935974649.jpg)
(https://fatchicksings.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/wonderwomen.jpg)
(https://74fdc.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/howard-schatz-and-beverly-ornstein-olympic-athlete-body-types-soccer-icehockey-sumo.jpg)
Funt, you're making a very good point about body shapes, but I have to know how you accessed my wank stash?
Quote from: Mister Pops on 15 February, 2021, 12:22:36 AM
Funt, you're making a very good point about body shapes, but I have to know how you accessed my wank stash?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2AG0pgS7uzCZZOtosBqxLGjuTs9W21zez2Q&usqp=CAU)
Just to clarify she wasn't a pro-wrestler but a legit fighter who competed in Thai boxing & MMA where she had a record of 7-1 being the first female to become a star in a sport that up until then had been dominated by men. Regardless of what you might think of her appearance she is a genuine badass, rather than an actor playing one.
Even when competing as a pro fighter though she regularly missed making the required fight weight so this has long been an issue for her plus factor in that she hasn't fought professionally in almost twelve years & she's 38 so of course she's put on some weight. Each to their own but personally I think Carano still looks better than the majority of the stick thin actresses that Hollywood assumes all men find attractive.
So we've established she's not fat and she's an appropriate build for the character she's playing, but Milstar doesn't fancy her and won't have it on either point so there's not a lot to add to that.
Now the usual suspects are crying about freedom of speech, when this isn't about freedom of speech at all but accountability where a major corporation will only have someone putting negative spin on their brand for so long. Talk shit, get sacked, to paraphrase Ice T.
I've caught up with the Whedon stuff and he sounds like a proper bellend. The awful inevitability of this is pretty crushing - man with power over women turns out to be scumbag. Again.
The freedom of speech things infuriates me. In the UK, we have no such right. We have freedom of expression under the HRA, and that is subject to various restrictions and penalties. Notably, the UK's satire laws are strict compared to those in various other countries, not least the USA. In the USA, that right is very specific and enshrined in the constitution, and primarily means the government cannot restrain or censor individuals.
None of these things frees you from the consequences of your actions, be they being kicked off of a specific service with its own ruleset, being fired by a company that's determined your personal ideology is a danger to its own fortunes, being ignored/unfollowed (or, as the right would call it, 'cancelled') for your viewpoints, or being sued due to making libellous, slanderous or outright dangerous statements.
The UK is heading into very dangerous territory in this area. Universities are being told new legislation will force them to protect freedom of speech, which mostly means not allowing them to leave intact people with abhorrent viewpoints. Meanwhile, the government is also — without a glimmer of irony — telling heritage groups it cannot use public funds for political purposes, which includes rewriting Britain's history. In other words, the Conservatives want to define the past as something that cannot be re-examined and that conforms to a very specific ideology and ensure its presence is felt in areas where it is weak, such as universities.
People on this board, familiar with everything from John Cassavetes Is Dead to High Tower will likely feel rightly spooked about all this. Meanwhile, the right will bang on about being cancelled, screaming about this online, on television, on radio, on social media, etc. Again, no irony nor awareness in sight.
I assume that this government will be happy if History departments are closed, since they exist purely to examine our understanding of the past, i.e. "rewrite history".
Richard J Evans wrote about this at the weekend. He knows what he's talking about.
The US First Amendment has some really interesting consequences (some positive, some negative, as you might imagine).
QuoteThe First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, on the negative side of things, you can openly say hateful things - and, in the case of libel, it's up to the person being libeled to prove that they have suffered real material harm. It's much easier to prosecute libel in the UK.
On the plus side, you can't be forced to join a particular religion, or to agree with things you disagree with, because it also covers the freedom
not to speak.
You may know that school's in the US are legally required to perform a daily flag exercise in which everyone is supposed to stand, face the US flag, place hand on heart and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. (No - this isn't North Korea I'm talking about - this is the USA.)
QuoteI pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Aside: the "under God" part got added in 1954, possibly as a response to atheistic forms of government coming to prominence in other parts of the world.
Anyway - the first amendment allows students to ignore all of that pledging, standing and so on. They can just sit it out (because standing could be a form of agreement, and is covered by the speech part). Or stand and remain silent. Because, right there in the constitution, it says they don't have to speak if they don't want to - and they can't be coerced (legally). Oh - and it's been tested in the Supreme Court. (Doesn't stop some teachers being total [Quetzalcoatls]* about it.)
I love this thread. It's so broad.
*Admin. notice: your expletive was automatically replaced with a random deity.
For any English/Welsh (not sure about Scotland/NI) pointing at that and laughing, be mindful primary school mandates a "daily act of worship". So while Americans flirt was fascist flag tapping at school age, our kids are Godified, whether they want to be or not. (Of course, legally they can be withdrawn by their parents, but we all know what happens to those few kids at school who are removed from assemblies...)
Right - religious indoctrination can't be a part of the federally-funded school system in the US - again, because of the First Amendment. In Scotland, when I went to school, there were weekly assemblies where we sung hymns and got spoken to by a preacher-type, and then we also had RE (which, at the time, was only indoctrinating us about one religion).
The RE teacher pretended to weep when I told him I didn't believe in his sky fairy. Well, he did ask. Silly man.
Mini-IP's RE appears to be more varied than mine was, which may as well have been labelled Christian Studies. Even so, hearing the homeschooling calls, there's a lot of "you know the story about Jesus, and so how does [other religion] compare with that?"
Personally, I'd sooner see religious studies carved up and integrated into history and social studies. I don't see why it needs its own slot. Elsewhere, schools should be secular. None of this mandating acts of worship bollocks.
I can only agree, wholeheartedly.
We had an odd turn-up locally, where a Christian organization wanted to hire out part of a school for an extra-curricular (after school) study group. The school was cool with it. Then, a protest group named the Satanic Temple rocked up and said, well, hey - we'd like to also hire out part of the school along the same lines - they wanted to call it the After School Satan Club.
So, the school decided not to be hosting any religious clubs on school property until they figure out how to square that particular circle.
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 15 February, 2021, 04:58:06 PM
For any English/Welsh (not sure about Scotland/NI) pointing at that and laughing, be mindful primary school mandates a "daily act of worship". ...
Which is generally ignored. It isn't even 'broadly religious' any more. Of course I did cause offence once by suggesting that our school did honour the commitment seeing as every assembly seemed to be an act of worship of the PE department. Strange that one .... ::)
Generally ignored? Our school still does it. Everyone fairly locally I know says their school does it. It might be minimised to some degree, but even then it's still a legal requirement — and that should not be the case in British schools.
Voluntary worship I'd agree with. Imposed worship, absolutely not.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 15 February, 2021, 08:05:04 PM
Voluntary worship I'd agree with. Imposed worship, absolutely not.
What if it was worship of taxation?
I'll get me coat...
Quote from: Funt Solo on 15 February, 2021, 08:09:55 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 15 February, 2021, 08:05:04 PM
Voluntary worship I'd agree with. Imposed worship, absolutely not.
What if it was worship of taxation?
I'll get me coat...
So long as it's voluntary, sure.
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 15 February, 2021, 08:19:02 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 15 February, 2021, 08:05:04 PMVoluntary worship I'd agree with
At school, as part of lessons?
So long as it's voluntary, sure.
Not up to me to decide for other people.
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 15 February, 2021, 07:43:44 PM
Generally ignored? Our school still does it. Everyone fairly locally I know says their school does it. It might be minimised to some degree, but even then it's still a legal requirement — and that should not be the case in British schools.
Hmm, maybe primary is different to secondary. TBH the religious dimension in pretty much every comp I've worked in over the last 20 years doesn't even pay it lip service. It's more a 'thought for the day' / inspiring message type thing. By the time you get to year 11 it isn't even that much. About the only time there is much of a push it's about the time of inspection, just enough to avoid the kids telling inspectors they're only doing it for the week ...
Quote from: Tjm86 on 15 February, 2021, 07:15:59 PM
every assembly seemed to be an act of worship of the PE department.
That tickled me.
What tickles me was how we got here from "She was sacked for being a bigot" (via Joss Whedon being a dick. And some other incel nonsense)
Moving back to the original topic....
I'm sure that I saw somewhere a bit ago that Disney were going to clamp down on its 'stars' use of social media. There's been many incidents where fans have been insulted on social media and the execs have probably realised that if you are going to alienate every Star Wars fan who is a dick then you're going to lose a large portion of your audience!
Gina Carano had a history of contentious tweets and I suspect they were looking for a reason to fire her for a while and lets be honest, she was only a minor character in the Mandalorian. Pedro Pascal has also had to delete some of his tweets promptly and while you could argue that his liberal bias is more in tune with Disney than Carano's views, it would also be a lot harder to replace him.
Some stars use social media quite effectively, building a personal following and rapport with fans, most do not. I'm a bit bewildered about why they do it. Is it an ego thing?
I agree that replacing Pascal would be a serious issue (even if what he'd said was comparable, which it isn't from what I've seen), but Carano can very easily be written out. She was a pretty underdeveloped character and her plot role can be served by any hired muscle with a big gun.
Users on Baen's Bar (https://www.patreon.com/posts/47582408), including various moderators, have been accused of advocating for political violence following the failed insurrection by Trump supporters in January. Meanwhile, a new book is coming out detailing the dark side of Stan Lee (https://www.ign.com/articles/stan-lee-biography-reveals-the-darker-side-of-a-marvel-icon?amp=1), including allegations of racism, homophobia and misogyny.
Quote from: Batman's Superior Cousin on 21 February, 2021, 11:46:01 PM
Users on Baen's Bar (https://www.patreon.com/posts/47582408), including various moderators, have been accused of advocating for political violence following the failed insurrection by Trump supporters in January. Meanwhile, a new book is coming out detailing the dark side of Stan Lee (https://www.ign.com/articles/stan-lee-biography-reveals-the-darker-side-of-a-marvel-icon?amp=1), including allegations of racism, homophobia and misogyny.
I've been following the Baen's Bar issue for a while and it may be a case of too little too late. Toni Weisskopf has already been removed as Guest of Honour for the 2021 Worldcon and may only be the beginning of the end for Baen.
Quote from: Batman's Superior Cousin on 21 February, 2021, 11:46:01 PMMeanwhile, a new book is coming out detailing the dark side of Stan Lee (https://www.ign.com/articles/stan-lee-biography-reveals-the-darker-side-of-a-marvel-icon?amp=1), including allegations of racism, homophobia and misogyny.
I suppose with all the Lee hagiographies, an author has to stand out somehow, but that really reads like a bit of a lazy hatchet job. I'd be more surprised if someone had got to Lee's age and managed to
not say something stupid, offensive or thoughtless - especially in the context of a heated family argument - because they'd likely be the only person in history to do so.
If that's the Abraham Riesman biography of Stan Lee, then I'm trudging it through it just now. It's pretty turgid stuff so far and, ironically for a biography of Lee, is sorely in need of a good editor. I haven't reached any "controversial" stuff so far beyond saying that he screwed creators out of rights, which is not exactly news.