Carano, Whedon and all that

[Funt Solo]

[Funt Solo]

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Funt, you're making a very good point about body shapes, but I have to know how you accessed my wank stash?

[Funt Solo]

Funt, you're making a very good point about body shapes, but I have to know how you accessed my wank stash?

[moogie101]

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.

[Barrington Boots]

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.

[IndigoPrime]

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.

[CalHab]

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.

[Funt Solo]

The US First Amendment has some really interesting consequences (some positive, some negative, as you might imagine).

The 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.)

I 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.

[IndigoPrime]

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...)

[Funt Solo]

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.

[IndigoPrime]

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.

[Funt Solo]

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.

[Tjm86]

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 ....

[IndigoPrime]

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.