^ This. And this isn't being called out nearly enough. Brie Larson specifically called out white men; she doesn't want to hear from them. She specifically mentioned reviewers, but people are taking it to mean "I want to see less white men (in regards to my movie)". Why would I give money towards someone as blatantly sexist and racist as she is?
But it's funny. All the people in this thread moaning about incels and such, if Larson made comments like these about any other group, they'd be furious. No, it's hip and socially acceptable to demean white men today, and this is just another example of that narrative. And when this racism and sexism is called out, it usually just leads to doubling down ("can't be racist against white people", etc.).
I can't say that's the sole reason that the "want to see" score is so low. I would mostly attribute it to that. I'm sure there are a few incels. But there have been lots of leading women in sci-fi/fantasy movies (see all the examples that have been posted in this thread), so that seems unlikely.
So, again, it's not about a woman in a leading role. It's about racist and sexist comments made by Brie Larson.
I mean, I can't exactly argue against that. We did get disastrous things like the repeal of the Glass-Steagall and the DMCA. Though I don't remember any issues around the electoral college in regards to Clinton.
You're making the assumption that the smaller group of people will act better or more accordingly than the general population.
No, the electoral college was made in a time where communication wasn't what it is today (slow), so it made more sense to have representatives as part of the electoral college. I can't imagine the founding fathers would set up the system out of fear of "mob rule". You could also say that minority rule leads to tyranny. I'm okay with "mob rule" when it comes to picking the POTUS.
The electoral college is out of date, and has given us the likes of Bush and Trump. It is not a tool of good.
I mean, have fun in court with that. Hopefully paying for the replacement phone is less than the satisfaction you get from breaking someone's personal property.
All your post does is show that you don't know what many of those words mean. Stop putting certain groups on pedestals; they're human, not deities for you to worship.
You may be okay with being forced to be nice, but a lot of people have a problem with that. I also generally like "nice". But then it gets complex. Is censoring yourself to be "nice" okay? Who gets to decide what "nice" exactly entails? Treating everyone with respect? But isn't it disrepectful and not "nice" to call out things about cultures or whatever that don't fit into "nice"? While I expect everyone to respect the things you mentioned (personal space, private belongings), I don't expect them to have to treat me certain ways otherwise.
"Nice" isn't owned by any on particular group of people. Every group (based on sex, gender, race, ethnicity) has "nice" and "assholes", but they're not all the same.
The problem that a lot of people have when calling out SJWs is that they're *not* nice. These are people who see issues in society (some of those are legit), but the path they take to try and reach the goal of a better society is completely side-lined by their methods (such as fighting racism by encouraging racism). SJWs are the new religious right; the groundwork doesn't sound bad (treat each other nicely, etc.) but the actual execution is terrible (protesting outside of funerals of people they think fit into their religious worldview).
That you're not connected with reality? That you pretend the regressive left doesn't exist? That you buy into narratives about "gamers"? Sounds about right.
I think you underestimate the install base that Steam has. In addition, how many people will actually know what Epic and what Steam charges? How many players will care?
I can't tell if you're an extremist that has blinders on, or you're a troll trying to rile people up. Your response only lends more weight to liquid_schwartz's point.
Someone being here illegally is not dependent on their skin color. You haven't show anything to explain how liquid_schwartz's post is racist; you saw something you didn't like, and so you tried to shut it down by yelling "racist". That only works so many times (see: the boy that cried wolf). Stop belittling that word.
That's great that you care about immigrants. Doing what you did doesn't help anything, and only causes further problems.
You're a part of the problem, not a solution. You should really think about trying to turn that around.
That's not what it means. That's never been what it means.
Yes. Yes it is. On one end you have freedom, and on the other, you have security. There're trade-offs. We never want pure freedom; you can end up with the Wild West if so. You don't want pure security, because then you get Big Brother.
And if you need to ask, "Well derp, who gets to make up what is ethical?" then you're in luck, because this was also pretty well established by about 300 B.C., and the answer is, "We all do, based upon reason and moral behavior".
That's not a very good answer, since while most people agree on certain moral behaviors (don't murder, don't steal), there are others that are vastly controversial (homosexuality, drug use). A lot of Christians decided that homosexuality isn't moral, but by your logic, it is moral?
You're making the assumption that there is a universal set of morals, that is 100% "right". There's not.
What the writer calls "freedom from" is what most people call "security". And while we can wax philosophical, you're speaking in newspeak in this situation. It's disingenuous to call it "freedom" because it actively removes freedom from others. This is fine in some cases...I'm fine having the security of not being murdered in that people don't have the freedom to murder. When it comes to words and information, no.
Ah yes, thank you for correcting me. Though I would probably call you 'old man' over thinking that the OnePlus is comparable to mainstream vs. flagship (hint: it's competition is flagship phones). Most of the current lines of phones out there do not have 6-8GB of RAM, so not sure what phones you're looking at.
Degrading the person. When you speak out against PC culture, you are generally called a bigot, that you discriminate, that you're awful, etc. in an attempt to dehumanize the person. The tactic is to dehumanize the person, to make them an "other", to make them a pariah. It's to restrict. The purpose of calling out PC culture is to let freedom flourish, to stop those ideals that seek to censor and silence.
Like just now. You're attempting to dehumanize me by alluding that I'm a russian bot. You're working against me as an individual with that remark, rather than the argument itself.
Slashdot Mirror
^ This. And this isn't being called out nearly enough. Brie Larson specifically called out white men; she doesn't want to hear from them. She specifically mentioned reviewers, but people are taking it to mean "I want to see less white men (in regards to my movie)". Why would I give money towards someone as blatantly sexist and racist as she is?
But it's funny. All the people in this thread moaning about incels and such, if Larson made comments like these about any other group, they'd be furious. No, it's hip and socially acceptable to demean white men today, and this is just another example of that narrative. And when this racism and sexism is called out, it usually just leads to doubling down ("can't be racist against white people", etc.).
I can't say that's the sole reason that the "want to see" score is so low. I would mostly attribute it to that. I'm sure there are a few incels. But there have been lots of leading women in sci-fi/fantasy movies (see all the examples that have been posted in this thread), so that seems unlikely.
So, again, it's not about a woman in a leading role. It's about racist and sexist comments made by Brie Larson.
You're doing what so many do. Freedom of speech doesn't necessary equal the First Amendment.
This isn't a First Amendment issue. It IS a freedom of speech issue.
A step in the right direction, at least!
Or civil forfeiture.
Monkey see, monkey do? That sounds like an argument to censor all kinds of things.
One shouldn't, but if you are going to do heroin, Jesus, don't take it with anything else. This combination just kinda screams "suicidal" to me.
I mean, I can't exactly argue against that. We did get disastrous things like the repeal of the Glass-Steagall and the DMCA. Though I don't remember any issues around the electoral college in regards to Clinton.
You're making the assumption that the smaller group of people will act better or more accordingly than the general population.
No, the electoral college was made in a time where communication wasn't what it is today (slow), so it made more sense to have representatives as part of the electoral college. I can't imagine the founding fathers would set up the system out of fear of "mob rule". You could also say that minority rule leads to tyranny. I'm okay with "mob rule" when it comes to picking the POTUS.
The electoral college is out of date, and has given us the likes of Bush and Trump. It is not a tool of good.
I mean, have fun in court with that. Hopefully paying for the replacement phone is less than the satisfaction you get from breaking someone's personal property.
All your post does is show that you don't know what many of those words mean. Stop putting certain groups on pedestals; they're human, not deities for you to worship.
A shining example of whataboutism.
You may be okay with being forced to be nice, but a lot of people have a problem with that. I also generally like "nice". But then it gets complex. Is censoring yourself to be "nice" okay? Who gets to decide what "nice" exactly entails? Treating everyone with respect? But isn't it disrepectful and not "nice" to call out things about cultures or whatever that don't fit into "nice"? While I expect everyone to respect the things you mentioned (personal space, private belongings), I don't expect them to have to treat me certain ways otherwise.
"Nice" isn't owned by any on particular group of people. Every group (based on sex, gender, race, ethnicity) has "nice" and "assholes", but they're not all the same.
The problem that a lot of people have when calling out SJWs is that they're *not* nice. These are people who see issues in society (some of those are legit), but the path they take to try and reach the goal of a better society is completely side-lined by their methods (such as fighting racism by encouraging racism). SJWs are the new religious right; the groundwork doesn't sound bad (treat each other nicely, etc.) but the actual execution is terrible (protesting outside of funerals of people they think fit into their religious worldview).
That you're not connected with reality? That you pretend the regressive left doesn't exist? That you buy into narratives about "gamers"? Sounds about right.
That doesn't sound back, really.
Sometimes I get pictures, other times I don't. Doesn't seem to be a requirement.
You assume these tactics only affect Nazis. Must be a nice, magical world you live in to believe that.
I think you underestimate the install base that Steam has. In addition, how many people will actually know what Epic and what Steam charges? How many players will care?
Incorrect. Anyone can censor. You're confusing the First Amendment with the overall concept of free speech.
I can't tell if you're an extremist that has blinders on, or you're a troll trying to rile people up. Your response only lends more weight to liquid_schwartz's point.
Someone being here illegally is not dependent on their skin color. You haven't show anything to explain how liquid_schwartz's post is racist; you saw something you didn't like, and so you tried to shut it down by yelling "racist". That only works so many times (see: the boy that cried wolf). Stop belittling that word.
That's great that you care about immigrants. Doing what you did doesn't help anything, and only causes further problems.
You're a part of the problem, not a solution. You should really think about trying to turn that around.
That's not what it means. That's never been what it means.
Yes. Yes it is. On one end you have freedom, and on the other, you have security. There're trade-offs. We never want pure freedom; you can end up with the Wild West if so. You don't want pure security, because then you get Big Brother.
And if you need to ask, "Well derp, who gets to make up what is ethical?" then you're in luck, because this was also pretty well established by about 300 B.C., and the answer is, "We all do, based upon reason and moral behavior".
That's not a very good answer, since while most people agree on certain moral behaviors (don't murder, don't steal), there are others that are vastly controversial (homosexuality, drug use). A lot of Christians decided that homosexuality isn't moral, but by your logic, it is moral?
You're making the assumption that there is a universal set of morals, that is 100% "right". There's not.
What the writer calls "freedom from" is what most people call "security". And while we can wax philosophical, you're speaking in newspeak in this situation. It's disingenuous to call it "freedom" because it actively removes freedom from others. This is fine in some cases...I'm fine having the security of not being murdered in that people don't have the freedom to murder. When it comes to words and information, no.
Ah yes, thank you for correcting me. Though I would probably call you 'old man' over thinking that the OnePlus is comparable to mainstream vs. flagship (hint: it's competition is flagship phones). Most of the current lines of phones out there do not have 6-8GB of RAM, so not sure what phones you're looking at.
Someone apparently doesn't pay attention to the cost of current flagship phones.
Source?
Degrading the person. When you speak out against PC culture, you are generally called a bigot, that you discriminate, that you're awful, etc. in an attempt to dehumanize the person. The tactic is to dehumanize the person, to make them an "other", to make them a pariah. It's to restrict. The purpose of calling out PC culture is to let freedom flourish, to stop those ideals that seek to censor and silence.
Like just now. You're attempting to dehumanize me by alluding that I'm a russian bot. You're working against me as an individual with that remark, rather than the argument itself.