You are fucking right everyone should have a federal ID to vote.
Wrong. State. States are the highest political division that has elections. If the state wants to authorize the counties to handle it, that's ok too,
;/quote>
This is a federal ID because it is proof that a person is a citizen of the United States of America. Being a citizen over 18 years old, and with no felony convictions qualifies a person to vote. Useable in Local, State, and Federal elections.
But you also allow Drivers Licenses,
Driver's licenses are not proof of citizenship.
Driver's licenses are legal proof of identity. As well, during voter registration is when the determination of whether or not a person is a citizen and otherwise qualified to vote happens. My voters information is already in a database and a booklet that the poll workers can look up. They do this for every election, if I show ID, my name is in their book, and it shows I have not voted yet, that is a fully legal enfranchisement. I could also use my Voter ID that I already have, but they might want two forms of ID.
It is nothing short of amazing that as soon as a person comes up with a workable plan to ID voters, the same people who whine about it being needed oppose the plans. I'm pretty certain that the so called "voter fraud" issue is more useful whined about than actually worked on.
OK. Got it. So, how do you feel about requiring voters provide government issued ID in order to vote?
You are fucking right everyone should have a federal ID to vote.
Here's your problem Cletus. Every time an election comes up, the Republicans get a case of the bloody shits about all of those damn chocolate people voting with no damn ID.
Bitch, please. If you were any more obvious, you'd post KKK members outside every polling place. So knock it the fuck off.
Now, if you came up with a plan that was actually supposed to work, that was supposed to allow avery adult to vote if they choose to do so, you might do something l ike this:
When a person registers to vote, they get a voter ID (like I've had here for years) but with a photo on it. Takey piccy clicky printy. Then over time, you phase in the voter ID system. But you also allow Drivers Licenses, and other forms of ID. But it gets phased in gradually.
Voter ID for sure.
But your typical right before election bawlbaby bitching about is couldn't be any more transparent of your motives. And we get it - the less voters, and the better the REpublicans do. So any thing to keep people away form the polls grants you a victory of your candidates. And looky here, a little over 2 months from the election, and the fine whine commences.
Too much democracy is bad. Were it not, we would have referendums on every single thing. The reason we do not is we trust our elected representatives to decide on those things for us.
It's the same with the Electoral College. We elect representatives that pick the President for us. You may think that's too little democracy, but the point against that view is that the country has been quite successful with the Constitution as it is so it may well be at the sweet spot.
Come back and tell us that when your candidate loses.
Regardless, the political landscape is such that a candidate receiving millions of votes less than another, can win the election.
That's so fucking broken, that it takes an idiot to defend it. Unless there is a National Socialist candidate winning with a majority of the votes, and the country is looking at a repeat of 1930's Germany, the system should be worked so that the winner of a normal election by votes generally wins the electoral college.
And that's the real issue. The EC was not set up for the computer age, when it could be gamed.
Of the 22 states, how many of them actively prevent third party ISPs from entering their state? The reason we have no choice is most states are suing anyone who tries to enter their market. They use talking points straight from the telco lobby.
The Republicans are fixing this. They are all about State's Right's, and will use the Federal Government to control the states.
I think white men, critics would enjoy it, would enjoy my work, but often I think there is a critic who will damn it in a way because they donâ(TM)t understand it
She says there are white men who would enjoy it... And then you claim she is blaming the entire white race. That is not a logical chain of reasoning.
And really, she couches that statement is such soft language, and speaking off the cuff. You are reading a lot into it that isn't there.
Not dissimilar to a white supremacist saying he isn't racist. You take the totality of ther statement, not that she thinks that white men, critics would enjoy it. Cherry picking is something best reserved for AGW deniers, and creationists.
I forget to add, the old chestnut "I'm not a racist - I have plenty of Negro friends!" a favorite of people claiming that they aren't racist.
Do you not understand the sandwich concept? You weight the start and finish heavily, and the fluff in the middle very little. It's a great way to decipher the bafflegabe spouted by many. I try to avoid it myself, but it tends to creep in to racists and sexists statements, such as her saying she wouldn't have a career if it was up to white males. That is the important statement
Anyhow - I understand your point. You are a feminist or feminist supporter. All statements that do not support that narrative must be discarded.
Kind of reminds me of the "wedge concept" used by creationists and intelligent design believers. One statement for crowd A, another for crowd B.
I think white men, critics would enjoy it, would enjoy my work, but often I think there is a critic who will damn it in a way because they donâ(TM)t understand it
She says there are white men who would enjoy it... And then you claim she is blaming the entire white race. That is not a logical chain of reasoning.
And really, she couches that statement is such soft language, and speaking off the cuff. You are reading a lot into it that isn't there.
Not dissimilar to a white supremacist saying he isn't racist. You take the totality of ther statement, not that she thinks that white men, critics would enjoy it. Cherry picking is something best reserved for AGW deniers, and creationists.
It means that at very best that the reviewer must identify their sex in order to have their review validated as acceptable or not acceptable.
Only if you take it to an absolutely absurd extreme which is not what is being suggested.
How will the women who are angry at white males reviewing films that are not made for white males know that the white males and their negative reviews are being kept from negative revieiwing these movies? How do you propose keeping men from making negative reviews? It has to be remembered that sites like Rotten tomatoes have two groups. A professional group that it is possible to remove males from and replace them with women of color, who are vetted for a predisposition to rate female only films in the way that is acceptable, and non-professionals. With these non-professionals, there will need to be a different way to exclude men from making reviews. Otherwise, the professional reviewers who are now politically reliable will deviate even further from the males, and their wrong reviews.
Maybe when a critic notices that the movie doesn't seem to be aimed at them and realizes that they might not be the best placed person to judge its merits, they could decline to review it and let someone more suited do the job?
No "validation" or enforcement required, just a polite suggestion.
Oh my - that just goes to show how sexist those who claim to oppose sexism have come. You concept that I am not capable of making a criticism of a movie because it is geared toward women is just that. I trust your bizzare self censorship model includes women excluding themselves from movies that might be aimed at men? IOW, you would tell Mindy Kaling to keep her mouth shut because she doesn't understand the first Ocean's movies?
I read the book, A Wrinkle in Time, when I was a kid. I loved the book. I thought it was awesome. I did not see the movie; although I wanted to. If it is not a re-creation of the book, but rather a sexist screed, should they be surprised that it failed where the book succeeded? Seriously, the book was awesome. WTF people?
The trend is pandering not to people who want inclusivity or equality. The modern trend is toward females being elevated to gender and race based supremacy.
they dont understand is just a excuse for we made a shit movie and dont wanna own up to it.
Occam's razor says it is true. One of the worst avenues to improve is to refuse to take telling.
Ocean's 8 received a 67 percent favorable rating with professional reviewers, and a 47 percent among non-professionals. https://www.rottentomatoes.com... Okay - mixed reviews. But perhaps rather then simply demanding that everyone love the movie, perhaps instead of telling anyone who had a criticism of it they are white males, therefore not relevant, and that the movie "wasn't for them" and that because they are white males, they were not capable of understanding the greatness of the movie, and that their opinion means not one thing......
Perhaps rather than a "fuck you" to 49 percent of the audience, they might ask exactly why a large part of that 49 percent has an issue with the movie. Shouldn't movies not exclude people by sex? But we have moved way beyond inclusivity, and into attempted domination.
Pointing out Kaling's misandry and racism should never be verboten, opposing female supremacists should be as important as pointing out white supremacists. A lot of people don't want to hear it, but a female supremacist and a white supremacist's brains think the same way, they only have a different group they demand be subjugated.
And let us not forget that Ghostbusters was target at children.
Not really. Most of the jokes would have gone over the heads of kids. Like the original it was aimed at adults, with adult humour.
To be certain, I'm speaking of the original "Ghostbusters" My attic full of Ghostbuster toys and my son and his friends playing with them and their anxious wait for the new movies and two competing cartoon shows would indicate that they were indeed children's movies. That they had adult jokes that children might not get is not unusual in children's movies.
The concept of males "not understanding" is yet another sexist idea that some women have
It's not a question of "not understanding", it's a question of being the target audience and having experiences that make the movie relevant to you.
Well then, tell the moviegoing public which films that are allowed to see or not see and which ones the holder of penises are allowed to comment on.
Sorry Animojo, but you are ignoring the very attitudes and commentary of the specific women involved in the demand to exclude males from reviewing these women only films.
I deny your claim that women are saying men don't understand. Mindy Kaling:
On the subject of Ocean’s 8, Kaling said: “And the thing about so much of what this movie is, I think white men, critics would enjoy it, would enjoy my work, but often I think there is a critic who will damn it in a way because they don’t understand it, because they come at it at a different point of view, and they’re so powerful, Rotten Tomatoes.”
White men AKA White - race, AKA men, Sex There was a time when calling out an entire sex was considered sexist, and an entire race of members of that sex was considered racist, - and please elaborate how "they don't understand it" is not sayingf that these white men do not understand it. Looking forward to your rebuttal of Mindy Kaling.
This is is leap of logic that makes no sense. She is clearly saying that the problem is the lack of reviews by women of colour, and the obvious solution is to publish reviews by women of colour. How does any of that require 40 year old while men to be banned from writing reviews?
It means that at very best that the reviewer must identify their sex in order to have their review validated as acceptable or not acceptable. A white male would automatically lose validation while a non-white woman would gain validation.
Review sites like Rotten Tomatoes work by averaging scores given by reviewers, although they already toss some low scores on movies. This means that at best, in order to marginalize the numerical value of one group, another must be promoted.
So now identity politics has reared it's head. If these men who women do not need to see their reviews are marginalized - at best - are prohibited from reviewing or having their reviews discounted because they are males, a few problems pop up.
What about Gay males? What about males who identify as feminists? What about trans males? What about trans females? What about the large and expanding numbers of genders
And she is really assuming that all of her women of color will march in lockstep with her narrative.
Finally - have the identity wars gone so far as to now exclude white women?
Good gawd, a return to the past, where people are judged by externalities like sex and skin pigmentation!
Fact is her racist and sexist and ageist "40 year old white dudes" statement illustrates, she doesn't want those reviews done by that group.
Now after all of the racist and sexist rhetoric dies down a bit, Occam's razor tells us that the movies they are complaining about simply are not very good movies. Group psychology also tells us that these people are just pissed off, and looking for a convenient target to blame the failure of the movie(s) upon.
Movies in the past have done very well or failed despite reviewers opinions. If these movies were good, they would be judged by the public on their own merits.
I would suggest that in order to salve their wounds and achieve their goals, that they start their own review sites, populated by only the races and sexes that they believe will give accurate reviews, and exclude any that they believe will not. Then only post reviews that promote their political agenda, and suppress scores of movies that do not fit their narrative. All then will be fair and balanced.
That would make no difference on it's truth, and would be the same thing that Kaling et al demand, which is suppression of disagreement, especially as they say - from white males.
Activist groups have long demanded suppression of statements that do not agree with their narrative, and when it is the truth, it needs suppressed even more. The problem of course, is that for whatever short term success it might have, the truth always comes out.
And despite any oppression, the misandryst movies will fail because they just are not good movies.
The people making these movies deliberately took movies targeted at male audiences and then put in an all-female cast. I think it's not surprising that "the wrong" audience watches them and then gives them a low rating.
And let us not forget that Ghostbusters was target at children.
Furthermore, not being in the target audience doesn't mean that people have nothing to say about it. The Birth of a Nation was targeted at (and a favorite of) white males like Woodrow Wilson, but African Americans certainly had every right to comment on it and criticize it.
The concept of males "not understanding" is yet another sexist idea that some women have, an extension of yet one more of their stereotypes. I watched "Steel Magnolias" a movie obviously made for women, and I "got it". I had no problem with it. Wasn't ordinarily my type of movie, but I didn't get bored and stop.
And the biggest aspect of the movie was that there was no jarring content - the reason that the movie was overwhelmingly female starred fir right in.
I howled at "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" Another "chick flick" that ended up crossing over to allowing everyone to enjoy it - it made good sense.
These are good stories, shot and edited well.Touching and both touching and funny. I suppose some of our more radical posters would see some sort of Patriarchal contamination in me just mentioning 2 movies about wome getting married, but that's their problem - I only mention those because they were fine movies.
Making a movie for women isn't sexist. It doesn't hurt men.
I have no problem if there is a movie made that shows women roasting men on spits and feasting on their testicles. If they choose to hunt man like some folks hunt elephants and tied up lions that are tame. Let's get that straight. Then again, I'm not going to condemn men if they take umbrage at that.
And the problem isn't white males.
How do you do that complete discarding of evidence? All of those quotes I posted exactly lay the problems with the all female reboots directly at males. Directly at white males to be specific. Kaling and Larson specifically blamed white males and white male reviewers. Denying that is the same level of cognitive dissonance as a Fox News viewer.
Let us analyze the statement that Brie Larson made regarding just who was the problem.:
“Am I saying I hate white dudes? No, I am not,” Larson said Wednesday night when accepting the Crystal Award for Excellence in Film at the Women in Film Lucy and Crystal Awards. “What I am saying is if you make a movie that is a love letter to women of color, there is an insanely low chance a woman of color will have a chance to see your movie, and review your movie.”
“I don’t need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn’t work about ‘A Wrinkle in Time,'” Larson added. “It wasn’t made for him. I want to know what it meant to women of color, biracial women, to teen women of color.”
Larson went on to say that while “it sucks that reviews matter,” the fact that reviews can greatly help or hurt a film’s success is just that — a fact of the industry."
Tell me just what that means? Let us work our way backwards.
Larson says that reviews , good or bad are a critical influence, and that this is a fact. (I disagree with that, but as a white dude, that would be mansplaining, therefore wrong)
Okay - reviews are critical. next up is the concept that a movie that is made specifically and only for women should not have criticism at all from those other entities that the movie was not made for.
So now we have that Reviews are a make or break, and that "40 year old white dudes should not be allowed to make commentary upon those movies. This is obvious because these movies must make money to continue to be made. Bad reviews = no money. And bad reviews are apparently made by 40 year old "white dudes" that she doesn't need to hear form.
Then finally, the incredibly obviously projection that the doesn't hate "white dudes" A far left version of projection and dog whistle. A time honored Republican tactic, starting out by denying what you are guilty of.
You even quoted the damn explanation of the problem but somehow saw the phrase "white male" and had some kind of Pavlovian response.
Cute.
The problem is movies being reviewed almost exclusively by people who are not the target audience and who don't understand them.
So it is the no one can understand but a woman card?. Tell me why a male cannot understand these movies? Only a woman can understand these movies?
Geeks should understand this very well. How often do critics slate great sci-fi movies that we love and which become cult classics? The views of sci-fi fan critics get buried by the ones who thought LaLa Land was better.
You answered your own question. If the all female cast of GhostBusters becomes a cult classic, or Ocean's 11 does, the films will acheive immortality not related to the reviewers. The problem though, is the definition of good. These films are made specifically for a sub group of women as some sort of signal that the fact that a previous male and female mixed cast is removed and replaced with an all female cast, and that makes the movie better. Story line
Mindy Kaling, on negative reviews of all female Ocean's 11:
"If I had to base my career on what white men wanted I would be very unsuccessful,” said Kaling in an interview with Yahoo.
“And the thing about so much of what this movie is, I think white men, critics would enjoy it, would enjoy my work, but often I think there is a critic who will damn it in a way because they don’t understand it, because they come at it at a different point of view, and they’re so powerful, Rotten Tomatoes.”
Brie Larson adds:
“What I am saying is if you make a movie that is a love letter to women of color, there is an insanely low chance a woman of color will have a chance to see your movie, and review your movie.”
Larson informs us that more than 63 percent of reviewers are white and male. (Almost the same percentage of women to men in university), and only 18 percent are both white and female
Only 4.1 percent are female and from underrepresented groups
“I don’t need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn’t work about ‘A Wrinkle in Time,'” Larson added. “It wasn’t made for him. I want to know what it meant to women of color, biracial women, to teen women of color.”
Now to my thoughts
There are the reasons that quasi-official sites like Netflix are removing reviews. This is a pretty big problem, and the movie industry needs positive reviews, and the trend in movies is proving a to be a little problem. The people who make such blatantly sexist movies must hear that they are good, and if people do notlike them, they must have a a target of blame. To them, The all female Ghostbusters did not fail because it wasn't funny and because it was sexist in nature, It failed because of thos fucking teenage boys. As Kaling decrees. https://www.indiewire.com/2016...!
What is amazing is that ability to scream about racism and sexism, and simultaneous replace it with sexism and racism so blatant and in your face that you can proclaim people pointing out the problem with your work is somehow racist and sexist. The worm ouroboros as it were.
Oh the irony, the current Australian government responsible for this is the conservative right wing LNP, verging on far right.
Behold, Jerry, the ultimate tool of the lunatic crypto-conservative movement.
Anything that offends their delicate sensibilities is immediately labeled as marxist, or socialist.
So you can get a far right government doing some of the heinous things a government can do, and somehow magickly, it becomes the fault of Leeeburl's socialists, or Marxists.
Everywhere. That's because real capitalism cannot exist for very long. Capitalism needs brakes to keep it from destroying itself. But capitalsim considers any form of braking to not be capitalism.
So you have a choice, Capitalism being destroyed by the most successful and greedy taking over and killing it, or any form of regulation to keep the most successful and greedy from taking over and killing it.
Me? I don't mind the idea of capitalism tempered with enough controls to keep it from self destruction.
The problem is that pure capitalism is totally instable.
Finally, someone that gets it!
Capitalism is like a radioactive substance, with a half-life that turns it into something else eventually like thorium to radium.
Capitalism with no brakes lasts only until the first person corners a market and starts working his way through others. An unrestrained system based upon greed really needs some brakes to keep it from destroying itself.
This isn't even a condemnation of capitalism - when it is properly restrained, it can work very well to improve standards of living. Certainly better that a lot of other 'isms.
But here in America, we don't have capitalism. We have mutant form of corporatism, and one that is becoming pretty unstable as the pecuniary extraction and wealth shifting moves a small subset into great financial success at the expense of almost everyone else.
This isn't promotion of anything on my part, just what happens when there is a huge wealth gap. The economist Kruger is not incorrect when he notes that the USA is becoming a Banana Republic.
To sum up, the story might better be used without the word "Capitalism" because if they are referring to our system, it is corporatism.
Who can disagree with "know thyself"? Perfectly sensible.
The issue comes when people look at that lady engineer and conclude that the reason she was a bad engineer is because she was a lady.
She was a bad engineer because she believed the hype, that you can be anything you want to be if you only try hard enough. And as a female, she was pushed through the system because "Women in STEM". But she didn't have the correct mindset to be an effective engineer. That her mindset is one that is attributed to female stereotypes suggests that she could have had a happier early life by following that mindset instead of being pushed along to fit someone elses agenda.
Next case, a lady engineer I worked with. She knew from a young age that she was going to be an engineer. Now she very well could have oriented herself in a more traditional non engineering pop culture path for a woman. She is remarkably beautiful and has all of the physical characteristics to be a fashion model. But she wanted to be an engineer. She's a very competent one too. She would be miserable in any other career.
The point of all this is that using politics to force men out and force fit women into positions, aside from being illegal and sexist - it simply does not work.
The relevent part from the cite: The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.
A requirement that certain positions are open to only women and that men are not eligible, and might lose that position if they already have it, are obviously in violation of that law by being inherently sexist in nature.This distinctly violates the hiring and firing aspects. It takes some impressive cognitive dissonance to hold that blatant sexual discrimination is not sexual discrimination.
I don't see much to disagree with here. I'm never going to be a fighter pilot; my eyes aren't good enough. But it's when we link the individual cases to group differences and purported psychological differences that it becomes problematic: "the reason you got turned down for engineering school, young lady, is because you're not really suited for the profession. Try nursing instead, where you can focus on people not things"
That brought a flashback. I come from an academic setting, and any man who would dare to utter such a thing would be booted out. Rather we went the other way, to the point of bending rules to promote and keep women. Oddly enough, it didn't work well.
But the flashback part was one young lady engineer who was a really nice person, but a bad engineer. As in incompetent. To make matters worse, we had many tour/demonstrations in the place, and the suits always trotted out the ladies to give the demos whenever possible. So she got to give some of these presentations. Normally the combo of not being a good engineer and female would have fast tracked her into management. But she hated public speaking as well. She was miserable.
She eventually quit and opened a day care center. And last time I checked, she was quite happy, and doing what her temperament enjoyed.
Point is - know thyself.
Point is - Daycare? Research? I don't see that one is markedly more or less valuable than another.
To me, allowing male or female equal opportunity to pursue careers that they want is more of a fairly long process. It is based on opportunity rather than blunt force. And basing it on politics is anathema to achieving the goal.
But a blunt force tactic of removing board members because of the genitals they sport and replacing them with the other sex is not only almost certainly illegal, but the animosity it breeds on those fired because of their sex, and the knowledge of both the women involved and everyone else on the board knows exactly why she is there. Is that fair to her?
I highly doubt that there will ever be complete equal representation by sex in fields that are now dominated by one or the other sex.
I've read your posts, and seen your "discussion" technique.
This is not an entirely bad thing, as it allows a person to quickly make up their mind and either bend or discard anything that doesn't fit the narrative they have chosen
I read the actual bill linked and it doesn't address many issues. I see it only applies to public companies on major exchanges(the ones where shareholders elect the board members).
Will the state provide me with a women if I don't know any that suits the needs of my business?
If she quits and the company still has the minimum number of directors, is the board compelled to hold an election? If so, do all the candidates have to be female or can some be male? What if the shareholders don't vote for any of the females?
If she changes gender, does she have to quit?
This bill doesn't seem to address gender does it? In which case, the sole focus on women is not going to pass by virtue of being illegal.
Can you imagine though - in one of your scenarios where a job hunt is performed that states that the successful candidate must be a woman? Seems like a Harvey Weinstein scenario - the interviewee woman is going to have to expose her sexual apparatus to prove she has the main qualification. " Okay Ms. Bradley, here's the form that you need to fill out after you visit the gynecologist and he affirms that you Are qualified for the position. Oh - and we'll need photos, for your employee file for the yearly conformance audit.
Slashdot Mirror
You are fucking right everyone should have a federal ID to vote.
Wrong. State. States are the highest political division that has elections. If the state wants to authorize the counties to handle it, that's ok too,
;/quote> This is a federal ID because it is proof that a person is a citizen of the United States of America. Being a citizen over 18 years old, and with no felony convictions qualifies a person to vote. Useable in Local, State, and Federal elections.
But you also allow Drivers Licenses,
Driver's licenses are not proof of citizenship.
Driver's licenses are legal proof of identity. As well, during voter registration is when the determination of whether or not a person is a citizen and otherwise qualified to vote happens. My voters information is already in a database and a booklet that the poll workers can look up. They do this for every election, if I show ID, my name is in their book, and it shows I have not voted yet, that is a fully legal enfranchisement. I could also use my Voter ID that I already have, but they might want two forms of ID.
It is nothing short of amazing that as soon as a person comes up with a workable plan to ID voters, the same people who whine about it being needed oppose the plans. I'm pretty certain that the so called "voter fraud" issue is more useful whined about than actually worked on.
OK. Got it. So, how do you feel about requiring voters provide government issued ID in order to vote?
You are fucking right everyone should have a federal ID to vote.
Here's your problem Cletus. Every time an election comes up, the Republicans get a case of the bloody shits about all of those damn chocolate people voting with no damn ID.
Bitch, please. If you were any more obvious, you'd post KKK members outside every polling place. So knock it the fuck off.
Now, if you came up with a plan that was actually supposed to work, that was supposed to allow avery adult to vote if they choose to do so, you might do something l ike this:
When a person registers to vote, they get a voter ID (like I've had here for years) but with a photo on it. Takey piccy clicky printy. Then over time, you phase in the voter ID system. But you also allow Drivers Licenses, and other forms of ID. But it gets phased in gradually.
Voter ID for sure.
But your typical right before election bawlbaby bitching about is couldn't be any more transparent of your motives. And we get it - the less voters, and the better the REpublicans do. So any thing to keep people away form the polls grants you a victory of your candidates. And looky here, a little over 2 months from the election, and the fine whine commences.
Too much democracy is bad. Were it not, we would have referendums on every single thing. The reason we do not is we trust our elected representatives to decide on those things for us.
It's the same with the Electoral College. We elect representatives that pick the President for us. You may think that's too little democracy, but the point against that view is that the country has been quite successful with the Constitution as it is so it may well be at the sweet spot.
Come back and tell us that when your candidate loses.
Regardless, the political landscape is such that a candidate receiving millions of votes less than another, can win the election.
That's so fucking broken, that it takes an idiot to defend it. Unless there is a National Socialist candidate winning with a majority of the votes, and the country is looking at a repeat of 1930's Germany, the system should be worked so that the winner of a normal election by votes generally wins the electoral college.
And that's the real issue. The EC was not set up for the computer age, when it could be gamed.
Why is it that gambling machines have more audits and checks than voting machines?
Because organized crime is more honest than US politicians.
Of the 22 states, how many of them actively prevent third party ISPs from entering their state? The reason we have no choice is most states are suing anyone who tries to enter their market. They use talking points straight from the telco lobby.
The Republicans are fixing this. They are all about State's Right's, and will use the Federal Government to control the states.
I think white men, critics would enjoy it, would enjoy my work, but often I think there is a critic who will damn it in a way because they donâ(TM)t understand it
She says there are white men who would enjoy it... And then you claim she is blaming the entire white race. That is not a logical chain of reasoning.
And really, she couches that statement is such soft language, and speaking off the cuff. You are reading a lot into it that isn't there.
Not dissimilar to a white supremacist saying he isn't racist. You take the totality of ther statement, not that she thinks that white men, critics would enjoy it. Cherry picking is something best reserved for AGW deniers, and creationists.
I forget to add, the old chestnut "I'm not a racist - I have plenty of Negro friends!" a favorite of people claiming that they aren't racist.
Do you not understand the sandwich concept? You weight the start and finish heavily, and the fluff in the middle very little. It's a great way to decipher the bafflegabe spouted by many. I try to avoid it myself, but it tends to creep in to racists and sexists statements, such as her saying she wouldn't have a career if it was up to white males. That is the important statement Anyhow - I understand your point. You are a feminist or feminist supporter. All statements that do not support that narrative must be discarded.
Kind of reminds me of the "wedge concept" used by creationists and intelligent design believers. One statement for crowd A, another for crowd B.
I think white men, critics would enjoy it, would enjoy my work, but often I think there is a critic who will damn it in a way because they donâ(TM)t understand it
She says there are white men who would enjoy it... And then you claim she is blaming the entire white race. That is not a logical chain of reasoning.
And really, she couches that statement is such soft language, and speaking off the cuff. You are reading a lot into it that isn't there.
Not dissimilar to a white supremacist saying he isn't racist. You take the totality of ther statement, not that she thinks that white men, critics would enjoy it. Cherry picking is something best reserved for AGW deniers, and creationists.
It means that at very best that the reviewer must identify their sex in order to have their review validated as acceptable or not acceptable.
Only if you take it to an absolutely absurd extreme which is not what is being suggested.
How will the women who are angry at white males reviewing films that are not made for white males know that the white males and their negative reviews are being kept from negative revieiwing these movies? How do you propose keeping men from making negative reviews? It has to be remembered that sites like Rotten tomatoes have two groups. A professional group that it is possible to remove males from and replace them with women of color, who are vetted for a predisposition to rate female only films in the way that is acceptable, and non-professionals. With these non-professionals, there will need to be a different way to exclude men from making reviews. Otherwise, the professional reviewers who are now politically reliable will deviate even further from the males, and their wrong reviews.
Maybe when a critic notices that the movie doesn't seem to be aimed at them and realizes that they might not be the best placed person to judge its merits, they could decline to review it and let someone more suited do the job?
No "validation" or enforcement required, just a polite suggestion.
Oh my - that just goes to show how sexist those who claim to oppose sexism have come. You concept that I am not capable of making a criticism of a movie because it is geared toward women is just that. I trust your bizzare self censorship model includes women excluding themselves from movies that might be aimed at men? IOW, you would tell Mindy Kaling to keep her mouth shut because she doesn't understand the first Ocean's movies?
I read the book, A Wrinkle in Time, when I was a kid. I loved the book. I thought it was awesome. I did not see the movie; although I wanted to. If it is not a re-creation of the book, but rather a sexist screed, should they be surprised that it failed where the book succeeded? Seriously, the book was awesome. WTF people?
The trend is pandering not to people who want inclusivity or equality. The modern trend is toward females being elevated to gender and race based supremacy.
they dont understand is just a excuse for we made a shit movie and dont wanna own up to it.
Occam's razor says it is true. One of the worst avenues to improve is to refuse to take telling.
Ocean's 8 received a 67 percent favorable rating with professional reviewers, and a 47 percent among non-professionals. https://www.rottentomatoes.com... Okay - mixed reviews. But perhaps rather then simply demanding that everyone love the movie, perhaps instead of telling anyone who had a criticism of it they are white males, therefore not relevant, and that the movie "wasn't for them" and that because they are white males, they were not capable of understanding the greatness of the movie, and that their opinion means not one thing......
Perhaps rather than a "fuck you" to 49 percent of the audience, they might ask exactly why a large part of that 49 percent has an issue with the movie. Shouldn't movies not exclude people by sex? But we have moved way beyond inclusivity, and into attempted domination.
Pointing out Kaling's misandry and racism should never be verboten, opposing female supremacists should be as important as pointing out white supremacists. A lot of people don't want to hear it, but a female supremacist and a white supremacist's brains think the same way, they only have a different group they demand be subjugated.
And let us not forget that Ghostbusters was target at children.
Not really. Most of the jokes would have gone over the heads of kids. Like the original it was aimed at adults, with adult humour.
To be certain, I'm speaking of the original "Ghostbusters" My attic full of Ghostbuster toys and my son and his friends playing with them and their anxious wait for the new movies and two competing cartoon shows would indicate that they were indeed children's movies. That they had adult jokes that children might not get is not unusual in children's movies.
The concept of males "not understanding" is yet another sexist idea that some women have
It's not a question of "not understanding", it's a question of being the target audience and having experiences that make the movie relevant to you.
Well then, tell the moviegoing public which films that are allowed to see or not see and which ones the holder of penises are allowed to comment on.
Sorry Animojo, but you are ignoring the very attitudes and commentary of the specific women involved in the demand to exclude males from reviewing these women only films.
I deny your claim that women are saying men don't understand. Mindy Kaling:
On the subject of Ocean’s 8, Kaling said: “And the thing about so much of what this movie is, I think white men, critics would enjoy it, would enjoy my work, but often I think there is a critic who will damn it in a way because they don’t understand it, because they come at it at a different point of view, and they’re so powerful, Rotten Tomatoes.”
White men AKA White - race, AKA men, Sex There was a time when calling out an entire sex was considered sexist, and an entire race of members of that sex was considered racist, - and please elaborate how "they don't understand it" is not sayingf that these white men do not understand it. Looking forward to your rebuttal of Mindy Kaling.
This is is leap of logic that makes no sense. She is clearly saying that the problem is the lack of reviews by women of colour, and the obvious solution is to publish reviews by women of colour. How does any of that require 40 year old while men to be banned from writing reviews?
It means that at very best that the reviewer must identify their sex in order to have their review validated as acceptable or not acceptable. A white male would automatically lose validation while a non-white woman would gain validation.
Review sites like Rotten Tomatoes work by averaging scores given by reviewers, although they already toss some low scores on movies. This means that at best, in order to marginalize the numerical value of one group, another must be promoted.
So now identity politics has reared it's head. If these men who women do not need to see their reviews are marginalized - at best - are prohibited from reviewing or having their reviews discounted because they are males, a few problems pop up.
What about Gay males? What about males who identify as feminists? What about trans males? What about trans females? What about the large and expanding numbers of genders
And she is really assuming that all of her women of color will march in lockstep with her narrative.
Finally - have the identity wars gone so far as to now exclude white women?
Good gawd, a return to the past, where people are judged by externalities like sex and skin pigmentation!
Fact is her racist and sexist and ageist "40 year old white dudes" statement illustrates, she doesn't want those reviews done by that group.
Now after all of the racist and sexist rhetoric dies down a bit, Occam's razor tells us that the movies they are complaining about simply are not very good movies. Group psychology also tells us that these people are just pissed off, and looking for a convenient target to blame the failure of the movie(s) upon.
Movies in the past have done very well or failed despite reviewers opinions. If these movies were good, they would be judged by the public on their own merits.
I would suggest that in order to salve their wounds and achieve their goals, that they start their own review sites, populated by only the races and sexes that they believe will give accurate reviews, and exclude any that they believe will not. Then only post reviews that promote their political agenda, and suppress scores of movies that do not fit their narrative. All then will be fair and balanced.
Mods, downvote parent troll.
That would make no difference on it's truth, and would be the same thing that Kaling et al demand, which is suppression of disagreement, especially as they say - from white males.
Activist groups have long demanded suppression of statements that do not agree with their narrative, and when it is the truth, it needs suppressed even more. The problem of course, is that for whatever short term success it might have, the truth always comes out.
And despite any oppression, the misandryst movies will fail because they just are not good movies.
The people making these movies deliberately took movies targeted at male audiences and then put in an all-female cast. I think it's not surprising that "the wrong" audience watches them and then gives them a low rating.
And let us not forget that Ghostbusters was target at children.
Furthermore, not being in the target audience doesn't mean that people have nothing to say about it. The Birth of a Nation was targeted at (and a favorite of) white males like Woodrow Wilson, but African Americans certainly had every right to comment on it and criticize it.
The concept of males "not understanding" is yet another sexist idea that some women have, an extension of yet one more of their stereotypes. I watched "Steel Magnolias" a movie obviously made for women, and I "got it". I had no problem with it. Wasn't ordinarily my type of movie, but I didn't get bored and stop.
And the biggest aspect of the movie was that there was no jarring content - the reason that the movie was overwhelmingly female starred fir right in.
I howled at "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" Another "chick flick" that ended up crossing over to allowing everyone to enjoy it - it made good sense.
These are good stories, shot and edited well.Touching and both touching and funny. I suppose some of our more radical posters would see some sort of Patriarchal contamination in me just mentioning 2 movies about wome getting married, but that's their problem - I only mention those because they were fine movies.
Making a movie for women isn't sexist. It doesn't hurt men.
I have no problem if there is a movie made that shows women roasting men on spits and feasting on their testicles. If they choose to hunt man like some folks hunt elephants and tied up lions that are tame. Let's get that straight. Then again, I'm not going to condemn men if they take umbrage at that.
And the problem isn't white males.
How do you do that complete discarding of evidence? All of those quotes I posted exactly lay the problems with the all female reboots directly at males. Directly at white males to be specific. Kaling and Larson specifically blamed white males and white male reviewers. Denying that is the same level of cognitive dissonance as a Fox News viewer.
Let us analyze the statement that Brie Larson made regarding just who was the problem.:
“Am I saying I hate white dudes? No, I am not,” Larson said Wednesday night when accepting the Crystal Award for Excellence in Film at the Women in Film Lucy and Crystal Awards. “What I am saying is if you make a movie that is a love letter to women of color, there is an insanely low chance a woman of color will have a chance to see your movie, and review your movie.”
“I don’t need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn’t work about ‘A Wrinkle in Time,'” Larson added. “It wasn’t made for him. I want to know what it meant to women of color, biracial women, to teen women of color.”
Larson went on to say that while “it sucks that reviews matter,” the fact that reviews can greatly help or hurt a film’s success is just that — a fact of the industry."
Tell me just what that means? Let us work our way backwards.
Larson says that reviews , good or bad are a critical influence, and that this is a fact. (I disagree with that, but as a white dude, that would be mansplaining, therefore wrong)
Okay - reviews are critical. next up is the concept that a movie that is made specifically and only for women should not have criticism at all from those other entities that the movie was not made for.
So now we have that Reviews are a make or break, and that "40 year old white dudes should not be allowed to make commentary upon those movies. This is obvious because these movies must make money to continue to be made. Bad reviews = no money. And bad reviews are apparently made by 40 year old "white dudes" that she doesn't need to hear form.
Then finally, the incredibly obviously projection that the doesn't hate "white dudes" A far left version of projection and dog whistle. A time honored Republican tactic, starting out by denying what you are guilty of.
You even quoted the damn explanation of the problem but somehow saw the phrase "white male" and had some kind of Pavlovian response.
Cute.
The problem is movies being reviewed almost exclusively by people who are not the target audience and who don't understand them.
So it is the no one can understand but a woman card?. Tell me why a male cannot understand these movies? Only a woman can understand these movies?
Geeks should understand this very well. How often do critics slate great sci-fi movies that we love and which become cult classics? The views of sci-fi fan critics get buried by the ones who thought LaLa Land was better.
You answered your own question. If the all female cast of GhostBusters becomes a cult classic, or Ocean's 11 does, the films will acheive immortality not related to the reviewers. The problem though, is the definition of good. These films are made specifically for a sub group of women as some sort of signal that the fact that a previous male and female mixed cast is removed and replaced with an all female cast, and that makes the movie better. Story line
“And the thing about so much of what this movie is, I think white men, critics would enjoy it, would enjoy my work, but often I think there is a critic who will damn it in a way because they don’t understand it, because they come at it at a different point of view, and they’re so powerful, Rotten Tomatoes.”
Brie Larson adds:
“What I am saying is if you make a movie that is a love letter to women of color, there is an insanely low chance a woman of color will have a chance to see your movie, and review your movie.”
Larson informs us that more than 63 percent of reviewers are white and male. (Almost the same percentage of women to men in university), and only 18 percent are both white and female
Only 4.1 percent are female and from underrepresented groups
“I don’t need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn’t work about ‘A Wrinkle in Time,'” Larson added. “It wasn’t made for him. I want to know what it meant to women of color, biracial women, to teen women of color.”
Now to my thoughts There are the reasons that quasi-official sites like Netflix are removing reviews. This is a pretty big problem, and the movie industry needs positive reviews, and the trend in movies is proving a to be a little problem. The people who make such blatantly sexist movies must hear that they are good, and if people do notlike them, they must have a a target of blame. To them, The all female Ghostbusters did not fail because it wasn't funny and because it was sexist in nature, It failed because of thos fucking teenage boys. As Kaling decrees. https://www.indiewire.com/2016...!
What is amazing is that ability to scream about racism and sexism, and simultaneous replace it with sexism and racism so blatant and in your face that you can proclaim people pointing out the problem with your work is somehow racist and sexist. The worm ouroboros as it were.
But anyhow, there is the problem - White males.
Oh the irony, the current Australian government responsible for this is the conservative right wing LNP, verging on far right.
Behold, Jerry, the ultimate tool of the lunatic crypto-conservative movement.
Anything that offends their delicate sensibilities is immediately labeled as marxist, or socialist.
So you can get a far right government doing some of the heinous things a government can do, and somehow magickly, it becomes the fault of Leeeburl's socialists, or Marxists.
Tools for tools, as it were.
Cheating means that true Artificial Intelligence that mimics humans is here!
All surveillance requests for Facebook must be routed through the Kremlin for approval.
"It's not real Capitalism."
Where have we heard that one before?
Everywhere. That's because real capitalism cannot exist for very long. Capitalism needs brakes to keep it from destroying itself. But capitalsim considers any form of braking to not be capitalism.
So you have a choice, Capitalism being destroyed by the most successful and greedy taking over and killing it, or any form of regulation to keep the most successful and greedy from taking over and killing it.
Me? I don't mind the idea of capitalism tempered with enough controls to keep it from self destruction.
The problem is that pure capitalism is totally instable.
Finally, someone that gets it!
Capitalism is like a radioactive substance, with a half-life that turns it into something else eventually like thorium to radium.
Capitalism with no brakes lasts only until the first person corners a market and starts working his way through others. An unrestrained system based upon greed really needs some brakes to keep it from destroying itself.
This isn't even a condemnation of capitalism - when it is properly restrained, it can work very well to improve standards of living. Certainly better that a lot of other 'isms.
But here in America, we don't have capitalism. We have mutant form of corporatism, and one that is becoming pretty unstable as the pecuniary extraction and wealth shifting moves a small subset into great financial success at the expense of almost everyone else.
This isn't promotion of anything on my part, just what happens when there is a huge wealth gap. The economist Kruger is not incorrect when he notes that the USA is becoming a Banana Republic.
To sum up, the story might better be used without the word "Capitalism" because if they are referring to our system, it is corporatism.
Who can disagree with "know thyself"? Perfectly sensible.
The issue comes when people look at that lady engineer and conclude that the reason she was a bad engineer is because she was a lady.
She was a bad engineer because she believed the hype, that you can be anything you want to be if you only try hard enough. And as a female, she was pushed through the system because "Women in STEM". But she didn't have the correct mindset to be an effective engineer. That her mindset is one that is attributed to female stereotypes suggests that she could have had a happier early life by following that mindset instead of being pushed along to fit someone elses agenda.
Next case, a lady engineer I worked with. She knew from a young age that she was going to be an engineer. Now she very well could have oriented herself in a more traditional non engineering pop culture path for a woman. She is remarkably beautiful and has all of the physical characteristics to be a fashion model. But she wanted to be an engineer. She's a very competent one too. She would be miserable in any other career.
The point of all this is that using politics to force men out and force fit women into positions, aside from being illegal and sexist - it simply does not work.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission makes this quite clear https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/type...
The relevent part from the cite: The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.
A requirement that certain positions are open to only women and that men are not eligible, and might lose that position if they already have it, are obviously in violation of that law by being inherently sexist in nature.This distinctly violates the hiring and firing aspects. It takes some impressive cognitive dissonance to hold that blatant sexual discrimination is not sexual discrimination.
I don't see much to disagree with here. I'm never going to be a fighter pilot; my eyes aren't good enough. But it's when we link the individual cases to group differences and purported psychological differences that it becomes problematic: "the reason you got turned down for engineering school, young lady, is because you're not really suited for the profession. Try nursing instead, where you can focus on people not things"
That brought a flashback. I come from an academic setting, and any man who would dare to utter such a thing would be booted out. Rather we went the other way, to the point of bending rules to promote and keep women. Oddly enough, it didn't work well.
But the flashback part was one young lady engineer who was a really nice person, but a bad engineer. As in incompetent. To make matters worse, we had many tour/demonstrations in the place, and the suits always trotted out the ladies to give the demos whenever possible. So she got to give some of these presentations. Normally the combo of not being a good engineer and female would have fast tracked her into management. But she hated public speaking as well. She was miserable.
She eventually quit and opened a day care center. And last time I checked, she was quite happy, and doing what her temperament enjoyed.
Point is - know thyself.
Point is - Daycare? Research? I don't see that one is markedly more or less valuable than another.
To me, allowing male or female equal opportunity to pursue careers that they want is more of a fairly long process. It is based on opportunity rather than blunt force. And basing it on politics is anathema to achieving the goal.
But a blunt force tactic of removing board members because of the genitals they sport and replacing them with the other sex is not only almost certainly illegal, but the animosity it breeds on those fired because of their sex, and the knowledge of both the women involved and everyone else on the board knows exactly why she is there. Is that fair to her?
I highly doubt that there will ever be complete equal representation by sex in fields that are now dominated by one or the other sex.
How do you know I would ignore evidence provided?
I've read your posts, and seen your "discussion" technique.
This is not an entirely bad thing, as it allows a person to quickly make up their mind and either bend or discard anything that doesn't fit the narrative they have chosen
I read the actual bill linked and it doesn't address many issues. I see it only applies to public companies on major exchanges(the ones where shareholders elect the board members).
This bill doesn't seem to address gender does it? In which case, the sole focus on women is not going to pass by virtue of being illegal.
Can you imagine though - in one of your scenarios where a job hunt is performed that states that the successful candidate must be a woman? Seems like a Harvey Weinstein scenario - the interviewee woman is going to have to expose her sexual apparatus to prove she has the main qualification. " Okay Ms. Bradley, here's the form that you need to fill out after you visit the gynecologist and he affirms that you Are qualified for the position. Oh - and we'll need photos, for your employee file for the yearly conformance audit.
This is.....all disconcerting.