The only person that would claim my statement was a strawman is someone that either has been living under a rock for 2 years or is a liar.
I'm going to assume the former as that is less derogatory to your character.
However, it is entirely impossible for you to argue otherwise.
The screeching about Trump over the last two years has been loud and constant. I am merely paraphrasing from those screeches as is obvious to anyone that wasn't out of touch for the last two years.
Read the news or something before you presume to claim that I am misrepresenting people.
Trump has repeatedly been associated with Hitler by not just fringe elements but major figures in the opposition political party as well as the establishment press.
As to Satan, I'm sure I would have no difficulty finding citations to that effect from prominent players if only by looking at the extent to which various people take the moral imperatives to extremes.
We've been living through this for 2 years now. I vaguely cite the heat in the middle of summer and you presume to say I'm misrepresenting the weather?
Again, logically there are limited possibilities here. Either you're unaware of what has been happening for two years, you're lying, or perhaps there is some cognitive problem with you that is getting in the way of perceiving basic phenomena?
I will assume you just didn't know until corrected.
You argue that corruption is caused by impartial and ethical enforcement of law?
I can see why "you" feel uncomfortable citing even your handle in these stupid posts.
As usual, another dumb AC, making dumb AC comments, complaining about someone that bothered to cite their handle, whilst themselves hiding behind the AC tag.
Remember the dumbest thing an AC has ever said? Same name you've got now. Who is to know if that weren't you all along.
It is fitting you'd make an argument in favor of hypocritical law enforcement as you are a hypocrite.
Quite a few federal officials are taking political sides against the ethics of their office. Side X doing it doesn't excuse side Y doing it. However, it does make the calls to enforce such laws somewhere between hypocrisy and tyranny if they are only applied when an official goes one way but not the other.
The series of incidents are well known and all controversial indifferent to who said what when. I won't bother going through them because whatever I say will be gainsaid by a member of which ever tribe.
For real unity here... for real ethical clarity and purity... these laws have been applied evenly. You can't throw the book at one person for doing it and then say "it was an honest mistake" when someone from the other tribe did it.
Even handed or the entire principle becomes a crass and tyrannical pretext to power and nothing more.
I think too often people look at this sort of thing and think it can't get worse. That stability cannot tip over some point where instead of trending towards stability we will trend towards instability.
Those that welcome such events should consider that what real instability looks like... look around the world at countries that come unraveled. The horror and death.
Such as the wages of corruption. Such is the price of not having integrity. By all means... Burn the FCC official you don't like because he rolled back Net Neutrality and of course was appointed by Trump who is the second coming of Hitler/Satan. Whatever you hyperbolic scree.
Do it.
But when you do it, set a principle and a precedent. Make your bed because you will lie in it.
Define what ad hominem means. Please consult the dictionary. Then look at what I said and relate the definition of "ad hominem" with my statement.
You will find that I leveled not one ad hominem in the entire post.
Ad hominems =/= an insult or derogatory statement. An "ad hominem" is a logical fallacy. That is, it is not about being polite or nice. Rather it is a logical error.
Calling someone a "stupid zombie" is not a logical error in and of itself.
The logical fallacy comes form saying something like "Because Bob is a mindless zombie, whatever he says is going to be stupid." THAT is an ad hominem. Because it is not logically proscriptive for a given statement to be right or wrong simply because of who they are.
The argument goes in both directions. For example if you said "Bob is a genius so whatever Bob says will be correct or genius"... that is also an ad hominem.
An ad hominem is a conflation between the argument and a given person that makes the argument where you infer that an argument is true or false on the basis of who made the argument.
You now know what an "ad hominem" is... you are welcome.
Again, I can cite Phillip K Dick or any number of relatively contemporary to literally publishing RIGHT NOW authors that are clearly extremely good at what they do.
Diversity is good, but racial and gender diversity is not diversity when it comes to ART.
Diversity in art is not about your genitals. Diversity in art is about diversity of IDEAS, TALENT, and PASSION. This is not from your skin or your genitals.
You can have more diversity in ART with a room full of white guys all of the same age than you can with a rainbow of race and sexual identification.
That's a fact. If all the people think the same way then you won't have diversity.
All white people don't think the same way any more than all black people think the same way. Not all men think the same way anymore than all women think the same way.
Once acknowledge that race and gender do not actually create diversity of ideas, it renders the concept of racial diversity to create art diversity a moot point. Its conceded.
The ONLY way race and gender would create diversity in art is if race and gender have a causal relationship with MIND.
Now, you do NOT want to make that argument. Because if you argue that race and gender cause a prescriptive causal change on MIND then it can be argued that given races and genders are more or less suited to certain mental tasks.
You can't do that without imploding in a cloud of hypocrisy.
Which means there is no prescriptive causal relationship. Which means the diversity argument is at best irrational.
As to female science fiction authors, I'm not suggesting that they don't matter or they're not good. Its just that the pillars of the genre are all male authors. And the works while old are still regarded as inspirational etc.
Consider Frank Herbert's Dune or Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles. Its on a different level.
Which is not to say that women can't write stuff every bit as good. Its just that you can't suggest people are unworthy to contribute on the basis of their RACE and GENDER. Which is PRECISELY what Cameron did. The quality of a book is not defined by your genitals.
From what I understand, most erotica writers are women.
If you don't like that genre for whatever reason and don't want to appreciate the point I'm making, then ignore any specific that confuses you that the citation is itself relevant.
Rather appreciate my point is that there are art forms dominated by women. That I believe you must concede. That point conceded... would you argue that more white men should contribute to improve diversity? Because if the notion is genitals and race... clearly that would be reversible. And beyond that, what about other art forms dominated by given ethnic or racial groups? Are they stale because they don't have enough white men in them? Anyone that tried to suggest that would be labeled racist.
That's because it is racist. Cameron's statement was racist.
Social constructs only exist to the extent you invest in them.
Why do you want to reinforce a toxic social construct?
You've now conceded that not only am I right but that the best path forward should be do exactly what I am doing which is withdraw investment from them.
You can't disagree without arguing for racism itself personally.
If it is merely a social construct and you appreciate that it is divisive and counter productive... then why would you invest in it as a concept?
1). You could as easily argue George Lucas or Spielberg are what they used to be. Everyone can see they're not. Look at the more recent Ridely Scott movies... they're not as good as the old ones. They're stale... Tired.
Not because they're white or male... hell, the same guys USED to be good. But they got old and lazy.
Cameron is no different. I'm sure he'll get to make movies for the rest of his natural life. But everyone can feel the magic has worn off.
I agree a new generation has to come in and take up the torch. But suggesting that the future should be decided along racially divisive lines is toxic. What is more, it doesn't help the art. The most important thing should be the content. I don't care who makes it. I don't care your race or gender etc etc... I want a good movie.
2. As to your sad little sarcastic tantrum, this is all an attempt to avoid answering my question on race above.
I'll do it again so your fear of it is more obvious.
If the experience of a given race or gender is relevant, then does that mean that you should include a white male in environments where there is not one for "diversity"?
And here's the other question, if given RACIAL backgrounds as YOU argue change the way people approach problems then could it not be argued that some races are better or worse for given tasks?
You can't have it both ways.
"IF" race matters... then it can be used in politically incorrect ways. You are merely presuming that you can sustain a hypocritical and irrational argument that race is only relevant when it is convenient to your ideology.
My position is that race doesn't matter. That rather, certain cultural tropes tend to correlate with race for various circumstantial reasons which are not prescriptive. That is, I argue "nurture" or "environment" as being relevant.
You're arguing "race" or "DNA" differences.
Do you know the DNA difference between the "races"? Its basically nothing. Its mostly external some things like hair color and skin color etc. Under the skin we're all but identical.
And that's the medical science. You're basically arguing on the side of the KKK and Adolf Hitler at this point.
And I'm very happy to NOT be on that side... the racist side... your side.
As to "A", Cameron is talking about stale productions.
He's stale. Its relevant.
As to "B", you're running away from an issue you can't actually logically sustain.
Either race matters or it doesn't.
If it DOES matter generally. Which means... the "white male" perspective would be something you would need if there were an environment where that "experience" was not being represented.
Do you want to make that argument?
Or does race and gender only matter when its one of the politically useful arbitrary demographic subdivisons that individuals are shoe horned into as if we're nothing more than our race and gender?
A man born to a given race doesn't have a different experience UNLESS he is environmentally subjected to a different experience.
That isn't causal.... that's correlative.
That's just basic logic.
Here you cited statistics... which is funny... because statistics of the type you're likely referencing are HIGHLY vulnerable to correlative bias.
Are black people for example inherently more criminal in their behaviors as a race? Statistically according to law enforcement they are disproportionately more prone to be tried and convicted for all sorts of crimes.
Is that racial?
I would argue that it isn't racial. I would argue that it is cultural... both in that there are elements of culture that correlate with predominate black populations and there are other cultures that surround them that influence this behavior.
I argue this because to argue otherwise is to suggest black people are inferior which I don't believe.
Now if, like you, I thought race were a real thing... then that would mean that positive and negative tropes of given races are inherent qualities of those people at a genetic level. Because if you're not talking about "genetics" then are you really talking about "race"?
See, what goes on with this is there is a conflation between CULTURE and RACE. Where in you can't belong to a given culture without ALSO belonging to a given race. And when any criticism is directed against toxic elements of a culture, the defenders of that culture cry "racism".
You say different perspectives. A perspective is an individual concept. There is no collective perspective because the collective is merely a survey of individuals.
You don't know what someone's perspective is simply by knowing their race. A black man can be raised into a wealthy house hold in an alfluent neighborhood contrary to the stereotypes. And a white or asian or whatever person can be raised in an environment of poverty, drug abuse, crime, and social despair.
Your racial concept denies these individual perspectives. You would see the black man in that Hollywood script room as a stereotype and the white or asian or whatever person also as a stereotype.
You're ignoring our individuality and thus our literal humanity. I am not a stereotype as mentally convenient as you might find that. I am an individual. You have NO idea what my background is and you have no idea what I have been through. You can't begin to predict my ability to contribute anything one way or another to any scenario on any level simply by knowing my race and gender. That you think that is frankly comical.
And beyond any of that, we're talking about writers, directors, and artists.
What race and gender was Pablo Picasso? I could go through any number of titans of art and literature and you would suggest they all have the same perspective despite being white and male? Rembrandt and Dali... same perspective?
The argument you're making would only fool the fools.
It was either a butterfinger click or a UI bug... none of which undermines anything I've said unless ad hominems have suddenly stopped being fallacies.
I don't think race is causal but rather correlates with certain other problems in that race often correlates with cultural patterns that can be damaging to children. Again to be clear... I do not in any way believe in racial IQ or race realism or any of what I believe to be crap. I think race often correlates with culture and that can have a big impact. Such as Asian tiger mommas... I don't think Asian children are smarter but if they're raised in a more academically challenging environment and have a healthy but structured upbringing that is obviously positive for a child.
As to home schooling, it isn't practical for the general population and presumes the parents know enough to teach the child. In some cases that isn't reliable.
Horrible dialog, predictable two dimensional characters, the whole dances with smurfs thing, the final battle in the thing making zero sense on... every level...
This is a tech site? Why didn't they drop a rock on the target from orbit? In the movie they said they were getting radio or EM interference that prevented them from targeting a kinetic kill on the target. Zero sense. They could have eye balled it. Its hardly a precision attack.
The entire thing was just painful.
And to argue that the Science fiction world is stale pale and male? Really?
We could go with some of the female written science fiction. Care to cite some anyone really cares about? There's some but its not really their genre. And before anyone gets their panties in a twist over that, men don't especially write the erotica books that female authors tend to dominate.
Where is the moral outcry over the lack of male erotica writers?
Cameron is virtue signaling. Its dumb. His point is dumb.
He hasn't directed a movie since 2009. And that movie was literally Avatar... and he talks about "stale"... he's stale.
I see... so a school that is getting double the funding of another school per pupil but is performing poorly can argue it is under funded whilst the school that has half the funding and performing well is naturally just properly funded.
You know what, prove they're underfunded now. Cite the school district. I'll pull up what that school district gets PER PUPIL.
And then I'll cite private schools that get that much or less and kick that school's ass.
As to avatar, it was an IMAX experience that was hyped beyond all sanity and reason.
Where as while Titanic is not my type of movie, it makes most of the top ten lists for romance movies.
Agree to disagree and we all have opinions... but you can already see Avatar fading in relevance and its a more recent movie.
As to race and gender, this asserts the primacy of race and gender over individual experiences and personal talent... which you cannot predict by looking at someone.
By this very logic, one could assert that you'd need to have white men in certain areas because they would have unique experiences and perspectives that non-white men would not have.
Do you want to argue that we need to have some white men for diversity in areas where there are no white men? Because "if" the logic is that different racial and gender backgrounds are important... there are some places where you're not going to find any white men giving input.
I think if anyone made that assertion they'd be accused of racism... because its racist.
I am not my race and neither is anyone else unless race matters... which is more or less the opposite of what Martin Luther King etc was trying to push. I mean, IF race matters... then you could make the argument that someone is more or less suited to a given role because of their race and gender.
We have women arguing they should be allowed into front-line combat roles... And anyone that says they shouldn't is sexist. Right?
You can't have it both ways unless you just want to be a hypocrite.
It is LESS than what we spend on public education. Process that. Actually think about it. Give yourself a full 10 seconds to muse that over.
What you can see here is zero correlation between spending and scores.
Now, am I saying teachers shouldn't be paid more? Nope.
Am I saying that teachers should have to pay for school supplies? Nope.
However what I am saying is "more money =/= better results for kids".
That's just an empirical fact. Look at the data and concede the reality. Done. Anyone that comes at me with that argument is saying 1+1=5. It is a confession of ignorance of the facts, stupidity interfering with an ability to understand the facts, or a lack of integrity causing someone to lie even though they know better.
Now, as to how to help kids? Well, if money isn't the issue and it empirically isn't. Then we have to look at other causes of problems.
1. Not all families are equal. Some families have drug abuse issues, poverty issues, criminal behavior issues, etc. You can't conflate kids that don't have those problems with kids that do. And throwing money at the problem without actually adjusting your teaching style to try and mitigate the problem isn't going to help. 1a. One thing you can do is provide after school programs for kids. Basically the less time the kid spends in a toxic environment and the more time they are exposed to positive role models the better. Here someone will say "then why are you against more funding." I'm not against funding if it is actually going to go to something productive. So the money would have to specifically go to after school programs and music programs and possibly some vocational training.
2. Some school districts are themselves toxic. A good indication of this is if people with money to send their kids to private school send their kids to public school anyway. If locals that have money make a POINT of not sending their kids to public school then there is an IMPRESSION right or wrong in that city that private is better. Naturally some parents with money are going to send their kids to private or public school. What I'm saying is if statistically they almost always send the kids to private. That says the parents don't have confidence in the public system. They would rather pay for the public system through their taxes, get no benefit from it, and pay more to send their kids to private school. 2a. Addressing this is where Charter Schools come in. Teacher's unions don't like them but parents and students do like them. If I have to side with the teacher's union or the kids, I'm siding with the kids. And anyone that says otherwise is either an ideologue that would sacrifice children to advance a political cause or confused.
3. We have to acknowledge that some kids have unique problems that are not common in other parts of the country. For example, some kids come from households where English is not spoken at home. This presents unique problems for those students and you have to adapt your teaching styles to take that into consideration. 3a. Something as simple as giving kids more social interaction with English speakers and possibly additional remedial help without making them feel or suggesting that they're mentally deficient.
4. We have to also acknowledge that we have some bad teachers. The vetting on teachers is often not great and getting rid of a bad teacher is legendarily difficult sometimes. Simply paying teachers more without at the same time purging bad
Perhaps I'm just in a weird place on this... I've not met anyone that actually liked that movie.
Not beyond day one. And to be fair, a lot of that rating is day one stuff.
Its like star wars the last jedi... commercially very successful... widely regarded to be liquefied dogshit.
I am entirely conceding its commercial success and the hype around that movie. But I don't think it has legs the way that Terminator 2 does or Aliens does... both Cameron movies. Titanic is more likely to be remembered than Avatar.
As to different backgrounds and results, not really. Many of the best stories about whatever are from people that have no experience with it.
You under value the human imagination and the concept of TALENT.
I don't care where you came from. I care if you have talent. If you don't have talent then you're not going to be interesting.
Who do I want to give a record contract to? The person that can sing.
If the idea is hire someone with an unusual background then go to some place where we rarely hire singers from and randomly select someone from the group.
They will suck.
Go to that same place and only select someone that can out sing everyone in that area.
They might be good but more likely they'll just be "okay".
Go instead to a place where everyone there has out competed a huge number of other people and can get head to head against pretty much anyone you can name...
They will be great.
When it comes to Hollywood, we should be promoting greatness. Its a multi billion dollar industry. Why settle for less on some specious ideological scree? Its not worth it.
I'm not killing the content to improve the feels. That's my vote anyway.
And if the vote is to kill the content to serve an agenda, then the entire industry will suffer and Hollywood will go bye bye as something else with its priorities straight eats it alive.
We can see the potential for that already. The streaming, the video games... many alternative places people can invest their entertainment time.
But if you feel lucky... Dare the Dirty Harry of public whimsy on this one.
Does a story become good or bad because of the race or gender of the author?
Does a movie become good or bad because of their race or gender?
Does a piece of music become good or bad because of the race or gender of the player, the singer, the writer... whatever?
It is irrelevant.
The only issue here is "stale"... not pale or male. A white guy can write something everyone loves or write complete garbage. A black woman can write something everyone loves or complete garbage.
No one really cares who you are. We care what you did.
Now, on the issue of Cameron personally... Ironically he "IS" stale.
Anyone see Avatar? The movie is dogshit on so many levels and its all his fault.
The movie had top tier special effects which people loved. Great. Very pretty. But Cameron really didn't have anything to do with that besides getting money in the special effects budget.
Terminator 2 is a cult classic as well as a huge commercial success. Titanic was a very popular romance movie.
Avatar is whilst successful on release is widely regarded to be a bad movie and I don't see it having any legs in time.
Cameron is stale. Not because of his race or gender. He just got old and lazy.
what would you say then... what would the media say?
Keep in mind, Obama got a Nobel Peace prize JUST for getting elected in the first place.
I suspect that everyone but Trump is going to get a peace prize even though https://www.youtube.com/watch?...... increasingly people just need to concede that they're not even paying attention, don't even care what happens, all that matters is crass tribal loyalty... Because nothing short of mindless tribalism justifies the standing behavior.
The results are piling up. Some will deny until the stars burn cold... but if the results keep coming in they're going to find themselves increasingly isolated.
Actually no, the quality of education varies widely indifferent to spending.
You're clearly not paying attention doubling down on the chatbot routine.
Process this.
In New York State, the spending per student is equal throughout the entire state. From Manhattan to upstate New York the spending is THE SAME.
And yet, test scores are all over the place. Some places have high illiteracy and some have amongst the highest scores from any student body anywhere in the world.
WITH THE SAME FUNDING.
So no.
And really, your inability to cite anything meaningful in this matter renders your credibility ZERO. You might as well claim the world is flat at this point. Your credibility is that low.
Slashdot Mirror
The only person that would claim my statement was a strawman is someone that either has been living under a rock for 2 years or is a liar.
I'm going to assume the former as that is less derogatory to your character.
However, it is entirely impossible for you to argue otherwise.
The screeching about Trump over the last two years has been loud and constant. I am merely paraphrasing from those screeches as is obvious to anyone that wasn't out of touch for the last two years.
Read the news or something before you presume to claim that I am misrepresenting people.
Trump has repeatedly been associated with Hitler by not just fringe elements but major figures in the opposition political party as well as the establishment press.
As to Satan, I'm sure I would have no difficulty finding citations to that effect from prominent players if only by looking at the extent to which various people take the moral imperatives to extremes.
We've been living through this for 2 years now. I vaguely cite the heat in the middle of summer and you presume to say I'm misrepresenting the weather?
Again, logically there are limited possibilities here. Either you're unaware of what has been happening for two years, you're lying, or perhaps there is some cognitive problem with you that is getting in the way of perceiving basic phenomena?
I will assume you just didn't know until corrected.
You argue that corruption is caused by impartial and ethical enforcement of law?
I can see why "you" feel uncomfortable citing even your handle in these stupid posts.
As usual, another dumb AC, making dumb AC comments, complaining about someone that bothered to cite their handle, whilst themselves hiding behind the AC tag.
Remember the dumbest thing an AC has ever said? Same name you've got now. Who is to know if that weren't you all along.
It is fitting you'd make an argument in favor of hypocritical law enforcement as you are a hypocrite.
Quite a few federal officials are taking political sides against the ethics of their office. Side X doing it doesn't excuse side Y doing it. However, it does make the calls to enforce such laws somewhere between hypocrisy and tyranny if they are only applied when an official goes one way but not the other.
The series of incidents are well known and all controversial indifferent to who said what when. I won't bother going through them because whatever I say will be gainsaid by a member of which ever tribe.
For real unity here... for real ethical clarity and purity... these laws have been applied evenly. You can't throw the book at one person for doing it and then say "it was an honest mistake" when someone from the other tribe did it.
Even handed or the entire principle becomes a crass and tyrannical pretext to power and nothing more.
I think too often people look at this sort of thing and think it can't get worse. That stability cannot tip over some point where instead of trending towards stability we will trend towards instability.
Those that welcome such events should consider that what real instability looks like... look around the world at countries that come unraveled. The horror and death.
Such as the wages of corruption. Such is the price of not having integrity. By all means... Burn the FCC official you don't like because he rolled back Net Neutrality and of course was appointed by Trump who is the second coming of Hitler/Satan. Whatever you hyperbolic scree.
Do it.
But when you do it, set a principle and a precedent. Make your bed because you will lie in it.
Funny old world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Define what ad hominem means. Please consult the dictionary. Then look at what I said and relate the definition of "ad hominem" with my statement.
You will find that I leveled not one ad hominem in the entire post.
Ad hominems =/= an insult or derogatory statement. An "ad hominem" is a logical fallacy. That is, it is not about being polite or nice. Rather it is a logical error.
Calling someone a "stupid zombie" is not a logical error in and of itself.
The logical fallacy comes form saying something like "Because Bob is a mindless zombie, whatever he says is going to be stupid." THAT is an ad hominem. Because it is not logically proscriptive for a given statement to be right or wrong simply because of who they are.
The argument goes in both directions. For example if you said "Bob is a genius so whatever Bob says will be correct or genius"... that is also an ad hominem.
An ad hominem is a conflation between the argument and a given person that makes the argument where you infer that an argument is true or false on the basis of who made the argument.
You now know what an "ad hominem" is... you are welcome.
Again, I can cite Phillip K Dick or any number of relatively contemporary to literally publishing RIGHT NOW authors that are clearly extremely good at what they do.
Diversity is good, but racial and gender diversity is not diversity when it comes to ART.
Diversity in art is not about your genitals. Diversity in art is about diversity of IDEAS, TALENT, and PASSION. This is not from your skin or your genitals.
You can have more diversity in ART with a room full of white guys all of the same age than you can with a rainbow of race and sexual identification.
That's a fact. If all the people think the same way then you won't have diversity.
All white people don't think the same way any more than all black people think the same way. Not all men think the same way anymore than all women think the same way.
Once acknowledge that race and gender do not actually create diversity of ideas, it renders the concept of racial diversity to create art diversity a moot point. Its conceded.
The ONLY way race and gender would create diversity in art is if race and gender have a causal relationship with MIND.
Now, you do NOT want to make that argument. Because if you argue that race and gender cause a prescriptive causal change on MIND then it can be argued that given races and genders are more or less suited to certain mental tasks.
You can't do that without imploding in a cloud of hypocrisy.
Which means there is no prescriptive causal relationship. Which means the diversity argument is at best irrational.
In the article in question, Cameron said something racist.
Then people defended it.
I've validated the claim of racism.
If you think I haven't then explain why, I'll show why you're wrong, and then you can go back to lurking.
As to female science fiction authors, I'm not suggesting that they don't matter or they're not good. Its just that the pillars of the genre are all male authors. And the works while old are still regarded as inspirational etc.
Consider Frank Herbert's Dune or Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles. Its on a different level.
Which is not to say that women can't write stuff every bit as good. Its just that you can't suggest people are unworthy to contribute on the basis of their RACE and GENDER. Which is PRECISELY what Cameron did. The quality of a book is not defined by your genitals.
From what I understand, most erotica writers are women.
If you don't like that genre for whatever reason and don't want to appreciate the point I'm making, then ignore any specific that confuses you that the citation is itself relevant.
Rather appreciate my point is that there are art forms dominated by women. That I believe you must concede. That point conceded... would you argue that more white men should contribute to improve diversity? Because if the notion is genitals and race... clearly that would be reversible. And beyond that, what about other art forms dominated by given ethnic or racial groups? Are they stale because they don't have enough white men in them? Anyone that tried to suggest that would be labeled racist.
That's because it is racist. Cameron's statement was racist.
You know what you are and what you did. ;)
Social constructs only exist to the extent you invest in them.
Why do you want to reinforce a toxic social construct?
You've now conceded that not only am I right but that the best path forward should be do exactly what I am doing which is withdraw investment from them.
You can't disagree without arguing for racism itself personally.
If it is merely a social construct and you appreciate that it is divisive and counter productive... then why would you invest in it as a concept?
I have to conclude you're at best confused.
Straighten your shit out.
according to the south korean president and the foreign minister of south korea... trump gets credit... I mean... that's what they said.
I understand your problem here. But it can't be hand waved any more than you can fly by flapping your arms... its just too much.
Someone got triggered.
You do realize your extreme reaction to what is at worst a miss-click has betrayed a certain... lack of emotional perspective?
Work on it. Don't want people to think you're a spaz. ;)
1). You could as easily argue George Lucas or Spielberg are what they used to be. Everyone can see they're not. Look at the more recent Ridely Scott movies... they're not as good as the old ones. They're stale... Tired.
Not because they're white or male... hell, the same guys USED to be good. But they got old and lazy.
Cameron is no different. I'm sure he'll get to make movies for the rest of his natural life. But everyone can feel the magic has worn off.
I agree a new generation has to come in and take up the torch. But suggesting that the future should be decided along racially divisive lines is toxic. What is more, it doesn't help the art. The most important thing should be the content. I don't care who makes it. I don't care your race or gender etc etc... I want a good movie.
2. As to your sad little sarcastic tantrum, this is all an attempt to avoid answering my question on race above.
I'll do it again so your fear of it is more obvious.
If the experience of a given race or gender is relevant, then does that mean that you should include a white male in environments where there is not one for "diversity"?
And here's the other question, if given RACIAL backgrounds as YOU argue change the way people approach problems then could it not be argued that some races are better or worse for given tasks?
You can't have it both ways.
"IF" race matters... then it can be used in politically incorrect ways. You are merely presuming that you can sustain a hypocritical and irrational argument that race is only relevant when it is convenient to your ideology.
My position is that race doesn't matter. That rather, certain cultural tropes tend to correlate with race for various circumstantial reasons which are not prescriptive. That is, I argue "nurture" or "environment" as being relevant.
You're arguing "race" or "DNA" differences.
Do you know the DNA difference between the "races"? Its basically nothing. Its mostly external some things like hair color and skin color etc. Under the skin we're all but identical.
And that's the medical science. You're basically arguing on the side of the KKK and Adolf Hitler at this point.
And I'm very happy to NOT be on that side... the racist side... your side.
As to "A", Cameron is talking about stale productions.
He's stale. Its relevant.
As to "B", you're running away from an issue you can't actually logically sustain.
Either race matters or it doesn't.
If it DOES matter generally. Which means... the "white male" perspective would be something you would need if there were an environment where that "experience" was not being represented.
Do you want to make that argument?
Or does race and gender only matter when its one of the politically useful arbitrary demographic subdivisons that individuals are shoe horned into as if we're nothing more than our race and gender?
A man born to a given race doesn't have a different experience UNLESS he is environmentally subjected to a different experience.
That isn't causal.... that's correlative.
That's just basic logic.
Here you cited statistics... which is funny... because statistics of the type you're likely referencing are HIGHLY vulnerable to correlative bias.
Are black people for example inherently more criminal in their behaviors as a race? Statistically according to law enforcement they are disproportionately more prone to be tried and convicted for all sorts of crimes.
Is that racial?
I would argue that it isn't racial. I would argue that it is cultural... both in that there are elements of culture that correlate with predominate black populations and there are other cultures that surround them that influence this behavior.
I argue this because to argue otherwise is to suggest black people are inferior which I don't believe.
Now if, like you, I thought race were a real thing... then that would mean that positive and negative tropes of given races are inherent qualities of those people at a genetic level. Because if you're not talking about "genetics" then are you really talking about "race"?
See, what goes on with this is there is a conflation between CULTURE and RACE. Where in you can't belong to a given culture without ALSO belonging to a given race. And when any criticism is directed against toxic elements of a culture, the defenders of that culture cry "racism".
You say different perspectives. A perspective is an individual concept. There is no collective perspective because the collective is merely a survey of individuals.
You don't know what someone's perspective is simply by knowing their race. A black man can be raised into a wealthy house hold in an alfluent neighborhood contrary to the stereotypes. And a white or asian or whatever person can be raised in an environment of poverty, drug abuse, crime, and social despair.
Your racial concept denies these individual perspectives. You would see the black man in that Hollywood script room as a stereotype and the white or asian or whatever person also as a stereotype.
You're ignoring our individuality and thus our literal humanity. I am not a stereotype as mentally convenient as you might find that. I am an individual. You have NO idea what my background is and you have no idea what I have been through. You can't begin to predict my ability to contribute anything one way or another to any scenario on any level simply by knowing my race and gender. That you think that is frankly comical.
And beyond any of that, we're talking about writers, directors, and artists.
What race and gender was Pablo Picasso? I could go through any number of titans of art and literature and you would suggest they all have the same perspective despite being white and male? Rembrandt and Dali... same perspective?
The argument you're making would only fool the fools.
It was either a butterfinger click or a UI bug... none of which undermines anything I've said unless ad hominems have suddenly stopped being fallacies.
Yeah, I don't know how that happened. I don't remember even seeing this indian thing.
Either my butter fingers or a UI glitch or something. *shrugs*
I don't think race is causal but rather correlates with certain other problems in that race often correlates with cultural patterns that can be damaging to children. Again to be clear... I do not in any way believe in racial IQ or race realism or any of what I believe to be crap. I think race often correlates with culture and that can have a big impact. Such as Asian tiger mommas... I don't think Asian children are smarter but if they're raised in a more academically challenging environment and have a healthy but structured upbringing that is obviously positive for a child.
As to home schooling, it isn't practical for the general population and presumes the parents know enough to teach the child. In some cases that isn't reliable.
Horrible dialog, predictable two dimensional characters, the whole dances with smurfs thing, the final battle in the thing making zero sense on... every level...
This is a tech site? Why didn't they drop a rock on the target from orbit? In the movie they said they were getting radio or EM interference that prevented them from targeting a kinetic kill on the target. Zero sense. They could have eye balled it. Its hardly a precision attack.
The entire thing was just painful.
And to argue that the Science fiction world is stale pale and male? Really?
We could go with some of the female written science fiction. Care to cite some anyone really cares about? There's some but its not really their genre. And before anyone gets their panties in a twist over that, men don't especially write the erotica books that female authors tend to dominate.
Where is the moral outcry over the lack of male erotica writers?
Cameron is virtue signaling. Its dumb. His point is dumb.
He hasn't directed a movie since 2009. And that movie was literally Avatar... and he talks about "stale"... he's stale.
I see... so a school that is getting double the funding of another school per pupil but is performing poorly can argue it is under funded whilst the school that has half the funding and performing well is naturally just properly funded.
You know what, prove they're underfunded now. Cite the school district. I'll pull up what that school district gets PER PUPIL.
And then I'll cite private schools that get that much or less and kick that school's ass.
Its a sad argument.
As to avatar, it was an IMAX experience that was hyped beyond all sanity and reason.
Where as while Titanic is not my type of movie, it makes most of the top ten lists for romance movies.
Agree to disagree and we all have opinions... but you can already see Avatar fading in relevance and its a more recent movie.
As to race and gender, this asserts the primacy of race and gender over individual experiences and personal talent... which you cannot predict by looking at someone.
By this very logic, one could assert that you'd need to have white men in certain areas because they would have unique experiences and perspectives that non-white men would not have.
Do you want to argue that we need to have some white men for diversity in areas where there are no white men? Because "if" the logic is that different racial and gender backgrounds are important... there are some places where you're not going to find any white men giving input.
I think if anyone made that assertion they'd be accused of racism... because its racist.
I am not my race and neither is anyone else unless race matters... which is more or less the opposite of what Martin Luther King etc was trying to push. I mean, IF race matters... then you could make the argument that someone is more or less suited to a given role because of their race and gender.
We have women arguing they should be allowed into front-line combat roles... And anyone that says they shouldn't is sexist. Right?
You can't have it both ways unless you just want to be a hypocrite.
This is a map of spending per pupil by school district:
https://www.npr.org/2016/04/18...
And here is SAT scores per state:
https://www.qsleap.com/sat/res...
And here is the average cost per student of PRIVATE education:
https://www.privateschoolrevie...
It is LESS than what we spend on public education. Process that. Actually think about it. Give yourself a full 10 seconds to muse that over.
What you can see here is zero correlation between spending and scores.
Now, am I saying teachers shouldn't be paid more? Nope.
Am I saying that teachers should have to pay for school supplies? Nope.
However what I am saying is "more money =/= better results for kids".
That's just an empirical fact. Look at the data and concede the reality. Done. Anyone that comes at me with that argument is saying 1+1=5. It is a confession of ignorance of the facts, stupidity interfering with an ability to understand the facts, or a lack of integrity causing someone to lie even though they know better.
Now, as to how to help kids? Well, if money isn't the issue and it empirically isn't. Then we have to look at other causes of problems.
1. Not all families are equal. Some families have drug abuse issues, poverty issues, criminal behavior issues, etc. You can't conflate kids that don't have those problems with kids that do. And throwing money at the problem without actually adjusting your teaching style to try and mitigate the problem isn't going to help.
1a. One thing you can do is provide after school programs for kids. Basically the less time the kid spends in a toxic environment and the more time they are exposed to positive role models the better. Here someone will say "then why are you against more funding." I'm not against funding if it is actually going to go to something productive. So the money would have to specifically go to after school programs and music programs and possibly some vocational training.
2. Some school districts are themselves toxic. A good indication of this is if people with money to send their kids to private school send their kids to public school anyway. If locals that have money make a POINT of not sending their kids to public school then there is an IMPRESSION right or wrong in that city that private is better. Naturally some parents with money are going to send their kids to private or public school. What I'm saying is if statistically they almost always send the kids to private. That says the parents don't have confidence in the public system. They would rather pay for the public system through their taxes, get no benefit from it, and pay more to send their kids to private school.
2a. Addressing this is where Charter Schools come in. Teacher's unions don't like them but parents and students do like them. If I have to side with the teacher's union or the kids, I'm siding with the kids. And anyone that says otherwise is either an ideologue that would sacrifice children to advance a political cause or confused.
3. We have to acknowledge that some kids have unique problems that are not common in other parts of the country. For example, some kids come from households where English is not spoken at home. This presents unique problems for those students and you have to adapt your teaching styles to take that into consideration.
3a. Something as simple as giving kids more social interaction with English speakers and possibly additional remedial help without making them feel or suggesting that they're mentally deficient.
4. We have to also acknowledge that we have some bad teachers. The vetting on teachers is often not great and getting rid of a bad teacher is legendarily difficult sometimes. Simply paying teachers more without at the same time purging bad
Perhaps I'm just in a weird place on this... I've not met anyone that actually liked that movie.
Not beyond day one. And to be fair, a lot of that rating is day one stuff.
Its like star wars the last jedi... commercially very successful... widely regarded to be liquefied dogshit.
I am entirely conceding its commercial success and the hype around that movie. But I don't think it has legs the way that Terminator 2 does or Aliens does... both Cameron movies. Titanic is more likely to be remembered than Avatar.
As to different backgrounds and results, not really. Many of the best stories about whatever are from people that have no experience with it.
You under value the human imagination and the concept of TALENT.
I don't care where you came from. I care if you have talent. If you don't have talent then you're not going to be interesting.
Who do I want to give a record contract to? The person that can sing.
If the idea is hire someone with an unusual background then go to some place where we rarely hire singers from and randomly select someone from the group.
They will suck.
Go to that same place and only select someone that can out sing everyone in that area.
They might be good but more likely they'll just be "okay".
Go instead to a place where everyone there has out competed a huge number of other people and can get head to head against pretty much anyone you can name...
They will be great.
When it comes to Hollywood, we should be promoting greatness. Its a multi billion dollar industry. Why settle for less on some specious ideological scree? Its not worth it.
I'm not killing the content to improve the feels. That's my vote anyway.
And if the vote is to kill the content to serve an agenda, then the entire industry will suffer and Hollywood will go bye bye as something else with its priorities straight eats it alive.
We can see the potential for that already. The streaming, the video games... many alternative places people can invest their entertainment time.
But if you feel lucky... Dare the Dirty Harry of public whimsy on this one.
Does a story become good or bad because of the race or gender of the author?
Does a movie become good or bad because of their race or gender?
Does a piece of music become good or bad because of the race or gender of the player, the singer, the writer... whatever?
It is irrelevant.
The only issue here is "stale"... not pale or male. A white guy can write something everyone loves or write complete garbage. A black woman can write something everyone loves or complete garbage.
No one really cares who you are. We care what you did.
Now, on the issue of Cameron personally... Ironically he "IS" stale.
Anyone see Avatar? The movie is dogshit on so many levels and its all his fault.
The movie had top tier special effects which people loved. Great. Very pretty. But Cameron really didn't have anything to do with that besides getting money in the special effects budget.
Terminator 2 is a cult classic as well as a huge commercial success. Titanic was a very popular romance movie.
Avatar is whilst successful on release is widely regarded to be a bad movie and I don't see it having any legs in time.
Cameron is stale. Not because of his race or gender. He just got old and lazy.
what would you say then... what would the media say?
Keep in mind, Obama got a Nobel Peace prize JUST for getting elected in the first place.
I suspect that everyone but Trump is going to get a peace prize even though ... increasingly people just need to concede that they're not even paying attention, don't even care what happens, all that matters is crass tribal loyalty... Because nothing short of mindless tribalism justifies the standing behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The results are piling up. Some will deny until the stars burn cold... but if the results keep coming in they're going to find themselves increasingly isolated.
Actually no, the quality of education varies widely indifferent to spending.
You're clearly not paying attention doubling down on the chatbot routine.
Process this.
In New York State, the spending per student is equal throughout the entire state. From Manhattan to upstate New York the spending is THE SAME.
And yet, test scores are all over the place. Some places have high illiteracy and some have amongst the highest scores from any student body anywhere in the world.
WITH THE SAME FUNDING.
So no.
And really, your inability to cite anything meaningful in this matter renders your credibility ZERO. You might as well claim the world is flat at this point. Your credibility is that low.