In my opinion, the problem with all this that this actually declines existence of racism in the past. If they want to have representation of minorities it is all good - show us how terrible was the life of black people back then. Because it was! We can't and should not pretend like this never was. How to put this theme in the context of Macbeth or the life on Anne Boleyn is up to the author but I won't object if it is accurate towards reality.
What made you laugh today - Fifth Edition
- Thread starter Eктωρ
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
No. Just watch a documentation or read a book instead.
To have an identity (or group identity) built with it. Describe yourself in as few words as you can in a way that other people can tell it's you and what you're like. You know what else besides your skin color or political affiliation is bound to be there? Your name. Would you find a name scientifically tenable or non-arbitrary (whaterver that means) as a part of an idenity? Probably no. But mispronounce someone's name and you'll see how touchy people get.
You are still ignoring the noticeableness, claiming it to be arbitrariness. Al Capone's biopic can be shot with a Mercedes-Benz 500K and it can be shot with a Dodge Charger. Both are wrong, one is wronger.
I genuinely can't tell what these are supposed to mean.It most definitely can't. Languages at least change, especially the spoken ones (looking at you, medieval Scotland).
Last edited:
I have no idea what you're talking about but I'm pretty sure that you're mixing completely different concepts, identity, group identity and personality. I would call the former, at least in the way you describe it here, personality - and would definitely disagree that the colour of one's skin is part of it. I also have no idea why, for example, political affiliation should be part of an identity, something that can change (at least in theory) rapidly and frequently. Does changing your political affiliation also change your identity? Is someone who, for example, voted for the KSČM and then voted for SPD or ANO not identical with himself anymore (or does he just change his identity, and where's the difference)? Is it sufficient to, another stupid example, go to a tanning salon to change one's identity? What's the purpose of identity other than to identify someone?
Just standing there, maybe pointing at myself, is completely sufficient to identify myself to others. No words needed. Even when I'm gone, the people could still identify me as 'the person who just stood there'. If I told them some name, it doesn't have to be my own, they could just use that in order to unambigiously identify me. Seriously I have no idea what your point is and even less what that has to do with a movie cast.
As can be seen you also lost me completely with the name example. That we seem to meet differently tempered kind of people is the only thing I gather from it.
I vehemently disagree with the notion that something can be "wronger" than something else.
I don't think that I'm ignoring the noticeableness, I tried to dismiss it to some degree with the example of a blind person. What I would claim though is that the things you notice 'more' are actually the result of you to judge them as more important (on whatever that judgement may be based on). And that that assessment is ultimately arbitrary (or that I see no valid reason why the skin colour should be deemed more important than anything else, or important at all for that matter). Again: I'm talking in the context of movie casts (as in: movies whose primary function is, I think, to entertain (even so-called historical ones), not inform, especially in comparison to documentaries, and, to a lesser degree, biopics).
I think I get both sides of the argument.
It does sound pretty dumb to deliberately cast the least adequate type for a historical role. I mean, you could cast black parents for a white character. Or you could cast a really young actor to play a really old character. But why would you do that? Silly.
On the other hand, is race really that important? If it's not meant to be a historical movie, why not cast a diverse team and dress them all in medieval european costumes. It's just entertainment after all.
What gets to me in this particular case is the hypocricy. As usual with this sort of diversity shenanigans.
In the age where female actresses are bullied out of playing a transgender role in a movie or black actresses apologizing for playing a character that was supposed to be of a much darker hue, the "it's just an artistic interpretation" argument does sound really disingenuous.
It does sound pretty dumb to deliberately cast the least adequate type for a historical role. I mean, you could cast black parents for a white character. Or you could cast a really young actor to play a really old character. But why would you do that? Silly.
On the other hand, is race really that important? If it's not meant to be a historical movie, why not cast a diverse team and dress them all in medieval european costumes. It's just entertainment after all.
What gets to me in this particular case is the hypocricy. As usual with this sort of diversity shenanigans.
In the age where female actresses are bullied out of playing a transgender role in a movie or black actresses apologizing for playing a character that was supposed to be of a much darker hue, the "it's just an artistic interpretation" argument does sound really disingenuous.
I'll probably call them "doggy breath" like in the past.
Maybe Chropeucifi.
The death throes of a bunch of losers. They will be gone in 10 years, unmourned, unwept.
No fair! I like the new Citroens! They're refreshing to see on the road. Almost everything else looks like it's trying to look "A N G E R Y !™"
Now if only all the Xsara Picassos mysteriously broke down and burned down, that'd be great.
Ah yes, Citroen, like this classic beauty.
This car was responsible for Citroen's terminal illness and it has died a little more each year.
French cars are at the top of most sold cars in Denmark, and have been for many years.
There's nothing wrong with them.
There's nothing wrong with them.
Top 10 - March 2020
Nr. 1: Tesla Model 3 728
Nr. 2: Nissan Qashqai 687
Nr. 3: Peugeot 208 476
Nr. 4: Citroën C3 466
Nr. 5: Toyota Yaris 339
Nr. 6: Volkswagen Golf 328
Nr. 7: Toyota Aygo 313
Nr. 8: Skoda Octavia 304
Nr. 9: Citroën C1 302
Nr. 10: Volkswagen T-Roc 284
Top 10 - 2020 first quarter
Nr. 1: Peugeot 208 1754
Nr. 2: Citroën C3 1548
Nr. 3: Nissan Qashqai 1508
Nr. 4: Toyota Aygo 1335
Nr. 5: Toyota Yaris 1194
Nr. 6: Citroën C1 1127
Nr. 7: Volkswagen Polo 1087
Nr. 8: Volkswagen Golf 955
Nr. 9: Volkswagen T-Roc 924
Nr. 10: Renault Clio 916
Nr. 1: Tesla Model 3 728
Nr. 2: Nissan Qashqai 687
Nr. 3: Peugeot 208 476
Nr. 4: Citroën C3 466
Nr. 5: Toyota Yaris 339
Nr. 6: Volkswagen Golf 328
Nr. 7: Toyota Aygo 313
Nr. 8: Skoda Octavia 304
Nr. 9: Citroën C1 302
Nr. 10: Volkswagen T-Roc 284
Top 10 - 2020 first quarter
Nr. 1: Peugeot 208 1754
Nr. 2: Citroën C3 1548
Nr. 3: Nissan Qashqai 1508
Nr. 4: Toyota Aygo 1335
Nr. 5: Toyota Yaris 1194
Nr. 6: Citroën C1 1127
Nr. 7: Volkswagen Polo 1087
Nr. 8: Volkswagen Golf 955
Nr. 9: Volkswagen T-Roc 924
Nr. 10: Renault Clio 916
Stop right there, you unwashed savage!
That car is an engineering marvel, and I will not have your pickup-riding ass besmirching its good name!
I drive a Toyota Camry.
Exactly. You don't even have the common dignity to afford a pickup.
Ah, I think I see your point.
This account
www.instagram.com
Login • Instagram
Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.
www.instagram.com
