Jealous
No, I’m not entitled to have my voice heard. In fact, in society it isn’t heard at all.
Who’s “he”?
*typo
Spoilers Captain Marvel - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
*typo
I was going to ask if it’s the person who said those things, since it wasn’t Brie Larson. Maybe it was some white guy.
He said Brie made comments that if they weren't about a white guy would be tagged as hate speech
"I don't need a 40 year old BLACK guy to tell me what he didn't. .."
You know damn well that would be called hate speech if someone said that.
Because the voices of black men have been silenced historically, white men haven’t ever been. Despite their claims, this isn’t happening now either. They’ve done a good job of silencing every one else. Brie is just asking that we end the silencing of others. This is manufactured outrage over nothing. It’s either an outright lie or the person saying it does not comprehend the entirety of human history or society, much like an alien who arrived five minutes ago.
We aren't discussing that (which you have a valid point on but it's not what we are discussing)
She said if she had said that about any other demographic it would be called hate speech
That was a true statement
Context isn't relevant I'm only saying that her statement was true
Why is this taking so many posts to explain.
Context is very important when it comes to real hate speech. But you’re trying to warp what she said into hate speech. Saying you don’t want to hear the dominant narrative from the group in power isn’t hate speech. Hate speech is a dominant group using speech to attack the groups under them, enforcing centuries of oppression and abuse. As an example, a white person calling a black person the n-word. White people used black people as slave labor, frequently using that word. Once it ended, they systematically oppressed black people which continues to this day in more subtle ways and that word is still used against them.
But white women have never held power over white men, it’s the other way around. Still is in many ways, given that an awful lot of white male politicians in the US have passed laws that force their religious beliefs onto the bodies of women who may not and denying them their constitutional rights. So no, it wasn’t hate speech. That’s an absurd notion. The reason you’re having trouble explaining it is because you’re trying to convince us that context doesn’t matter and the last several thousand years never happened and we’re all at some equal state, which we’re not.
You mean legally or just some asshats on twitter? Because asshats on twitter can say literally anything, so that is meaningless. But legally, no, that would not remotely constitute hate speech.
That said, trying to compare the white experience and the black experience as if they were a one-to-one comparison is ridiculous. You can't just substitute black for white in a sentence and expect it to have the same weight or context, any more than you can expect the word cracker to constitute the same level of insult to a white person as the n-word would to a black person. It just doesn't have the same history of institutional and social discrimination and oppression behind it.
But regardless, how is this still a thing? You can parse it down however you want, she was just asking for greater diversity among interviewers. How is that even controversial and something that is still being whined about months later? Who gives a shit? White men are not being oppressed in the movie interview field. Move on.
I think this is a important thing to discuss.
I don't think many peoples (at least those with brains) can say society is in anyway "equal". If your a woman or black ect you are at a disadvantage. I am about to be married to someone of a different ethnicity and see the shit she experiences though obviously cant come close to understanding.
I think what differs with people is HOW we get to that equal society.
I think sometimes certain groups are aiming more for "vengeance" and "restitution" from the straight white male than equality, a position that hurts any progress to equality and shuts down any dialog.
I don't have to much of a issue with what Brie said. The film was clearly pitched at a different demography. Not every film or TV program has to be aimed for purely my pleasure. In this day and age there is plenty of room for everyone.
At the risk of earning my own warning, you are the skankiest troll on this board.Feminine
Yep. This is all I've ever tried to say on that subject. Good job.
In the context I am not entirely convinced this is true.
In the context of what she was saying she was clearly pointing out that white guys were not the target demographic of her film. Fair enough to be honest.
Honestly not going to lose any sleep over the fact she starred in a film not targeted at me
Listen to your own advice.
Groups? No. Individuals, probably although I’ve never heard of any. A lot of that seems to exist in the heads of those with power because that’s what they would do and likely fear. But for the most part, people just want to be treated equally and get the same opportunities that white men take for granted.
Just for the record, she wasn't talking about her own movie. It was just an example she used.
I did, she took a swipe at the Overclass. Unfortunately, ever since #MeToo and the fall of Weinstein, the Overclass have become hyper-sensitive and can't take criticism.
There were no stakes in this story. I just sat there waiting for Carol to get the memo that her overlords were evil. To me it was flat and unoriginal. How can there be stakes or consequences for a character this powerful? It just renders the character dull to me.
Pretty sure the stakes were Carol's sense of identity, personal agency...and the freedom of an entire oppressed species.
I mean what did you want? An ominous skybeam, a literal ticking clock and a CGI deathcloud for people to runaway from? The fate of the world doesn't need to hang in the balance for the stakes to be significant to the protagonist. Indeed, typically if one needs that kind of peril then it's probably because one has on their hands a two-dimensional character with zero internal life.
I mean what did you want? An ominous skybeam, a literal ticking clock and a CGI deathcloud for people to runaway from? The fate of the world doesn't need to hang in the balance for the stakes to be significant to the protagonist. Indeed, typically if one needs that kind of peril then it's probably because one has on their hands a two-dimensional character with zero internal life.
You can't have big "Universe threatening" stakes when doing a Prequel because you already know how it will end. We already knew Fury and Coulson would survive, so would Carol. And we knew the Kree wouldn't be destroyed either because they were still around in GOTG 20 years later.
Temporal Cold War?
Not every movie needs world changing stakes.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
