moviefreakedmind

No.

Of course they were wearing MAGA hats.

The Trump people have been mobilized. He’s historically unpopular but among the people foolish enough to like him, he’s extremely popular.

I saw it and I laughed.

Creox said:

moviefreakedmind said:

dahmage said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

I don’t remember anyone saying that girls couldn’t relate to Luke.

I do know my daughters identify much more strongly with Rey.

“I think there was an assumption being made for quite a while that girls didn’t care about Star Wars or that girls weren’t identifying with characters like Luke Skywalker or Han Solo; they were only identifying with Princess Leia or characters in other movies along those lines. And you know I think that it is not just Star Wars that is making this change, I think culturally, I want to believe that there is real movement and momentum beginning to happen where those kinds of lines are being blurred and people are recognizing in the creative community that um little girls, and little boys, for that matter are crossing over into identifying with lots of different characters and lots of different stories; And we as filmmakers should not be the ones providing those boundaries we should just tell the stories and they should be open a wide variety of not only gender but ethnicity. and that is another thing we are really working to do is to make the casting reflect society in a much more equal basis.”

• Kathleen Kennedy, President of Lucasfilm (2012 to Present),

Star Wars Celebration 2016

As I interpret Kennedy’s words she’s literally saying, that in the past filmmakers were providing boundaries by not casting women or people of different ethnicity in certain roles making it harder for women and people of different ethnicity to identify with these characters. She seems to thus imply that these past filmmakers (among them Lucas) were delibirately catering to boys, and white people, because they didn’t believe these stories would appeal to anybody else, and that only recently these lines are beginning to be blurred. Filmmakers should facilitate this movement by casting on an equal basis.

While it is true that men and women were not given equal opportunity in the film industry, I think it is faulty and inherently sexist to assume that a character’s gender is in any way important in the way men and women relate to these characters. As such, the fact that Rey and Jyn are female protagonists is important, because it reflects equality in casting, not because their gender makes these characters more relatable to women. If the inherent assumption is, that by casting female protagonists in Star Wars the franchise will become more appealing to women, then I would consider such a notion higly superficial and sexist.

It seems like you are suggesting that casting should go back to being less inclusive.

He obviously isn’t suggesting that. I don’t agree with his interpretation of Kennedy’s words. I actually think Kennedy was saying that girls and boys have more or less always been able to relate to all characters but now we don’t have to think of roles as being limited to one gender. But he obviously isn’t saying that he wants Star Wars to go back to the 70s and be all white again.

I care more that all children grow up seeing themselves represented in all types of roles, then I do about one or two casting decisions that I personally didn’t like. This is why Kelly Marie Tran is in my signature.

As someone who doesn’t care about Star Wars or children, I personally think that more inclusive casting is good, but I also hate how people are implying that it is something to consider when evaluating how relatable a character is. I don’t relate to any living person in real life and only relate to a few characters in film, and those few characters that I relate to are pretty diverse, and almost a 50/50 split in terms of male to female. I simply can’t relate to the notion that not sharing an arbitrary characteristic with a character makes him or her less relatable. I don’t get it, and probably never will. That doesn’t mean that I don’t want films to be inclusive to women and non-white actors. It also doesn’t mean that I don’t want people to go out of their way to make films reflect the diverse society that we live in. All it means is that I think it’s shallow to look at old characters and act like they’re less relatable because of their skin color or gender. One thing that I will admit to is that I actually am selfish enough to care a lot more about casting decisions that I like than I care about children seeing themselves represented, but my preferences in casting don’t have anything to do with race or gender so that shouldn’t conflict with your goal. Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.

Just want to chime in that the glaring part of your post is that you don’t care about SW. Not sure why you’re here then???

I cared when I first came here.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jeebus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jeebus said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

Handman said:

So traps are guys who dress like girls, but it’s crazy to think that makes them a transvestite? I never heard the “trap” term until four or five years ago.

Do you even know the difference?

Traps are guys who dress convincingly like attractive girls.

Wrong. “Traps” are not guys who dress convincingly like attractive girls. “Transvestites” are (typically) guys who dress like girls. “Traps” are derogatory terms for a subset of transvestites who apparently dress like attractive girls just to humiliate people like you who are uncomfortable around gay people.

You’re confusing the definitions.

How so?

Defamatory: “deceptive,” “fooling,” “pretending,” “posing,” “trap,” or “masquerading”
Gender identity is an integral part of a person’s identity. Do not characterize transgender people as “deceptive,” as “fooling” or “trapping” others, or as “pretending” to be, “posing” or “masquerading” as a man or a woman. Such descriptions are inaccurate, defamatory and insulting. (See “passing” and “stealth” as problematic terms above.)

JEDIT: That refers to transgenders rather than transvestites but I thought the concept (re: trap) was the same.

Yeah, that was my issue. Replace “transvestites” with “transgenders,” and that would pretty much fix it. But the bigger issue here is that I don’t think that’s the way Handman or Chyron are using the term.

But how can you use the term “trap” without it being derogatory?

Because he isn’t using it as an insult.

Removing the rest of my post removed context. And his follow up posts indicate he’s using it as an insult, even if he somehow doesn’t understand that’s what he’s doing.

I didn’t see his follow up posts when I responded to that. Calling someone a trap is probably pretty insulting. Saying the word trap for whatever reason isn’t necessarily insulting. It’s all about context.

I liked him in Episode I because he sat around and complained the whole time. I could relate to that.

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Disgusting.

I find it ironic that a Nihilist would truly care…for what are sexual organs apart from regions of the body with a high concentration of nerve endings…? What are said nerves other than conduits capable of transmitting signals to the mass of organic matter known as the brain…? What is the brain apart from a concentration of neurons capable of translating such signals in order to determine the appropriate related chemical releases…?

So for what purpose might a Nihilist be concerned that an immature human specimen might have been subjected to a premature excitation of said nerve endings, which in turn may have resulted in a series of unexpected mental experiences brought about by chemical release?

For while certainly the Humanist might be concerned as to the consequences of such a situation due to a concern for the welfare of the psyche of the child…and certainly the Religious might be concerned as the welfare of the spirit or soul of the child…and surely the Legalist might merely be dissatisfied that an entity, who in former times had little in the way of legal protection, might have had certain basic rights offended…and perhaps even the Economist might be taken to fret about the possible cost to society in terms of a potential future drain on the collective’s productivity brought about by the child’s considered detachment from a normative upbringing translating into a future dividend of costly antisocial behavior…but clearly the Nihilist has little logical concern for any of these…so how might such a lack devolve so readily into substantive disgust?

I think it’s disgusting because when people do things that I wouldn’t want done to me I get disgusted. It’s basic human empathy, which is a biological trait. I have been told that I lack empathy because I don’t like the Mormon religion and didn’t understand Warbler’s reasoning for leaving the forum. I don’t know what any of that shit has to do with empathy, but disgust at child rape is a healthy reaction to such a crime. It doesn’t mean that I accept any kind of intrinsic meaning in life, and my thoughts on the subject are also consistent with the nihilistic notion that morality is a human construct.

Why might disgust be considered a ‘healthy’ reaction to anything given nothing has within it an intrinsic value?

By what standards is it considered healthy? To what standards is it reacting against or towards?

I already addressed that. Empathy is the ability of a conscious organism to recognize the feelings of another, which is critical to the survival of the species because otherwise it would likely destroy itself either through violence or the inability to cooperate. My natural paternal instincts are probably kicking in too, which is an evolutionary construct. Even though I thankfully haven’t been irresponsible enough to create a child, I still feel compelled to protect kids or see them protected from dangerous things or people. These responses are healthy because it’s what human beings without severe mental disorders do, just like it’s healthy to feel hunger if you haven’t eaten in a long time and it’s healthy to feel pain when your hair gets pulled out. I never said that I chose to feel disgusted or anything like that. As I nihilist I don’t demand that all “moral” (and again, people disagree on what constitutes morality) behavior be rejected, I just acknowledge that morality is a human construct, which it is. That doesn’t mean that it’s “bad” or whatever. It just means that it lacks intrinsic value or meaning, which it also does. Everything is irrelevant or meaningless to something somewhere.

Also, just because something is valuable to me, that doesn’t mean it has intrinsic value.

Post Praetorian said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Disgusting.

I find it ironic that a Nihilist would truly care…for what are sexual organs apart from regions of the body with a high concentration of nerve endings…? What are said nerves other than conduits capable of transmitting signals to the mass of organic matter known as the brain…? What is the brain apart from a concentration of neurons capable of translating such signals in order to determine the appropriate related chemical releases…?

So for what purpose might a Nihilist be concerned that an immature human specimen might have been subjected to a premature excitation of said nerve endings, which in turn may have resulted in a series of unexpected mental experiences brought about by chemical release?

For while certainly the Humanist might be concerned as to the consequences of such a situation due to a concern for the welfare of the psyche of the child…and certainly the Religious might be concerned as the welfare of the spirit or soul of the child…and surely the Legalist might merely be dissatisfied that an entity, who in former times had little in the way of legal protection, might have had certain basic rights offended…and perhaps even the Economist might be taken to fret about the possible cost to society in terms of a potential future drain on the collective’s productivity brought about by the child’s considered detachment from a normative upbringing translating into a future dividend of costly antisocial behavior…but clearly the Nihilist has little logical concern for any of these…so how might such a lack devolve so readily into substantive disgust?

I think it’s disgusting because when people do things that I wouldn’t want done to me I get disgusted. It’s basic human empathy, which is a biological trait. I have been told that I lack empathy because I don’t like the Mormon religion and didn’t understand Warbler’s reasoning for leaving the forum. I don’t know what any of that shit has to do with empathy, but disgust at child rape is a healthy reaction to such a crime. It doesn’t mean that I accept any kind of intrinsic meaning in life, and my thoughts on the subject are also consistent with the nihilistic notion that morality is a human construct.

Sure. I slept for almost nineteen hours yesterday and no one noticed.

dahmage said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

I don’t remember anyone saying that girls couldn’t relate to Luke.

I do know my daughters identify much more strongly with Rey.

“I think there was an assumption being made for quite a while that girls didn’t care about Star Wars or that girls weren’t identifying with characters like Luke Skywalker or Han Solo; they were only identifying with Princess Leia or characters in other movies along those lines. And you know I think that it is not just Star Wars that is making this change, I think culturally, I want to believe that there is real movement and momentum beginning to happen where those kinds of lines are being blurred and people are recognizing in the creative community that um little girls, and little boys, for that matter are crossing over into identifying with lots of different characters and lots of different stories; And we as filmmakers should not be the ones providing those boundaries we should just tell the stories and they should be open a wide variety of not only gender but ethnicity. and that is another thing we are really working to do is to make the casting reflect society in a much more equal basis.”

• Kathleen Kennedy, President of Lucasfilm (2012 to Present),

Star Wars Celebration 2016

As I interpret Kennedy’s words she’s literally saying, that in the past filmmakers were providing boundaries by not casting women or people of different ethnicity in certain roles making it harder for women and people of different ethnicity to identify with these characters. She seems to thus imply that these past filmmakers (among them Lucas) were delibirately catering to boys, and white people, because they didn’t believe these stories would appeal to anybody else, and that only recently these lines are beginning to be blurred. Filmmakers should facilitate this movement by casting on an equal basis.

While it is true that men and women were not given equal opportunity in the film industry, I think it is faulty and inherently sexist to assume that a character’s gender is in any way important in the way men and women relate to these characters. As such, the fact that Rey and Jyn are female protagonists is important, because it reflects equality in casting, not because their gender makes these characters more relatable to women. If the inherent assumption is, that by casting female protagonists in Star Wars the franchise will become more appealing to women, then I would consider such a notion higly superficial and sexist.

It seems like you are suggesting that casting should go back to being less inclusive.

He obviously isn’t suggesting that. I don’t agree with his interpretation of Kennedy’s words. I actually think Kennedy was saying that girls and boys have more or less always been able to relate to all characters but now we don’t have to think of roles as being limited to one gender. But he obviously isn’t saying that he wants Star Wars to go back to the 70s and be all white again.

I care more that all children grow up seeing themselves represented in all types of roles, then I do about one or two casting decisions that I personally didn’t like. This is why Kelly Marie Tran is in my signature.

As someone who doesn’t care about Star Wars or children, I personally think that more inclusive casting is good, but I also hate how people are implying that it is something to consider when evaluating how relatable a character is. I don’t relate to any living person in real life and only relate to a few characters in film, and those few characters that I relate to are pretty diverse, and almost a 50/50 split in terms of male to female. I simply can’t relate to the notion that not sharing an arbitrary characteristic with a character makes him or her less relatable. I don’t get it, and probably never will. That doesn’t mean that I don’t want films to be inclusive to women and non-white actors. It also doesn’t mean that I don’t want people to go out of their way to make films reflect the diverse society that we live in. All it means is that I think it’s shallow to look at old characters and act like they’re less relatable because of their skin color or gender. One thing that I will admit to is that I actually am selfish enough to care a lot more about casting decisions that I like than I care about children seeing themselves represented, but my preferences in casting don’t have anything to do with race or gender so that shouldn’t conflict with your goal. Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.

The problem, at least from what I see online (which is admittedly anecdotal), is that a lot of younger people are buying in to this Trump shit. The alt-right appeals largely to young involuntary-celibates and that seems to be what most of it is made up of.

TV’s Frink said:

Jeebus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jeebus said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

Handman said:

So traps are guys who dress like girls, but it’s crazy to think that makes them a transvestite? I never heard the “trap” term until four or five years ago.

Do you even know the difference?

Traps are guys who dress convincingly like attractive girls.

Wrong. “Traps” are not guys who dress convincingly like attractive girls. “Transvestites” are (typically) guys who dress like girls. “Traps” are derogatory terms for a subset of transvestites who apparently dress like attractive girls just to humiliate people like you who are uncomfortable around gay people.

You’re confusing the definitions.

How so?

Defamatory: “deceptive,” “fooling,” “pretending,” “posing,” “trap,” or “masquerading”
Gender identity is an integral part of a person’s identity. Do not characterize transgender people as “deceptive,” as “fooling” or “trapping” others, or as “pretending” to be, “posing” or “masquerading” as a man or a woman. Such descriptions are inaccurate, defamatory and insulting. (See “passing” and “stealth” as problematic terms above.)

JEDIT: That refers to transgenders rather than transvestites but I thought the concept (re: trap) was the same.

Yeah, that was my issue. Replace “transvestites” with “transgenders,” and that would pretty much fix it. But the bigger issue here is that I don’t think that’s the way Handman or Chyron are using the term.

But how can you use the term “trap” without it being derogatory?

Because he isn’t using it as an insult.

The Republican Party will keep getting worse if it doesn’t turn around. Trump was a logical next step in the evolution (or devolution) of the Republican Party, but he isn’t the logical conclusion. He’s an obese 72-year-old. He’ll be dead soon. I worry about what the people that worshipped him will support next.

Yeah, the notion that Disney is interested in an artistic vision of any kind is just not compatible with how monopolistic corporations work. The people working on the film may have artistic intent, but the corporate overlord is not at all concerned with soul-searching. It’s all money and all business.

This was the first that Trump had heard of it. I think the Trump Administration is gearing up for an illegal invasion of Iran, potentially. That’s the only reason I can see for pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, which is what prevented Iran from developing nuclear weaponry. Now Iran has no obligation to follow that agreement, so I think that we might get another bogus Middle East war over phony WMDs soon.

ray_afraid has been gone for a while too.

Me too.

I love dark magic and truly sinister feel.

What a joke.

Given that they’re all centered around commerce, I’d guess it was over trade disputes.

Complaining about the website and the people on it raises the question of why that person is using the site in the first place. It’s a fair question.

As a kid I always related more to Princess Leia and liked her the best. She was rude, bossy, funny, and didn’t take any shit. (Just like me! Except I’m not funny.) I was never, even as an eight-year-old, shallow enough to be bothered that she wasn’t male.

I come here because I have no friends and no life.

EDIT: You know what, that’s actually not fair to me. I’m actually getting a second degree, but I have no social life. That’s the main reason why I’m always here.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

So you want cops to decide for themselves which laws are just and unjust? You really want cops to decide for themselves which laws they are going to enforce and which they are not? You really want to give cops that much power? I thought you didn’t like cops, I thought you didn’t trust them?

No one worthy of any respect would be willing to arrest someone for smoking marijuana

If someone should not be arrested for smoking marijuana, change the law that says they should be arrested for it.

I don’t have the power to do that and you know it.

You can vote for people to do so. You can write letters. You can push for change.

My vote doesn’t count where I live. I suspect that any letter to my representatives would be promptly filed in the garbage and pushing for change isn’t something I want to do and even if I did it’d be a waste of my time because no one cares about what I have to say.

The cops do have the power to be principled and not arrest people for victimless crimes.

So how far do you want that to go? who decides what is and is not a victimless crime.

Me. In all seriousness, it’s common sense. No one with any grasp on reality thinks that marijuana is a dangerous drug worthy of being criminalized.

They often don’t do that, though because the justice system and our private prisons thrive and throwing innocent people in jail.

huh?

Yeah, that was not my proudest grammatical moment. I said, “They often don’t do that [meaning looking the other way on drug possession charges] because people in our justice system and our private prison industry make so much money off of imprisoning people, even if they’re innocent or not deserving of being in prison.”

Like I said, principled men and women wouldn’t be a part of this. Sell-outs that want paychecks might be able to ignore their consciences enough to do it.

*sigh* (that is the only reasonable response I can think of to this.)

How is that reasonable and how is what I said unreasonable. I find it really insulting when I get disregarded as though I’m just some fool that isn’t even worthy responding to.

I am not totally against looking the other way sometimes.

On cases of drug possession (especially marijuana possession) any cop, judge, or prosecutor that doesn’t look the other way disgusts me and is immoral to the core and is antithetical to American freedom and I think we’d be better off if they were immediately removed from their positions of power.

Oh good grief.

What? Arresting someone and potentially ruining their life because they imbibed marijuana is a disgusting crime against humanity.

But when dealing with the death of someone, you can’t just look the other way and ignore the law(barring extreme circumstances like the holocaust)

The law calls for looking the other way. I’m advocating that they don’t look the other way and actually treat this as the crime that it is.

No, I was referring to looking the other way in regards to “stand your ground” You wish to look the other way and ignore “stand your ground”.

Yes.

and no one worthy of any respect would uphold laws allowing murder.

So you want the sheriff to just be able to do whatever he wants until it is not what you agree with.

No. I think he should do everything in his power to advocate for reforming the law and until that happens he should step down. You shouldn’t be able to sleep at night if you’re a part of this unjust bullshit.

Oh brother. It is easy to say that someone should quit their job when they aren’t the one with the job in question.

I’ve quit plenty of jobs that offended my sensibilities.

He can advocate for reform without quitting his job.

He doesn’t even seem to be doing that.

Might sometimes come to that in extreme circumstances like that holocaust, yes. I don’t see this situation as that extreme.

Why do we have to let it get that extreme before taking a stand?

I’m saying that I don’t respect cops because I don’t respect the laws and systems that they uphold. If anything, I’m saying that the respectable cops need to wake up and get out of their police departments.

So you are saying you don’t like a American and our Constitutional, democratic republic form of government. Got it. I can’t say I am shocked by this.

I would argue that what we have now makes a mockery of the democratic republic form of government that our Constitution is supposed to guarantee us. Corrupt people have more or less monopolized the power in this country and present us with shitty choices each election cycle. My vote, because I’m surrounded by people diametrically opposed to everything I stand for, counts for nothing in elections at the local, state, or federal level. Presumably that is not what “a American” government was supposed to be.

If you are surrounded by people diametrically opposed to everything you stand for, there is nothing the
government can do about that.

I didn’t ask them to do anything about that. I was just explaining why my vote counts for nothing where I live.

It sometimes happens that one is in the minority. (unless you either want the government to force you or those around you to move)

It wouldn’t matter where I live, I’d still be a minority on some level. I feel like a total immigrant in this life and don’t think of myself as a member of human society.