Octavious wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 12:00 pm
Well, you would do
.
The changes made to the forum back when we moved away from the old style created an environment fundamentally hostile to any view that deviates from the mainstream, where the mainstream is broadly defined by US liberal media. As this has been in place for some time now the result is a forum far less diverse in opinion. Back in the day there would have been plenty of voices backing you up as well as plenty being critical, and a far more balanced back and forth. But the fact that this is no longer the case is ever so slightly your fault, so you can't complain too much
Ive always been more on the site that people should be able to say whatever they want within reason, more than almost all other mods were comfortable with. I always thought it was a waste of mod time getting involved in moderating forums and that people should silence/mute whoever they don’t want to interact with.
Also it’s fine if no-one is backing me up that’s not really what I’m asking for, any kind of group-think I think takes away from things in a forum.
Xerxes Worldweaver wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 9:26 pm
A world of lies... that's what feminism is. A complete refutation of it and a proper defence of the patriarchy is beyond the scope of this post (though it shall be given if requested), but suffice it to say that it is a complete and utter lie that women as a whole were meant to be anything other than wives and mothers. Women were not meant to be soldiers - they are those whom soldiers fight to protect. Their lives are too valuable to be wasted on the battlefield. When we are shown in FSMs that a woman can beat the crap out of a man, we know it's a lie. Whenever a woman orders a man about, we know something's off.
Lol .. are you posting from rural Afghanistan or something?.. You really don’t know of any women who were successful at more than being a wife/mother? Quite stunning ignorance..
By the way your post was reported but I don’t think it makes any sense to block stuff like this. If XW wants to make the argument women can’t beat up a man, can’t be soldiers, can’t lead, can’t be anything other than a wife/mother I think they should write all about it and put their name all over it. If someone has somehow never worked with (or even
heard of) a successful female professional / scientist / teacher / lawyer / astronaut / fighter / prime minister / CEO I’m very happy for them to learn here.. Just like I’d be very happy for them to step in the ring with a female UFC fighter, or play chess against a female master.
If you block these sorts of opinions they’ll only get posted to places where they’ll be agreed with.
Fluminator wrote: ↑Sun Oct 16, 2022 10:38 pm
Kestas, just try to take a step back bro. I love playing devil's advocate (to the point half the forum thinks I'm a far-right troll) but this is not it.
Even if everything you said about Disney doing this as some Machiavellian plot to generate controversy to make more money or publicly is true, what does that really change? It shouldn't be controversial in the first place?
JECE and Meme kind of already said all the main points very succinctly.
I think in a few years, you might look back on this and be embarrassed how you bent over backwards trying to justify the backlash against a black mermaid.
I realize posting this is a mistake in that it’s an unpopular opinion and it openly invites accusations of racism, but my first instinct was that it was a cynical marketing ploy, on seeing all the debate and people calling any criticism of the trailer racist I still think it’s a cynical marketing ploy, and having had some very smart, logical people give me their best arguments in this thread I still think it’s a cynical marketing ploy.
I actually think the opposite is true; I think over time as Disney and other studios use this trick and the novelty wears off the criticism and accusations of racism will swing the other way.
When Songs of the South was released by Disney “Zip-a-Dee-doo-dah” got an academy award; it was probably seen as progressive at the time, it’s only with time and hindsight that people started to see it for what it is.
Even if everything you said about Disney doing this as some Machiavellian plot to generate controversy to make more money or publicly is true, what does that really change? It shouldn't be controversial in the first place?
It changes everything! Intentionally casting a black person in a role that you wouldn’t expect a black person to be cast to generate controversy and get media attention is super cringe. If you looked up tokenism in an illustrated dictionary the illustration should be a Little Mermaid remake poster.
Sorry if it disappoints you I’m not of the same opinion here, I’m sure we share the same opinion on lots of things, but until someone points out something I didn’t consider / wasn’t aware of I can’t see how I will change my view on this.
If I went to see the Little Mermaid remake (and I really wouldn’t want to because it would signal Disney to do it again) and somehow the trailer gave a totally wrong impression and it was actually a substantially different movie that you could understand why she was cast for it, say it had some social commentary or made some kind of interesting point, *that* would have to be the main thing I could see changing my mind.
Part of me still finds it hard to believe they made a live-action remake where the *only change* is someone’s skin colour, I think in another timeline Disney would be lampooned for exploitation and racism, so I feel like the trailer has to be an inaccurate representation of the movie being an exact remake.
That’s the only real thing I think could put egg on my face; if it’s not actually an exact remake and they did something clever and interesting, and I say “aaah,
that’s why they did this.. okay that makes sense”. But based on Disney’s recent live-action remakes being exactly the same and panned for being a total waste of time, and the only thing that got anyone’s attention from the trailer being someone’s skin colour, I think the cynical marketing ploy explanation is a lot more likely.