This week in Woke: Actresses justly cancelled for committing atrocities

[Metaphor]

Why should I? I am not the one making the argument. If you think Conor Daily and NASCAR are pertinent to this discussion, you need to explain why. I don't watch NASCAR, and I don't know who Conor Daily is.

Conor Daily lost a sponsorship deal because of something his father said before Conor was born. Like any good religious theocracy, the sins of the parents are visited upon the sons in Wokistan.

If you have reserved judgement, why are you letting it inform your fear of "The Woke"?

I've already explained.

As many have pointed out in response, the things that are known about Halle Berry's interactions with "The Woke" in no way resemble the normal meaning of the word "duress".

I don't doubt you don't feel duress, since you appear to agree with the Woke in the first place.

 

[KeepTalking]

Did "The Woke" get anyone fired, or did the actions people took get them fired when they came to light? This is where you might want to present evidence of "The Woke" getting people fired unjustly. I'll wait.

This guy got fired because he was called racist after he used the term "guerilla":

https://nypost.com/2020/01/25/espn-...er-still-paying-for-absurd-racist-accusation/

I'm not sure how much "The Woke" had to do with getting this guy fired. He was fired for what he said on air, while doing his job. As it turns out, he sued ESPN for wrongful termination, and won a settlement. That does not bode well for those who are pushing fear due to how powerful "The Woke" are.

 

[KeepTalking]

It seems to me that the fear you express is unfounded, and Halle Berry declining a transgender role after entertaining an argument put forward by actual transgender people in no way lends any legitimacy to that fear.

No single event would.

Really? So, if "The Woke" were to gain enough power to enact a law that imprisons conservatives for expressing their ideology, that would not be an event that proves your fears? I mean, it's not going to happen, so I am glad you have not withdrawn far enough into your fear bubble to believe that such and event would happen, but you seem to be quite lacking in imagination.

What's irrational about it?

It is inherently irrational to allow ignorance to inform your fears. It is an emotional response, which is the opposite of a rational (reasoned) response.

Either she found the argument compelling, which is bad, because the argument is nonsense, or she didn't find it compelling but kowtowed to the Woke, which is worse.

Just because you find the argument to be nonsense does not mean it is nonsense. You apparently believe you are making a sensible argument now, an argument spawned in ignorance and promoting fear, yet many people are telling you that it is nonsense. For those of us who can see the irrationality of your argument, what you think is bad when it comes to a compelling argument is quite laughable.

Good, I'm glad we cleared that up. I am still perplexed, however, as to why you think Helle Berry (and ostensibly most actors/actresses) should not have been allowed to make the decision she made.

Really, how do you understand my post to mean Berry ought not have been allowed to make the decision she made?

Because you omitted actors and actresses from those who you said should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding casting roles, and as noted, i do not want to put words in your mouth. You are still dancing around saying it outright, so maybe you could do that and clear things up for good.

Remember, you have only expressed that you believe that screenwriters, directors, and casting directors should be allowed to make those decisions, and I would hate to put words in your mouth.

No. I think screenwriters, directors and casting directors should have the artistic say in who they want to appear in their films. They've got no right to compel somebody to appear. How on earth could you think that from what I've said?

As noted, it was conspicuous omission, and I am still waiting for you to acknowledge that actors and actresses should be able to make their own decisions regarding accepting or declining roles. You are inching ever closer to it, at least you don't think screenwriters, directors or casting directors have the right to compel them. But for some reason your OP seems to indicate that Halle Berry should have been compelled to take that role, and the fact that she declined it means "The Woke" are threatening our liberty.

Of course, I suspect even directors don't have that power any more, if they ever did. The producer can fire a director so the producer ultimately has all the power.

You mean the way the movie industry has always been?

 

[KeepTalking]

Conor Daily lost a sponsorship deal because of something his father said before Conor was born. Like any good religious theocracy, the sins of the parents are visited upon the sons in Wokistan.

Why should I take your word for it? Please provide a link to support your argument.

If you have reserved judgement, why are you letting it inform your fear of "The Woke"?

I've already explained.

Your explanation that no single event would ever lend legitimacy to your fears is sorely lacking, as there are certainly many such single events that would do so. As such I do not accept it as a plausible explanation for allowing an event to inform your fears, which you have admitted does not lend legitimacy to your fears.

As many have pointed out in response, the things that are known about Halle Berry's interactions with "The Woke" in no way resemble the normal meaning of the word "duress".

I don't doubt you don't feel duress, since you appear to agree with the Woke in the first place.

Why do you think I should feel duress? Do you feel duress that your argument here is being criticized?

 

[laughing dog]

The claim that Ms. Berry was under duress from "the Woke" is pure evidence-free conjecture.

 

[Metaphor]

Really? So, if "The Woke" were to gain enough power to enact a law that imprisons conservatives for expressing their ideology, that would not be an event that proves your fears? I mean, it's not going to happen, so I am glad you have not withdrawn far enough into your fear bubble to believe that such and event would happen, but you seem to be quite lacking in imagination.

No, I'm saying that it's not about any single event. It's about the steady accumulation of events.

It is inherently irrational to allow ignorance to inform your fears. It is an emotional response, which is the opposite of a rational (reasoned) response.

But it's not ignorance informing it. I had made that quite clear. One of the two events is happened, and one is bad and the other worse.

Just because you find the argument to be nonsense does not mean it is nonsense. You apparently believe you are making a sensible argument now, an argument spawned in ignorance and promoting fear, yet many people are telling you that it is nonsense. For those of us who can see the irrationality of your argument, what you think is bad when it comes to a compelling argument is quite laughable.

I find the argument to be nonsense. It is not irrational then to not want people to accept the argument, even if I'm mistaken about the argument being nonsense.

Because you omitted actors and actresses from those who you said should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding casting roles, and as noted, i do not want to put words in your mouth. You are still dancing around saying it outright, so maybe you could do that and clear things up for good.

I don't know how you are confused. If you think I think actors should either be compelled to act in roles they don't want to act in, or that actors ought have the power to compel directors to cast them, I don't know what to say to you. That's insane and completely disconnected from anything I've ever said.

As noted, it was conspicuous omission,

No, it wasn't a conspicuous admission. That's like if I said 'all I want at the moment is to get through this corporate meeting" and you saying "oh, so you don't want to be free from being tortured for eternity?"

and I am still waiting for you to acknowledge that actors and actresses should be able to make their own decisions regarding accepting or declining roles. You are inching ever closer to it, at least you don't think screenwriters, directors or casting directors have the right to compel them. But for some reason your OP seems to indicate that Halle Berry should have been compelled to take that role, and the fact that she declined it means "The Woke" are threatening our liberty.

No actor should be compelled to take a role, and nothing I wrote implied that. Quite why you imagine I do think that, I can't tell you.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, I'm saying that it's not about any single event. It's about the steady accumulation of events.

I fail to see how a stream of events that do not individually lend legitimacy to your fears could collectively do so. They would at least have to individually add some legitimacy to your fears for them to accumulate as such, otherwise how would you know which events to accumulate?

But it's not ignorance informing it. I had made that quite clear. One of the two events is happened, and one is bad and the other worse.

You have made the opposite quite clear. You are ignorant as to whether or not Halle Berry was merely swayed by an argument, or did so under threat of her livelihood.

Now, I will accept for the sake of argument that Halle Berry was swayed by a bad argument from "The Woke". How does her having done so inform your fear that "The Woke" are exerting undue influence over law and culture? Do you feel that Halle Berry is somehow indicative of mainstream culture, or that accepting bad arguments from "The Woke" might somehow become codified into law?

Just because you find the argument to be nonsense does not mean it is nonsense. You apparently believe you are making a sensible argument now, an argument spawned in ignorance and promoting fear, yet many people are telling you that it is nonsense. For those of us who can see the irrationality of your argument, what you think is bad when it comes to a compelling argument is quite laughable.

I find the argument to be nonsense. It is not irrational then to not want people to accept the argument, even if I'm mistaken about the argument being nonsense.

I never said that it was irrational to want to convince people of your argument. On the other hand, I do find that your trying to convince others with your argument that "The Woke" convincing people with their arguments is something that should be feared is quite irrational.

Because you omitted actors and actresses from those who you said should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding casting roles, and as noted, i do not want to put words in your mouth. You are still dancing around saying it outright, so maybe you could do that and clear things up for good.

I don't know how you are confused. If you think I think actors should either be compelled to act in roles they don't want to act in, or that actors ought have the power to compel directors to cast them, I don't know what to say to you. That's insane and completely disconnected from anything I've ever said.

No actor should be compelled to take a role

Actors? What about actresses? Halle Berry is an actress. Isn't this thread about Halle Berry? Why are you so generous with everyone except for her?

and nothing I wrote implied that. Quite why you imagine I do think that, I can't tell you.

It is the way you have gone about it. You have allowed that certain people with certain job descriptions that are not actresses and are not Halle Berry should be able to make those decisions, but you never quite get around to making the same allowance for actresses in general, or Halle Berry specifically. You inch closer with each post, but after half a dozen posts where you could have easily just come out and made the statement that Halle Berry as an actress can make her own damn decisions, you still haven't done that.

 

[starwater]

Well thank G`D you are an expert on her career where she can only play "beautiful" women. Misogynistic much?

Not really challenging the description of Misogynistic... just not sure why that particular comment seems misogynistic to you.

Because Metaphor only thinks beautiful women can play beautiful women. He has decided what is beautiful and HE has decided for a women that is all she is able to do. It appears to be his decision and not hers because she in his view is incapable of making career decisions herself.

 

[J842P]

Well thank G`D you are an expert on her career where she can only play "beautiful" women. Misogynistic much?

Not really challenging the description of Misogynistic... just not sure why that particular comment seems misogynistic to you.

Because Metaphor only thinks beautiful women can play beautiful women. He has decided what is beautiful and HE has decided for a women that is all she is able to do. It appears to be his decision and not hers because she in his view is incapable of making career decisions herself.

In the context of the thread, this was clearly satirizing the opposing position that only minorities should be able to play minorities (in this case, only a transwoman should be able to play a transwoman).

 

[Emily Lake]

I personally think it's silly to insist that a cisgender person shouldn't be allowed to play a transgender role. A big name cisgender star will draw a larger crowd, and garner more support for the cause than a no-name transgender actor will.

She is allowed to do it. None of us are in a position to grant or deny her permission. Personally, I'm not deeply concerned with this issue, though I have a passing interest in it. I won't be sending messages asking cisgender actors not to take roles portraying transgender characters. I won't be boycotting those actors if they do take these roles. I'd just rather they held off for the next decade or so. Society is slowly warming up to transgender actors--mostly on television. Transgender characters are slowly becoming more normalized. We're becoming more than sex workers, suffering porn and the punchline to jokes.

I can see that perspective. I just tend to think that Tom Hanks did a lot of good portraying a sympathetic gay guy, even though he's straight. If the portrayal and the story resonate with audiences in a positive way, and builds sympathy, I'd think that would be worth doing.

On the off-topic of porn... What the hell is up with all of my video game porn having penises stuck on the female characters? I'm not opposed to penises as a general thing, I'm just baffled that it's so prevalent.

 

[Emily Lake]

Did "The Woke" get anyone fired, or did the actions people took get them fired when they came to light? This is where you might want to present evidence of "The Woke" getting people fired unjustly. I'll wait.

This guy got fired because he was called racist after he used the term "guerilla":

https://nypost.com/2020/01/25/espn-...er-still-paying-for-absurd-racist-accusation/

I'm not sure how much "The Woke" had to do with getting this guy fired. He was fired for what he said on air, while doing his job. As it turns out, he sued ESPN for wrongful termination, and won a settlement. That does not bode well for those who are pushing fear due to how powerful "The Woke" are.

This is an odd interpretation of that case. What is it that you think he said that got him fired? Do you feel that his firing was in any way reasonable? And do you think ESPN just up and fired him of their own volition, or do you think there might have been a bit of pressure to do so?

 

[Emily Lake]

Well thank G`D you are an expert on her career where she can only play "beautiful" women. Misogynistic much?

Not really challenging the description of Misogynistic... just not sure why that particular comment seems misogynistic to you.

Because Metaphor only thinks beautiful women can play beautiful women. He has decided what is beautiful and HE has decided for a women that is all she is able to do. It appears to be his decision and not hers because she in his view is incapable of making career decisions herself.

Huh. I think you missed some sarcasm in his post.

 

[Jokodo]

Did "The Woke" get anyone fired, or did the actions people took get them fired when they came to light? This is where you might want to present evidence of "The Woke" getting people fired unjustly. I'll wait.

This guy got fired because he was called racist after he used the term "guerilla":

https://nypost.com/2020/01/25/espn-...er-still-paying-for-absurd-racist-accusation/

Seems like a relevant story, but I don't speak Drunken Rant, and don't have enough beer in the house to learn it tonight. You wouldn't happen to have a source that details the main storyline in regular English (or German, Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian; hell, even Slovenian, Spanish, Russian, Italian or Dutch might be easier to process than this).

 

[KeepTalking]

I'm not sure how much "The Woke" had to do with getting this guy fired. He was fired for what he said on air, while doing his job. As it turns out, he sued ESPN for wrongful termination, and won a settlement. That does not bode well for those who are pushing fear due to how powerful "The Woke" are.

This is an odd interpretation of that case. What is it that you think he said that got him fired?

When spoken, the words "gorilla" and "guerrilla" sound the same, and that is what he said that got him fired, that is not in dispute.

Do you feel that his firing was in any way reasonable?

No, I don't think it was reasonable, and when he sued for wrongful termination the court apparently agreed.

And do you think ESPN just up and fired him of their own volition, or do you think there might have been a bit of pressure to do so?

I can't speak to exactly why ESPN fired him, as I have no knowledge of their internal deliberations and neither does anyone else in this thread. I do know that it is not a case where "The Woke" would have had to go out of their way to tell ESPN what happened, he said what he said on the air while doing his job, so the involvement of "The Woke" was not necessary for this to have happened.

 

[ruby sparks]

That seems an odd interpretation. He was called out by an NYT journalist it says, for what seems like no good reason.

Looks like woke going way too far to me.

 

[Metaphor]

I fail to see how a stream of events that do not individually lend legitimacy to your fears could collectively do so.

Really? You've never seen a whole greater than the sum of its parts? You don't see how a cookie won't hurt you but three bags of cookies would?

They would at least have to individually add some legitimacy to your fears for them to accumulate as such, otherwise how would you know which events to accumulate?

Sure, they're individually annoying too. There's a difference between the occassional violent act and a crime epidemic, isn't there?

You have made the opposite quite clear. You are ignorant as to whether or not Halle Berry was merely swayed by an argument, or did so under threat of her livelihood.

Yes, I made that quite clear. I don't know if Halle Berry was swayed by the argument or not. I said it several times.

That doesn't mean I am afraid 'out of ignorance'. It means that either scenario is bad.

Now, I will accept for the sake of argument that Halle Berry was swayed by a bad argument from "The Woke". How does her having done so inform your fear that "The Woke" are exerting undue influence over law and culture? Do you feel that Halle Berry is somehow indicative of mainstream culture, or that accepting bad arguments from "The Woke" might somehow become codified into law?

Yes: the Woke are exerting influence over law and culture that I do not like. I've said it many times.

And of course that which is accepted by the majority, or an influential minority in the culture, makes its way into law. But law isn't the only worry. The Woke have power without it.

I never said that it was irrational to want to convince people of your argument. On the other hand, I do find that your trying to convince others with your argument that "The Woke" convincing people with their arguments is something that should be feared is quite irrational.

I don't think you understand what 'irrational' means. If I valued public health thought the Woke were COVID-19 superspreaders, it'd be rational for me to tell people to stay away from them. It would be rational even if my original belief was mistaken.

Actors? What about actresses? Halle Berry is an actress. Isn't this thread about Halle Berry? Why are you so generous with everyone except for her?

Bye troll.

 

[KeepTalking]

Really? You've never seen a whole greater than the sum of its parts? You don't see how a cookie won't hurt you but three bags of cookies would?

Sure, I agree with both of those things, but in this case the part does not fit the whole. You have admitted that this event does not lend legitimacy to your fears of "The Woke", so it isn't a cookie, it's a fucking vegetable, and it won't contribute to the cookie bag.

You have made the opposite quite clear. You are ignorant as to whether or not Halle Berry was merely swayed by an argument, or did so under threat of her livelihood.

Yes, I made that quite clear. I don't know if Halle Berry was swayed by the argument or not. I said it several times.

That doesn't mean I am afraid 'out of ignorance'. It means that either scenario is bad.

So let me get this straight. One thing that you think is bad is that someone engaged Halle Berry in a discussion on the internet about a role she was considering, and this led to her changing her mind and declining a role. You are say this is bad while you are engaging me in a discussion on the internet in an attempt to get me to change my mind about "The Woke". Some might call that hypocrisy.

Now, I will accept for the sake of argument that Halle Berry was swayed by a bad argument from "The Woke". How does her having done so inform your fear that "The Woke" are exerting undue influence over law and culture? Do you feel that Halle Berry is somehow indicative of mainstream culture, or that accepting bad arguments from "The Woke" might somehow become codified into law?

Yes: the Woke are exerting influence over law and culture that I do not like. I've said it many times.

Then you are tilting at windmills. This is not an example of "The Woke" influencing law, and I doubt that the culture of Hollywood actresses is very representative of anyone else. The thing about culture though, is that it changes based upon the people who make up that culture, so everyone influences culture. If "The Woke" exist, they will influence culture, just as I am sure that some group you associate with influences culture.

And of course that which is accepted by the majority, or an influential minority in the culture, makes its way into law. But law isn't the only worry. The Woke have power without it.

Just not in any way you have been able to demonstrate in this thread. Right.

I never said that it was irrational to want to convince people of your argument. On the other hand, I do find that your trying to convince others with your argument that "The Woke" convincing people with their arguments is something that should be feared is quite irrational.

I don't think you understand what 'irrational' means. If I valued public health thought the Woke were COVID-19 superspreaders, it'd be rational for me to tell people to stay away from them. It would be rational even if my original belief was mistaken.

But it wouldn't be rational if you were a superspreader, and you were approaching people on the street to tell them that. You are complaining that "The Woke" were able to convince Halle Berry of their argument, while trying to convince everyone on the board of your argument. You are that which you hate.

Actors? What about actresses? Halle Berry is an actress. Isn't this thread about Halle Berry? Why are you so generous with everyone except for her?

Bye troll.

You could have just said that Halle Berry is allowed to make her own decisions regarding the roles she accepts.

I'm not sure why it is so hard for you to say that, but, bye, I guess.

 

[Metaphor]

Sure, I agree with both of those things, but in this case the part does not fit the whole. You have admitted that this event does not lend legitimacy to your fears of "The Woke", so it isn't a cookie, it's a fucking vegetable, and it won't contribute to the cookie bag.

And a raindrop isn't harmful on its own, but a flood is.

This single incident does not justify my fear of the Woke. The accumulation of incidents does.

So let me get this straight. One thing that you think is bad is that someone engaged Halle Berry in a discussion on the internet about a role she was considering, and this led to her changing her mind and declining a role. You are say this is bad while you are engaging me in a discussion on the internet in an attempt to get me to change my mind about "The Woke". Some might call that hypocrisy.

People who don't have any sense of nuance might call it hypocrisy.

When a snake oil merchant attempts to persuade a cancer patients that all they need is olive oil and the right feng shui to repair the damp heat in their qi, that's bad. When a doctor attempts to persuade a cancer patient that what they need to do is follow instructions from the evidence-based medicine team, that's not bad.

But it wouldn't be rational if you were a superspreader, and you were approaching people on the street to tell them that. You are complaining that "The Woke" were able to convince Halle Berry of their argument, while trying to convince everyone on the board of your argument. You are that which you hate.

It would be irrational if I were a superspreader and knew it.

 

[KeepTalking]

And a raindrop isn't harmful on its own, but a flood is.

Yes, and one tree does not make a forest. Let us keep throwing out analogies about things that add up. Meanwhile, you have admitted that the issue raised in the OP does not lend legitimacy to your fear, so it cannot be a thing that adds up to that fear. It may add up to another fear, but you would need to articulate that fear, and explain how the OP lends legitimacy to that fear.

This single incident does not justify my fear of the Woke. The accumulation of incidents does.

You seem fond of analogies about adding things up, so maybe this one will help. If you are adding up a bushel of apples, and come across an orange, you do not say "well, this isn't an apple, but it can add up to a bushel, so I will add it to my bushel of apples. The issue in the OP is an orange, and you are trying to add it to the bushel of apples that you fear.

When a snake oil merchant attempts to persuade a cancer patients that all they need is olive oil and the right feng shui to repair the damp heat in their qi, that's bad. When a doctor attempts to persuade a cancer patient that what they need to do is follow instructions from the evidence-based medicine team, that's not bad.

Oh, so you're the doctor trying to cure the patient (the world) of cancer ("The Woke")? Conceited much?

But it wouldn't be rational if you were a superspreader, and you were approaching people on the street to tell them that. You are complaining that "The Woke" were able to convince Halle Berry of their argument, while trying to convince everyone on the board of your argument. You are that which you hate.

It would be irrational if I were a superspreader and knew it.

Dude, you are a superspreader. Just look at how many threads you have started in this forum freaking out about "The Woke".

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, and one tree does not make a forest. Let us keep throwing out analogies about things that add up. Meanwhile, you have admitted that the issue raised in the OP does not lend legitimacy to your fear, so it cannot be a thing that adds up to that fear.

Yes, it can. You can stop parading your fallacy of division as if it were a legitimate argument. If Halle Berry backing out of a transgender role was the only thing the Woke had ever done, I wouldn't be afraid of them.

Oh, so you're the doctor trying to cure the patient (the world) of cancer ("The Woke")? Conceited much?

Perhaps my analogy would not have needed to be so stark if you had any concept of nuance and I hadn't already tried to explain it once before already. Yet you would insist on (deliberately) missing the obvious.

Dude, you are a superspreader. Just look at how many threads you have started in this forum freaking out about "The Woke".

If only it were so. Woke is a disease and I don't know the cure.