This week in Woke: Actresses justly cancelled for committing atrocities

[Bomb#20]

This is not a case of anyone's livelihood being lost. Halle Berry simply turned down a role, and in fact she is acting in two upcoming films.

Nobody said her livelihood had been lost -- she uttered the self-critical Woke pieties people sometimes utter in order to keep their livelihoods. But other livelihoods have been lost to Woke influence. Hollywood is awash with actors' complaints that their careers were damaged when it became generally aware they were unbelievers, and complaints that they've had to conceal their views because they know what happened to other actors who didn't; it's unlikely that Halle Berry is unaware of these.

You're assuming your conclusion as a premise. We don't know whether the convincing argument was "Someone else needs the role more than you" or "If you take this role, you can expect to be punished for it."

You are doing the same damn thing by insisting that "The Woke" threatened her with losing her livelihood if she didn't turn down the role when you just admitted that we don't know that.

Excuse me? Where did I insist on anything of the sort? I've been clear about my agnosticism; it was your side of this debate who insisted she was "fine with it"; I just asked for evidence. We don't know what was said to Ms. Berry. But whether threats were made to her personally or not is hardly material. Threats have been made to so many people, and enough have been carried out, that it would be perfectly sensible for her to feel threatened even if the specific people who raised the issue with her were entirely polite about it. It's perfectly plausible that she felt threatened; that hypothesis is sufficient to account for her uttering the customary pieties; therefore her utterance of the pieties is not evidence that she's "fine with it".

The POTUS is not my enemy. I don't think I would even call Trump my enemy, but I barely regard him as the POTUS anyway. Even if the POTUS in question were Obama, I would decry the injustice if he were blackballing actors and actresses for not being woke enough.

I can't see Obama doing that. He seems a decent fellow, unlike the current POTUS, and the Woke who use punishment as a debating tactic.

 

[Politesse]

Nobody said her livelihood had been lost -- she uttered the self-critical Woke pieties people sometimes utter in order to keep their livelihoods. But other livelihoods have been lost to Woke influence. Hollywood is awash with actors' complaints that their careers were damaged when it became generally aware they were unbelievers, and complaints that they've had to conceal their views because they know what happened to other actors who didn't; it's unlikely that Halle Berry is unaware of these.

So from your perspective, it's not an actor's job to make sure they're a marketable asset; it's the audience's not to "discriminate" against them for their political beliefs? That's not how Hollywood works. It's an industry, not a civil rights organization. And the audience never owes anyone a platform. Presumably the studio fully intended to draw in people interested in seeing films about trans people, else there would be no reason to make the film in the first place. It's in everyone's obvious self-interest to make a film that doesn't offend the very audience it is aimed at.

 

[KeepTalking]

Nobody said her livelihood had been lost -- she uttered the self-critical Woke pieties people sometimes utter in order to keep their livelihoods. But other livelihoods have been lost to Woke influence. Hollywood is awash with actors' complaints that their careers were damaged when it became generally aware they were unbelievers, and complaints that they've had to conceal their views because they know what happened to other actors who didn't; it's unlikely that Halle Berry is unaware of these.

Hollywood is awash with actors who have lost their livelihood from the woke, eh? Just no one you care to name at this time, is it?

You are doing the same damn thing by insisting that "The Woke" threatened her with losing her livelihood if she didn't turn down the role when you just admitted that we don't know that.

Excuse me? Where did I insist on anything of the sort? I've been clear about my agnosticism; it was your side of this debate who insisted she was "fine with it"; I just asked for evidence. We don't know what was said to Ms. Berry. But whether threats were made to her personally or not is hardly material. Threats have been made to so many people, and enough have been carried out, that it would be perfectly sensible for her to feel threatened even if the specific people who raised the issue with her were entirely polite about it. It's perfectly plausible that she felt threatened; that hypothesis is sufficient to account for her uttering the customary pieties; therefore her utterance of the pieties is not evidence that she's "fine with it".

Please use direct quotes when attempting to put words in my mouth. I don't believe I definitively said Halle Berry was "fine with it". I think I have been very clear in saying that we do not know exactly why she turned down the role.

The POTUS is not my enemy. I don't think I would even call Trump my enemy, but I barely regard him as the POTUS anyway. Even if the POTUS in question were Obama, I would decry the injustice if he were blackballing actors and actresses for not being woke enough.

I can't see Obama doing that. He seems a decent fellow, unlike the current POTUS, and the Woke who use punishment as a debating tactic.

I can't see him doing that either, but I am saying that any POTUS doing that would be cause for considerable alarm. "The Woke" engaging Halle Berry in a discussion about her role is not a cause for alarm, considerable or otherwise.

 

[Bomb#20]

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page

The New York City government has gone beyond suppressing speech, to compelling speech.

It is a law against discrimination, not a law that compels speech.

See, this is why it's impossible to take seriously your protestations that you'd be right beside me decrying the injustice if it were the government going after people's careers -- you won't see what the government does as a problem when you sympathize with its goals. Of course it's a law that compels speech. Exactly which part of

Examples of Violations
a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title.​

don't you understand?

 

[laughing dog]

There's no such goddamned thing as "the Woke". It's just an adjective.

Yes, conservatives and liberals exist, but it would be just as fricking insane to say that you, Berry, and Rowling, are all being persecuted by "The Liberal", or that you are one of "The Fascist" whom they are targeting.

You seem to be having difficulty with a peculiarity of our language's grammar. Is English not your mother tongue? Using the construction "the <adjective>" to refer to the overall set of people to whom an adjective applies is a standard English construction. For example, people say things like "We should raise taxes on the rich." and "Requiring addresses discriminates against the homeless." The reason English doesn't use that construction with the adjectives "Liberal" and "Fascist" is that those adjectives are also already nouns in their own right -- it's perfectly normal to call a person "a Liberal", or "a Fascist" -- so there's no reason not to call the generality of them "the Liberals" and "the Fascists". In contrast, "Woke" has not yet become a noun, so they aren't called "the Wokes".

So using the peculiarities of the English language, which do you think best indentifies the the OP and its defenders: "the Laughables", or "the Ridiculous" or "the False Alarmists"?

 

[KeepTalking]

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page

The New York City government has gone beyond suppressing speech, to compelling speech.

It is a law against discrimination, not a law that compels speech.

See, this is why it's impossible to take seriously your protestations that you'd be right beside me decrying the injustice if it were the government going after people's careers -- you won't see what the government does as a problem when you sympathize with its goals. Of course it's a law that compels speech. Exactly which part of

Examples of Violations
a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title.​

don't you understand?

Yes. I understand that the law is about discrimination against transgenders in employment, public accommodations, and public housing. And just like intentionally repeating the n-word when addressing a black person would be an act of racial discrimination, doing the above would be an act of transgender discrimination while hiring someone, providing public accommodations for someone, or providing public housing for someone. So long as you are not doing those things while hiring someone, providing public accommodations for someone, or providing public housing for someone, congratulations, you can be just as much as an asshole as you care to be, and insult them transgenders to your heart's content. So, like I said:

It is a law against discrimination, not a law that compels speech.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

Maybe back in the day. When Boys Don't Cry came out, it was made with a tiny budget. Brandon Teena never underwent medical transition. There wasn't a lot of precedent or social discourse for framing casting decisions. Hilary Swank, then unknown, was about as good a choice as any given the situation. That film, for many, was a form of exposure to transgender issues they had never had.

But eventually you end up with a pattern where even the sympathetic narratives are being told predominately by cisgender people. Hilary Swank, Felicity Huffman, Eddie Redmayne, Jeffrey Tambor, Matt Bomer. Scarlett Johansen was going to play Dante Gill, but backed out due to backlash not only over this role, but over playing Motoko Kusanagi in Ghost in the Shell as well.

Swank, Huffman, and Tambor won notable awards for their portrayals. Tambor even acknowledged the representation issue in his acceptance speech. Redmayne was nominated for many awards for his role, though he didn't win. He, also, was fully aware of the issue of representation at the time of making the film. Bomer was also aware.

I sure as hell am not claiming I am representative of Brandon Teena, Dante Gill, or Lili Elbe, nor that they are representative of me. But in order to take these roles, people like Redmayne and Huffman are drawing on the experiences of transgender people and creating a facsimile. While any one performance should be judged on its merits, when we keep repeating this pattern of cis people playing transgender characters, the end result is a depiction of transgender people which feels kinda superficial and off. It seems to increase in authenticity the more transgender people are actually involved in the creation process, but it still tends to feel a bit off.

And there are other issues besides. One of those issues is the transgender population is not hurting for competent story-tellers; we're just not as marketable as cisgender people. It's not that we can't talk; people have a really hard time listening. More cisgender people playing transgender roles is going to remedy that how? Due to our small numbers and historical (and in many cases current) disenfranchisement, there are always going to be challenges to being heard. The overwhelming majority of legislators, judiciaries, media personalities, pundits, and academics are going to be cisgender people. Even in the most egalitarian of scenarios, that's going to be the case due to numbers. Transgender voices are tiny quotes in articles, we are invited speakers, we are consultant credits, we are obscure indie art, we are tweets which are always interpreted as angry, but we aren't the main narrative in our own stories and experiences. Cis people talking for us... that's great in some scenarios when we don't have the opportunity to do ourselves, but it gets increasingly strange in those scenarios where we can meaningfully contribute to our own representation.

And while admittedly, this is a little petty, there is something odd about seeing a cisgender person getting awards and accolades for pretending to endure the suffering you experience. I count myself amongst the most privileged as far as transgender people go. When I say 'petty', I'm not talking about some deep, spiteful emotion. It's more of a "Well, that's a bit weird. Good for you, I guess?"

If Halle Berry had made this movie and it had done well for her? Great for her. She seems like a nice enough person. I don't think it would have broken her career. Redmayne, Tambor, and Bomer got through it fine, though maybe it would be different for a black woman or for an actress out of her peak fame. I don't know. But the primary beneficiary would have been her, those involved with the film, and audiences who enjoyed the performance. Nothing wrong with that. That's how it's supposed to work. It's just, I don't think transgender men or transgender people in general get much out of that, even if Berry's performance is sympathetic and compelling.

Representation of LGB people in film and television went (and to some extent is still going through) a very similar struggle.

And this is all only accounting for the sympathetic portrayals. It doesn't even touch on bs like La Mante.

Ok, so I've had chronic clinical depression. Electro-convulsive therapy and short stays in psychiatric institutions in my day, suicidal thoughts, etc. I've seen many films featuring depressed or suicidal characters, and to be quite honest, I don't think it's ever struck me to ask, or go and find out, if the actor playing them actually had depression, especially if the film is compelling and sensitive and the actor is doing a good job. I'm not entirely sure, but I can't recall running similar checks on actors playing homosexual characters either. At least not until joining this thread.

A counter-example would be an able-bodied person playing a wheelchair user. Joan Crawford did it to great acclaim in 'Whatever Happened to Baby Jane' I believe. And I don't think Ironside's Raymond Burr was an actual wheelchair user. Then there was Daniel Day-Lewis in 'My Left Foot'. But nowadays, I doubt it would be seen as ok, and to be honest it doesn't feel as if it should be. It feels as if they should, at least usually and if possible, get an actual wheelchair user. I don't think it would be being bad woke to suggest that. Though it might be good woke.

 

[Bomb#20]

...But other livelihoods have been lost to Woke influence. Hollywood is awash with actors' complaints that their careers were damaged when it became generally aware they were unbelievers...

Hollywood is awash with actors who have lost their livelihood from the woke, eh?

Literacy, look into it. As you can see, I said it was awash in complaints, not actors. There are more famous examples outside Hollywood of livelihoods lost to the depredations of the Woke, James Damore for instance; and Hollywood being a bubble notwithstanding, actors are unlikely to be unaware of those.

Just no one you care to name at this time, is it?

Antonio Sabato is one who's in the news currently.

Excuse me? Where did I insist on anything of the sort? I've been clear about my agnosticism; it was your side of this debate who insisted she was "fine with it"; I just asked for evidence. We don't know what was said to Ms. Berry. But whether threats were made to her personally or not is hardly material. Threats have been made to so many people, and enough have been carried out, that it would be perfectly sensible for her to feel threatened even if the specific people who raised the issue with her were entirely polite about it. It's perfectly plausible that she felt threatened; that hypothesis is sufficient to account for her uttering the customary pieties; therefore her utterance of the pieties is not evidence that she's "fine with it".

Please use direct quotes when attempting to put words in my mouth.

Please don't beat your wife. I did not put any words in your mouth. Please do not make trumped-up accusations.

I don't believe I definitively said Halle Berry was "fine with it".

And? I didn't say you did. Which part of "it was your side of this debate who insisted" don't you understand. It was Politesse who said it; are you denying that you and he are on the same side in this thread? I was pointing out which side the insistence came from -- your side. I did that because you falsely accused me of "insisting" -- that word is a direct quote from you -- that the Woke threatened her. You are the one who put words in my mouth. And now you have the gall to falsely accuse me of putting words in your mouth; and you do it by putting words in my mouth again! You are behaving poorly. Stop doing that.

I think I have been very clear in saying that we do not know exactly why she turned down the role.

Then we can agree to agree.

I can't see Obama doing that. He seems a decent fellow, unlike the current POTUS, and the Woke who use punishment as a debating tactic.

I can't see him doing that either, but I am saying that any POTUS doing that would be cause for considerable alarm.

Indeed so. Anybody who uses punishment as a debating tactic is a cause for alarm.

"The Woke" engaging Halle Berry in a discussion about her role is not a cause for alarm, considerable or otherwise.

Nobody indicated he was alarmed by Halle Berry having been engaged in a discussion.

 

[ruby sparks]

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page

The New York City government has gone beyond suppressing speech, to compelling speech.

It is a law against discrimination, not a law that compels speech.

This part struck me as a tad too much:

"Gender identity is the primary determinant of a person’s sex."

 

[KeepTalking]

Literacy, look into it. As you can see, I said it was awash in complaints, not actors.

Not being an asshole, look into it.

There are more famous examples outside Hollywood of livelihoods lost to the depredations of the Woke, James Damore for instance; and Hollywood being a bubble notwithstanding, actors are unlikely to be unaware of those.

Ah, James Damore is it. You are going to have to do better than that. IIRC, he has twice dropped his lawsuits against Google, and when he complained to the labor board it was determined that he was dismissed with cause for violating the code of conduct that he signed.

Just no one you care to name at this time, is it?

Antonio Sabato is one who's in the news currently.

There is a lot of shit in that link about Sabato complaining that conservatives and christians cannot get jobs in Hollywood, but I see a lot of conservative and christian actors and actresses working still, so that can't be true. What he doesn't ever do is point to any incident where someone who can be described as "The Woke" got him effectively blacklisted. It seems being a shitty soap actor and an asshole to boot is all it takes for the jobs to dry up in that town, what a shame.

Excuse me? Where did I insist on anything of the sort? I've been clear about my agnosticism; it was your side of this debate who insisted she was "fine with it"; I just asked for evidence. We don't know what was said to Ms. Berry. But whether threats were made to her personally or not is hardly material. Threats have been made to so many people, and enough have been carried out, that it would be perfectly sensible for her to feel threatened even if the specific people who raised the issue with her were entirely polite about it. It's perfectly plausible that she felt threatened; that hypothesis is sufficient to account for her uttering the customary pieties; therefore her utterance of the pieties is not evidence that she's "fine with it".

Please use direct quotes when attempting to put words in my mouth.

Please don't beat your wife. I did not put any words in your mouth. Please do not make trumped-up accusations.

You know what you did, it is right fucking there in black and white. Nothing trumped up about it, you accused me of using words I did not use. Now get off your goddamn high horse, and stop throwing around insults (like the one you started your post with) while you're at it.

"The Woke" engaging Halle Berry in a discussion about her role is not a cause for alarm, considerable or otherwise.

Nobody indicated he was alarmed by Halle Berry having been engaged in a discussion.

Then what was the point of this thread, and your participation in it?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Excuse me? Where did I insist on anything of the sort? I've been clear about my agnosticism; it was your side of this debate who insisted she was "fine with it"; I just asked for evidence. We don't know what was said to Ms. Berry. But whether threats were made to her personally or not is hardly material. Threats have been made to so many people, and enough have been carried out, that it would be perfectly sensible for her to feel threatened even if the specific people who raised the issue with her were entirely polite about it. It's perfectly plausible that she felt threatened; that hypothesis is sufficient to account for her uttering the customary pieties; therefore her utterance of the pieties is not evidence that she's "fine with it".

Please use direct quotes when attempting to put words in my mouth. I don't believe I definitively said Halle Berry was "fine with it". I think I have been very clear in saying that we do not know exactly why she turned down the role.

Actually, you said:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ing-atrocities&p=811125&viewfull=1#post811125

You also noted that the attempt failed, and that is because "The Woke" actually did not have any power to get you fired. Whether you like it or not, this is analogous to the fact that "The Woke" in your OP also had no power to compel Halle Barry to give up her role or lose her livelihood, they merely presented her with an argument that she found compelling.

So, you did say she found the argument compelling. But you do not know that. Maybe she did. Maybe she did not.

 

[KeepTalking]

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page

The New York City government has gone beyond suppressing speech, to compelling speech.

It is a law against discrimination, not a law that compels speech.

This part struck me as a tad too much:

"Gender identity is the primary determinant of a person’s sex."

Whether it is or not, that doesn't make it a law that compels speech.

 

[KeepTalking]

Actually, you said:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ing-atrocities&p=811125&viewfull=1#post811125

You also noted that the attempt failed, and that is because "The Woke" actually did not have any power to get you fired. Whether you like it or not, this is analogous to the fact that "The Woke" in your OP also had no power to compel Halle Barry to give up her role or lose her livelihood, they merely presented her with an argument that she found compelling.

So, you did say she found the argument compelling. But you do not know that. Maybe she did. Maybe she did not.

My apologies then, as I was imprecise in my language. What I meant to say would be "when for all we know they merely presented her with an argument that she found compelling".

 

[ruby sparks]

This part struck me as a tad too much:

"Gender identity is the primary determinant of a person’s sex."

Whether it is or not, that doesn't make it a law that compels speech.

Hm. I think it is, actually, as far as I can see (I did only skim it).

The more interesting and difficult question, I think, is whether or not it is a good or right thing that it does that.

 

[starwater]

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).

You are correct. I misread the original post. My apologies.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This part struck me as a tad too much:

"Gender identity is the primary determinant of a person’s sex."

Whether it is or not, that doesn't make it a law that compels speech.

Hm. I think it is, actually, as far as I can see (I did only skim it).

The more interesting and difficult question, I think, is whether or not it is a good or right thing that it does that.

It's very obvious that it compels speech if you look at the quote B20 provided. An example of a violation is to refuse to say such-and-such things. Either you say what the law dictates, or you are in violation of the law.

 

[KeepTalking]

This part struck me as a tad too much:

"Gender identity is the primary determinant of a person’s sex."

Whether it is or not, that doesn't make it a law that compels speech.

Hm. I think it is, actually, as far as I can see (I did only skim it).

It doesn't. What it does is define transgender discrimination, and disallow that when hiring, providing public accommodations, and providing public housing. I think that we would all agree that repeatedly using the n-word when hiring, providing public accommodations to, or providing public housing to an African American would be an example of discrimination against that person, and this is the same thing with regard to transgender discrimination.

The more interesting and difficult question, I think, is whether or not it is a good or right thing that it does that.

Providing protection from discrimination for transgenders? Yes, it is a good thing that it does that.

 

[KeepTalking]

Hm. I think it is, actually, as far as I can see (I did only skim it).

The more interesting and difficult question, I think, is whether or not it is a good or right thing that it does that.

It's very obvious that it compels speech if you look at the quote B20 provided. An example of a violation is to refuse to say such-and-such things. Either you say what the law dictates, or you are in violation of the law.

No. You are incorrect. Looking at Bomb's quote in isolation will inform you of nothing. Visit the link and read it for yourself, then come back and we can discuss it if you still think it compels speech.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That the law compels speech is not a consequence of how they define 'gender' or other words. It's because a person breaks the law if they don't say what they are commanded to say, and there is punishment for that (what specific speech is actually commanded is not what makes it compelled speech).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Hm. I think it is, actually, as far as I can see (I did only skim it).

The more interesting and difficult question, I think, is whether or not it is a good or right thing that it does that.

It's very obvious that it compels speech if you look at the quote B20 provided. An example of a violation is to refuse to say such-and-such things. Either you say what the law dictates, or you are in violation of the law.

No. You are incorrect. Looking at Bomb's quote in isolation will inform you of nothing. Visit the link and read it for yourself, then come back and we can discuss it if you still think it compels speech.

I read it, of course. It is compelled speech.