Chinese anti-black racism

[Metaphor]

I would very much like to know why metaphor feels so compelled to write with so much obvious vinegar about so many LGBT characters appearing on television, even after the vast majority of media in our world is completely devoid of such, even with this recent uptick.

When Jarhyn addresses me directly, I might feel like responding to his false perceptions. But since he won't, I won't.

 

[TomC]

I really just want to know why Metaphor seems to want less representation in films.

This is exactly the kind of dishonesty I get angry about.
Tom

 

[Toni]

On the right is the original - on the right side is "Finn" - a black character

Anyway. The black Character is still there. Who they actually removed was Chewbacca.

You're right!!! Well it was a YouTube video who said that Finn was removed so I believed them....

Finn's original level of prominence was reduced in the Chinese poster compared the original American poster, and it was indeed to cater to Chinese audiences.

In your eyes that's the case. In my eyes the Chinese version seems more symmetrical. If they did it for the reasons you claim how do you explain Chewie getting the and not the Finn?

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies. Ever wondered why that is? Because American blockbuster movies need to be marketed all over the world, especially China.

The boulders part is the part I responded to.

Yes, I know.

Yes, it was part of a larger sentence

No, that it was merely part of a larger sentence is not the point. You can respond to a partial sentence where the rest of the sentence does not fundamentally alter the part of the sentence fragment you are responding to.

but the idea of ‘queer’ characters being saturated or over represented or whatever in American television struck me as interesting. I had not noticed or considered that.

This was not an attempt at anything except to get more information.

The End.

Well, I gave you more information.

And a lot of anger that I think was unwarranted.

In no way was I attempting to alter or detract from the larger sentence or it’s meaning.

 

[TomC]

In no way was I attempting to alter or detract from the larger sentence or it’s meaning.

Nevertheless,
You, Jarhyn, and Jimmy all managed to alter and detract from what Metaphor actually said.

It's right there in this thread.

As usual, you got your way. Hand wave away lies from Wokesters. Pretend that what you posted isn't what you meant, while getting all semantic about what Metaphor posted.
Tom

 

[Toni]

In no way was I attempting to alter or detract from the larger sentence or it’s meaning.

Nevertheless,
You, Jarhyn, and Jimmy all managed to alter and detract from what Metaphor actually said.

It's right there in this thread.

As usual, you got your way. Hand wave away lies from Wokesters. Pretend that what you posted isn't what you meant, while getting all semantic about what Metaphor posted.
Tom

No such thing.

What I posted is what I meant: I really was interested in stats ( which I assumed Metaphor had) or source or more information. I I just inquired about an idea that had never occurred to me.
The End.

I don’t think I even noticed it was Metaphor’s post.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In no way was I attempting to alter or detract from the larger sentence or it’s meaning.

Nevertheless,
You, Jarhyn, and Jimmy all managed to alter and detract from what Metaphor actually said.

Good luck actually showing I did that. You are now guilty of what you are complaining about. I am confident in my opinion as to why.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm not certain why people are getting so angry over vinegar. Vinaigrette, okay, but vinegar? Grow thicker skin!

OK.
Those of us who don't respond well to being lied about should "grow thicker skin".

I would say "I don't understand why @Jarhyn and @Toni and similar IIDB posters do that so regularly."
But I'd be lying if I did.
Tom

Oh goody... I understood that post. I don't understand why you responded to my post so seriously though. But I guess beggars can't be choosers.

But you didn't respond to it.
You responded to a dishonest mischaracterization of what he posted.

Why do you think that IIDB posters like you and Toni and Jarhyn so regularly respond with deceit and mischaracterization?

I have a very confident opinion.
Tom

My opinion is you're not being fair to Jimmy -- he was just making a pretty bad pun; and he only rarely responds with deceit and mischaracterization. And he was raised by wolves.

The IIDB posters you're being fair to appear to do it because they were raised by a tribalistic religion that trains its adherents to regard unbelievers as an outgroup who aren't entitled to basic moral consideration. It's a meme that evolved to more effectively propagate itself by optimizing its ability to turn the people it infects into bullies. Trumping up fabricated charges against those uppity enough to dispute it serves as an object lesson to other unbelievers, who lapse into silence in order to avoid unrelenting vilification. Uninfected people in the vicinity thereby get exposed to the religion's propaganda but not to counterarguments, and consequently provide a continuing supply of new believers.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not certain why people are getting so angry over vinegar. Vinaigrette, okay, but vinegar? Grow thicker skin!

OK.
Those of us who don't respond well to being lied about should "grow thicker skin".

I would say "I don't understand why @Jarhyn and @Toni and similar IIDB posters do that so regularly."
But I'd be lying if I did.
Tom

Oh goody... I understood that post. I don't understand why you responded to my post so seriously though. But I guess beggars can't be choosers.

But you didn't respond to it.
You responded to a dishonest mischaracterization of what he posted.

Why do you think that IIDB posters like you and Toni and Jarhyn so regularly respond with deceit and mischaracterization?

I have a very confident opinion.
Tom

My opinion is you're not being fair to Jimmy -- he was just making a pretty bad pun; and he only rarely responds with deceit and mischaracterization. And he was raised by wolves.

The IIDB posters you're being fair to appear to do it because they were raised by a tribalistic religion that trains its adherents to regard unbelievers as an outgroup who aren't entitled to basic moral consideration. It's a meme that evolved to more effectively propagate itself by optimizing its ability to turn the people it infects into bullies. Trumping up fabricated charges against those uppity enough to dispute it serves as an object lesson to other unbelievers, who lapse into silence in order to avoid unrelenting vilification. Uninfected people in the vicinity thereby get exposed to the religion's propaganda but not to counterarguments, and consequently provide a continuing supply of new believers.

Project much?

 

[laughing dog]

In no way was I attempting to alter or detract from the larger sentence or it’s meaning.

Nevertheless,
You, Jarhyn, and Jimmy all managed to alter and detract from what Metaphor actually said.

It's right there in this thread.

As usual, you got your way. Hand wave away lies from Wokesters. Pretend that what you posted isn't what you meant, while getting all semantic about what Metaphor posted.
Tom

Let me get this straight - you are making accusation in a hullabaloo about gays or LGTBQs being oversaturated on US TV with in a thread about Chinese anti-black racism by portraying a wilful ignorance of the terms “lies@ and “Wokesters”.

I am as guilty as you and our fellow tribalists in this pointless and stupid derail, because if you think about it, should anyone really give a rats ass?

 

[Bomb#20]

In post 54, I explain to you why your reformulation was wrong. Not morally wrong, simply factually wrong. Please read post 54 and try to understand why your reformulation was wrong. I don't know what else to add.

I understand WHY you think I was wrong.

No you don't. If you understood why then you wouldn't have included the words "you think". You were wrong, full stop.

Again, I only responded to one idea that I found interesting/surprising. It was not a reflection on your powers of reasoning or your writing capability or anything else except that I asked about one small fragment of what was written.

I did not intend to offend you or misrepresent you.

No, of course you didn't; but you misrepresented him all the same, because you were careless and didn't reread what you wrote in context and think about the impression about what he had asserted it would leave your readers with.

But that's an insignificant issue. The significant issue here is that Metaphor appears to have overreacted to your misrepresentation when he attributed to malice what can be explained by stupidity; but he overreacted because he has been sensitized to that sort of thing by your long-established practice of ruthlessly strawmanning him.

I don't have any particular animosity towards you, except that your habit of reacting so extremely whenever I fail to meet whatever expectation you think you have a right to demand and reply using only words that you approve of and only to exactly what you want me to address is ....a bit tedious.

That was a strawman. Metaphor demands nothing of the sort. He only demands that if you choose to talk about him and his posts then you do so without making gross misrepresentations.

Not sufficiently degrading for Metaphor’s taste. Allow a woman her pasties and a g-string and pretty soon she’ll think she could go to college and become an engineer or software engineer or something….

That was a strawman too. That thread was a motherlode of them.

Really. You think I'm that powerful, that I can just ban something I don't like---in another country, no less.
How terribly frightening that must be for you.

That was a strawman too.

I'm really certain that you don't actually believe that stripping is the best choice strippers have. I think that you realize that most girls who choose to go into stripping do so because they only see very limited choices before them. That doesn't bother you. You prefer to see women in poorly regarded lines of work. Less competition, I guess.

That was a strawman too.

It's interesting that you are accusing me of being puritanical and hating women, etc. when you what you express on this forum is extreme rigidity with regards to sexuality and women in general, with a couple of exceptions for your mom and your nieces.

That's not a strawman; that's you erroneously believing yourself competent at reading comprehension: Dunning-Kruger in action...

Aside from that, you seem to very much prefer that we all agree to do whatever you deem proper and shut up if we have any opinion other than your own.

And that's not a strawman; that's you believing the bigoted stereotypes about the outgroup's motivation that your religion supplies its suckers with in order to deter critical thinking about its own dogma...

You detest feminists, you detest any rule or regulation that you see as favoring women over men.

And that's not a strawman; that's just delusional overgeneralization. There are a number of feminists here Metaphor has shown no sign of detesting...

You see that as being 'fair.' You think it is 'fair' that some women in another country may be forbidden from removing their clothing in public for pay (but can still dance) but you don't think it is fair that women compete for the same jobs that you do.

... but that's a strawman.

 

[Bomb#20]

...Trumping up fabricated charges against those uppity enough to dispute it serves as an object lesson to other unbelievers, who lapse into silence in order to avoid unrelenting vilification. Uninfected people in the vicinity thereby get exposed to the religion's propaganda but not to counterarguments, and consequently provide a continuing supply of new believers.

Project much?

Nope, just seeing the strong family resemblance between PC progressivism and Christianity.

 

[laughing dog]

...Trumping up fabricated charges against those uppity enough to dispute it serves as an object lesson to other unbelievers, who lapse into silence in order to avoid unrelenting vilification. Uninfected people in the vicinity thereby get exposed to the religion's propaganda but not to counterarguments, and consequently provide a continuing supply of new believers.

Project much?

Nope, just seeing the strong family resemblance between PC progressivism and Christianity.

Your modesty is becoming but that family resemblance is much more inclusive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is this primarily IN China as opposed to American-Chinese in the US?

I'd say it's far more prevalent in China than amongst Chinese people not in China--but there was the waitress that felt my wife was wrong to have married me for love--but would have been ok with it being a green card marriage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Observation: <X> characters will in general be overrepresented. The problem is most X's have a prevalence below the incidence of the number of major characters. Thus you either "exclude" X, or you include X and overrepresent their prevalence--a middle ground can't exist. You can make a reasonable percentage of minor characters X but in many cases whether a minor character is X or not isn't even going to show up.

 

[Toni]

For that matter, in the US, there are slightly more males than females but in terms of blockbuster films, male characters vastly outnumber female characters, to the extent that a female only or primarily female character film is diverted into its own special hell of a category: the chick flick.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A chick flick involves a woman pining for a very attractive man. Other movies usually involve woman settling for “utilitarian” man. Men prefer the latter for obvious reasons.

Movies where man pines for “utilitarian” woman are called non-existent.

 

[ZiprHead]

A chick flick involves a woman pining for a very attractive man. Other movies usually involve woman settling for “utilitarian” man. Men prefer the latter for obvious reasons.

Movies where man pines for “utilitarian” woman are called non-existent.

There are many female led blockbusters. Contact, Peppermint, Atomic Blond, Wonder Woman, etc. I could string along a bunch more.

 

[TomC]

A chick flick involves a woman pining for a very attractive man. Other movies usually involve woman settling for “utilitarian” man. Men prefer the latter for obvious reasons.

Movies where man pines for “utilitarian” woman are called non-existent.

There are many female led blockbusters. Contact, Peppermint, Atomic Blond, Wonder Woman, etc. I could string along a bunch more.

This is kinda the way I remembered it, although my ignorance of cinema is only rivaled by my ignorance of pro sports.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

A chick flick involves a woman pining for a very attractive man. Other movies usually involve woman settling for “utilitarian” man. Men prefer the latter for obvious reasons.

Movies where man pines for “utilitarian” woman are called non-existent.

Jane Eyre.

(Okay, not the Susannah York version.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A chick flick involves a woman pining for a very attractive man. Other movies usually involve woman settling for “utilitarian” man. Men prefer the latter for obvious reasons.

Movies where man pines for “utilitarian” woman are called non-existent.

There are many female led blockbusters. Contact, Peppermint, Atomic Blond, Wonder Woman, etc. I could string along a bunch more.

Well, several, but that wasn’t the point.