This week in Woke: Actresses justly cancelled for committing atrocities

[Politesse]

By the way, can someone clear something up for me. Is/was the trans character in the script deadnamed by another character? Personally, I haven't yet read anything about the content of the script or roles. I can't even find the name of the film in fact. And if a characrer deadnamed the trans character in the narrative, how was that (deadnaming) character and that deadnaming presented or dealt with?

To use an analogy, someone in a film, for example a gay (or black) character, could be treated disrespectfully, but it wouldn't damn the film unless the film presented it as ok to treat such characters disrespectfully. Nor would it make it wrong to play the part of the person disrespected.

No one knows, it was only a prospect script, not some sort of completed project.

 

[ruby sparks]

By the way, can someone clear something up for me. Is/was the trans character in the script deadnamed by another character? Personally, I haven't yet read anything about the content of the script or roles. I can't even find the name of the film in fact. And if a characrer deadnamed the trans character in the narrative, how was that (deadnaming) character and that deadnaming presented or dealt with?

To use an analogy, someone in a film, for example a gay (or black) character, could be treated disrespectfully, but it wouldn't damn the film unless the film presented it as ok to treat such characters disrespectfully. Nor would it make it wrong to play the part of the person disrespected.

No one knows, it was only a prospect script, not some sort of completed project.

Ok so why is deadnaming cropping up in the thread?

 

[Politesse]

By the way, can someone clear something up for me. Is/was the trans character in the script deadnamed by another character? Personally, I haven't yet read anything about the content of the script or roles. I can't even find the name of the film in fact. And if a characrer deadnamed the trans character in the narrative, how was that (deadnaming) character and that deadnaming presented or dealt with?

To use an analogy, someone in a film, for example a gay (or black) character, could be treated disrespectfully, but it wouldn't damn the film unless the film presented it as ok to treat such characters disrespectfully. Nor would it make it wrong to play the part of the person disrespected.

No one knows, it was only a prospect script, not some sort of completed project.

Ok so why is deadnaming cropping up in the thread?

Because that was part of what caused the upset with Ms. Berry; she was referring to the prospective character as a "she" and naming him as such throughout the brief interview. Trans people are of course sadly accustomed to this type of casual disrespect in their daily life, but if you're going to try and get credit for a respectful treatment of the subject, you're really starting off on the wrong foot by participating in it. It's like a white fellow in blackface bragging to a reporter that "he's never played a colored man before, but he's really excited about the potential of it", ie., she actually wanted "woke credit" just for taking on the role, even though in doing so she was simultaneously taking away one of very few potential roles a trans person can get hired for in Hollywood, and also being rather disrespectful about it from a trans point of view.

A point of view which she at first did not have, of course, and I'm sure her confidence that this was a good idea was being buoyed by whatever the casting team was saying to get her on board their project. Please understand that I'm not trying to donk on Halle Berry here, I am sure it really was an innocent mistake on her part, one which she politely apologized for once she asked a few questions and realized why she had caused offense. She's a smart and talented professional, and many in this thread could profit by studying her example.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok so why is deadnaming cropping up in the thread?

Because that was part of what caused the upset with Ms. Berry; she was referring to the prospective character as a "she" and naming him as such throughout the brief interview. Trans people are of course sadly accustomed to this type of casual disrespect in their daily life, but if you're going to try and get credit for a respectful treatment of the subject, you're really starting off on the wrong foot by participating in it. It's like a white fellow in blackface bragging to a reporter that "he's never played a colored man before, but he's really excited about the potential of it", ie., she actually wanted "woke credit" just for taking on the role, even though in doing so she was simultaneously taking away one of very few potential roles a trans person can get hired for in Hollywood, and also being rather disrespectful about it from a trans point of view.

A point of view which she at first did not have, of course, and I'm sure her confidence that this was a good idea was being buoyed by whatever the casting team was saying to get her on board their project. Please understand that I'm not trying to donk on Halle Berry here, I am sure it really was an innocent mistake on her part, one which she politely apologized for once she asked a few questions and realized why she had caused offense. She's a smart and talented professional, and many in this thread could profit by studying her example.

Ok. I hadn't realised Halle Berry had said that.

 

[KeepTalking]

Now that is laughable. Only one of us in this thread is attempting to spread fear using an issue that they have admitted does not lend legitimacy to the fear being spread.

I didn't say that and I explained why your interpretation is wrong.

Are you trying to weasel out of the following exchange?

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.

That is an admission that this single event lends no legitimacy to your fear. I'm sorry that in your mind no single event would ever cause fear, so you have to add up non-fearful things so that you have something to fear. I will stick with real fears that can often be the result of singular events, but can also be made larger by the accumulation of events representing smaller fears.

I don't believe I have committed any fallacies, I certainly have not trumpeted them if I have made them, and I don't believe any fallacies have been pointed out. Oh, but you said "Informal fallacies", so you just get to make shit up, and call it a fallacy.

I've explained many of them in my previous responses. I'm not doing it again.

No. Informal logical fallacies is not a term I invented. It is not 'making shit up'.

Alright, good, we have a list of informal fallacies. I apologize, as I was thinking of those as formal fallacies and was mistaken. Now, can you please point out which of these fallacies I have made, and how I have done so, as I see no evidence of you having done that previously. Allow me to start, by demonstrating the informal fallacies you have made in this thread:

Faulty Analogy - Your analogy of the parts of a whole adding up to a larger fear, when at least one of the parts does not lend legitimacy to that fear to begin with.
Inconsistency - Your insistence that "The Woke" should be feared because they engage others in discussion on the internet in an attempt to change their minds, while your are engaging in discussion with others on the internet in an attempt to change their minds.
Questionable Cause - You have engaged in this fallacy by initially insisting that Halle Berry turned down the role because she was afraid of "The Woke". I do acknowledge that you have backed off on this one and since admitted that you do not know why she made the decision, yet you still use this example to inform your fear of "The Woke", which leads us to...
Appeal to Ignorance - As we are unable to prove that Halle Berry did not turn down the role because she was afraid of "The Woke", you were then able to use that ignorance to continue to push your fear.
Slippery Slope - Now that you have admitted that there is nothing to fear about this incident, you are attempting to get us to all be afraid that it is just one slip down the slope to "The Woke" enacting laws that will criminalize those who they do not perceive as woke.

Please let me know which fallacy I have made so that I can correct myself in the future, in the meantime, I trust you will be taking steps to correct your own use of the above informal fallacies.

 

[Metaphor]

That is an admission that this single event lends no legitimacy to your fear.

No. It's an admission that this event in isolation would not cause me to be concerned about the Woke.

Faulty Analogy - Your analogy of the parts of a whole adding up to a larger fear, when at least one of the parts does not lend legitimacy to that fear to begin with.

You literally committing the fallacy of division in order to accuse me of an informal fallacy would be funny if you were trying to parody yourself.

Inconsistency - Your insistence that "The Woke" should be feared because they engage others in discussion on the internet in an attempt to change their minds, while your are engaging in discussion with others on the internet in an attempt to change their minds.

No. I've explained this to you a number of times. The Woke should be feared because they have a false religion which they attempt to bully people in to. I am not spreading a religion, but even if I were, I am not attempting to bully anybody into accepting it.

Questionable Cause - You have engaged in this fallacy by initially insisting that Halle Berry turned down the role because she was afraid of "The Woke". I do acknowledge that you have backed off on this one and since admitted that you do not know why she made the decision, yet you still use this example to inform your fear of "The Woke", which leads us to...

I did not insist it. You are flat out lying. I was agnostic on the reason Berry turned down the role.

Appeal to Ignorance - As we are unable to prove that Halle Berry did not turn down the role because she was afraid of "The Woke", you were then able to use that ignorance to continue to push your fear.

This does not even make sense. I said that, whether Berry turned it down because she believed the tenets of Woke, or because she was bullied by its acolytes, is a bad scenario.

Slippery Slope - Now that you have admitted that there is nothing to fear about this incident

A lie you've repeated a dozen times.

 

[KeepTalking]

No. It's an admission that this event in isolation would not cause me to be concerned about the Woke.

Yes, you have admitted previously that this is an isolated event that does not lend legitimacy to your fear of "The Woke", yet you continue to add it up with other supposed fears so that you can justify attempting to spread that fear to others. Now you only need to follow through logically to see that you are committing a fallacy by assigning this as a part of whole to which it does not belong.

You literally committing the fallacy of division in order to accuse me of an informal fallacy would be funny if you were trying to parody yourself.

It is interesting that you bring up the fallacy of division, as that would be another fallacy you would be making if I were to accept your argument regarding this incident being a part of a whole:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

A fallacy of division is the error in logic that occurs when one reasons that something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.

Talk about parodying yourself. If this is the fallacy you have been claiming that I have made, you are quite off base, as I am not the one insisting that this incident is a part of a whole.

Inconsistency - Your insistence that "The Woke" should be feared because they engage others in discussion on the internet in an attempt to change their minds, while your are engaging in discussion with others on the internet in an attempt to change their minds.

No. I've explained this to you a number of times. The Woke should be feared because they have a false religion which they attempt to bully people in to. I am not spreading a religion, but even if I were, I am not attempting to bully anybody into accepting it.

If you can label "The Woke" as a religion, then I can label your fear of "The Woke" as a religion, and the number of threads you have started on the issue makes you quite the evangelist for your religion. So, once again, despite your protestations, your are doing exactly what you rail against. That is inconsistency.

Questionable Cause - You have engaged in this fallacy by initially insisting that Halle Berry turned down the role because she was afraid of "The Woke". I do acknowledge that you have backed off on this one and since admitted that you do not know why she made the decision, yet you still use this example to inform your fear of "The Woke", which leads us to...

I did not insist it. You are flat out lying. I was agnostic on the reason Berry turned down the role.

"Insisting" may have been too strong a word, but that does not make me a liar. You certainly implied it by using the term "cancelled" in both the thread title and the OP.

Appeal to Ignorance - As we are unable to prove that Halle Berry did not turn down the role because she was afraid of "The Woke", you were then able to use that ignorance to continue to push your fear.

This does not even make sense. I said that, whether Berry turned it down because she believed the tenets of Woke, or because she was bullied by its acolytes, is a bad scenario.

Yes, you don't know why Halle Berry turned down the role, but regardless you know it was bad. That is an Appeal to Ignorance.

Slippery Slope - Now that you have admitted that there is nothing to fear about this incident

A lie you've repeated a dozen times.

A lie you have repeated just as often, even though you once again admitted in this very post that this isolated incident is nothing to be feared.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, you have admitted previously that this is an isolated event

No. I never admitted that, because that is the exact opposite of what I said.

I said, if it were an isolated event, it wouldn't bother me.

It is not an isolated incident. It is the latest in a long line of Woke proselytisation and bullying.

that does not lend legitimacy to your fear of "The Woke", yet you continue to add it up with other supposed fears so that you can justify attempting to spread that fear to others. Now you only need to follow through logically to see that you are committing a fallacy by assigning this as a part of whole to which it does not belong.

You simply do not understand the fallacy of division if you are still offering this "criticism".

Talk about parodying yourself. If this is the fallacy you have been claiming that I have made, you are quite off base, as I am not the one insisting that this incident is a part of a whole.

Of course you've made it. The Woke proselytising to Berry is part of the whole of Woke encroachment. No individual, particular act of Woke encroachment has to seem particularly odious; in concert they are monstrous.

If you can label "The Woke" as a religion, then I can label your fear of "The Woke" as a religion, and the number of threads you have started on the issue makes you quite the evangelist for your religion. So, once again, despite your protestations, your are doing exactly what you rail against. That is inconsistency.

Non. Even if you believe my loathing of the Woke and all its odious apparatus to be a 'religion', I am not attempting to ruin the livelihood of the Woke, even when they ruin other people's livelihood. Yes, I'm attempting to persuade, but there's a key difference. I'm not peddling falsehoods, and the Woke are. And I'm not threatening to fuck your life up for being Woke. And the Woke are attempting to do so for not being Woke, and learning its catechism and adhering to its rituals.

"Insisting" may have been too strong a word, but that does not make me a liar. You certainly implied it by using the term "cancelled" in both the thread title and the OP.

"Cancelled", as I have explained, is the Woke acting in concert on social media to attempt to "persuade" (and if persuasion is not successful, attempt to ruin) people for not holding the same beliefs, and acting in accordance with those beliefs, of the Woke religion. Sometimes the Woke are successful. Sometimes they persuade their subjects; sometimes their subjects capitulate in fear and pretend they are persuaded, and sometimes their subjects are not persuaded but are then ruined for not having bent the knee.

And sometimes their subjects neither bend the knee nor are ruined despite the best attempts of the Woke (bless JK Rowling), but these tend to be people who have total "I'd tell God to fuck off" money and are beyond "cancellation".

Yes, you don't know why Halle Berry turned down the role, but regardless you know it was bad. That is an Appeal to Ignorance.

No, it's not. I know that there is a limited number of scenarios and they are all bad. That isn't an appeal to ignorance.

A lie you have repeated just as often, even though you once again admitted in this very post that this isolated incident is nothing to be feared.

No. The incident, in concert and context of every vile machination of the Woke, is very much to be feared.

 

[KeepTalking]

No. I never admitted that, because that is the exact opposite of what I said.

I said, if it were an isolated event, it wouldn't bother me.

It is not an isolated incident. It is the latest in a long line of Woke proselytisation and bullying.



You simply do not understand the fallacy of division if you are still offering this "criticism".

Talk about parodying yourself. If this is the fallacy you have been claiming that I have made, you are quite off base, as I am not the one insisting that this incident is a part of a whole.

Of course you've made it. The Woke proselytising to Berry is part of the whole of Woke encroachment. No individual, particular act of Woke encroachment has to seem particularly odious; in concert they are monstrous.

If you can label "The Woke" as a religion, then I can label your fear of "The Woke" as a religion, and the number of threads you have started on the issue makes you quite the evangelist for your religion. So, once again, despite your protestations, your are doing exactly what you rail against. That is inconsistency.

Non. Even if you believe my loathing of the Woke and all its odious apparatus to be a 'religion', I am not attempting to ruin the livelihood of the Woke, even when they ruin other people's livelihood. Yes, I'm attempting to persuade, but there's a key difference. I'm not peddling falsehoods, and the Woke are. And I'm not threatening to fuck your life up for being Woke. And the Woke are attempting to do so for not being Woke, and learning its catechism and adhering to its rituals.

"Insisting" may have been too strong a word, but that does not make me a liar. You certainly implied it by using the term "cancelled" in both the thread title and the OP.

"Cancelled", as I have explained, is the Woke acting in concert on social media to attempt to "persuade" (and if persuasion is not successful, attempt to ruin) people for not holding the same beliefs, and acting in accordance with those beliefs, of the Woke religion. Sometimes the Woke are successful. Sometimes they persuade their subjects; sometimes their subjects capitulate in fear and pretend they are persuaded, and sometimes their subjects are not persuaded but are then ruined for not having bent the knee.

And sometimes their subjects neither bend the knee nor are ruined despite the best attempts of the Woke (bless JK Rowling), but these tend to be people who have total "I'd tell God to fuck off" money and are beyond "cancellation".

Yes, you don't know why Halle Berry turned down the role, but regardless you know it was bad. That is an Appeal to Ignorance.

No, it's not. I know that there is a limited number of scenarios and they are all bad. That isn't an appeal to ignorance.

A lie you have repeated just as often, even though you once again admitted in this very post that this isolated incident is nothing to be feared.

No. The incident, in concert and context of every vile machination of the Woke, is very much to be feared.

Alright, fine. You got me, I will admit to having made the fallacy of division. In this case the fallacy was made by taking the whole, which can be labelled "Threads in Which Metaphor Is Freaking Out About The Woke", and assumed that because that whole has the property of "nothing to be concerned about because Metaphor is just freaking out about nothing again" this thread necessarily had that property. After 17 pages of examining the shit Metaphor is freaking out about this time, however, it is apparent that this thread does indeed have the property "nothing to be concerned about because Metaphor is just freaking out about nothing again", and although I may have initially engaged in that fallacy, it turns out that I was correct when I did so. Just as when the reasoning "Second graders eat a lot of ice cream. Suzy is a second grader. Therefore, Suzy eats a lot of ice cream." is used, sometimes it actually is the case that Suzy eats a lot of ice cream.

 

[Metaphor]

No. I never admitted that, because that is the exact opposite of what I said.

I said, if it were an isolated event, it wouldn't bother me.

It is not an isolated incident. It is the latest in a long line of Woke proselytisation and bullying.



You simply do not understand the fallacy of division if you are still offering this "criticism".



Of course you've made it. The Woke proselytising to Berry is part of the whole of Woke encroachment. No individual, particular act of Woke encroachment has to seem particularly odious; in concert they are monstrous.



Non. Even if you believe my loathing of the Woke and all its odious apparatus to be a 'religion', I am not attempting to ruin the livelihood of the Woke, even when they ruin other people's livelihood. Yes, I'm attempting to persuade, but there's a key difference. I'm not peddling falsehoods, and the Woke are. And I'm not threatening to fuck your life up for being Woke. And the Woke are attempting to do so for not being Woke, and learning its catechism and adhering to its rituals.

"Insisting" may have been too strong a word, but that does not make me a liar. You certainly implied it by using the term "cancelled" in both the thread title and the OP.

"Cancelled", as I have explained, is the Woke acting in concert on social media to attempt to "persuade" (and if persuasion is not successful, attempt to ruin) people for not holding the same beliefs, and acting in accordance with those beliefs, of the Woke religion. Sometimes the Woke are successful. Sometimes they persuade their subjects; sometimes their subjects capitulate in fear and pretend they are persuaded, and sometimes their subjects are not persuaded but are then ruined for not having bent the knee.

And sometimes their subjects neither bend the knee nor are ruined despite the best attempts of the Woke (bless JK Rowling), but these tend to be people who have total "I'd tell God to fuck off" money and are beyond "cancellation".

Yes, you don't know why Halle Berry turned down the role, but regardless you know it was bad. That is an Appeal to Ignorance.

No, it's not. I know that there is a limited number of scenarios and they are all bad. That isn't an appeal to ignorance.

A lie you have repeated just as often, even though you once again admitted in this very post that this isolated incident is nothing to be feared.

No. The incident, in concert and context of every vile machination of the Woke, is very much to be feared.

Alright, fine. You got me, I will admit to having made the fallacy of division. In this case the fallacy was made by taking the whole, which can be labelled "Threads in Which Metaphor Is Freaking Out About The Woke", and assumed that because that whole has the property of "nothing to be concerned about because Metaphor is just freaking out about nothing again" this thread necessarily had that property. After 17 pages of examining the shit Metaphor is freaking out about this time, however, it is apparent that this thread does indeed have the property "nothing to be concerned about because Metaphor is just freaking out about nothing again", and although I may have initially engaged in that fallacy, it turns out that I was correct when I did so. Just as when the reasoning "Second graders eat a lot of ice cream. Suzy is a second grader. Therefore, Suzy eats a lot of ice cream." is used, sometimes it actually is the case that Suzy eats a lot of ice cream.

Sure Jan.

 

[KeepTalking]

No. I never admitted that, because that is the exact opposite of what I said.

I said, if it were an isolated event, it wouldn't bother me.

It is not an isolated incident. It is the latest in a long line of Woke proselytisation and bullying.



You simply do not understand the fallacy of division if you are still offering this "criticism".



Of course you've made it. The Woke proselytising to Berry is part of the whole of Woke encroachment. No individual, particular act of Woke encroachment has to seem particularly odious; in concert they are monstrous.



Non. Even if you believe my loathing of the Woke and all its odious apparatus to be a 'religion', I am not attempting to ruin the livelihood of the Woke, even when they ruin other people's livelihood. Yes, I'm attempting to persuade, but there's a key difference. I'm not peddling falsehoods, and the Woke are. And I'm not threatening to fuck your life up for being Woke. And the Woke are attempting to do so for not being Woke, and learning its catechism and adhering to its rituals.



"Cancelled", as I have explained, is the Woke acting in concert on social media to attempt to "persuade" (and if persuasion is not successful, attempt to ruin) people for not holding the same beliefs, and acting in accordance with those beliefs, of the Woke religion. Sometimes the Woke are successful. Sometimes they persuade their subjects; sometimes their subjects capitulate in fear and pretend they are persuaded, and sometimes their subjects are not persuaded but are then ruined for not having bent the knee.

And sometimes their subjects neither bend the knee nor are ruined despite the best attempts of the Woke (bless JK Rowling), but these tend to be people who have total "I'd tell God to fuck off" money and are beyond "cancellation".

Yes, you don't know why Halle Berry turned down the role, but regardless you know it was bad. That is an Appeal to Ignorance.

No, it's not. I know that there is a limited number of scenarios and they are all bad. That isn't an appeal to ignorance.

A lie you have repeated just as often, even though you once again admitted in this very post that this isolated incident is nothing to be feared.

No. The incident, in concert and context of every vile machination of the Woke, is very much to be feared.

Alright, fine. You got me, I will admit to having made the fallacy of division. In this case the fallacy was made by taking the whole, which can be labelled "Threads in Which Metaphor Is Freaking Out About The Woke", and assumed that because that whole has the property of "nothing to be concerned about because Metaphor is just freaking out about nothing again" this thread necessarily had that property. After 17 pages of examining the shit Metaphor is freaking out about this time, however, it is apparent that this thread does indeed have the property "nothing to be concerned about because Metaphor is just freaking out about nothing again", and although I may have initially engaged in that fallacy, it turns out that I was correct when I did so. Just as when the reasoning "Second graders eat a lot of ice cream. Suzy is a second grader. Therefore, Suzy eats a lot of ice cream." is used, sometimes it actually is the case that Suzy eats a lot of ice cream.

Sure Jan.

So you think I am lying when I tell you that I automatically ascribe the property "nothing to be concerned about because Metaphor is just freaking out about nothing again" to the threads you start about "The Woke"? Seems like an odd position for you to take, but sure Metaphor.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it's not. I know that there is a limited number of scenarios and they are all bad. That isn't an appeal to ignorance.

I agree. It is a fear-driven application of ignorance. You have no idea what "the Woke" said to Ms. Berry. One scenario is that someone(s) said something like "You know, Ms. Berry, you are a superb and established actress who really does not need such a role. Why not give some struggling transgender person a shot at it? Not only would it help their careeer but help show the public that there is nothing to fear about transgender people". And that convinced Ms. Berry.

No. The incident, in concert and context of every vile machination of the Woke, is very much to be feared.

Substitute "Satan" for "the Woke" and that sounds like every Bible-thumping intolerant evangelical I have ever met.

 

[Bomb#20]

That is exactly why I brought McCarthyism up. It was a case in which actors and actresses lost their livelihood due to the actions of people in positions of power.

And the people whose actions are currently causing actors to lose their livelihoods are evidently also in a position of power; if they weren't then the livelihoods would not be being lost. That the power is collective rather than individual is neither here nor there -- being injured by a mob doesn't hurt less than being injured by a corrupt official.

A sitting US Senator used his power to punish those he did not agree with politically. This is not that. This is normal, everyday citizens simply making a convincing argument to an actress that she should not take a certain role.

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."

If this were the POTUS threatening Helle Barry with the loss of her livelihood for taking the role, or pressuring the studio to blackball her for taking the role, I would be right beside your decrying the injustice of what is happening.

Of course you would -- the POTUS is your enemy and SJWs are your friends.

 

[Bomb#20]

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".

(And of course, it's not insane to misapply subtle grammar conventions. The actual reason it would be just fricking insane to say that Metaphor, Berry, and Rowling are all being persecuted by "The Liberal", or that he is one of "The Fascist" whom they are targeting, is that liberals do not target people for persecution and Metaphor isn't a fascist. The Woke who persecute non-fascists for imagined fascism are pretty bloody illiberal.)

 

[KeepTalking]

And the people whose actions are currently causing actors to lose their livelihoods are evidently also in a position of power; if they weren't then the livelihoods would not be being lost. That the power is collective rather than individual is neither here nor there -- being injured by a mob doesn't hurt less than being injured by a corrupt official.

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.

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.

If this were the POTUS threatening Helle Barry with the loss of her livelihood for taking the role, or pressuring the studio to blackball her for taking the role, I would be right beside your decrying the injustice of what is happening.

Of course you would -- the POTUS is your enemy and SJWs are your friends.

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.

 

[Bomb#20]

There are different degrees of duress of course. The Woke do use coercion to suppress speech. That should be obvious.

It is not obvious, and I do not agree that "The Woke" can suppress speech in any meaningful way. Let me know when it happens that we are governed by "The Woke", and woke government actually begins to suppress speech, then I will be concerned.

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.

Right now I am much more concerned about the fascists in control of the US government, and the statements that their Dear Leader has made that he would very much like to suppress the speech of those who he does not like, including those he deems to be"woke".

A plague on both your houses.

 

[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.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

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.

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.

 

[KeepTalking]

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 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 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.

Are you sure you aren't the one who convinced Halle Berry to turn down the role? Because that certainly convinced me. To be honest, despite defending the fact that "The Woke" have every right to convince Halle Berry of their argument, I did not actually agree with the argument as I understood it. I was of the opinion that an actress like Halle Berry taking the role would have been a benefit for transgender people, giving them more exposure. I was looking at it from the wrong perspective, though, and now that perspective has changed.

Thanks.

 

[Politesse]

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".

(And of course, it's not insane to misapply subtle grammar conventions. The actual reason it would be just fricking insane to say that Metaphor, Berry, and Rowling are all being persecuted by "The Liberal", or that he is one of "The Fascist" whom they are targeting, is that liberals do not target people for persecution and Metaphor isn't a fascist. The Woke who persecute non-fascists for imagined fascism are pretty bloody illiberal.)

I'd think it was pretty stupid to imply that the Rich or the Homeless were a conspiratorial bloc of like-minded people pursuing the same political goals, too. I'm not responsible for your lazy thinking. Again, your proposed group, however you choose to describe it, is not actually a group. The rich and the homeless aren't a polity either, only a demographic. But "the Woke" aren't even that; they're a bogeyman invented by conservative radio to explain without admission of error why bigoted comments are not as socially acceptable as they used to be, constructed by stringing together a handful of unrelated incidents and slapping the name of a well-known aging aesthetic trend to it to make the whole thing sound less nuts.

There is no reason at all to assume that the same "group" is involved every time someone gets called out for being an asshole in public.