Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

The Sad Redundancy Of 'Hate' Prosecution


Muda69

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Cosmic Rays and Chemtrails - Pseudoscience for the Modern Conservative by Bill D. Nye

And you forgot HAARP:  http://www.haarp.net/

Quote

HAARP will zap the upper atmosphere with a focused and steerable electromagnetic beam. It is an advanced model of an "ionospheric heater." (The ionosphere is the electrically-charged sphere surrounding Earth's upper atmosphere. It ranges between 40 to 60 miles above the surface of the Earth.)

Put simply, the apparatus for HAARP is a reversal of a radio telescope; antenna send out signals instead of receiving. HAARP is the test run for a super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything -- living and dead.

HAARP publicity gives the impression that the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program is mainly an academic project with the goal of changing the ionosphere to improve communications for our own good. However, other U.S. military documents put it more clearly -- HAARP aims to learn how to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." Communicating with submarines is only one of those purposes.

....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, swordfish said:

Then explain to SF ......PLEASE.......How did mankind or fossil fuels melt the glaciers years ago that formed the Great Lakes and uncovered Canada?

Mankind and fossil fuels DID NOT melt the glaciers, rising levels of greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane have been responsible for almost all of the Earth's major climate changes, but if you are referencing the most recent glacial retreat, that is the result of Milankovitch cycles (sometimes referred to orbital wobbles).  When these wobbles reduce the sun's intensity in the northern hemisphere, a glacial period begins.   Conversely, when the wobble provides more atmospheric insulation, a warming period ensues.

The Milankovitch cycles would predict that the Earth should be in a cooling/glacial cycle right now.  That is not the case.  

Past warming eras were always tied to rising levels of greenhouse gases were always triggered by huge increases in CO2 emissions caused by massive volcanic eruptions called Large Igneous Provinces.  We have not had one of these events in 16 million years.

The current rise in greenhouse gases is clearly the result of the Industrial Era's use of fossil fuels and is the best current explanation for rising global temps, melting glaciers, and all other climate change issues.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2019 at 10:17 AM, swordfish said:

For this argument, you are assuming man-made global warming exists.......

FTR - If natural occurring global climate change can happen in a way that melted the glaciers that formed the Great Lakes 15,000 years ago, SF isn't too worried that mankind will have much (if any) influence on the crisis being perpetuated as "global warming" today.  If you want to discuss mankind's mismanagement of worldwide pollution and better ways to handle that - open the door.

Again, the logical stupidity of this argument is breath-taking. So because there are natural causes for forest fires (lightning strikes), we don't need to be worried that humans might be able to cause forest fires. Brilliant!

Edited by Wabash82
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2019 at 6:11 AM, Bobref said:

This, in a nutshell, is the “global warming” issue for me. The Al Gore disciples, and their ilk, primarily use a “misdirection” argument to support their position. They trot out lots of statistics about temperatures in the Arctic and polar bears swimming in open water. There’s no denying it’s getting warmer. But, in my mind, the link between that and human activity is what is missing. Simply showing that temperatures are on the rise is meaningless, as there have been innumerable such cycles in the earth’s history. 

The scientific research indicating that the cause of the current warming is human activity, and that it is not just cyclical warming, is well established.

It is disappointing when people imply that Al Gore or other "celebrities" who talk about this issue came up with the evidence themselves. The concern over human-caused global warming is a concern driven by climate scientist.

Research establishing human "fingerprints" on current climate change.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

The scientific research indicating that the cause of the current warming is human activity, and that it is not just cyclical warming, is well established.

It is disappointing when people imply that Al Gore or other "celebrities" who talk about this issue came up with the evidence themselves. The concern over human-caused global warming is a concern driven by climate scientist.

Research establishing human "fingerprints" on current climate change.

For every example you consider intellectual or scientific, I can certainly match with an example I will consider intellectual or scientific.......However I cannot profit from either side of this argument, and I assume neither can you.  But Al Gore (whose predictions so far have been lees than accurate ie - Inconvenient Truth) sure is....... 

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/how-al-gore-built-the-global-warming-fraud

Although his science is often seriously wrong, no one can deny that Al Gore has a flare for the dramatic. Speaking about climate change in an October 12 PBS interview, the former vice-president proclaimed, “We have a global emergency.” Referring to the most recent UN climate report, Gore claimed it showed that current global warming “could actually extend to an existential threat to human civilization on this planet as we know it.”

Al Gore’s overblown rhetoric makes no sense, of course. Yet his hyperbolic claims beg the question: How did this all start?

Back in the 1970s, media articles warning of imminent climate change problems began to appear regularly. TIME and Newsweek ran multiple cover stories asserting that oil companies and America’s capitalist life style were causing catastrophic damage to Earth’s climate. They claimed scientists were almost unanimous in their opinion that manmade climate change would reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

The April 28, 1975 Newsweek proposed solutions that even included outlawing internal combustion engines.

This sounds very similar to today's climate change debate – except, in the 70s, the fear was manmade global cooling, not warming.

TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977 cover featured a story, “How to Survive The Coming Ice Age.” It included “facts” such as scientists predicting that Earth’s so-called average temperature could drop by 20 degrees Fahrenheit due to manmade global cooling. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned readers that “the drop in temperature between 1945 and 1968 had taken us one sixth of the way to the next Ice Age temperature.”

Global cooling gained considerable traction with the general public. But then, instead of cooling as long predicted by manmade climate change advocates, the planet started warming again. Something had to be done to rescue the climate change agenda from utter disaster. Enter Al Gore.

Al Gore Sr., a powerful Senator from Tennessee, saw to it that his son was elected to the House of Representatives, serving from 1977 to 1985, then going on to the Senate from 1985 to 1993.  Gore Junior’s primary issue was his conviction that the Earth would perish if we did not eliminate fossil fuels.

Gore advanced to Vice President under President Bill Clinton, where he was able to enact policies and direct funding to ensure that the climate change agenda became a top priority of the United States Government. Gore’s mission was boosted when Clinton gave him authority over the newly created President’s Council on Sustainable Development.

It will come as no surprise then that, when the Council’s Charter was revised on April 25, 1997, the “Scope of Activities” included the following direction to the Council:

Advise the President on domestic implementation of policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Council should not debate the science of global warming [emphasis added], but should instead focus on the implementation of national and local greenhouse gas reduction policies and activities, and adaptations in the U.S. economy and society that maximize environmental and social benefits, minimize economic impacts, and are consistent with U.S. international agreements. The Council should, at a minimum, identify and encourage potentially replicable examples of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across diverse sectors and levels of society.

Considering that the Council was tasked with advising the President “on matters involving sustainable development,” and alternative points of view on the science of climate change were effectively excluded, it was a foregone conclusion that the Clinton administration would go in the direction Gore wanted. Indeed, in their cover letter to the President accompanying their 1999 report, Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century, the Council stated: “Our report presents consensus recommendations on how America can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take other steps to protect the climate.”

A cornerstone of Gore’s strategy was to ensure that all high-ranking government officials who had any involvement with funding policies relating to climate change were in line with his vision. These agencies included the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Department of Education, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

An example of his power was shown when physicist Dr. William Happer, then Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, testified before Congress in 1993 that scientific data did not support the hypothesis of manmade global warming. Gore saw to it that Happer was immediately fired. Fifteen years later, Happer quipped, “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly.”

Al Gore was also able to leverage his high visibility, his movie awards, his Nobel Prize, and his involvement in various carbon trading and other schemes into a personal fortune. When he ended his tenure as Vice President in 2001, his net worth was $2 million. By 2013, it exceeded $300 million.

Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, provided a series of graphic images showing the apocalyptic consequences that some had predicted if fossil fuels were allowed to continue warming the planet. Images included melting glaciers, dying polar bears, spreading diseases, coastal cities inundated by massive floods, cities wiped out by hurricanes and tornadoes, and food supplies exterminated by droughts.

This compelling propaganda played a major role in frightening an entire generation about the future, causing young people and many parents to feel guilty about the role that they and their country were supposedly having in destroying our beautiful planet.

Since then, Americans have been told constantly that they should feel irresponsible if they drive cars or use fossil fuel energy to heat their homes or power their businesses. A rapid, massive conversion away from coal, oil and natural gas to renewable energy sources such and wind and solar, we are told, is the only hope for saving the planet.

Now children are increasingly depressed about their future, thanks to the constant barrage of global warming propaganda that they receive at school. Indeed, they have become so brainwashed and cowed by their peers that they no longer dare to question any statement made about catastrophic climate change.

Yet, essentially everything in Gore's climate change agenda is either wrong or highly misrepresented.

Now that he is President Donald Trump’s Senior Scientist for the National Security Council, Dr. Happer needs to show there is no “scientific consensus” on these issues, rekindle informed debate on climate and energy issues, and help bring hope, common sense and real science back into the discourse – to help end the dangerous mythology of dangerous manmade global warming.


 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swordfish said:

For every example you consider intellectual or scientific, I can certainly match with an example I will consider intellectual or scientific.......
 

No you can't.  You just ignore examples you don't like.

I just told you what caused the Ice Age to end and how it is not related to current warming and you put the blindfold on.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2019 at 12:25 PM, BARRYOSAMA said:

The current rise in greenhouse gases is clearly the result of the Industrial Era's use of fossil fuels and is the best current explanation for rising global temps, melting glaciers, and all other climate change issues.

As a climate scientist do you put any credence into this hypotheses?: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-06-15/what-is-an-ice-age-explainer/7185002

Quote

"There is actually a hypothesis that it's not just industrial society but ever since humans began practicing large scale farming at least 5,000 years ago, such as methane emissions from rice paddies," Dr Phipps said.

"So it's possibly not just greenhouse gas emissions over the last 200 years that's stopped us going into an ice age, but it's actually greenhouse gas emissions for the last 5,000 years that have collectively helped to steer us away from the next ice age."

BTW, fine basketball season for Tiny Argos.  Won the sectional, then defeated one p/p in the first regional game before getting blown out by another p/p in the regional final.  Sadly no repeat like the '79 almost miracle.

 

Edited by Muda69
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2019 at 8:16 AM, Muda69 said:

As a climate scientist do you put any credence into this hypotheses?: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-06-15/what-is-an-ice-age-explainer/7185002

 

Highly unlikely.  Dr. Phipps seems to think so as well as he is co-author of a research paper saying that Antarctica warming and ice sheet melting is clearly a result of human activities over the past 180 years.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160824135035.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2019 at 4:26 PM, swordfish said:

For every example you consider intellectual or scientific, I can certainly match with an example I will consider intellectual or scientific.......However I cannot profit from either side of this argument, and I assume neither can you.  But Al Gore (whose predictions so far have been lees than accurate ie - Inconvenient Truth) sure is....... 

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/how-al-gore-built-the-global-warming-fraud

Although his science is often seriously wrong, no one can deny that Al Gore has a flare for the dramatic. Speaking about climate change in an October 12 PBS interview, the former vice-president proclaimed, “We have a global emergency.” Referring to the most recent UN climate report, Gore claimed it showed that current global warming “could actually extend to an existential threat to human civilization on this planet as we know it.”

Al Gore’s overblown rhetoric makes no sense, of course. Yet his hyperbolic claims beg the question: How did this all start?

Back in the 1970s, media articles warning of imminent climate change problems began to appear regularly. TIME and Newsweek ran multiple cover stories asserting that oil companies and America’s capitalist life style were causing catastrophic damage to Earth’s climate. They claimed scientists were almost unanimous in their opinion that manmade climate change would reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

The April 28, 1975 Newsweek proposed solutions that even included outlawing internal combustion engines.

This sounds very similar to today's climate change debate – except, in the 70s, the fear was manmade global cooling, not warming.

TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977 cover featured a story, “How to Survive The Coming Ice Age.” It included “facts” such as scientists predicting that Earth’s so-called average temperature could drop by 20 degrees Fahrenheit due to manmade global cooling. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned readers that “the drop in temperature between 1945 and 1968 had taken us one sixth of the way to the next Ice Age temperature.”

Global cooling gained considerable traction with the general public. But then, instead of cooling as long predicted by manmade climate change advocates, the planet started warming again. Something had to be done to rescue the climate change agenda from utter disaster. Enter Al Gore.

Al Gore Sr., a powerful Senator from Tennessee, saw to it that his son was elected to the House of Representatives, serving from 1977 to 1985, then going on to the Senate from 1985 to 1993.  Gore Junior’s primary issue was his conviction that the Earth would perish if we did not eliminate fossil fuels.

Gore advanced to Vice President under President Bill Clinton, where he was able to enact policies and direct funding to ensure that the climate change agenda became a top priority of the United States Government. Gore’s mission was boosted when Clinton gave him authority over the newly created President’s Council on Sustainable Development.

It will come as no surprise then that, when the Council’s Charter was revised on April 25, 1997, the “Scope of Activities” included the following direction to the Council:

Advise the President on domestic implementation of policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Council should not debate the science of global warming [emphasis added], but should instead focus on the implementation of national and local greenhouse gas reduction policies and activities, and adaptations in the U.S. economy and society that maximize environmental and social benefits, minimize economic impacts, and are consistent with U.S. international agreements. The Council should, at a minimum, identify and encourage potentially replicable examples of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across diverse sectors and levels of society.

Considering that the Council was tasked with advising the President “on matters involving sustainable development,” and alternative points of view on the science of climate change were effectively excluded, it was a foregone conclusion that the Clinton administration would go in the direction Gore wanted. Indeed, in their cover letter to the President accompanying their 1999 report, Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century, the Council stated: “Our report presents consensus recommendations on how America can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take other steps to protect the climate.”

A cornerstone of Gore’s strategy was to ensure that all high-ranking government officials who had any involvement with funding policies relating to climate change were in line with his vision. These agencies included the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Department of Education, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

An example of his power was shown when physicist Dr. William Happer, then Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, testified before Congress in 1993 that scientific data did not support the hypothesis of manmade global warming. Gore saw to it that Happer was immediately fired. Fifteen years later, Happer quipped, “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly.”

Al Gore was also able to leverage his high visibility, his movie awards, his Nobel Prize, and his involvement in various carbon trading and other schemes into a personal fortune. When he ended his tenure as Vice President in 2001, his net worth was $2 million. By 2013, it exceeded $300 million.

Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, provided a series of graphic images showing the apocalyptic consequences that some had predicted if fossil fuels were allowed to continue warming the planet. Images included melting glaciers, dying polar bears, spreading diseases, coastal cities inundated by massive floods, cities wiped out by hurricanes and tornadoes, and food supplies exterminated by droughts.

This compelling propaganda played a major role in frightening an entire generation about the future, causing young people and many parents to feel guilty about the role that they and their country were supposedly having in destroying our beautiful planet.

Since then, Americans have been told constantly that they should feel irresponsible if they drive cars or use fossil fuel energy to heat their homes or power their businesses. A rapid, massive conversion away from coal, oil and natural gas to renewable energy sources such and wind and solar, we are told, is the only hope for saving the planet.

Now children are increasingly depressed about their future, thanks to the constant barrage of global warming propaganda that they receive at school. Indeed, they have become so brainwashed and cowed by their peers that they no longer dare to question any statement made about catastrophic climate change.

Yet, essentially everything in Gore's climate change agenda is either wrong or highly misrepresented.

Now that he is President Donald Trump’s Senior Scientist for the National Security Council, Dr. Happer needs to show there is no “scientific consensus” on these issues, rekindle informed debate on climate and energy issues, and help bring hope, common sense and real science back into the discourse – to help end the dangerous mythology of dangerous manmade global warming.


 

You would acknowledge that there are likeeise lots and lots of folks who have huge financial stakes in denying man made causes for climate change -- like the coal and oil industries?  Because Al Gore sensationlizes some aspects of global climate change, all the climate scientist whose research supports its existence therefore can be ignored? 

I'd be happy to compare lists of scientists with you. I think mine's bigger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

You would acknowledge that there are likeeise lots and lots of folks who have huge financial stakes in denying man made causes for climate change -- like the coal and oil industries?  Because Al Gore sensationlizes some aspects of global climate change, all the climate scientist whose research supports its existence therefore can be ignored? 

I'd be happy to compare lists of scientists with you. I think mine's bigger. 

Alright, put that thing back in your pants. 😃

Lord, I apologize for that.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Southern Poverty Law Center Is in a State of Moral Collapse: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-in-a-state-of-moral-collapse/

Quote

The longer you live, the more you see that a lack of integrity often has a viral effect on an organization. Once the compromises begin, they can’t be contained. They’ll seep into every corner of the institution, corrupting good purposes and damaging people’s lives.

And so it is with the Southern Poverty Law Center — one of progressive America’s most influential and storied civil-rights organizations.

This isn’t news to conservatives, of course. For those who cared about truth, the SPLC’s transformation from a valuable anti-Klan watchdog into a glorified version of Media Matters for America was plain and obvious. It steadily expanded its definition of “hate groups” to include mainstream Christian organizations such as my former employer, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and it labeled as “extremists” men such as American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray.

These decisions had serious real-world consequences. Corporations and employers cut off relationships with groups and individuals targeted by the SPLC, and violent people used SPLC designations to justify attempted murder and assault. Remember the man who tried to commit mass murder at the Family Research Council? He found his target through the SPLC’s list of alleged “anti-gay groups.” Remember when an angry mob attacked Murray at Middlebury College and injured a professor? Because of the SPLC, those protesters thought they were attacking a “white nationalist.”

Moreover, its methods of determining hate and extremism are so shoddy and corrupt that it’s been forced to dole out a multimillion-dollar settlement to Maajid Nawaz, a British Muslim whom it hysterically dubbed an “anti-Muslim extremist.” In fact, Nawaz is a former Islamist who now dedicates his life to combating extremism. The SPLC was also forced to apologize for posting an “extremist file” on Ben Carson. Yes, Ben Carson.

Yet still the donations rolled in. Still the media and progressive corporations valued the organization enough to apply its hate labels to good and decent Americans — people I know and respect. Will they value it still, as the SPLC’s internal corruption is made plain?

The past few days have brought a series of reports from otherwise-sympathetic media outlets that have painted the organization in an extraordinarily unflattering light. On March 14, the SPLC fired its co-founder, legendary trial lawyer Morris Dees. Within hours, the Los Angeles Times wrote that the SPLC “has been wrestling with complaints of workplace mistreatment of women and people of color.”

The climate was apparently so bad that two dozen employees signed a letter to the board of directors declaring that “they were concerned that internal ‘allegations of mistreatment, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and racism threaten the moral authority of this organization and our integrity along with it.’”

The hits kept on coming. Six days later, The New Yorker published a lengthy essay by Bob Moser, a former writer at the SPLC. It begins with this stinging statement:

In the days since the stunning dismissal of Morris Dees, the co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, on March 14th, I’ve been thinking about the jokes my S.P.L.C. colleagues and I used to tell to keep ourselves sane. Walking to lunch past the center’s Maya Lin–designed memorial to civil-rights martyrs, we’d cast a glance at the inscription from Martin Luther King, Jr., etched into the black marble — “Until justice rolls down like waters” — and intone, in our deepest voices, “Until justice rolls down like dollars.” The Law Center had a way of turning idealists into cynics.

In the pages that followed, he described a place with an “uncomfortable” racial dynamic where female staffers were “warned by their new colleagues about Dees’s reputation for hitting on young women.” He described how another former writer called the place a “ a virtual buffet of injustices” with problems “racial, sexual, financial.”

On March 19, the SPLC announced that it was hiring an outside lawyer to “review its workplace environment and policies.” Three days later, Richard Cohen, the president of the SPLC, stepped down. And yesterday, the New York Times published an almost 2,000-word report on the SPLC’s “intolerance within”:

Current and former employees said Mr. Dees’s dismissal was only part of the turbulence rattling a social justice organization afflicted by morale issues, staff turnover and a sense that the center has not embraced the values that it champions across the country.

Oh, I disagree. Given the intolerance and bad faith it exhibited in its evaluations and assessments of all too many conservatives and Christians, I’d argue that the SPLC has embraced exactly the values it champions. It’s intolerant through and through.

Intolerant and fraudulent, in fact. In a scorching piece in Current Affairs, Nathan Robinson points out the hysterical exaggerations in the SPLC’s assessment of hate groups. It essentially manufactures fear. This paragraph is amazing:

In fact, when you actually look at the hate map, you find something interesting: Many of these “groups” barely seem to exist at all. A “Holocaust denial” group in Kerrville, Texas, called “carolynyeager.net” appears to just be a woman called Carolyn Yeager. A “male supremacy” group called Return of Kings is apparently just a blog published by pick-up artist Roosh V and a couple of his friends, and the most recent post is an announcement from six months ago that the project was on indefinite hiatus. Tony Alamo, the abusive cult leader of “Tony Alamo Christian Ministries,” died in prison in 2017. (Though his ministry’s website still promotes “Tony Alamo’s Unreleased Beatles Album.”) A “black nationalist” group in Atlanta called “Luxor Couture” appears to be an African fashion boutique. “Sharkhunters International” is one guy who really likes U-boats and takes small groups of sad Nazis on tours to see ruins and relics. And good luck finding out much about the “Samanta Roy Institute of Science and Technology,” which — if it is currently operative at all — is a tiny anti-Catholic cult based in Shawano, Wisconsin.

What’s to be done? The SPLC can sort itself out. Hopefully it can rediscover its roots and focus its efforts on combating white supremacy and renew its commitment to poverty law. There was a time when it would represent indigent death-row inmates, for example, and there remains ample opportunity to do good for America’s poorest citizens. The SPLC has an almost half-billion-dollar endowment. You can hire a lot of lawyers with that kind of cash.

But the rest of the world should move on. The rest of the world should recognize that a corrupt organization has generated corrupt assessments of its fellow citizens, and it should be ignored. We don’t need the SPLC to spot white supremacists, and we certainly don’t need the SPLC to evaluate religious doctrines — be they Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.

This organization has devolved from helping people to hurting people, but it only has the power that the media and progressive corporations give it. Now, every single time a media organization or a company uses the SPLC’s listings, it should be held to account. There is no excuse. The emperor has no clothes. The SPLC is in a state of moral collapse.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/rambling-reporter/jordan-peele-says-i-dont-see-myself-casting-a-white-dude-as-lead-us-1197021

Hot off the record-breaking success of his latest high-minded horror flick, the writer-director advised Hollywood improv students on ego, marijuana use and why minority actors will always star in his films.

On Monday, as the town buzzed about new box office records set by Us, the film's 40-year-old director, Jordan Peele, was not wiling away the hours in a Universal lot bungalow fielding congratulatory calls from studio execs. Peele was on a cramped stage in East Hollywood at improv mecca Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre, the starriest guest yet for the school's new conversation series.

There was a sense of familiarity hovering over the proceedings. No surprise, as Peele got his start in improv before landing on MADtv in 2003, then achieving sketch-comedy stardom with Comedy Central's Key & Peele in 2012.

Peele gave the standing-room-only audience — a diverse set of 20-something improv students, aspiring storytellers and fans — about an hour and 20 minutes of his time in a wide-ranging conversation that covered his hugely successful career, his marijuana dependence (a double-edged sword), the making of Get Out, inclusive casting and his favorite Twilight Zone episode.

The audience gave Peele a raucous standing ovation when he entered the room, a conquering hero dressed down in dark denim jeans, black Nikes, an Aviator Nation hoodie and T-shirt with Corey Feldman’s face on it, for some reason.

UCB co-founder and moderator Ian Roberts, who executive produced Key & Peele, began by mentioning Us' $88 million global box office haul — the "second-biggest opening for an original live-action film," he noted. Added Peele: "That's after Avatar. The stats get cooler when you say the thing that beat me."

"The best way to end this great weekend is with you guys,” Peele told the crowd of 200. The moderator asked Peele when he first recognized his earliest glimmers of talent. That would be when Peele was in fifth grade doing a stint at TADA! Youth Theater in New York City. He recalled feeling a “burning sensation in my gut” that was hotter than his shyness. Peele was cast in a show that proved to be “the first win in a long career of wins and losses.”

From an early age, Peele showed natural skill at drawing, painting and other visual arts. “But the performing part came out of nowhere," he recalled. "It surprised everyone.” No one more so than his single mother. “When I was 7, I did an impression of Ronald Reagan and my mom gave me great feedback,” he said, before launching into that wobble-headed impression with a raspy, "Hello." 

He credited his skill with impressions and, later, improv to his ears. The art of listening, he continued, is something that continues to inform and elevate his work. "Nothing is more important," Peele insisted. "The more you are armed with what you take in, the more ammo you have. ... Directing for me is about hiring the right people, listening to them and helping them do the best job possible."

Peele said he’s also learned how to listen to his ego — and to turn down the volume. “You have to shelve it,” he said. “You have to check it constantly. It’s so easy for it to come out and rear its ugly head.” That can happen anywhere from the set of a $20 million horror film to the humble improv stage. “The ego is deceptive and it will screw you up,” he said, adding that when it comes to performing, the “honest response” will always get the biggest laugh.

He name-checked Steve Martin and Martin Lawrence as major influences in comedy; in directing, he listed Tim Burton (“the aesthetic and the fact that he was telling these fairy tales about 'the other'”) and Ridley Scott ("Alienand Thelma & Louise were two really important movies for me — very different, but perfect”). In high school, he knew he wanted to be a director, but rather than go to NYU to study film, he picked private liberal arts school Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York. 

"The day I didn't go to NYU, I said maybe [directing] wasn't for me," he recalled. In the end, Sarah Lawrence wasn't for Peele, either. He dropped out after two years in order to study improv and sketch comedy, noting a dearth of black performers in those fields, a hole he intended to fill. "I knew I had to leave," Peele said. "But it's not a classically lucrative industry, so it's not like I can recommend that black people get into it because it doesn't pay." The line drew weary laughter.

He moved to Chicago and studied at Second City, where he met Keegan-Michael Key. The two brought their talents to Los Angeles and landed on their feet with gigs on MADtv. Toward the end of his contract on the Fox sketch show, Peele said he was offered his dream gig: a spot in the cast of Saturday Night Live. It was around the time that then-Senator Barack Obama was "becoming a thing," he explained, and Peele did an uncanny impression of the future president. But MADtv producers wouldn't let him out of his contract, ending his SNLdreams.

He locked himself in a room and started smoking a lot of weed, plotting his revenge, "like a comic book supervillain," he explained. Then it hit him: "I wanted to be a producer," he realized. "These producers are making these decisions about art and comedy and they don't know anything about art and comedy. I want to be a producer and bring my artistry and they'll all be sorry."

Peele decided he first had to "be great" and gave himself "seven to eight" years to get there. So he started developing multiple projects simultaneously to see what stuck. Get Out was one of those early scripts. "Every two weeks I'd go, 'What the fuck am I doing? I'm writing a movie where a black man is victimized and all the white people are evil and I'm trying to get the audience to have fun,'" he recalled. "But if you could make that fun … that's what brought me back."

He eventually finished the script. Producer Sean McKittrick bought the thriller spec on the spot, to Peele's utter surprise. That turned to shock when McKittrick said he was on board with the idea of Peele directing it himself.

Budgeted at $5 million, the film became a cultural phenomenon, earning north of $250 million worldwide and winning Peele an Oscar for best original screenplay. He saw his status in Hollywood change almost overnight. With the success of Us, he's now well on his way to joining the rarified ranks of blockbuster auteurs like Christopher Nolan and personal hero Scott. 

Fame is still something he's figuring out. "I don't envy someone who gets famous overnight," Peele cautioned. "The hardest part is being recognized. I used to think that being in the public eye gave you power. But all of a sudden, they have the power and can come up to you an hour into dinner." 

But there are other kinds of power, and Peele plans on wielding his judiciously. One way is to continue putting black faces on the screen in leading roles. "The way I look at it," he explained, "I get to cast black people in my movies. I feel fortunate to be in this position where I can say to Universal, 'I want to make a $20 million horror movie with a black family.' And they say yes." 

It's a formula he's not interested in messing with.

"I don’t see myself casting a white dude as the lead in my movie. Not that I don’t like white dudes," he said, nodding over to his moderator pal Roberts. "But I've seen that movie." The line drew loud applause and shouts of agreement. "It really is one of the best, greatest pieces of this story, is feeling like we are in this time — a renaissance has happened and proved the myths about representation in the industry are false."

During an audience Q&A, a woman asked Peele to name his favorite episode of The Twilight Zone, seeing as he's taking over from Rod Serling for CBS All Access' planned reboot of the sci-fi anthology series.

Peele cited "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street." The story centers on what happens to a neighborhood when they fear aliens have landed in their town. "It points out the ugliness and flaws of humanity," Peele explained. "That's what I like to do with my stories. The real monsters are within us. When people get together we are the greatest monster we've ever known." 

 

SF literally cannot wait for the new Twilight Zone. Peele is going to smash it.  The above is a compelling story, and I can even agree with his statement I highlighted.........But if he were white......and said that in the opposite direction, say opposition to casting a black character in a white role.......well then it just became racist......Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/rambling-reporter/jordan-peele-says-i-dont-see-myself-casting-a-white-dude-as-lead-us-1197021

Hot off the record-breaking success of his latest high-minded horror flick, the writer-director advised Hollywood improv students on ego, marijuana use and why minority actors will always star in his films.

On Monday, as the town buzzed about new box office records set by Us, the film's 40-year-old director, Jordan Peele, was not wiling away the hours in a Universal lot bungalow fielding congratulatory calls from studio execs. Peele was on a cramped stage in East Hollywood at improv mecca Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre, the starriest guest yet for the school's new conversation series.

There was a sense of familiarity hovering over the proceedings. No surprise, as Peele got his start in improv before landing on MADtv in 2003, then achieving sketch-comedy stardom with Comedy Central's Key & Peele in 2012.

Peele gave the standing-room-only audience — a diverse set of 20-something improv students, aspiring storytellers and fans — about an hour and 20 minutes of his time in a wide-ranging conversation that covered his hugely successful career, his marijuana dependence (a double-edged sword), the making of Get Out, inclusive casting and his favorite Twilight Zone episode.

The audience gave Peele a raucous standing ovation when he entered the room, a conquering hero dressed down in dark denim jeans, black Nikes, an Aviator Nation hoodie and T-shirt with Corey Feldman’s face on it, for some reason.

UCB co-founder and moderator Ian Roberts, who executive produced Key & Peele, began by mentioning Us' $88 million global box office haul — the "second-biggest opening for an original live-action film," he noted. Added Peele: "That's after Avatar. The stats get cooler when you say the thing that beat me."

"The best way to end this great weekend is with you guys,” Peele told the crowd of 200. The moderator asked Peele when he first recognized his earliest glimmers of talent. That would be when Peele was in fifth grade doing a stint at TADA! Youth Theater in New York City. He recalled feeling a “burning sensation in my gut” that was hotter than his shyness. Peele was cast in a show that proved to be “the first win in a long career of wins and losses.”

From an early age, Peele showed natural skill at drawing, painting and other visual arts. “But the performing part came out of nowhere," he recalled. "It surprised everyone.” No one more so than his single mother. “When I was 7, I did an impression of Ronald Reagan and my mom gave me great feedback,” he said, before launching into that wobble-headed impression with a raspy, "Hello." 

He credited his skill with impressions and, later, improv to his ears. The art of listening, he continued, is something that continues to inform and elevate his work. "Nothing is more important," Peele insisted. "The more you are armed with what you take in, the more ammo you have. ... Directing for me is about hiring the right people, listening to them and helping them do the best job possible."

Peele said he’s also learned how to listen to his ego — and to turn down the volume. “You have to shelve it,” he said. “You have to check it constantly. It’s so easy for it to come out and rear its ugly head.” That can happen anywhere from the set of a $20 million horror film to the humble improv stage. “The ego is deceptive and it will screw you up,” he said, adding that when it comes to performing, the “honest response” will always get the biggest laugh.

He name-checked Steve Martin and Martin Lawrence as major influences in comedy; in directing, he listed Tim Burton (“the aesthetic and the fact that he was telling these fairy tales about 'the other'”) and Ridley Scott ("Alienand Thelma & Louise were two really important movies for me — very different, but perfect”). In high school, he knew he wanted to be a director, but rather than go to NYU to study film, he picked private liberal arts school Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York. 

"The day I didn't go to NYU, I said maybe [directing] wasn't for me," he recalled. In the end, Sarah Lawrence wasn't for Peele, either. He dropped out after two years in order to study improv and sketch comedy, noting a dearth of black performers in those fields, a hole he intended to fill. "I knew I had to leave," Peele said. "But it's not a classically lucrative industry, so it's not like I can recommend that black people get into it because it doesn't pay." The line drew weary laughter.

He moved to Chicago and studied at Second City, where he met Keegan-Michael Key. The two brought their talents to Los Angeles and landed on their feet with gigs on MADtv. Toward the end of his contract on the Fox sketch show, Peele said he was offered his dream gig: a spot in the cast of Saturday Night Live. It was around the time that then-Senator Barack Obama was "becoming a thing," he explained, and Peele did an uncanny impression of the future president. But MADtv producers wouldn't let him out of his contract, ending his SNLdreams.

He locked himself in a room and started smoking a lot of weed, plotting his revenge, "like a comic book supervillain," he explained. Then it hit him: "I wanted to be a producer," he realized. "These producers are making these decisions about art and comedy and they don't know anything about art and comedy. I want to be a producer and bring my artistry and they'll all be sorry."

Peele decided he first had to "be great" and gave himself "seven to eight" years to get there. So he started developing multiple projects simultaneously to see what stuck. Get Out was one of those early scripts. "Every two weeks I'd go, 'What the fuck am I doing? I'm writing a movie where a black man is victimized and all the white people are evil and I'm trying to get the audience to have fun,'" he recalled. "But if you could make that fun … that's what brought me back."

He eventually finished the script. Producer Sean McKittrick bought the thriller spec on the spot, to Peele's utter surprise. That turned to shock when McKittrick said he was on board with the idea of Peele directing it himself.

Budgeted at $5 million, the film became a cultural phenomenon, earning north of $250 million worldwide and winning Peele an Oscar for best original screenplay. He saw his status in Hollywood change almost overnight. With the success of Us, he's now well on his way to joining the rarified ranks of blockbuster auteurs like Christopher Nolan and personal hero Scott. 

Fame is still something he's figuring out. "I don't envy someone who gets famous overnight," Peele cautioned. "The hardest part is being recognized. I used to think that being in the public eye gave you power. But all of a sudden, they have the power and can come up to you an hour into dinner." 

But there are other kinds of power, and Peele plans on wielding his judiciously. One way is to continue putting black faces on the screen in leading roles. "The way I look at it," he explained, "I get to cast black people in my movies. I feel fortunate to be in this position where I can say to Universal, 'I want to make a $20 million horror movie with a black family.' And they say yes." 

It's a formula he's not interested in messing with.

"I don’t see myself casting a white dude as the lead in my movie. Not that I don’t like white dudes," he said, nodding over to his moderator pal Roberts. "But I've seen that movie." The line drew loud applause and shouts of agreement. "It really is one of the best, greatest pieces of this story, is feeling like we are in this time — a renaissance has happened and proved the myths about representation in the industry are false."

During an audience Q&A, a woman asked Peele to name his favorite episode of The Twilight Zone, seeing as he's taking over from Rod Serling for CBS All Access' planned reboot of the sci-fi anthology series.

Peele cited "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street." The story centers on what happens to a neighborhood when they fear aliens have landed in their town. "It points out the ugliness and flaws of humanity," Peele explained. "That's what I like to do with my stories. The real monsters are within us. When people get together we are the greatest monster we've ever known." 

 

SF literally cannot wait for the new Twilight Zone. Peele is going to smash it.  The above is a compelling story, and I can even agree with his statement I highlighted.........But if he were white......and said that in the opposite direction, say opposition to casting a black character in a white role.......well then it just became racist......Right?

Yes, I believe it would. 

And while Mr. Peele's reboot of TTZ sounds interesting I'm not sure I want to shell out $X for another streaming service at the moment.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/28/black-press-only-at-political-meeting-in-georgia-church/3305136002/

Organizers of a Wednesday meeting about an upcoming mayoral election asked that only black journalists cover the event at a church in Savannah, Georgia.

"No media (T.V. Radio, etc.) Black Press Only!" read a sign posted on the door of Bolton Street Baptist Church. The Savanah Morning news reports that white reporters were barred from entering the event while multiple black reporters were permitted to enter.

A social media post made by the Trigon Group to promote the meeting says the community gathering was intended to unify support in the African American community behind a single candidate for mayor among multiple candidates. That post also says "Black Media ONLY!"

In this Wednesday, March 27, 2019 photo, signs posted on the doors of the Bolton Street Baptist Church are seen during a meeting coordinated to garner support for one black candidate in Savannah's mayoral race, in Savannah, Ga.

In this Wednesday, March 27, 2019 photo, signs posted on the doors of the Bolton Street Baptist Church are seen during a meeting coordinated to garner support for one black candidate in Savannah's mayoral race, in Savannah, Ga. (Photo: Eric Curl/Savannah Morning News via AP)

 

USA TODAY's attempts to contact to The Trigon Group via phone and email were not immediately returned.

Van Johnson, one of multiple black mayoral candidates to have announced a campaign for the November election, is told by a reporter that he was denied entrance to the meeting.I think that's unfortunate," Johnson responded.

Johnson also told the station that he believed event organizers had the right to determine who to admit to an event. He suggested he would speak at an event where only white reporters were allowed to attend.

WJCL reported that journalists who were allowed inside the meeting were treated "with suspicion." The station says that about 50 people attended the event.

The meeting was held as the city's first white mayor in 20 years, Eddie DeLoach, is seeking re-election this fall.

 

Assuming this is not racist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2019 at 9:50 AM, swordfish said:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/rambling-reporter/jordan-peele-says-i-dont-see-myself-casting-a-white-dude-as-lead-us-1197021

Hot off the record-breaking success of his latest high-minded horror flick, the writer-director advised Hollywood improv students on ego, marijuana use and why minority actors will always star in his films.

On Monday, as the town buzzed about new box office records set by Us, the film's 40-year-old director, Jordan Peele, was not wiling away the hours in a Universal lot bungalow fielding congratulatory calls from studio execs. Peele was on a cramped stage in East Hollywood at improv mecca Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre, the starriest guest yet for the school's new conversation series.

There was a sense of familiarity hovering over the proceedings. No surprise, as Peele got his start in improv before landing on MADtv in 2003, then achieving sketch-comedy stardom with Comedy Central's Key & Peele in 2012.

Peele gave the standing-room-only audience — a diverse set of 20-something improv students, aspiring storytellers and fans — about an hour and 20 minutes of his time in a wide-ranging conversation that covered his hugely successful career, his marijuana dependence (a double-edged sword), the making of Get Out, inclusive casting and his favorite Twilight Zone episode.

The audience gave Peele a raucous standing ovation when he entered the room, a conquering hero dressed down in dark denim jeans, black Nikes, an Aviator Nation hoodie and T-shirt with Corey Feldman’s face on it, for some reason.

UCB co-founder and moderator Ian Roberts, who executive produced Key & Peele, began by mentioning Us' $88 million global box office haul — the "second-biggest opening for an original live-action film," he noted. Added Peele: "That's after Avatar. The stats get cooler when you say the thing that beat me."

"The best way to end this great weekend is with you guys,” Peele told the crowd of 200. The moderator asked Peele when he first recognized his earliest glimmers of talent. That would be when Peele was in fifth grade doing a stint at TADA! Youth Theater in New York City. He recalled feeling a “burning sensation in my gut” that was hotter than his shyness. Peele was cast in a show that proved to be “the first win in a long career of wins and losses.”

From an early age, Peele showed natural skill at drawing, painting and other visual arts. “But the performing part came out of nowhere," he recalled. "It surprised everyone.” No one more so than his single mother. “When I was 7, I did an impression of Ronald Reagan and my mom gave me great feedback,” he said, before launching into that wobble-headed impression with a raspy, "Hello." 

He credited his skill with impressions and, later, improv to his ears. The art of listening, he continued, is something that continues to inform and elevate his work. "Nothing is more important," Peele insisted. "The more you are armed with what you take in, the more ammo you have. ... Directing for me is about hiring the right people, listening to them and helping them do the best job possible."

Peele said he’s also learned how to listen to his ego — and to turn down the volume. “You have to shelve it,” he said. “You have to check it constantly. It’s so easy for it to come out and rear its ugly head.” That can happen anywhere from the set of a $20 million horror film to the humble improv stage. “The ego is deceptive and it will screw you up,” he said, adding that when it comes to performing, the “honest response” will always get the biggest laugh.

He name-checked Steve Martin and Martin Lawrence as major influences in comedy; in directing, he listed Tim Burton (“the aesthetic and the fact that he was telling these fairy tales about 'the other'”) and Ridley Scott ("Alienand Thelma & Louise were two really important movies for me — very different, but perfect”). In high school, he knew he wanted to be a director, but rather than go to NYU to study film, he picked private liberal arts school Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York. 

"The day I didn't go to NYU, I said maybe [directing] wasn't for me," he recalled. In the end, Sarah Lawrence wasn't for Peele, either. He dropped out after two years in order to study improv and sketch comedy, noting a dearth of black performers in those fields, a hole he intended to fill. "I knew I had to leave," Peele said. "But it's not a classically lucrative industry, so it's not like I can recommend that black people get into it because it doesn't pay." The line drew weary laughter.

He moved to Chicago and studied at Second City, where he met Keegan-Michael Key. The two brought their talents to Los Angeles and landed on their feet with gigs on MADtv. Toward the end of his contract on the Fox sketch show, Peele said he was offered his dream gig: a spot in the cast of Saturday Night Live. It was around the time that then-Senator Barack Obama was "becoming a thing," he explained, and Peele did an uncanny impression of the future president. But MADtv producers wouldn't let him out of his contract, ending his SNLdreams.

He locked himself in a room and started smoking a lot of weed, plotting his revenge, "like a comic book supervillain," he explained. Then it hit him: "I wanted to be a producer," he realized. "These producers are making these decisions about art and comedy and they don't know anything about art and comedy. I want to be a producer and bring my artistry and they'll all be sorry."

Peele decided he first had to "be great" and gave himself "seven to eight" years to get there. So he started developing multiple projects simultaneously to see what stuck. Get Out was one of those early scripts. "Every two weeks I'd go, 'What the fuck am I doing? I'm writing a movie where a black man is victimized and all the white people are evil and I'm trying to get the audience to have fun,'" he recalled. "But if you could make that fun … that's what brought me back."

He eventually finished the script. Producer Sean McKittrick bought the thriller spec on the spot, to Peele's utter surprise. That turned to shock when McKittrick said he was on board with the idea of Peele directing it himself.

Budgeted at $5 million, the film became a cultural phenomenon, earning north of $250 million worldwide and winning Peele an Oscar for best original screenplay. He saw his status in Hollywood change almost overnight. With the success of Us, he's now well on his way to joining the rarified ranks of blockbuster auteurs like Christopher Nolan and personal hero Scott. 

Fame is still something he's figuring out. "I don't envy someone who gets famous overnight," Peele cautioned. "The hardest part is being recognized. I used to think that being in the public eye gave you power. But all of a sudden, they have the power and can come up to you an hour into dinner." 

But there are other kinds of power, and Peele plans on wielding his judiciously. One way is to continue putting black faces on the screen in leading roles. "The way I look at it," he explained, "I get to cast black people in my movies. I feel fortunate to be in this position where I can say to Universal, 'I want to make a $20 million horror movie with a black family.' And they say yes." 

It's a formula he's not interested in messing with.

"I don’t see myself casting a white dude as the lead in my movie. Not that I don’t like white dudes," he said, nodding over to his moderator pal Roberts. "But I've seen that movie." The line drew loud applause and shouts of agreement. "It really is one of the best, greatest pieces of this story, is feeling like we are in this time — a renaissance has happened and proved the myths about representation in the industry are false."

During an audience Q&A, a woman asked Peele to name his favorite episode of The Twilight Zone, seeing as he's taking over from Rod Serling for CBS All Access' planned reboot of the sci-fi anthology series.

Peele cited "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street." The story centers on what happens to a neighborhood when they fear aliens have landed in their town. "It points out the ugliness and flaws of humanity," Peele explained. "That's what I like to do with my stories. The real monsters are within us. When people get together we are the greatest monster we've ever known." 

 

SF literally cannot wait for the new Twilight Zone. Peele is going to smash it.  The above is a compelling story, and I can even agree with his statement I highlighted.........But if he were white......and said that in the opposite direction, say opposition to casting a black character in a white role.......well then it just became racist......Right?

He wasn't specifically talk about white or black "roles."  If you asked him if, given the chance to direct a movie about the life of Al Pacino, would he cast a black actor in the lead role, I imagine he'd give you a funny look. 

On the other hand, if you are talking about fictional characters created out of thin air for a movie, the race of the characters is very often irrelevant, so the race of the actor playing that character is also irrelevant. If the dude wants to address the historical short changing of black actors when it comes to getting such roles -- which he identified as his motivation -- by going the other way for awhile in casting his movies, what's wrong with that?  It is difficult to perceive what sort of similar non-racist motivation would exist for a white director to declare he will only cast white people in all race-is-irrelevant roles in his\her movies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

He wasn't specifically talk about white or black "roles."  If you asked him if, given the chance to direct a movie about the life of Al Pacino, would he cast a black actor in the lead role, I imagine he'd give you a funny look. 

On the other hand, if you are talking about fictional characters created out of thin air for a movie, the race of the characters is very often irrelevant, so the race of the actor playing that character is also irrelevant. If the dude wants to address the historical short changing of black actors when it comes to getting such roles -- which he identified as his motivation -- by going the other way for awhile in casting his movies, what's wrong with that?  It is difficult to perceive what sort of similar non-racist motivation would exist for a white director to declare he will only cast white people in all race-is-irrelevant roles in his\her movies.

and I can even agree with his statement I highlighted.........But if he were white......and said that in the opposite direction, say opposition to casting a black character in a white role......

My point - The reason/motivation/intent is irrelevant, if a white person ever made that same statement in the same context, there would be instant damnation from every angle.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, swordfish said:

and I can even agree with his statement I highlighted.........But if he were white......and said that in the opposite direction, say opposition to casting a black character in a white role......

My point - The reason/motivation/intent is irrelevant, if a white person ever made that same statement in the same context, there would be instant damnation from every angle.......

 As I explained, the historical context explains why a black director making such a statement  is not racist. And as I said, I can't think of a similar context that explains how a white director could say the same thing and not come across as racist, since there has not been any equivalent history of white actors being short changed in getting roles just because they were white.

If you can give a context in which you would see it as non-racist for a white director to say he will only cast white actors in his movies, I am open to considering it. But otherwise, your refusal to acknowledge that context affects meaning leaves you arguing that  apples are oranges.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...