Wow, I haven’t witnessed such projection since the last time I watched Shakespeare in the Park :rolleyes: .
You’re like those widestanced Republicans who think all men are one opportunistic bathroom stall away from hot sweaty manlove.
Can’t remember what you wrote, eh? Or how to click the arrow to go to the original post? Are the lapses happening again, Slacky?
Did you have a fugue-dream that anything else in your whole post changes the meaning of what I quoted? Because i have some sad news for you…
…and no, I don’t “care to” do you any fucking favours. *You *think the rest of your post changes what you wrote, *you *quote it, you racist piece of shit.
Fair enough, but to me he’s MORE of a pretentious git, so if I had to choose a label, I would go with that one.
Actually, I think he’s just here for the [del]bear-buggery[/del] abuse.
Why not both?
“Pretentious racist” is about right.
He thought Dean Armitage was the protagonist of Get Out.
If he could, he would have voted for Obama for a third term.
Sure, let’s be all inclusive.
Except Josh from TWW was lying, and I really would (and so would you).
I don’t have an “arrow” on my iPhone display of these posts. But if people can go to the post (even from another thread) via the hypertext, that’s fine then.
Ah, you did misread me. I suppose I could have been clearer, my bad.
I meant that I didn’t think it was possible a film by an acclaimed black, female director would be so bad that most critics would (albeit mostly hesitantly, as lampooned in the Onion piece) actually admit it’s bad.
But I certainly don’t believe that last bit either (“You actually believe the opposite: that’s it’s a sure bet a celebrated black female director will make a box officer stinker.”). I would have thought my high praise for Spike Lee, Barry Jenkins, and Justin Simien would have demonstrated otherwise. Unless you think the female part is the dealbreaker? But I assure you, there are female filmmakers I admire very much: Kelly Reichardt, Jane Campion, and Alex Sichel come to mind.
But they are all white…so I guess you might think I am cool with black male filmmakers, and white female filmmakers, but not black female filmmakers? Does that really make sense? I mean, I can’t name any black female filmmakers I like, but I’m hardly closed off to the idea if I see something good. Total meritocracy over here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Racism doesn’t require malice. The assertion I just criticized was the most blatantly racist thing I can recall you saying. It didn’t require malice. You’ve admitted to paternalistic racism yourself.
But since you recognize it, you can fix it. You can realize that you grew up in a white supremacist society, and this affected your views on race, just as it did for mine and most other folks who grew up in America. You can recognize that test scores don’t, and critically, can’t, tell us anything about genetics when society is still so profoundly unbalanced, even for high-income black folks. You can recognize that it’s not a coincidence that you believe in a hierarchical level of intelligence linked to race, and that the ethnic group you hail from happens to be at the top.
And this thread is proof, if anyone doubted it, that one can vote for Obama while still holding profoundly racist views about black people.
East Asians are at the top (or Ashkenazi Jews, if you count them as a racial/ethnic group). Of which groups I am neither. So much for the “coincidence”!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Care to share your rankings of ethnic groups for capability of producing great works of cinema?
Just to be really, really clear:
Do you think that black people, due to genetic factors, are generally less intelligent than average and that East Asians/some Jews are generally more intelligent, and that this difference is rooted in genetic differences that are not the result of and cannot be altered by any sort of social engineering?
You grouped Caucasians in with those two groups in this post:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20157732&postcount=55
But funny (and sad, really) to see you focusing just on this part. I think you’re probably a smart person, but it’s a shame that you’re so married to these racist ideas. That’s a choice you’re making, and it’s not one based on scientific evidence, and it’s a choice that you don’t have to make. Please consider making another choice.
No. And even a lot of “race realists” get this backward. I think black people ARE the average: they represent by far the greatest amount of genetic diversity on Earth, and two different black people could easily be as or more different genetically than a native Norwegian is to a Chinese person.
Black people represent the basic gene pool of humanity, which originated in Africa. White people and East Asians are descendants of a much smaller (and more genetically distinct/less genetically diverse) population that migrated out of Africa relatively recently in evolutionary terms. So white people and Asians are more like “extended families” while black people represent the broader mass of humanity.
I think what has happened is that just as you see certain families that tend toward higher IQs (and this high level of heritability persists when you do twin studies, adoption studies, etc.), whites and Asians are like those families. If they had not left Africa, they would have kept mixing with the African gene pool and they would have regressed to the mean.
There is also another major problem in black populations: lead, which lowers IQ. Black people tend to be more likely to be in poor quality housing where lead paint chips are prevalent; they also, sadly, seem to have a greater sensitivity to its effects.
And then of course there are environmental effects, which certainly include racism but most significantly involve poor parenting practices (my high school valedictorian was a black guy—dark skinned so unlikely to be very “mixed”—who was adopted at birth by a white family).
But that’s not very PC to talk about either, because it indicts black culture in a sense (which we also know tends to be much more into corporal punishment). But we shouldn’t be surprised that their culture got kind of fucked up from centuries of slavery and Jim Crow, so in saying that I’m not blaming them (hence the paternalism).
I may as well note, for those who didn’t follow other threads where these issues have come up, that all this leads me to strongly support reparations for slavery and well funded social programs that benefit black people, but to oppose affirmative action. Once again, not a very common political profile! But I’d like to see it become more common.
ETA: Andy, you too seem smart—but hopelessly blinkered (or cowed?) by political correctness, or maybe just what Steven Pinker calls the “standard social science model” or SSSM.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In the CS thread, someone reminded me about the bouncing ball scene. That WAS cool. The only interesting part of the movie.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seems convenient - just label all arguments counter to your own as “blinkered by political correctness”. It saves you the trouble of having to supply facts.
WTF, that post was full of facts! Dense with ‘em.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s the reality of the way Hollywood works. Opportunities are limited and there are gatekeepers.
Zack Snyder can make several terrible movies and still be offered new jobs. And certainly nobody that his failures reflect on anyone else.
But if Catwoman fails, studios say “Well, superhero movies with a female lead don’t work. We won’t try one of those again.” If Steel fails, studios say “Well, superhero movies with a black lead don’t work. We won’t try one of those again.” If Ghostbusters fails, studios say “Well, comedy movies with a female cast don’t work. We won’t try one of those again.”
Women and non-white men in Hollywood know how much is riding on their success. If they have a single failure it can not only end their career, it can also ruin the careers of dozens of other women or non-white men. They’re all playing on one-strike rules.
I think that was true until pretty recently. The countervailing pressure is so strong now, I don’t think it is any more. I mean, ten years ago, this Disney movie would have had mostly white characters as in the book (with a token black friend at the beginning), and no way would the director be a woman, much less a black woman.
But yes: a pioneer like DuVernay still has pressure to make something at least reasonably good. That she did not is a setback, no question.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh, is that your standard?