Re: Pictures and Videos for R&P
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:10 pm
Donald Trump has a supercomputer in his brain that is even smarter than he is.
Also, I've seen people make arguments on coke, and this is what it looks like.
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
"He's learned after 40 years to trust his instincts..." The dude is 72. What's next, he golfs a 15 at Sawgrass?Holman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:10 pm
Donald Trump has a supercomputer in his brain that is even smarter than he is.
Also, I've seen people make arguments on coke, and this is what it looks like.
Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring blacked up his face in 1980 when dressing as Kurtis Blow. Herring admitted what he did and apologized. Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s yearbook page contains a photo of a man in blackface next to someone dressed as a Klansman. Northam admitted he was one of the men and apologized, then said perhaps he wasn’t in the photograph at all.
Is it right to treat these two acts in the same way, as unforgivable acts of racism, even white supremacy?
I wonder if we are allowing social progress to detour into a kind of reflexive shaming. I wonder if all blacking up is alike, or if even blackface contains shades of grey.
Perhaps there is a difference between blacking up to mock black people, as whom we might term as the person pictured on Northam’s yearbook page seems to have done, and blacking up in affectionate imitation of a black person, as part of seeking to resemble said person, as Herring did. One indication that the latter is reasonable is that it was common among highly enlightened people in times hardly as removed from ours as Al Jolson and The Birth of a Nation.
It's a blurry line to be sure. For some cases. But when you have contextual clues, like standing next to a guy in a Klan good or wearing a noose, it's pretty damned clear.
I don't think the Tropic Thunder example is relevant at all. It was a satirical take on method acting, and the movie acknowledges how offensive it is.
Does that make what Danson did acceptable? No. But it's pretty clear his situation is totally different than say, Michael Richards screaming the n-word at members of his audience. And it's obvious why one of them had their career ruined, while the other is still in many ways a beloved actor.Goldberg, seated next to Danson, laughed and smiled at the material. Speaking last, she defended her friend: "Let's get these words all out in the open. It took a whole lot of courage to come out in blackface in front of 3,000 people. I don't care if you didn't like it. I did."
Goldberg said in a statement Saturday that she knew what Danson and other speakers were planning and that "made the day particularly fun because these were people who love me.
"If people on the dais and in the audience were not aware of what the day was supposed to consist of, they should have checked to see what the tenor of these roasts are, and then made a decision as to whether or not they wanted to participate."
I guess you didn't watch the entire video then. Fairfax's issues were directly mentioned.Moliere wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:27 amCurious that they never show a picture of Fairfax or mention him by name. Instead of talking about a probable serial rapist they make joke after joke about the blackface pictures. If there are two credible allegations against Fairfax I would bet more women will start coming forward.
Read what I wrote: "they never show a picture of Fairfax or mention him by name". Yes, they mentioned his actions in passing without showing his picture or saying his name.msteelers wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:41 pmI guess you didn't watch the entire video then. Fairfax's issues were directly mentioned.Moliere wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:27 amCurious that they never show a picture of Fairfax or mention him by name. Instead of talking about a probable serial rapist they make joke after joke about the blackface pictures. If there are two credible allegations against Fairfax I would bet more women will start coming forward.
"The evil librul media took my comments out of context" in 3...2...1...Fox News host Pete Hegseth explained on Sunday that he doesn’t wash his hands because “germs are not a real thing.”
Following a commercial break, Fox & Friends co-host Jedediah Bila revealed that Hegseth had been munching on day-old pizza that was left on the set.
“Pizza Hut lasts for a long time,” Hegseth replied, defending himself. “My 2019 resolution is to say things on air that I say off air. I don’t think I’ve washed my hands for 10 years. Really, I don’t really wash my hands ever.”
Totally different.YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:01 pm Blackface and a comedian putting on prosthetics and makeup to resemble someone they're impersonating are two totally different things.
What is your opinion of White Chicks? Is it ever acceptable for one race to portray another in cinema? Is so, when? If not, why?Moliere wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:26 pmTotally different.YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:01 pm Blackface and a comedian putting on prosthetics and makeup to resemble someone they're impersonating are two totally different things.
How do we know they're not totally different? Because the two Jimmy's would never dare do it today.
The current state of the world does not allow for nuance. Outrage culture will burn anyone to the ground for attempting to make a distinction.
Context. There's a long history of whites using blackface as a way to dehumanize and remove power from blacks. There's no such history of blacks using whiteface to do the same. Whites are also the beneficiaries of systemic racism that keeps them in a position of power over blacks, so there's an element of punching down. In general, I'd say yeah, it's generally not a great idea for people of one race to dress up as another, because it carries a subtext of "this person's racial identity is a costume that I can put on for entertainment." That said, if you're going to cross those lines, you best be doing it to someone higher than you on the ladder. I'm a straight white dude. It's probably okay for me to dress up as Trump for Halloween, but just about everything else is probably out of bounds.GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:07 amWhat is your opinion of White Chicks? Is it ever acceptable for one race to portray another in cinema? Is so, when? If not, why?Moliere wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:26 pmTotally different.YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:01 pm Blackface and a comedian putting on prosthetics and makeup to resemble someone they're impersonating are two totally different things.
How do we know they're not totally different? Because the two Jimmy's would never dare do it today.
I've come to believe more and more that this is true. But I do think we are seeing a "righting of the ship" in many ways. For example, I was reading some Garth Ennis graphic novels (or, as most people say, comic books) from the late 90's/early 00's the other day and the amount of outright homophobic and racist jokes that were there for pure shock/comedy value and NOT as socially critical satire was pretty striking. When I read those same comics back in the day, I remember thinking "this is cutting edge!", but now I view them through a more compassionate lens and I see how just truly mean spirited and ugly they are.
True. But I worry that we're not seeing much of it because of the current clime. Mel Brooks would get killed for Blazing Saddles in today's world, but the movie itself made an escaped slave the hero of the story while pointing out that much of the racist stereotypes of that day we're pretty goddamn stupid. It had its flaws, but it was, in my opinion, great satire.
I didn’t take it that way. I thought he was just saying that the distinctions people were posting wouldn’t fly with the OUTRAGE crowd, not that the distinctions themselves were flawed or weak necessarily. But maybe I misunderstood.ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:22 amWell, that certainly seems to be what you are doing when people here are trying to make distinctions.
Maybe not but Jimmy Fallon's was satire. He was wearing blackface because the skit was about how they don't hire black people in Hollywood. The "joke" was that he was actually a white guy in blackface. I get that today outrage culture doesn't care about nuance but back then...there was at least some room. Hence why this isn't really an issue except for hypocrites trying to score points. Besides if people look back at it with a fair viewpoint (admittedly rare these days)...it clearly wasn't a racist working to keep black people down.Moliere wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:26 pmTotally different.YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:01 pm Blackface and a comedian putting on prosthetics and makeup to resemble someone they're impersonating are two totally different things.
How do we know they're not totally different? Because the two Jimmy's would never dare do it today.
I absolutely agree that blackface and minstrel shows were a thing. Does that mean it's impossible for a white person to ever play a black character? Is Zwarte Piet automatically racist despite the Netherlands not being guilty of minstrelism?Chaz wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:18 am
Context. There's a long history of whites using blackface as a way to dehumanize and remove power from blacks. There's no such history of blacks using whiteface to do the same. Whites are also the beneficiaries of systemic racism that keeps them in a position of power over blacks, so there's an element of punching down. In general, I'd say yeah, it's generally not a great idea for people of one race to dress up as another, because it carries a subtext of "this person's racial identity is a costume that I can put on for entertainment." That said, if you're going to cross those lines, you best be doing it to someone higher than you on the ladder. I'm a straight white dude. It's probably okay for me to dress up as Trump for Halloween, but just about everything else is probably out of bounds.
Putting on black makeup has recent historical significance that makes it far more than "simply putting on black makeup." Like drawing a swastika is far more than simply drawing an ancient Hindu symbol.
Perhaps, but minstrel makeup is not *all* black makeup. It's clown makeup. It's a stretch (that the American public is willing to make) that playing a serious role as a black man is also racism if a white person does it.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:57 pmPutting on black makeup has recent historical significance that makes it far more than "simply putting on black makeup."
It depends. If Soul Man has references to negative racial stereotypes in a non-ironic way, which I believe it does although my memory is failing me for which I am eternally grateful, then that's a big difference. Fried chicken and Watermelon aren't inherently funny, although I fully admit it's possible to make them funny if done with skill and intelligence, but again, they aren't *inherently* funny.YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:42 pm I think the White Chicks argument is irrelevant. It's about two black guys trying to pass themselves off as white women. There was also a little movie called "Soul Man" in which the very white C. Thomas Howell tried to pass himself off as a black man.
In both cases, the plot of the movie hinges on one race trying to pass as another; I think everyone understood that and was in on the joke.
I think these both fall under the comedic/satirical umbrella, and aren't really valid as comparisons to blackface.
Because, you know, if you're not black then you can't participate in a tribute to Motown.Many Twitter users were quick to criticize Lopez’s participation in the Motown tribute on Sunday, calling for black performers to honor the genre that was launched by Gordy with artists like Marvin Gaye, The Supremes, Gladys Knight & the Pips and The Temptations.
“J. Lo better not salsa her way to the cookout because she is uninvited for that terrible performance,” preacher Jared Sawyer Jr. tweeted on Sunday. “How do you do a Motown tribute without an ALL BLACK cast of artists?! And it’s Black History Month too.”
Sawyer suggested that Knight, Stevie Wonder, Patti LaBelle, Jennifer Hudson, Tina Tuner or “practically anyone else” take Lopez’s place.
It's not an example.of "outrage culture." It's an example of Twitter giving a platform to everyone regardless of merit or credibility and media picking it up as clickbait.Moliere wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:24 pm Here's an example of the outrage culture:
Jennifer Lopez Defends Grammys Motown Performance Amid Criticism — and Dedicates It to Her Mom
Because, you know, if you're not black then you can't participate in a tribute to Motown.Many Twitter users were quick to criticize Lopez’s participation in the Motown tribute on Sunday, calling for black performers to honor the genre that was launched by Gordy with artists like Marvin Gaye, The Supremes, Gladys Knight & the Pips and The Temptations.
“J. Lo better not salsa her way to the cookout because she is uninvited for that terrible performance,” preacher Jared Sawyer Jr. tweeted on Sunday. “How do you do a Motown tribute without an ALL BLACK cast of artists?! And it’s Black History Month too.”
Sawyer suggested that Knight, Stevie Wonder, Patti LaBelle, Jennifer Hudson, Tina Tuner or “practically anyone else” take Lopez’s place.
ColoradoJaymann wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:46 pmThanks, I was looking for a good shoe. Ordered.Kurth wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:33 pmFor something different, the Nike Epic Reacts are probably the most comfortable shoe I've ever worn.coopasonic wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 11:35 amI haven't bought Nike in a long time as Saucony make my running shoes of choice, but I may have to given them another chance.
Prime Time Sports, a sporting goods store in Colorado Springs, Colo., is closing its doors after more than 20 years in business. On Monday, owner Stephen Martin and employees posted signs in the store saying everything was 40 percent off, the beginning of the clearance sale.
Last year, Martin decided to pull all Nike items from his store, which sells all manner of items with sports team logos – apparel, mugs, blankets, wall plaques – after Nike’s ad campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick.
Nike is the official manufacturer of all NFL player jerseys, and much of the affiliated merchandise, like team hats, jackets and hoodies.
...
A sports store that doesn’t sell Nike – it’s kind of like…well, Martin might say it best.
“Being a sports store without Nike is kind of like being a milk store without milk or a gas station without gas,” he said.
...
Martin has a big problem with players who protest during the anthem, canceling a planned autograph session with Denver Broncos linebacker Brandon Marshall in 2016 after Marshall kneeled, protesting Marshall’s decision to use his platform to bring attention to issues of racial injustice.
“As much as I hate to admit this, perhaps there are more Brandon Marshall and Colin Kaepernick supporters out there than I realized,” Martin said.