wormlander
Super Freak
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 684
But I didn't even say anyth... Oh, you were talking to Dave. My bad...You filthy far right misogynist! Shame! Shaaame!!!!!!
View attachment 681825
But I didn't even say anyth... Oh, you were talking to Dave. My bad...You filthy far right misogynist! Shame! Shaaame!!!!!!
View attachment 681825
Actually its the law just about everywhere in this country...You’re muddying the waters. Accommodating people to live their lives more fully is not the same as hiring someone based primarily on certain characteristics, especially if there are better candidates.
And even accommodating people has it‘s limits. It doesn’t make sense nor is it feasible to add wheelchair ramps everywhere.
yeah , they are, and that has nothing to do with if the film is great.They are actively filling roles based primarily on gender/race/sexual preference. They have changed the rules for film awards based on these criteria. They are voraciously bragging about these things being good while making worse & worse films (granted “worse” is subjective but the box office metric would correlate with this).
The above is the current status quo.
I’ll concede that there may have never been a perfect meritocracy before but it was certainly better than what they’re doing now.
”do not make the good the enemy of the perfect”
That interview is 9 years old apparantly. If she didn't know about it before I bet she does now.Wouldn’t be surprised if daisy ridley just says “nah” after that interview lol
Equality is is equality of opportunity (putting ramps for diasabled for example so everyone can equally access a building) equity is equality of outcome (everyone gets a gold medal no matter how well they played).
then really you are for equality not equity, which makes you sane. your definitions of the words was off. Lack of ramps for disabled folk goes against equality as it denies opportunity. Giving a ramp does not ensure equal outcome as what they do in the building is up to them. (and it is up to them if they want to enter the building. If it is a running shoes store less wheelchair users will enter naturally, an unequal outcome in and of itself)Going off the standard definitions and not some left vs right political deviations, the way I was using those terms is basically equality means wheelchair people should have some form of access (everyone gets treated the same) and the equity means they get their own ramp (they get specific needs met to give them that access).
I disagree with quotas and ratio fixing. There shouldn't be an equal amount of people in wheelchairs coming through the door and any able bodied people aren't allowed in if there are too many of them. For the most part, the ramps are in place, but they're not everywhere and more can be done. What you do when you get up the ramp is all on you.
I'm for both though. Equality is about treating people the same. You can't treat people all the same. Not everyone is in the same situation. Some people need help more than others to get through life. This goes out to a much more broader issue though. In the film industry maybe I am just for equality. I don't know a lot about what goes on behind the scenes so I don't know how bad it is.then you are for equality not equity, which makes you sane
And what they should do is get rid of the fence all together. That's an unrealistic eutopia though...in some cases.
I don't think Disney feels like they *can* fire her because of the diversity boxes that she checks. Because then they risk backlash from their own side screaming at them for caving to misogynistic trolls or what have you. So they'll probably stay the course and just eat another "The Marvels" loss, otherwise their only other option will just be to "delay" the movie forever like they're doing with the Rian Johnson trilogy.Her statements were essentially public sexist remarks and it looks like Disney is backing her and her statements. So yeah, I think she'll be replaced for this position soon.
Honestly if she's just a hyper-feminist activist director and has been for the entirety of her career then I don't even fault her just staying the course on what she believes her "calling" to be. Iger and KK allowing her to use Star Wars as her platform for that "message" is what I take issue with.Now if she has made recent movies putting down ALL men as savages then i’m out asap lol
But if it’s just her sharia movies where she attacked their patriarchy then i’m ok with that.
Enter your email address to join: