Philosophy Discussion Forums

Xenophon wrote: ↑January 11th, 2024, 10:23 pm I think this thread is something like an immense game of 围棋， or "Go." You know, the big ol' board game with dozens of white and black stones. Player A tries to criticize the idea of black mermaids while still adhering to the letter of the gospel of racial equality. (I suppose the Boas oeuvre can be the rule book here.) Player B, meanwhile, tries to ferret out the "racist by implication" subtext of Player A's posts. If either player performs his mandated role (to his own satisfaction) this scores one point. As written, certain discrepancies in scoring are unavoidable. I suppose an AI umpire might be brought in to settle things. Anyhow, this game will supplant the NBA and NFL just as soon as UBI relieves players of the need to get a living.

I think this reveals more about you than the thread

Could be. I AM looking for a literary executor. You know, someone to delve into my copious unpublished papers and get at "What Xen O'Phan (my birth name, believe it or not) really meant."

The real problem with this "debate" , if you can call it that, is the absurd polarisation which reflects the polarisation to be found in social media.
On the one hand is F'k'em, there is no need to try to give representation to minorities. This has reached levels where there is an active political movement against woke. Nothing more than Christian whte supremacy under a cloak (probably with a pointy hood)
On the other is the attitude that we are going to virtue signal to absurd lengths to prove we are "woke", by ridiculous casting choices which biophysics would make impossible.

Argue against the first and you are called a wokie, as if recognition of prejudice and thinking it might be a good idea to do something about it was a bad thing.

The more subtle polarisation is the fake idea that you cannot represent is logical and ways consitent with reality and not be entertaining. Which is absurd. This position taken up by Sy Borg is without merit, and there are examples such as nearly every contemporary TV show with minorities reflecting out modern day. How about the entire directoral conon of Spike Lee? Every film that Morgan Freeman has been in?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 11th, 2024, 3:25 pm Diversity finds its way into fiction naturally without making distracting casting choices. The drive to turn all movie casts into a human liquorice allsorts is, as you say, virtue signalling. If the companies actually cared, they would see that what they are doing is actually counter-productive and breeding resentment. But companies like Disney and Amazon don't care about doing diversity in a strategic way that actually helps. The whole point is to appear to be dedicated to The Cause.

No, The Cause is a fabrication, a nonsense, as your words seem to imply. There is no Cause, there is only 🅟🅡🅞🅕🅘🅣, and the acquisition, retention and magnification of personal wealth. The Cause is nothing more than a distraction, to point us away from what's really going on.

That The Cause is a distraction does not remove the real issues, though. These 'real' issues are the ones that are clear and obvious to all caring and decent people, not taken out of context, or over-emphasised, but just subjected to simple care and consideration for others. All else is chaff.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 12th, 2024, 7:32 am The real problem with this "debate" , if you can call it that, is the absurd polarisation which reflects the polarisation to be found in social media.
On the one hand is F'k'em, there is no need to try to give representation to minorities. This has reached levels where there is an active political movement against woke. Nothing more than Christian whte supremacy under a cloak (probably with a pointy hood)
On the other is the attitude that we are going to virtue signal to absurd lengths to prove we are "woke", by ridiculous casting choices which biophysics would make impossible.

Argue against the first and you are called a wokie, as if recognition of prejudice and thinking it might be a good idea to do something about it was a bad thing.

The more subtle polarisation is the fake idea that you cannot represent is logical and ways consitent with reality and not be entertaining. Which is absurd. This position taken up by Sy Borg is without merit, and there are examples such as nearly every contemporary TV show with minorities reflecting out modern day. How about the entire directoral conon of Spike Lee? Every film that Morgan Freeman has been in?

Tempest in a teapot. As long as folks are commenting at the level of preference I'll defend any opinion. This one likes an all white cast, that one likes a mix, another one likes an all black production.

You won't go see Hamilton. Fine don't go. No one cares, least of all Lin Manuel Miranda, who's smirking all the way to the bank.

Everyone's reasoning for their preferences and things that rub them the wrong way are just opinions. Interesting to debate (at some level), but as long as they're not mandated legally are fine by me.

Ultimately entertainers compete for eyeballs (and thus dollars), the marketplace will sort it out. Debates, while of some interest, are not required.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 12th, 2024, 9:04 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 11th, 2024, 3:25 pm Diversity finds its way into fiction naturally without making distracting casting choices. The drive to turn all movie casts into a human liquorice allsorts is, as you say, virtue signalling. If the companies actually cared, they would see that what they are doing is actually counter-productive and breeding resentment. But companies like Disney and Amazon don't care about doing diversity in a strategic way that actually helps. The whole point is to appear to be dedicated to The Cause.

No, The Cause is a fabrication, a nonsense, as your words seem to imply. There is no Cause, there is only 🅟🅡🅞🅕🅘🅣, and the acquisition, retention and magnification of personal wealth. The Cause is nothing more than a distraction, to point us away from what's really going on.

That The Cause is a distraction does not remove the real issues, though. These 'real' issues are the ones that are clear and obvious to all caring and decent people, not taken out of context, or over-emphasised, but just subjected to simple care and consideration for others. All else is chaff.

I suggest that you tell this to Disney shareholders. They will be anxious to receive your wisdom. It may give them hope.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 11th, 2024, 3:25 pm Diversity finds its way into fiction naturally without making distracting casting choices. The drive to turn all movie casts into a human liquorice allsorts is, as you say, virtue signalling. If the companies actually cared, they would see that what they are doing is actually counter-productive and breeding resentment. But companies like Disney and Amazon don't care about doing diversity in a strategic way that actually helps. The whole point is to appear to be dedicated to The Cause.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 12th, 2024, 9:04 am No, The Cause is a fabrication, a nonsense, as your words seem to imply. There is no Cause, there is only 🅟🅡🅞🅕🅘🅣, and the acquisition, retention and magnification of personal wealth. The Cause is nothing more than a distraction, to point us away from what's really going on.

That The Cause is a distraction does not remove the real issues, though. These 'real' issues are the ones that are clear and obvious to all caring and decent people, not taken out of context, or over-emphasised, but just subjected to simple care and consideration for others. All else is chaff.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 12th, 2024, 4:17 pm I suggest that you tell this to Disney shareholders. They will be anxious to receive your wisdom. It may give them hope.

I don't think they need hope. Their shares are earning them good money. Disney is perhaps the best example of how we have transformed culture into a money-making endeavour. Even Winnie the Pooh is now a commodity.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 10:01 am
I don't think they need hope. Their shares are earning them good money. Disney is perhaps the best example of how we have transformed culture into a money-making endeavour. Even Winnie the Pooh is now a commodity.

THe little t*sser has an American accent FFS

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 10:01 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 11th, 2024, 3:25 pm Diversity finds its way into fiction naturally without making distracting casting choices. The drive to turn all movie casts into a human liquorice allsorts is, as you say, virtue signalling. If the companies actually cared, they would see that what they are doing is actually counter-productive and breeding resentment. But companies like Disney and Amazon don't care about doing diversity in a strategic way that actually helps. The whole point is to appear to be dedicated to The Cause.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 12th, 2024, 9:04 am No, The Cause is a fabrication, a nonsense, as your words seem to imply. There is no Cause, there is only 🅟🅡🅞🅕🅘🅣, and the acquisition, retention and magnification of personal wealth. The Cause is nothing more than a distraction, to point us away from what's really going on.

That The Cause is a distraction does not remove the real issues, though. These 'real' issues are the ones that are clear and obvious to all caring and decent people, not taken out of context, or over-emphasised, but just subjected to simple care and consideration for others. All else is chaff.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 12th, 2024, 4:17 pm I suggest that you tell this to Disney shareholders. They will be anxious to receive your wisdom. It may give them hope.

I don't think they need hope. Their shares are earning them good money. Disney is perhaps the best example of how we have transformed culture into a money-making endeavour. Even Winnie the Pooh is now a commodity. 🤮😭

Disney lost about $1.4 billion. Returns on investment are poor. The stock has lost over one third in three years and there is no sign that their franchises will ever be as popular again. You can be sure the next Star Wars movie will costs hundreds of millions and it will be a box office bomb. Marvel is in terrible shape after being a licence to print money a few years ago.

I like seeing the big franchises fail. Movie houses should be thinking of new stories and characters rather than stretching old franchises endlessly to the point of terminal staleness. It doesn't help that they are locked into a "Mary Sue" formula, where female leads have no arc because they started out perfect. It seems that equality does not yet extend to bothering to give strong female leads an actual personality.

Funnily enough, female leads used to have personalities - Ripley, Leia, Sarah Connor, Hermione. Now strong female leads must not have a personality, because our personalities are essentially a collection of our limitations. If we had no flaws or limits, we would all be the same - and with no personality.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 2:06 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 10:01 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 11th, 2024, 3:25 pm Diversity finds its way into fiction naturally without making distracting casting choices. The drive to turn all movie casts into a human liquorice allsorts is, as you say, virtue signalling. If the companies actually cared, they would see that what they are doing is actually counter-productive and breeding resentment. But companies like Disney and Amazon don't care about doing diversity in a strategic way that actually helps. The whole point is to appear to be dedicated to The Cause.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 12th, 2024, 9:04 am No, The Cause is a fabrication, a nonsense, as your words seem to imply. There is no Cause, there is only 🅟🅡🅞🅕🅘🅣, and the acquisition, retention and magnification of personal wealth. The Cause is nothing more than a distraction, to point us away from what's really going on.

That The Cause is a distraction does not remove the real issues, though. These 'real' issues are the ones that are clear and obvious to all caring and decent people, not taken out of context, or over-emphasised, but just subjected to simple care and consideration for others. All else is chaff.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 12th, 2024, 4:17 pm I suggest that you tell this to Disney shareholders. They will be anxious to receive your wisdom. It may give them hope.

I don't think they need hope. Their shares are earning them good money. Disney is perhaps the best example of how we have transformed culture into a money-making endeavour. Even Winnie the Pooh is now a commodity.

Disney lost about $1.4 billion. Returns on investment are poor. The stock has lost over one third in three years and there is no sign that their franchises will ever be as popular again. You can be sure the next Star Wars movie will costs hundreds of millions and it will be a box office bomb. Marvel is in terrible shape after being a licence to print money a few years ago.

I like seeing the big franchises fail. Movie houses should be thinking of new stories and characters rather than stretching old franchises endlessly to the point of terminal staleness. It doesn't help that they are locked into a "Mary Sue" formula, where female leads have no arc because they started out perfect. It seems that equality does not yet extend to bothering to give strong female leads an actual personality.

Funnily enough, female leads used to have personalities - Ripley, Leia, Sarah Connor, Hermione. Now strong female leads must not have a personality, because our personalities are essentially a collection of our limitations. If we had no flaws or limits, we would all be the same - and with no personality.

How is this relevant.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 4:23 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 2:06 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 10:01 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 11th, 2024, 3:25 pm Diversity finds its way into fiction naturally without making distracting casting choices. The drive to turn all movie casts into a human liquorice allsorts is, as you say, virtue signalling. If the companies actually cared, they would see that what they are doing is actually counter-productive and breeding resentment. But companies like Disney and Amazon don't care about doing diversity in a strategic way that actually helps. The whole point is to appear to be dedicated to The Cause.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 12th, 2024, 9:04 am No, The Cause is a fabrication, a nonsense, as your words seem to imply. There is no Cause, there is only 🅟🅡🅞🅕🅘🅣, and the acquisition, retention and magnification of personal wealth. The Cause is nothing more than a distraction, to point us away from what's really going on.

That The Cause is a distraction does not remove the real issues, though. These 'real' issues are the ones that are clear and obvious to all caring and decent people, not taken out of context, or over-emphasised, but just subjected to simple care and consideration for others. All else is chaff.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 12th, 2024, 4:17 pm I suggest that you tell this to Disney shareholders. They will be anxious to receive your wisdom. It may give them hope.

I don't think they need hope. Their shares are earning them good money. Disney is perhaps the best example of how we have transformed culture into a money-making endeavour. Even Winnie the Pooh is now a commodity. 🤮😭

Disney lost about $1.4 billion. Returns on investment are poor. The stock has lost over one third in three years and there is no sign that their franchises will ever be as popular again. You can be sure the next Star Wars movie will costs hundreds of millions and it will be a box office bomb. Marvel is in terrible shape after being a licence to print money a few years ago.

I like seeing the big franchises fail. Movie houses should be thinking of new stories and characters rather than stretching old franchises endlessly to the point of terminal staleness. It doesn't help that they are locked into a "Mary Sue" formula, where female leads have no arc because they started out perfect. It seems that equality does not yet extend to bothering to give strong female leads an actual personality.

Funnily enough, female leads used to have personalities - Ripley, Leia, Sarah Connor, Hermione. Now strong female leads must not have a personality, because our personalities are essentially a collection of our limitations. If we had no flaws or limits, we would all be the same - and with no personality.

How is this relevant.

If you don't know, there's little point telling you.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 6:53 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 4:23 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 2:06 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 10:01 am





I don't think they need hope. Their shares are earning them good money. Disney is perhaps the best example of how we have transformed culture into a money-making endeavour. Even Winnie the Pooh is now a commodity.

Disney lost about $1.4 billion. Returns on investment are poor. The stock has lost over one third in three years and there is no sign that their franchises will ever be as popular again. You can be sure the next Star Wars movie will costs hundreds of millions and it will be a box office bomb. Marvel is in terrible shape after being a licence to print money a few years ago.

I like seeing the big franchises fail. Movie houses should be thinking of new stories and characters rather than stretching old franchises endlessly to the point of terminal staleness. It doesn't help that they are locked into a "Mary Sue" formula, where female leads have no arc because they started out perfect. It seems that equality does not yet extend to bothering to give strong female leads an actual personality.

Funnily enough, female leads used to have personalities - Ripley, Leia, Sarah Connor, Hermione. Now strong female leads must not have a personality, because our personalities are essentially a collection of our limitations. If we had no flaws or limits, we would all be the same - and with no personality.

How is this relevant.

If you don't know, there's little point telling you.

Clearly you are just rambling on...A collection of half baked imaginings are of little value.
The last paragraph is particularly absurd.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 7:35 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 6:53 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 4:23 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 2:06 pm

Disney lost about $1.4 billion. Returns on investment are poor. The stock has lost over one third in three years and there is no sign that their franchises will ever be as popular again. You can be sure the next Star Wars movie will costs hundreds of millions and it will be a box office bomb. Marvel is in terrible shape after being a licence to print money a few years ago.

I like seeing the big franchises fail. Movie houses should be thinking of new stories and characters rather than stretching old franchises endlessly to the point of terminal staleness. It doesn't help that they are locked into a "Mary Sue" formula, where female leads have no arc because they started out perfect. It seems that equality does not yet extend to bothering to give strong female leads an actual personality.

Funnily enough, female leads used to have personalities - Ripley, Leia, Sarah Connor, Hermione. Now strong female leads must not have a personality, because our personalities are essentially a collection of our limitations. If we had no flaws or limits, we would all be the same - and with no personality.

How is this relevant.

If you don't know, there's little point telling you.

Clearly you are just rambling on...A collection of half baked imaginings are of little value.
The last paragraph is particularly absurd.

Your comments are not absurd - they are mindlessly hostile. You always end up turning and attacking. I won't make the mistake of trusting you again.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 10:15 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 7:35 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 6:53 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 4:23 pm

How is this relevant.

If you don't know, there's little point telling you.

Clearly you are just rambling on...A collection of half baked imaginings are of little value.
The last paragraph is particularly absurd.

Your comments are not absurd - they are mindlessly hostile. You always end up turning and attacking. I won't make the mistake of trusting you again.

Not hostile just a reaction.
Let's start with the last paragraph in which you imply female roles "use to be" stronger, citing Ripley.
It's hardly an objective view is it?
RIpley's character was a blend of strength and vulnerability. But she is just one. Its' not as if there are still not strong female characers. Probaby more than ever.