Political Correctness

[TexRex]

Your assumption is incorrect. I don't have cable and I don't watch Fox News. I happen to live a hop, skip and a jump from Michigan State and Detroit is less than 5 km from my front door.

Great? If I'm being honest, where you initially caught wind of it didn't enter my mind until I discovered that it's a trending topic right now because of Sessions' involvement. The "assumption," however, was presented as an attempt at humor--whether I'd call it successful depends on how it's received other than by those disinclined to see it as such.

MSU has been on the radio news most every day since the Larry Nassar scandal broke.

That only serves to make it more perplexing for you to, presumably (I mean...this is the first I've seen), bring it up only now. In my reading, issues regarding U-M's BRT have popped up in the relatively recent past, likely prompting the legal filing more than a month ago.

BRTs and CCRTs aren't that new, though--nor are concerns from those who see them as an affront to free speech.


I can't help but find it humorous that you chose to respond only to what you did. Actually, I can't help but feel validated because of it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Great? If I'm being honest, where you initially caught wind of it didn't enter my mind until I discovered that it's a trending topic right now because of Sessions' involvement. The "assumption," however, was presented as an attempt at humor--whether I'd call it successful depends on how it's received other than by those disinclined to see it as such.


That only serves to make it more perplexing for you to, presumably (I mean...this is the first I've seen), bring it up only now. In my reading, issues regarding U-M's BRT have popped up in the relatively recent past, likely prompting the legal filing more than a month ago.

BRTs and CCRTs aren't that new, though--nor are concerns from those who see them as an affront to free speech.


I can't help but find it humorous that you chose to respond only to what you did. Actually, I can't help but feel validated because of it.

Glad you were able to convince yourself you were right and I was mistaken. Enjoy your bubble.

 

[Imari]

A small glimpse into your politically correct future. I give you the University of Michigan Bias Response Team.


That's right kids, even if someone makes you feel bad, even unintentionally, you can report it to Big Brother and they'll deal with it.

Er, they've had these in industry for some time. They're called HR departments.

 

[baldgye]

Er, they've had these in industry for some time. They're called HR departments.

Enjoy your bubble.

 

[Imari]

Huh?

 

[TexRex]

Glad you were able to convince yourself you were right and I was mistaken. Enjoy your bubble.

 

[baldgye]

Huh?

More of a joke reply.

The idea Big Brother is watching when talking about HR is hilarious, akin to a school child calling their teacher ‘literally Hitler’

 

[Imari]

More of a joke reply.

The idea Big Brother is watching when talking about HR is hilarious, akin to a school child calling their teacher ‘literally Hitler’

What? Are you high?

The Big Brother thing was obviously an exaggeration so I wasn't replying to that, the Bias Response Team is not Big Brother. However, from the description it appears to function in a nearly identical fashion to some parts of a standard HR department. I was pointing out that getting all hyperbolic about it's existence, function, and the idea of being pulled in for even unintentional harassment or bullying is literally something that has been in place in the workforce for decades.

Fortunately, people in these departments also tend not to be complete morons. Their job is to help people get along. If you're doing something unintentionally then their usual response to a complaint will be to talk to you and say "could you please not". If the complainant is being ridiculous, they'll probably go through the motions and palm it off. But if you're legitimately being an arse to someone they will probably stomp you.

It's important to keep on top of this stuff because we've had cases in Australia of people being driven to suicide, but at the same time it's important not to be stupid about it or you lose all your good staff to silly things. But that's just my practical and common sense observation of my experience. Yours may differ, I don't even know if you're in the workforce, so feel free to resume your mocking.

 

[TexRex]

it appears to function in a nearly identical fashion to some parts of a standard HR department

And really, it makes complete sense that something that functions in a manner similar to that of an HR department would be implemented in academia. You've got very similar interactions between individuals at a university as you do in a workforce, minus some of the maturity. I know this first-hand, having witnessed stupid antics that may or may not have been fueled by alcohol, and I occasionally even engaged in stupid antics that may or may not have been fueled by alcohol.

 

[baldgye]

What? Are you high?

The Big Brother thing was obviously an exaggeration so I wasn't replying to that, the Bias Response Team is not Big Brother. However, from the description it appears to function in a nearly identical fashion to some parts of a standard HR department. I was pointing out that getting all hyperbolic about it's existence, function, and the idea of being pulled in for even unintentional harassment or bullying is literally something that has been in place in the workforce for decades.

Fortunately, people in these departments also tend not to be complete morons. Their job is to help people get along. If you're doing something unintentionally then their usual response to a complaint will be to talk to you and say "could you please not". If the complainant is being ridiculous, they'll probably go through the motions and palm it off. But if you're legitimately being an arse to someone they will probably stomp you.

It's important to keep on top of this stuff because we've had cases in Australia of people being driven to suicide, but at the same time it's important not to be stupid about it or you lose all your good staff to silly things. But that's just my practical and common sense observation of my experience. Yours may differ, I don't even know if you're in the workforce, so feel free to resume your mocking.

I was agreeing with you, using that other quote as a sarcastic reply. Sorry if I didn’t explain that all too well.

I do work and my company has a HR department to which I’m very familiar. I’m also familiar with the inane complaints and emails sent to said HR departments and how silly little things can and always have upset people.

On the whole I don’t think political correctness as a ‘movement’ exists. It’s merely people trying to have a less horrible life. Which to me, seems pretty reasonable.

 

[Johnnypenso]

https://www.mediaite.com/entertainm...fter-criticism-over-playing-transgender-role/

In the never ending descent into SJW madness that is political correctness, an A-list Hollywood actress in the form of Scarlett Johannson was shamed and bullied into not accepting an acting role as a trans person. She was defiant at first but then realized her income, career and legacy, such as it is, was on the line for running afoul of the very active social media/social justice/pc crowd and finally relented. Perhaps she'll just stick to running around in leather suits and pretending to be a fighter...if that's still allowed. Acting, in case anyone wonders, would likely be defined by a lay person as pretending to be someone you are not in a movie or play. Hmmm...let's see if we can come up with some other iconic television and movie roles that the PC crowd would or should object to:

Jim Parsons - Gay man pretending to be a cis-male. Uh oh.
Al Pacino - Pacino rhymes with Latino but he's of Italiano descent so bye bye Scarface.
Daniel Day-Lewis - Perhaps the greatest actor of our time, poor Daniel is going to have to come out of retirement to score that third Oscar once again, after he returns one for not having cerebral palsy.
Jane Fonda - Sorry Jane, only one Oscar for you. You ain't no hooker.
Jamie Foxx - Sorry buddy, you aren't blind, try again!
Phillip Seymour Hoffman - Oh you silly cis-white male!! And you aren't even a writer! The nerve....
Eddie Redmayne - ALS only affects a tiny number of people and sorry buddy, you aren't one of them. Out you go.
Sean Penn - Let's see..Madonna, Robin Wright, the above mentioned ScarJo, Minka Kelly, Charlize Theron. You aren't fooling anyone pal. Please put the Oscar in drop slot if the office happens to be closed.

 

[Dolph Drago]

The outrage over something so inane is stupid enough, but...

She was defiant at first but then realized her income, career and legacy, such as it is, was on the line for running afoul of the very active social media/social justice/pc crowd and finally relented.

...this makes it even worse. The fact she has to cater to these PC morons just to save her career is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[huskeR32]

In the never ending descent into SJW madness that is political correctness

Our leader is back! Huzzah!

Hmmm...let's see if we can come up with some other iconic television and movie roles that the PC crowd would or should object to:

*Unclever drivel*

Methinks that

You presume too much.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Our leader is back! Huzzah!



Methinks that

I never went anywhere. I could post in this thread multiple stories a day but too much of a good thing is boring. I prefer real face to face conversations over this stuff but once in a while something pops into my head and I just have to share. I must say I really had some good laughs coming up with the post above

 

[huskeR32]

I must say I really had some good laughs coming up with the post above

I confess that the Sean Penn one is going right over my head. Near as I can tell, you've simply listed women he's been involved with?

 

[TexRex]

I confess that the Sean Penn one is going right over my head.

Given the mention of Eobin Wright, it probably has to do with his portrayal of the developmentally disabled Sam. They're separated by Madonna, though, so it could be Harvey Milk. Probably not Spicoli...

 

[Johnnypenso]

I confess that the Sean Penn one is going right over my head. Near as I can tell, you've simply listed women he's been involved with?

The list of girlfriends/wives establishes his heterosexuality or as a minimum bi-sexuality but he won an Oscar for playing Harvey Milk, who, as far as I know, never had either wives or girlfriends because he liked husbands and boyfriends. I believe that fits the SJW/PC list of unacceptable movie role appropriations. I would have thought the Oscar would have given it away.

 

[baldgye]

Perhaps she'll just stick to running around in leather suits and pretending to be a fighter...if that's still allowed.

Or just badly portraying other minorities in movies.

 

[Northstar]

Or just badly portraying other minorities in movies.

So you've seen the movie she never even made? Amazing!

Oh please tell me more of this alternate dimension set in the future you hail from future man! Will England ever win the World Cup? Is Winds of Winter worth the wait? There's so much I want to ask you future man!

 

[Johnnypenso]

So you've seen the movie she never even made? Amazing!

Oh please tell me more of this alternate dimension set in the future you hail from future man! Will England ever win the World Cup? Is Winds of Winter worth the wait? There's so much I want to ask you future man!

I'm not familiar with all of her work but there was another big controversy over her playing a cyborg in Ghost in the Shell, a cyborg being a machine. Apparently they needed to find an actor with eyes the size of a Bratz doll and a slit for a mouth but couldn't find anyone so they chose a world famous actor to try and drive the box office instead. Silly, cultural appropriating, film makers!! It may have lost money so perhaps the market will correct itself and for the next role of this type they'll do a wider search for that woman with the Bratz Doll eyes and the slit mouth. ....or Charlize Theron, whichever is available. Personally I would have chosen Maggie Q but I don't think she meets the SJW/PC qualifications due to having some white privilege via her Polish/Irish daddy.

 

[baldgye]

So you've seen the movie she never even made? Amazing!

Oh please tell me more of this alternate dimension set in the future you hail from future man! Will England ever win the World Cup? Is Winds of Winter worth the wait? There's so much I want to ask you future man!

I’ve seen the movies she’s made. Unfortunately I’m pretty familiar with her work. Ghost in the Shell being a particular highlight.

Though I can answer both of those questions; no.

 

[SagarisGTB]

https://www.mediaite.com/entertainm...fter-criticism-over-playing-transgender-role/

In the never ending descent into SJW madness that is political correctness, an A-list Hollywood actress in the form of Scarlett Johannson was shamed and bullied into not accepting an acting role as a trans person. She was defiant at first but then realized her income, career and legacy, such as it is, was on the line for running afoul of the very active social media/social justice/pc crowd and finally relented. Perhaps she'll just stick to running around in leather suits and pretending to be a fighter...if that's still allowed. Acting, in case anyone wonders, would likely be defined by a lay person as pretending to be someone you are not in a movie or play. Hmmm...let's see if we can come up with some other iconic television and movie roles that the PC crowd would or should object to:

Jim Parsons - Gay man pretending to be a cis-male. Uh oh.
Al Pacino - Pacino rhymes with Latino but he's of Italiano descent so bye bye Scarface.
Daniel Day-Lewis - Perhaps the greatest actor of our time, poor Daniel is going to have to come out of retirement to score that third Oscar once again, after he returns one for not having cerebral palsy.
Jane Fonda - Sorry Jane, only one Oscar for you. You ain't no hooker.
Jamie Foxx - Sorry buddy, you aren't blind, try again!
Phillip Seymour Hoffman - Oh you silly cis-white male!! And you aren't even a writer! The nerve....
Eddie Redmayne - ALS only affects a tiny number of people and sorry buddy, you aren't one of them. Out you go.
Sean Penn - Let's see..Madonna, Robin Wright, the above mentioned ScarJo, Minka Kelly, Charlize Theron. You aren't fooling anyone pal. Please put the Oscar in drop slot if the office happens to be closed.

Your reason for outrage is weak. You completely missed what the criticism centered on and painted an inaccurate biased picture of what occurred.

When Johansson first cast herself in the role, transgender actors and actresses (and their supporters) lamented being passed over for yet another prominent trans role (while not being considered for non-trans roles of any kind) with another cis gender actor getting the part. Johansson (or her people) responded with a poorly-thought-out deflection, so the criticism grew substantially from there. When you make a film about a trans person, spurning and angering that very community likely isn't a great start for a successful project (especially when they've been spurned time and time again). It's not surprising that Johansson withdrew. The issue wasn't ever about actors never again playing roles that don't characterize themselves, it's about the boiling point being reached for trans actor under-representation and a rash insensitive reply from Johansson inviting further critisism.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Your reason for outrage is weak. You completely missed what the criticism centered on and painted an inaccurate biased picture of what occurred.

When Johansson first cast herself in the role, transgender actors and actresses (and their supporters) lamented being passed over for yet another prominent trans role (while not being considered for non-trans roles of any kind) with another cis gender actor getting the part. Johansson (or her people) responded with a poorly-thought-out deflection, so the criticism grew substantially from there. When you make a film about a trans person, spurning and angering that very community likely isn't a great start for a successful project (especially when they've been spurned time and time again). It's not surprising that Johansson withdrew. The issue wasn't ever about actors never again playing roles that don't characterize themselves, it's about the boiling point being reached for trans actor under-representation and a rash insensitive reply from Johansson inviting further critisism.

Your premise is flawed from the start. Seems to be contagious around here. No outrage here.

 

[SagarisGTB]

Your premise is flawed from the start. Seems to be contagious around here.

Can you elaborate and point out the flaws with the premise instead of just stating that it is so?

No outrage here.

Why is it that when those with more liberal outlooks complain or joke about an issue on twitter it's "outrage", but your complaints aren't?

 

[LeMansAid]

Why is it that when those with more liberal outlooks complain or joke about an issue on twitter it's "outrage", but your complaints aren't?

How the hell are you counting it as liberalism? The non-acceptance (based on gender) of an actor set to play a role she's been offered......?

I very much count myself as a liberal, and I'm not going to let that kind of rubbish go unchallenged, lest it further sully something that should be anything but a pejorative term.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Can you elaborate and point out the flaws with the premise instead of just stating that it is so?

I did explain it. There's no outrage. The fact that you are looking at my remarks and assuming I am outraged tells me you are already starting with a premise that would colour my remarks in a light which is not intended. There's no outrage. I didn't read anything after that, sorry, the rest of your post was tainted after that false start.

Why is it that when those with more liberal outlooks complain or joke about an issue on twitter it's "outrage", but your complaints aren't?

Speaking for myself and my post only, it's not outrage because I said it's not outrage. They are my remarks, I know my state of mind when I typed them and it wasn't outrage. As for twitter outrage I really don't know. You should probably ask them. Maybe some here could answer for you and speak about the twitter habits of liberals or the outraged.

 

[TexRex]

How the hell are you counting it as liberalism? The non-acceptance (based on gender) of an actor set to play a role she's been offered......?

How the hell is that an appropriate (applicable) response to the question that was asked?

"Why is it that when those with more liberal outlooks complain or joke about an issue on twitter it's "outrage", but your complaints aren't?"

The question has nothing to do with outrage over this specific incident, but one's propensity to apply a blanket label to comments from complainants as outrage--guess what, there are varying degrees of complaint--and to refer to complainants as "keyboard warriors" or similar, and then not apply the same blanket descriptor to one's own comments or those that align with one's own bias. If you're indeed a liberal, you should be concerned about all complaints, regardless of the degree, being dubbed as outrage, because if everything is seen as outrage, actual outrage loses any kind of useful weight and causes that you believe in are more likely to simply fizzle into obscurity--"Oh those liberals, always in an outrage over something."

You ought to not that the question wasn't answered, either.

 

[LeMansAid]

How the hell is that an appropriate (applicable) response to the question that was asked?

"Why is it that when those with more liberal outlooks complain or joke about an issue on twitter it's "outrage", but your complaints aren't?"

The question has nothing to do with outrage over this specific incident, but one's propensity to apply a blanket label to comments from complainants as outrage--guess what, there are varying degrees of complaint--and to refer to complainants as "keyboard warriors" or similar, and then not apply the same blanket descriptor to one's own comments or those that align with one's own bias. If you're indeed a liberal, you should be concerned about all complaints, regardless of the degree, being dubbed as outrage, because if everything is seen as outrage, actual outrage loses any kind of useful weight and causes that you believe in are more likely to simply fizzle into obscurity--"Oh those liberals, always in an outrage over something."

You ought to not that the question wasn't answered, either.

I wasn't addressing the main point of the question, and I don't know why you'd think I was trying to, or should have. I was picking up on another aspect. Is that not ok for some reason?

This is a thread within a thread. With the context, I reckon it's fair to think that the reaction to her casting was at least included in the more general point. I agree that it shouldn't be called outrage though, it should be called what it was.... bullying an actor into submission because they didn't have a specific gender experience. It wasn't outrage, it was bullying.

 

[SagarisGTB]

How the hell are you counting it as liberalism? The non-acceptance (based on gender) of an actor set to play a role she's been offered......?

I very much count myself as a liberal, and I'm not going to let that kind of rubbish go unchallenged, lest it further sully something that should be anything but a pejorative term.

Liberals don't stand with minorities when they aren't being given a fair shake?

Regardless, I'm not inclined to engage in a semantic argument about what exactly "Liberalism" is. What I was referencing, which I illustrated by stating "those with more liberal outlooks", was people who are perceived by @Johnnypenso to be to the left of himself on the political spectrum. You can substitute that quote for "lefties", "leftists", "SJWs", "centrists" or something else.

I did explain it. There's no outrage. The fact that you are looking at my remarks and assuming I am outraged tells me you are already starting with a premise that would colour my remarks in a light which is not intended. There's no outrage. I didn't read anything after that, sorry, the rest of your post was tainted after that false start.

...ok, so you won't engage because I misrepresented your feelings? My apologies for doing so, but you can substitute your negative emotions (can I make this safe assumption that you aren't happy with the story outcome?) into my opening sentence and the post retains the same message.

I agree that it shouldn't be called outrage though, it should be called what it was.... bullying an actor into submission because they didn't have a specific gender experience. It wasn't outrage, it was bullying.

You missed the point of the criticism (again). And negative feedback isn't bullying.

 

[Imari]

And negative feedback isn't bullying.

Strictly no, but I suspect that the dropped the role quickly because of the potential for it to turn into a firestorm and torch her career. We're all aware that actors can find themselves passed over very easily, whether it's because some media mogul has decided to blacklist them or because the industry sees them as too controversial to touch.

I feel like there was a strong implication here that if Johansson continued to go through with the role there would be activism against her, and that's dangerous for her.