Surely besides the usual numpties, the outcry can't have been that bad to cause someone to leave twitter!
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Surely besides the usual numpties, the outcry can't have been that bad to cause someone to leave twitter!
Never knew there are different levels of gay
House. Hugh Laurie is neither American or a surgeon. Fecking outrage!
That's actually disgusting: "isn’t too gay" is both meaningless and offensive.
The perfect twitter storm. Woke eejits angry because she’s not gay enough and gamergate bellends fuming about DC making a gay superhero to placate the SJWs.
He's not a house either.
She's probably in the sort of twitter echo chamber where the only voices are the usual numpties.
The twitter mob looked at a leaked casting video and decided who should be cast for the role. Wow, we’re attaining new levels these days.
Just found out LGBTQ is now LGBTQIA+. You live and learn.
The letter A at the end is a bit interesting. As in people who identify as asexual (is this now considered a discriminated class?) or "allied" - as in anyone who considers themselves an ally of the broader LGBT movement. Seems a bit of a gratuitous overreach of the original purpose of the acronym.
Last edited:
What does the + mean?
“And everything else any of ye come up with...” Basically a catch all to stop the acronym becoming even more unwieldy. I think it’s jumped the shark already. We need a new one.
A is asexual. I think “allied” could come under the “+” bit which is intended to be all-inclusive. Dunno why they didn’t just go for LGBT+.
Hmm, do asexual folks align themselves with long acronym community?
A truce, signalling defeat in the effort to put every possible word into that acronym.
I think just the single word queer could be all-encompassing though?
I guess the specific sub-groups have their own identity they don’t necessarily want subsumed into a big amorphous mass of people? Where to draw the line though? Tricky.
Seems a bit late in that case, they should just go the whole alphabet to ensure nobody feels marginalized.
How a desire for greater representation in film (which I thoroughly agree with) turned into the most, restrictive, bland, conservative approach to the medium is a spectacular example of the increase in piss poor reasoning meeting an increasing piss poor attitude to art. I just wish that people who don't give a feck about acting, performance and art stopped pretending to care about it. Also I wish arguments were judged on their merits instead of treating obnoxiousness and ignorance as forms of reasoning.
The more ethnic and sexual colours involved in filmmaking the more potential for diverse, original and interesting work. Making them all sit and stay in their own fecking box is philistine.
The more ethnic and sexual colours involved in filmmaking the more potential for diverse, original and interesting work. Making them all sit and stay in their own fecking box is philistine.
The Ruby Rose thing feels like when people decide to focus on small negatives so they get to cry about how PC culture has gone mad.
The "row" wasn't even widespread and most of the "outrage" was actually her being cast because she's a superlatively shit actress (which made it seem like they just cast the first LGBT actress they could find) rather than her not being "gay enough". But yeah, SJWs.
The Jack Whitehall issue is more interesting. Though, again it seems to be a small fraction of people complaining, but it's been blown up. At some point, the "PC gone mad" people will find out they actually outnumber the SJWs.
The "row" wasn't even widespread and most of the "outrage" was actually her being cast because she's a superlatively shit actress (which made it seem like they just cast the first LGBT actress they could find) rather than her not being "gay enough". But yeah, SJWs.
The Jack Whitehall issue is more interesting. Though, again it seems to be a small fraction of people complaining, but it's been blown up. At some point, the "PC gone mad" people will find out they actually outnumber the SJWs.
Do these people not understand what acting is?
I think what you say is definitely true. The absolute number of people on twitter losing their shit about stuff like this is a relatively small proportion. And and even tinier proportion of people as a whole.
The “problem” I guess, is the power they wield. Their complaints get amplified by the press, corporations yield to their pressure and big decisions are made in response. Not that anyone should light any candles for Scarllet Johansen missing out on the chance to play a trans woman but, you know, it’s not great when a very small group of very self righteous people wield that sort of power. And it’s not just rich celebrities who lose their jobs or feel the brunt of the law. Patient zero was that South African woman whose career/life was ruined by a lame joke before she got on a plane. And this is more of the same.
Playing devil's advocate, that argument only goes so far. Is Mickey Rooney's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's OK because he's only acting?
I don't get the outrage about why a 'gender fluid' woman can't play a lesbian though, but this shit always makes me feel old.
Agree with this, but then surely it's a media issue rather than an issue of political correctness?
I do think the South African woman is a slightly different issue, that is less to do with the media and more to do with actual mob mentality. By the time she landed, people had ropes out ready to lynch.
Don't know the reference sorry, but what I mean is the idea that only a lesbian can play a lesbian or only a trans person can play a trans person etc is ridiculous.
Actors pretend to be people they're not. That's literally their job. It's like the "uproar" (I'm sure it was a tiny number of morons) over Dwayne Johnson playing an amputee recently because the role should have gone to a real amputee.
Straight people playing none straight roles shouldn't be in any way controversial.
Was a white guy playing a stupidly over the top racist caricature of an Asian dude- worth looking in youtube and wondering how that film somehow survived that car crash to become iconic.
Idris Elba being Bond will cause a DM meltdown though, which will be fun.
I agree completely with this. Though I really don't have much of an issue if someone is gay complains about lack of gay actors getting roles. Plus I don't blame the gay community for not wanting Jack Whitehall representing them.
The Ruby Rose not being "gay enough" is largely bizarre and hopefully just a small irrelevant minority.
A little bit of that and a little bit the of corporations being so desperate to be seen as progressive/politically correct.
Corporations mainly care about money though. They won't sacrifice looking progressive over that. They are scared of the media making them look like dicks.
The controversy is on the basis that there are relatively few good gay roles in cinema. So it’s a pity when gay actors don’t get the chance to play a character that is true to their sexuality And yeah, I get that this kind of isn’t acting but you understand the point, right? Imagine being a straight man who only ever gets to play gay characters?
It’s a tricky one though. Gay people are relatively rare, so isn’t it normal that gay characters in movies are relatively rare? What makes it harder, I guess, is that there seems to be a disproportionate number of gay people who work in the entertainment industry. Kind of like, fashion, I guess. Although I’m probably guilty of stereotyping here!
That's definitely a worthy issue to raise, as is actors with disabilities not getting enough roles (continuing from the Dwayne Johnson point).
Kinda like Short Circuit?
The "not gay enough" stuff was what I was getting at, although I acknowledge this is a minority of numpties.
I'm all for more gay actors getting leading roles, as both gay and straight characters, but I don't think either should be pigeon holed into the roles they are and aren't allowed to play.
Oh I'd forgotten about that. It was the 80s and I was innocent when that came out.
To be fair, in cases that involve the race of an actor the problem itself tends to be less 'acting' and more the literal appearance of the person playing the character. Which is why people will find it offensive/outrageous when we're expected to see someone as something that they're literally not. Although suppose the representation argument is a key part of the discussion, which perhaps links the two together to an extent.
Yeah, sorry it was a somewhat specious argument tbf, with blackface bringing up lots of historical connotations which sets it apart from more modern moral dilemmas.
The Jack Whitehall thing is an absolute joke and I can see why people are disgusted.
Yeah Rooney's character is problematic mainly because it's a grotesque caricature. I have less of a problem with Kingsley's Ghandi and Blanchett as Bob Dylan is perfectly fine.
If the argument is that straight white males are getting all the straight white male roles and all the non straight white male roles (to put it in overly simplistic terms), whilst reducing the opportunities for other actors then I agree we should have that discussion. If you think that placing oppressive restrictions on art and who can produce what is a reasonable solution then I think you are wrong.
If the argument is that straight white males are getting all the straight white male roles and all the non straight white male roles (to put it in overly simplistic terms), whilst reducing the opportunities for other actors then I agree we should have that discussion. If you think that placing oppressive restrictions on art and who can produce what is a reasonable solution then I think you are wrong.
The Rock's career is on the line here. Imagine how little work he'd have if he couldn't play straight characters any more?