|
Post by charzhino on Apr 29, 2019 20:45:39 GMT
The civil rights movement spanned 2 decades (and prior to that already had the momentum of more than a century's worth of fighting against black slavery). I wouldn't exactly call that fast. Brie Larson has only been with the MCU for a year or two. She's pushing for more diversity. Are you suggesting the people in the early years of the civil rights movement were only pushing for a little more equality? "Why don't you let some of us drink from the same fountains?" Of course not, they were pushing for equality and desegregation across the board. How long it ends up taking (and we're still not there as a society) isn't the point. You fight for equality across the board, you take your victories wherever you can get them, and you keep fighting until society gets to where it should be. She isnt pushing anything other than her own ego and platform. Shes been on the scene for 1 year or so and is calling the shots like shes a veteran, if you believe shes genuine then youce been duped
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 29, 2019 20:47:40 GMT
Diversity is not what's being questioned here. Everyone in this board agrees that diversity is desirable (at least I hope everyone does). And it's clear that the MCU is already making great changes to get more diversity in their movies (if their latest movies and future movies are any indication). So diversity is not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is Brie Larson and her opinions. Regardless of what her opinion is - whether it's about diversity or religion or equality or conservatism or whatever - what I'm saying is that Brie Larson is pushing too hard, too fast and too loud with her opinions... which almost never goes down well. There are better, more efficient ways to do this. It only "doesn't go down well" with those who'd never accept it. Just like the people who didn't want people of color on their tvs or sharing their water fountains. Their approval is unnecessary. I think this is the main difference between us. You're simply concerned about getting your way. You don't care if other people approve or not as long as what you believe should get done gets done. Me? I want to change how they think so that they agree with me. So that they can let go of their bias. So yes, they're approval is necessary to me, because once they approve and agree with what I say, I'll know I've finally affected change at a deeper level... instead of simply forcing others into it.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Apr 29, 2019 20:47:55 GMT
Why don't you boycott Captain Marvel. Wait...you bros already tried that.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 29, 2019 21:18:22 GMT
But hey, if you think brashly leaping into action without proper forethought or getting in someone's face and trying to shout them down is enough to affect change then go for it. Good luck. Can you cite so much as one example of Ms. Larson doing anything of the sort, in her own words?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 29, 2019 21:38:34 GMT
But hey, if you think brashly leaping into action without proper forethought or getting in someone's face and trying to shout them down is enough to affect change then go for it. Good luck. Can you cite so much as one example of Ms. Larson doing anything of the sort, in her own words? I could easily provide an example but... why should I? In all the times I've ever discussed things with you on this board not once have you ever admitted to being wrong, never even seemed like you were open to an opinion different from yours. If you're sincerely interested in an honest conversation then yes, I can provide an example. But if you're replying to my post simply to look for an argument then I'm afraid I'm going to pass.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 29, 2019 21:59:53 GMT
It only "doesn't go down well" with those who'd never accept it. Just like the people who didn't want people of color on their tvs or sharing their water fountains. Their approval is unnecessary. I think this is the main difference between us. You're simply concerned about getting your way. You don't care if other people approve or not as long as what you believe should get done gets done. Me? I want to change how they think so that they agree with me. So that they can let go of their bias. So yes, they're approval is necessary to me, because once they approve and agree with what I say, I'll know I've finally affected change at a deeper level... instead of simply forcing others into it. And yet, that's exactly what freed the slaves. Forcing it. Lincoln did not talk with them and convince them to agree with him. Real change needed to be forced. History has proven that over and over. Slow, peaceful change is only beneficial to those who still benefit from inequality. It's not your place to tell others how long to wait until things improve for them. But you're right. I really don't care about outdated and antiquated thinking. It's as useless as rubbing two sticks to still make fire.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 29, 2019 22:01:53 GMT
And slavery wasn't abolished because those against it sat back and did things quietly without ruffling feathers. It took a war to end it. As I said, "do it slowly and subtly and you'll find way more success this way" is not true for real change. I think you're confusing the words "slowly and subtly" with "meekly and submissively". Just because you do something slowly doesn't mean you're unwilling to ruffle some feathers along the way. Just because you do something subtly doesn't mean you're doing it quietly. It definitely doesn't mean simply sitting back and allowing people to trample all over you. And whatever else you might think, fact remains that slavery was abolished over a good amount of time. It didn't happen overnight. But hey, if you think brashly leaping into action without proper forethought or getting in someone's face and trying to shout them down is enough to affect change then go for it. Good luck. History has proven that in fact works. The Revolutionary War and Civil War are excellent examples. And of course the two World Wars showed what happens when we sit back and subtly try to change things. It just prolongs the problems without changing anything.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 29, 2019 22:48:46 GMT
I think you're confusing the words "slowly and subtly" with "meekly and submissively". Just because you do something slowly doesn't mean you're unwilling to ruffle some feathers along the way. Just because you do something subtly doesn't mean you're doing it quietly. It definitely doesn't mean simply sitting back and allowing people to trample all over you. And whatever else you might think, fact remains that slavery was abolished over a good amount of time. It didn't happen overnight. But hey, if you think brashly leaping into action without proper forethought or getting in someone's face and trying to shout them down is enough to affect change then go for it. Good luck. History has proven that in fact works. The Revolutionary War and Civil War are excellent examples. And of course the two World Wars showed what happens when we sit back and subtly try to change things. It just prolongs the problems without changing anything. LOL. The two world wars happened precisely because someone tried to force their wants and ideals on others. That's why people fought back. The revolutionary and civil war both had years and years of backstory and politics behind it. Neither of which happened "fast", neither of which happened overnight. And just so we're clear, I'm not saying having a fast, forceful, aggressive approach does not affect change. Of course it does. But doing it that way is almost guaranteed to result in more opposition to the change you want to bring about. More opposition = more chances for failure. Sometimes, an aggressive approach is the only solution left. I'm pretty sure that's not the case with Brie at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 29, 2019 22:53:17 GMT
History has proven that in fact works. The Revolutionary War and Civil War are excellent examples. And of course the two World Wars showed what happens when we sit back and subtly try to change things. It just prolongs the problems without changing anything. LOL. The two world wars happened precisely because someone tried to force their wants and ideals on others. That's why people fought back. The revolutionary and civil war both had years and years of backstory and politics behind it. Neither of which happened "fast", neither of which happened overnight. And just so we're clear, I'm not saying having a fast, forceful, aggressive approach does not affect change. Of course it does. But doing it that way is almost guaranteed to result in more opposition to the change you want to bring about. More opposition = more chances for failure. Sometimes, an aggressive approach is the only solution left. I'm pretty sure that's not the case with Brie at the moment. No, they were forcing genocide, not ideals. That's a huge difference. And yeah, there was years of backstory, but it was the wars that forced the actual change. I'm pretty sure what Brie is doing wouldn't even constitute as aggression. She's just been speaking out.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Apr 29, 2019 23:12:09 GMT
There's an old saying in my birth country: If you drop a frog into boiling water it will immediately jump back out. However if you put it in tepid water then slowly boil it, the frog will contently stay in the water and will end up getting boiled without knowing it.
The same is true when one wants to affect change. If one comes in too fast and too hard with their social politics, chances are good that people will balk at it and either jump away or throw you off. If you really care about changing people to your way of thinking, do it slowly and subtly and you'll find way more success this way. One would think that Brie Larson would have already learned this lesson. Why would she have learned this lesson? She got on her soapbox; people talked smack about her in retaliation, her movie came out and, it promptly made a billion dollars. She was highly incentivized not to learn that lesson. It's was nuts watching her and Renner on the press tour (he is on the complete opposite spectrum on using celebrity as a platform for anything). You could see him getting a migrain every time she started talking about using her platform for change. No offense to Ms. Larson at all but, Renner is likely to be working twenty years from now and, she is not.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 29, 2019 23:32:16 GMT
LOL. The two world wars happened precisely because someone tried to force their wants and ideals on others. That's why people fought back. The revolutionary and civil war both had years and years of backstory and politics behind it. Neither of which happened "fast", neither of which happened overnight. And just so we're clear, I'm not saying having a fast, forceful, aggressive approach does not affect change. Of course it does. But doing it that way is almost guaranteed to result in more opposition to the change you want to bring about. More opposition = more chances for failure. Sometimes, an aggressive approach is the only solution left. I'm pretty sure that's not the case with Brie at the moment. No, they were forcing genocide, not ideals. That's a huge difference. And yeah, there was years of backstory, but it was the wars that forced the actual change. I'm pretty sure what Brie is doing wouldn't even constitute as aggression. She's just been speaking out. Of course they were forcing ideals. What, you think they were just committing genocide randomly? That genocide came from ideals. Rotten, twisted ideals but ideals none the less. And yes, wars eventually made the change happen but those wars were only the result of years and years of accumulated conflict wherein they were able to garner enough support to actually go to war. If they had tried to go to war at the very beginning it would have failed.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Apr 29, 2019 23:33:24 GMT
She's pushing for more diversity. Are you suggesting the people in the early years of the civil rights movement were only pushing for a little more equality? "Why don't you let some of us drink from the same fountains?" Of course not, they were pushing for equality and desegregation across the board. How long it ends up taking (and we're still not there as a society) isn't the point. You fight for equality across the board, you take your victories wherever you can get them, and you keep fighting until society gets to where it should be. Diversity is not what's being questioned here. Everyone in this board agrees that diversity is desirable (at least I hope everyone does). And it's clear that the MCU is already making great changes to get more diversity in their movies (if their latest movies and future movies are any indication). So diversity is not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is Brie Larson and her opinions. Regardless of what her opinion is - whether it's about diversity or religion or equality or conservatism or whatever - what I'm saying is that Brie Larson is pushing too hard, too fast and too loud with her opinions... which almost never goes down well. There are better, more efficient ways to do this. This is exactly what I'm discussing and I disagree. Using her position as a focal point of the MCU going forward is an ideal way to push this message of inclusion. The fact that it rubs some people the wrong way doesn't mean she shouldn't say anything.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Apr 29, 2019 23:35:00 GMT
She's pushing for more diversity. Are you suggesting the people in the early years of the civil rights movement were only pushing for a little more equality? "Why don't you let some of us drink from the same fountains?" Of course not, they were pushing for equality and desegregation across the board. How long it ends up taking (and we're still not there as a society) isn't the point. You fight for equality across the board, you take your victories wherever you can get them, and you keep fighting until society gets to where it should be. She isnt pushing anything other than her own ego and platform. Shes been on the scene for 1 year or so and is calling the shots like shes a veteran, if you believe shes genuine then youce been duped She's calling the shots? She's voicing her opinion. If she were calling the shots, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 29, 2019 23:38:30 GMT
Diversity is not what's being questioned here. Everyone in this board agrees that diversity is desirable (at least I hope everyone does). And it's clear that the MCU is already making great changes to get more diversity in their movies (if their latest movies and future movies are any indication). So diversity is not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is Brie Larson and her opinions. Regardless of what her opinion is - whether it's about diversity or religion or equality or conservatism or whatever - what I'm saying is that Brie Larson is pushing too hard, too fast and too loud with her opinions... which almost never goes down well. There are better, more efficient ways to do this.This is exactly what I'm discussing and I disagree. Using her position as a focal point of the MCU going forward is an ideal way to push this message of inclusion. The fact that it rubs some people the wrong way doesn't mean she shouldn't say anything. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this then. I don't disagree with her message, I just disagree with her method of preaching it. I think the fact that Gal Gadot is promoting the same message yet isn't getting a fraction of the heat that Brie does is proof that there are better, more efficient ways to do this. I am not saying she shouldn't say anything, I'm saying she should learn to be a bit more diplomatic in the way she says things, otherwise she'll just end up alienating people who could have probably been convinced to agree with her had she said things in a different manner.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 30, 2019 10:37:27 GMT
I could easily provide an example but... why should I? To back up your claims, that is why. Until you can, there is no reason to take your statements seriously, because I'm all about evidence based reasoning and arguments.
|
|
|
Post by SuperDevilDoctor on Apr 30, 2019 10:49:03 GMT
By ceaselessly — obsessively — attacking this woman, the MRA/incel/right-wing types betray the fact that they are slaves to political correctness... Conservative Political Correctness.
She is attacked because she is politically incorrect to them.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 30, 2019 13:19:38 GMT
No, they were forcing genocide, not ideals. That's a huge difference. And yeah, there was years of backstory, but it was the wars that forced the actual change. I'm pretty sure what Brie is doing wouldn't even constitute as aggression. She's just been speaking out. Of course they were forcing ideals. What, you think they were just committing genocide randomly? That genocide came from ideals. Rotten, twisted ideals but ideals none the less. And yes, wars eventually made the change happen but those wars were only the result of years and years of accumulated conflict wherein they were able to garner enough support to actually go to war. If they had tried to go to war at the very beginning it would have failed. Nope. Not the same thing. Because they weren't forcing the jews to convert to their ideals. They were exterminating them. Big difference. If they'd gone to war sooner, slavery might've ended long before the 1860s.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 30, 2019 13:21:27 GMT
There's an old saying in my birth country: If you drop a frog into boiling water it will immediately jump back out. However if you put it in tepid water then slowly boil it, the frog will contently stay in the water and will end up getting boiled without knowing it.
The same is true when one wants to affect change. If one comes in too fast and too hard with their social politics, chances are good that people will balk at it and either jump away or throw you off. If you really care about changing people to your way of thinking, do it slowly and subtly and you'll find way more success this way. One would think that Brie Larson would have already learned this lesson. Why would she have learned this lesson? She got on her soapbox; people talked smack about her in retaliation, her movie came out and, it promptly made a billion dollars. She was highly incentivized not to learn that lesson. It's was nuts watching her and Renner on the press tour (he is on the complete opposite spectrum on using celebrity as a platform for anything). You could see him getting a migrain every time she started talking about using her platform for change. No offense to Ms. Larson at all but, Renner is likely to be working twenty years from now and, she is not. Only because it's far more difficult for older women to find jobs in Hollywood than older men.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 30, 2019 13:22:10 GMT
This is exactly what I'm discussing and I disagree. Using her position as a focal point of the MCU going forward is an ideal way to push this message of inclusion. The fact that it rubs some people the wrong way doesn't mean she shouldn't say anything. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this then. I don't disagree with her message, I just disagree with her method of preaching it. I think the fact that Gal Gadot is promoting the same message yet isn't getting a fraction of the heat that Brie does is proof that there are better, more efficient ways to do this. I am not saying she shouldn't say anything, I'm saying she should learn to be a bit more diplomatic in the way she says things, otherwise she'll just end up alienating people who could have probably been convinced to agree with her had she said things in a different manner. Less uppity, right?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Apr 30, 2019 20:20:03 GMT
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this then. I don't disagree with her message, I just disagree with her method of preaching it. I think the fact that Gal Gadot is promoting the same message yet isn't getting a fraction of the heat that Brie does is proof that there are better, more efficient ways to do this. I am not saying she shouldn't say anything, I'm saying she should learn to be a bit more diplomatic in the way she says things, otherwise she'll just end up alienating people who could have probably been convinced to agree with her had she said things in a different manner. Less uppity, right? Less pompous, less aggressive, less intolerant, less preachy, etc.
|
|