Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

Gruffalux

Oh no! Picnic is one of my favourite words. I thought it came from pique-nique..

https://www.liveabout.com/is-the-origin-of-the-word-picnic-derogatory-4075228

Morathi

I'm totally lost on "long time no see " and "picnic", whatever about the absolute insanity of the others.

kildare lad

Morathi wrote: »

I'm totally lost on "long time no see " and "picnic", whatever about the absolute insanity of the others.

I read on another page that "long time no see" could be seemed offensive to chinese, japanese or korea people...

pickarooney

IAMAMORON wrote: »

just throw a fáda on the a, it looks better.

bástard - see much easier.

or just bazza works just as well.

Do you think they should ban the streaming of teenagers playing soccer online - or should they ban people commenting on them - or should they just ban them playing altogether - ??

Or should they be forced to play in mini skirts like Tennis players and Hockey players do?

Why does everything have to be 'ban this', 'force that'? Whatever happened to just asking people to cop on and stop being a dick?

MisterAnarchy

kildare lad wrote: »

Just when you taught universities couldn't get any woker

I've no doubt Biden will appoint a few of these academic loons to his cabinet in the coming months.
Obama surrounded himself with academics.

Dr. Bre

They will have to rename electric picnic

growleaves

Gruffalux wrote: »

Oh no! Picnic is one of my favourite words. I thought it came from pique-nique..

https://www.liveabout.com/is-the-origin-of-the-word-picnic-derogatory-4075228

The French word pique-nique first appeared in print in 1692, so yep you were right.

OS_Head

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I've no doubt Biden will appoint a few of these academic loons to his cabinet in the coming months.
Obama surrounded himself with academics.

On January 6th it'll be clear that Biden won't be appointing anyone to anything in the coming months.

OS_Head

Seen this on twatter in the Kevin Sorbo feed and thought it might be suitable for here.

Dear Plexiglass,

Thank you for protecting me from the cashier who just touched all of the items I’m about to take home.

Tony EH

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Ludicrous decision.

It wasnt used in a racist context.

The FA are a laughing stock, bending to the whims of BLM each and every week, a Marxist organisation that continuously stokes racial tensions .

This has fuck all to do with BLM or Karl Marx. :rolleyes:

The FA already set their own precedent on this nearly a decade ago when they sanctioned another Uruguayan player for the same term.

MisterAnarchy

Tony EH wrote: »

This has fuck all to do with BLM or Karl Marx. :rolleyes:

The FA already set their own precedent on this nearly a decade ago when they sanctioned another Uruguayan player for the same term.

The FA sanctioned Suarez for calling Evra, a black player the same term.

In this case Cavani was talking to a white friend of his.
It’s a commonely used phrase of endearment in South America, which has no racist meaning used in that context towards a white person.

Not only that Cavani was only in England a few weeks when he said it.
Its a publicity stunt by the FA, nothing else.

pickarooney

kildare lad wrote: »

Harvard university now refers to woman as birthing people because apparently it's offensive to men who can also have babies aswell .


After thousands of social media users mocked Harvard Medical School -- which is ranked as the top medical school for research in the United States, according to US News and World Report -- the school posted a follow-up tweet.



“The webinar panelists used the term ‘birthing person’ to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as ‘women’ or ‘girls,’” explained the tweet. “We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women.”


Earlier this year, Campus Reform reported that Harvard’s T. H. Chan School of Public Health shared an article from Popular Mechanics, titled, “Why Some People Think 2+2=5… and why they’re right.”

The school’s official Twitter page asked, “Have you ever thought to yourself, ‘How do I know that 2+2=4? Why isn't it 2+2+5?'”

https://campusreform.org/?id=16477


https://twitter.com/HMSPostgradCE/status/1325483984604831744?s=20

The idea that 'globally', non white people are 'ethnic minorities' is, I think the absolute summit of the garbage heap of wokeness in that 'article'.

pickarooney

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I just looked it up on the link in the tweet:
[1] Ethnic minority individuals are commonly referred to as BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour) in the US and BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnicity) in the UK.

Seems to be based on minorities in western societies
Theres like an hour long video which you can watch for one course credit....

How ****ing insulting is it to someone whose identity is now not just 'not white' but 'not white or black or native American but some random leftover darkie type'.

pickarooney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because "White" culture/history needs to be changed, not the cultures/history of other nations. In fact, any such attempt to change other cultural perspectives would be met with widespread condemnation and outrage. It's only when it applies to white backgrounds is it considered acceptable.

That's not necessarily the point of it. You have loads of young black actors these days competing for roles and when you repeatedly tell them they can't be cast in big productions because of the colour of their skin despite the fact they might be brilliant actors it's a bit of a **** situation, frankly.

Actors by their nature are playing a role and their job is to convince the audience that they are this character. Audiences will overlook all manner of historical discrepancies - actors being 20 years older or a foot taller or with long red hair as opposed to the short black style of the historical person. They will still go nuts over skin colour though. It's just a barrier they can't get over. There is no suspension of disbelief on that one issue. And it's pathetic.

The same people will blather on about 'best man for the job' whenever any mention of race quotas is made, completely oblivious to their enormous hypocrisy.

Tony EH

pickarooney wrote: »

That's not necessarily the point of it. You have loads of young black actors these days competing for roles and when you repeatedly tell them they can't be cast in big productions because of the colour of their skin despite the fact they might be brilliant actors it's a bit of a **** situation, frankly.

Actors by their nature are playing a role and their job is to convince the audience that they are this character. Audiences will overlook all manner of historical discrepancies - actors being 20 years older or a foot taller or with long red hair as opposed to the short black style of the historical person. They will still go nuts over skin colour though. It's just a barrier they can't get over. There is no suspension of disbelief on that one issue. And it's pathetic.

The same people will blather on about 'best man for the job' whenever any mention of race quotas is made, completely oblivious to their enormous hypocrisy.

And rightly too.

For purely fictional things, it doesn't matter one bit.

But if you're putting on an historical production, it makes sense to try and, at least, get it as close as possible to what a person looked like. We all know Martin Luther King looked a certain way, so casting Brendan Gleeson in the role just won't cut it.

There are certain things that just cannot be reproduced and can be passed on, such as height, which can be masked with camera work, or hair colour which can be dyed, or accent which can be disguised as well as the actor/actress can manage.

But, Idris Elba won't ever pass for Hitler just because he puts on a funny moustache.

Tony EH

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The FA sanctioned Suarez for calling Evra, a black player the same term.

In this case Cavani was talking to a white friend of his.
It’s a commonely used phrase of endearment in South America, which has no racist meaning used in that context towards a white person.

Not only that Cavani was only in England a few weeks when he said it.
Its a publicity stunt by the FA, nothing else.

And it has fuck all to do with BLM or Marx.

The FA made their own bed with their objection to the "negrito" term long ago.

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

That's not necessarily the point of it. You have loads of young black actors these days competing for roles and when you repeatedly tell them they can't be cast in big productions because of the colour of their skin despite the fact they might be brilliant actors it's a bit of a **** situation, frankly.

So? Make more movies that cater to having Black actors. Oh, wait. They have. In the last ten plus years, there has been a dramatic increase in the numbers of movies with black actors.. There will likely be more movies for white actors, because in most cases, white people are the clear majority. When that changes, so too will the demand for particular types of movies, and the casting associated with them.

Your logic doesn't work very well, because you seek to reduce the roles for white actors (by giving those roles to black actors) even though they're a clear majority in the acting population... so, you're aiming that Black people should have more roles, simply because of the color of their skin... and not because there's the screenplays, movies, etc that suit them.

Oh... and it's the activists who believe these actors are not being cast because of the color of their skin. In the eyes of those casting, they're not suitable because they have a role that needs filling by a white person, or a Hispanic person.. because it fits the role.

Changing the race of a character in a script carries meaning because of the associations people have with those races. The writer chose a race for a character because, likely, that race matches a subtle (or not so subtle) message within the movie. Hence why a script about US slavery will likely want a black man cast for a slave role... because it fits the role. Whereas casting a white person as a slave owner (even though there were black and other races as slave owners), carries it's own associations.

Actors by their nature are playing a role and their job is to convince the audience that they are this character. Audiences will overlook all manner of historical discrepancies - actors being 20 years older or a foot taller or with long red hair as opposed to the short black style of the historical person. They will still go nuts over skin colour though. It's just a barrier they can't get over. There is no suspension of disbelief on that one issue. And it's pathetic.

It's not pathetic when it concerns historical accuracy. That does concern many people, because part of enjoying a movie, is believing that it's realistic. The quality of an actor in a role only goes so far. Would you be happy with Mel Gibson playing the biography of Nelson Mandela, or Gandhi being played by "the Rock"? I doubt it.

Audiences will overlook all manner of minor discrepancies because it doesn't matter to the realism, or their ability to believe it to be true/probable/realistic. Changing someone's hair color is unlikely to bother most people, although Gandhi being portrayed by someone with purple hair likely would.

The same people will blather on about 'best man for the job' whenever any mention of race quotas is made, completely oblivious to their enormous hypocrisy.

Ahh hypocrisy.. yeah.. I've noticed that rearing it's head a lot more these days. Double standards seem almost acceptable, and fashionably embraced by many.

In any case, you haven't actually dealt with what I originally wrote.

Sir Oxman

Tony EH wrote: »

And rightly too.

For purely fictional things, it doesn't matter one bit.

But if you're putting on an historical production, it makes sense to try and, at least, get it as close as possible to what a person looked like. We all know Martin Luther King looked a certain way, so casting Brendan Gleeson in the role just won't cut it.

There are certain things that just cannot be reproduced and can be passed on, such as height, which can be masked with camera work, or hair colour which can be dyed, or accent which can be disguised as well as the actor/actress can manage.

But, Idris Elba won't ever pass for Hitler just because he puts on a funny moustache.

Agree here.
Fictional historical or otherwise stuff is absolutely fine and shouldn't be a problem to most - it's fiction.
Productions that aim for the telling of an historical event with accuracy, not so.
I wouldn't watch a film about the Rwandan genocide if the main players were all played by white or Asian actors or the Irish War of Independence main characters played by black actors etc

I thought The Great was bloody fantastic - set in 17th century Russia based on the story of Catherine the Great with an occasional truth thrown in (that's even in the title) with a good few Asian and black actors - all brilliantly cast.

Idris Elba for 007!

silverharp

being healthy is toxic now, what do they say, dont pee on my leg and tell me its raining

Rothko

silverharp wrote: »

being healthy is toxic now, what do they say, dont pee on my leg and tell me its raining

That's bodyshaming, similar to what Adele went through when she lost weight. It's absolutely nuts.

AllForIt

silverharp wrote: »

being healthy is toxic now, what do they say, dont pee on my leg and tell me its raining

Losing weight solely for the purpose of how you wish to look outwardly one could say is a bit shallow but it's still the right thing for your health anyway.

The UK had one the highest Covid death rate levels in Europe and guess what - they have one of the highest obesity levels as well. It is ordinarily quite dumb to criticize anyone for tackling their weigh problem but I think we now have a new more toxic variant of dumbness to say such things in the times we currently live.

99nsr125

pickarooney wrote: »

That's not necessarily the point of it. You have loads of young black actors these days competing for roles and when you repeatedly tell them they can't be cast in big productions because of the colour of their skin despite the fact they might be brilliant actors it's a bit of a **** situation, frankly.

Actors by their nature are playing a role and their job is to convince the audience that they are this character. Audiences will overlook all manner of historical discrepancies - actors being 20 years older or a foot taller or with long red hair as opposed to the short black style of the historical person. They will still go nuts over skin colour though. It's just a barrier they can't get over. There is no suspension of disbelief on that one issue. And it's pathetic.

The same people will blather on about 'best man for the job' whenever any mention of race quotas is made, completely oblivious to their enormous hypocrisy.

Yeah because not accounting for race would have been awesome in like says Roots eh if all the masters were played by black people and slaves played by Iranians or something.

Accuracy is important when telling a story irrespectful of how distasteful it is because those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

pickarooney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So? Make more movies that cater to having Black actors. Oh, wait. They have. In the last ten plus years, there has been a dramatic increase in the numbers of movies with black actors.. There will likely be more movies for white actors, because in most cases, white people are the clear majority. When that changes, so too will the demand for particular types of movies, and the casting associated with them.

Your logic doesn't work very well, because you seek to reduce the roles for white actors (by giving those roles to black actors) even though they're a clear majority in the acting population... so, you're aiming that Black people should have more roles, simply because of the color of their skin... and not because there's the screenplays, movies, etc that suit them.

Oh... and it's the activists who believe these actors are not being cast because of the color of their skin. In the eyes of those casting, they're not suitable because they have a role that needs filling by a white person, or a Hispanic person.. because it fits the role.

Changing the race of a character in a script carries meaning because of the associations people have with those races. The writer chose a race for a character because, likely, that race matches a subtle (or not so subtle) message within the movie. Hence why a script about US slavery will likely want a black man cast for a slave role... because it fits the role. Whereas casting a white person as a slave owner (even though there were black and other races as slave owners), carries it's own associations.




It's not pathetic when it concerns historical accuracy. That does concern many people, because part of enjoying a movie, is believing that it's realistic. The quality of an actor in a role only goes so far. Would you be happy with Mel Gibson playing the biography of Nelson Mandela, or Gandhi being played by "the Rock"? I doubt it.

Audiences will overlook all manner of minor discrepancies because it doesn't matter to the realism, or their ability to believe it to be true/probable/realistic. Changing someone's hair color is unlikely to bother most people, although Gandhi being portrayed by someone with purple hair likely would.



Ahh hypocrisy.. yeah.. I've noticed that rearing it's head a lot more these days. Double standards seem almost acceptable, and fashionably embraced by many.

In any case, you haven't actually dealt with what I originally wrote.

Audiences will overlook the entire cast of a film about Jesus being white and speaking English (Gibson made an effort to address half of that, at least) but some makey-uppy period drama has a few black people in it and it's not authentic.

Cate Blanchett played Bob Dylan a while back and the sky didn't fall in.

Gandhi? Played by an English bloke. Should have been a massive insult. Acclaimed as a masterpiece. You're surely being tongue in cheek bringing him up? Maybe he's actually Indian though, given his origins, in which case why the hell did he play Richard III?

AllForIt

99nsr125 wrote: »

Yeah because not accounting for race would have been awesome in like says Roots eh if all the masters were played by black people and slaves played by Iranians or something.

Accuracy is important when telling a story irrespectful of how distasteful it is because those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

It feels some people will never be satisfied where it comes to black issues.

When the movie 12 Years a Slave was out, some complained that whenever you see black people on screen it's always something to do with historical slavery. Well, you'd hardly cast a Japanese person in the role of a black slave, or would they rather the movie wasn't made at all?

But I knew well of the actor Chiwetel Ejiofor who was in loads of things before 12 Years, including a futuristic sci-fi movie where I first came across him where I thought he was one to watch. In fact here is his work resume for all to see: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0252230/ . Doesn't appear to be having any employment problems to me, and I'd say he's pretty loaded by now.

Rothko

pickarooney wrote: »

Cate Blanchett played Bob Dylan a while back and the sky didn't fall in.

Gandhi? Played by an English bloke. Should have been a massive insult. Acclaimed as a masterpiece. You're surely being tongue in cheek bringing him up? Maybe he's actually Indian though, given his origins, in which case why the hell did he play Richard III?

Cate was actually the most convincing portrayal of Dylan in that movie.

Apparently, Ben Kingsley looked so much like Gandhi that some of the natives thought that he was Gandhi's ghost or spirit.

MisterAnarchy

Rothko wrote: »

Apparently, Ben Kingsley looked so much like Gandhi that some of the natives thought that he was Gandhi's ghost or spirit.

in fairness Bens real name is Krishna Pandit Bhanji,his father was Indian.

The Fireworks in London last night, whilst spectacular left a sour taste in the mouth with its Woke agenda .
£1.5million of public money was secretly spent on a BBC-backed 'woke' agenda.
Sadiq Khan used the festive fireworks as a medium to send his choice of political messages across the World.

The colours of the European Union were forefront(at a time when the country has just formulated post-Brexit ties), there was a tribute for BAME NHS workers and the clenched fist of BLM was prominently displayed
A lovely occassion ruined by a Woke political agenda.

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

Audiences will overlook the entire cast of a film about Jesus being white and speaking English (Gibson made an effort to address half of that, at least) but some makey-uppy period drama has a few black people in it and it's not authentic.

Cate Blanchett played Bob Dylan a while back and the sky didn't fall in.

Gandhi? Played by an English bloke. Should have been a massive insult. Acclaimed as a masterpiece. You're surely being tongue in cheek bringing him up? Maybe he's actually Indian though, given his origins, in which case why the hell did he play Richard III?

Well done. You [kinda] addressed my examples. Not the content on my post though. On either attempt. Great job there.

AllForIt

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

in fairness Bens real name is Krishna Pandit Bhanji,his father was Indian.

The Fireworks in London last night, whilst spectacular left a sour taste in the mouth with its Woke agenda .
£1.5million of public money was secretly spent on a BBC-backed 'woke' agenda.
Sadiq Khan used the festive fireworks as a medium to send his choice of political messages across the World.

The colours of the European Union were forefront(at a time when the country has just formulated post-Brexit ties), there was a tribute for BAME NHS workers and the clenched fist of BLM was prominently displayed
A lovely occassion ruined by a Woke political agenda.

Interesting, I only saw this on my Youtube feed earlier today. I though it was some kind of virtual fireworks imagery I was watching in lieu of a real event. I was watching Sky News at midnight and they never covered any fireworks display in London which I though was 100% cancelled.

I can't believe the BBC sectioned a fireworks display where at the same time they talk about the great NHS and protecting the NHS? Someone tell me I've misunderstood something here! Because I would hardly think enticing ppl out to watch a fireworks display could do anything to protect the NHS in these times.

And as for promoting the colours of the EU, well I didn't notice it, but if so, that's such a big FU to their own people. Disgusting.

storker

silverharp wrote: »

being healthy is toxic now, what do they say, dont pee on my leg and tell me its raining

Looking good for someone who's had 18 kids for the Fatherland.

kildare lad

pickarooney wrote: »

Audiences will overlook the entire cast of a film about Jesus being white and speaking English (Gibson made an effort to address half of that, at least) but some makey-uppy period drama has a few black people in it and it's not authentic.

Cate Blanchett played Bob Dylan a while back and the sky didn't fall in.

Gandhi? Played by an English bloke. Should have been a massive insult. Acclaimed as a masterpiece. You're surely being tongue in cheek bringing him up? Maybe he's actually Indian though, given his origins, in which case why the hell did he play Richard III?

How would you feel about Al pacino playing martin luther king on film

kildare lad

Rothko wrote: »

That's bodyshaming, similar to what Adele went through when she lost weight. It's absolutely nuts.

What a world we live in nowadays , Imagine putting all that effort in to lose weight , get healthy , cut down your risks of getting diabetes, heart disease and early death, then have to listen to fatso's giving out it because it makes them feel fat and lazy .

Quantum Erasure

kildare lad wrote: »

How would you feel about Al pacino playing martin luther king on film

bit old now

Quantum Erasure

Tony EH wrote: »

But, Idris Elba won't ever pass for Hitler just because he puts on a funny moustache.

id love to see him try though,

46 Long

46 Long wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Repealist_/status/1344442123404390405

'Gardai actively killing POC'

I wonder what kind of grasp on reality do these people have. You'd swear the auld Guards were typing foreign sounding names into Pulse looking for a few black lads to shoot next.

Its the leftist enablers i blame. Fcuk them into a ghetto along with these low life dirtbags and let them be cannibalised. Enrich the sh1t out of them.

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

Audiences will overlook the entire cast of a film about Jesus being white and speaking English (Gibson made an effort to address half of that, at least) but some makey-uppy period drama has a few black people in it and it's not authentic.

Cate Blanchett played Bob Dylan a while back and the sky didn't fall in.

Gandhi? Played by an English bloke. Should have been a massive insult. Acclaimed as a masterpiece. You're surely being tongue in cheek bringing him up? Maybe he's actually Indian though, given his origins, in which case why the hell did he play Richard III?

No one probably bothered watching it. Tree falling in the woods etc

pickarooney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well done. You [kinda] addressed my examples. Not the content on my post though. On either attempt. Great job there.

Much of your post was silly. 'Giving jobs to black actors takes jobs away from white actors' is just brain-dead reasoning.

pickarooney

kildare lad wrote: »

How would you feel about Al pacino playing martin luther king on film

I don't think he'd have the range but he might surprise me.

Gruffalux

kildare lad wrote: »

How would you feel about Al pacino playing martin luther king on film

Personally I favour Elliot Page for the role.

kildare lad

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't think he'd have the range but he might surprise me.

What about brendan gleeson playing the role, I reckon he'd make a great MLK ? In the film The wind that shakes the barley " say half of the flying columns were chinese do you not think that'd look a bit stupid ??

99nsr125

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No one probably bothered watching it. Tree falling in the woods etc

Probably because Blanchet is a beyond şhitē actress

kildare lad

Gruffalux wrote: »

Personally I favour Elliot Page for the role.

I think he'd have trouble growing a mustache

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

kildare lad wrote: »

What about brendan gleeson playing the role, I reckon he'd make a great MLK ? In the film The wind that shakes the barley " say half of the flying columns were chinese do you not think that'd look a bit stupid ??

Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman playing Irish migrants worked out nicely, so why not?

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

Much of your post was silly. 'Giving jobs to black actors takes jobs away from white actors' is just brain-dead reasoning.

Exactly... considering it was you that essentially suggested as much first.

For a mod, your posts are really odd sometimes.

pickarooney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Exactly... considering it was you that essentially suggested as much first.

For a mod, your posts are really odd sometimes.

How is being an equal-opportunities employer 'talking jobs from white people and giving them to black people' ?

Absolute horse****, and well you know it. You don't even believe that, I'm almost certain you posted something along the lines of believing in picking the best person for the job a few pages back. You're just being contrarian for the sake of it.

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

How is being an equal-opportunities employer 'talking jobs from white people and giving them to black people' ?

Absolute horse****, and well you know it. You don't even believe that, I'm almost certain you posted something along the lines of believing in picking the best person for the job a few pages back. You're just being contrarian for the sake of it.

There's more white actors (or other non-black races combined with white people) than black actors. In the general population, there's more white people than black people.. and there's more roles in movies/TV, for white people to fill. That's simple logic. Numbers. As I said before, if/when Black people represent a greater population than white people, then there will be the demand for more black roles.

When you claim that black people aren't being cast in roles designed for white or other racial groups, because of racism... which you did... that's not about equal opportunity. It's about elevating one race over others, solely due to the color of their skin.

For someone claiming I'm being "contrarian for the sake of it", you're doing a rather good job yourself. And drop the "horse****", "brain-dead", whatever comments. You're the one who keeps avoiding dealing with the simple logic, and deflecting each time.

Rothko

Deleted User wrote: »

No one probably bothered watching it. Tree falling in the woods etc

Nobody watched I'm Not There? Really?

Gruffalux

Amazingly most of the actors in Bollywood are Indian :eek:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman playing Irish migrants worked out nicely, so why not?

We’ve a couple of Brits and an American trying it out in that mess that’s currently doing the rounds. Nearly make those two look competent.

Tony EH

pickarooney wrote: »

How is being an equal-opportunities employer 'talking jobs from white people and giving them to black people' ?

Equal opportunities employment is a fine thing. The best person for the job should always be the way to go. However stunt casting to generate cheap publicity isn't, and it ends up demeaning everyone, including the actress that got the gig just because the producers wanted to put black face into their show.

Could Channel 5 really not find a decent white actress to portray a white 14th Century English queen...really?



This kind of shit is just intellectually insulting to every viewer and especially one that has an interest in seeing historical figures and stories put on the screen with, at least, a modicum of accuracy and there is absolutely nothing to be gained in the way of "progression" with this type of nonsense.

99nsr125

Tony EH wrote: »

Equal opportunities employment is a fine thing. The best person for the job should always be the way to go. However stunt casting to generate cheap publicity isn't, and it ends up demeaning everyone, including the actress that got the gig just because the producers wanted to put black face into their show.

Could Channel 5 really not find a decent white actress to portray a white 14th Century English queen...really?



This kind of shit is just intellectually insulting to every viewer and especially one that has an interest in seeing historical figures and stories put on the screen with, at least, a modicum of accuracy and there is absolutely nothing to be gained in the way of "progression" with this type of nonsense.

Also you're damaging history for black or asian people etc giving a false impression that they had equal standing in society damaging the very thing supposedly being advocated.