Hot Take/ Musical Confession Thread!

Godspee You! Baby Emperor said:
Again, we would actually refer to a group of men as males and a group of women as females - quite regularly.

And, yes, non-gendered is the way I - and most - would usually refer to an individual. But sometimes if there are people with the same last name (happens) or someone is not familiar with another - I'd use distinguishing characteristics to orientate that person (and gender is a good place to begin). Like if I had to send my troop to a female or male person for whatever, I may say "Sgt Snuffy, male type..."

But I would never use a gendered description if everyone knows who we're talking about as a way to make a distinction about capabilities or to somehow qualify that person's rank or position as if the gender has an influence.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t removing gender have the same issues as removing race from a conversation?
 
bettim84 said:
It sounds bad to me as well. Also demeaning: referring to an adult woman as a “girl.”
Click to expand...
I know a lot of women who have complained about being called female because it's more of a biological classification or object descriptor, than woman which is a subject descriptor. At least that's how they explained it to me. They said they don't like being described by their genitals as a scientific term. But woman is gender, not sex, and therefore more respectful. It made sense to me but it was a difficult habit to break at first because I used that often without ever really paying attention.
 
gaporter said:
On a second glance, it would appear the she does indeed have a songwriting credit on all her songs, so sorry @Ericj32 for implying otherwise. Katy Perry is awesome and I am lame.
Click to expand...

Is this a Hot take.....
I dont particularly care either way about Katy Perry - Altho my daughter owning a Album at around 7 yrs old with a track on Called Peacock was pretty hilarious, those lyircs are filth and I didn't stop it continuing 🤷‍♂️ Actually that one event means I like KP.
Anyhow....

I've seen her perform live (on TV) a few times and im fairly sure she cant sing.
Its either out of tune or Autotune.
 
Lee Newman said:
Hate to break it to you, but it’s a noun:
View attachment 128919:)View attachment 128920The only reason it would be demeaning is because unlike Man or Woman, it does not denote species. I’ve heard male used much more commonly than female.
Click to expand...

Ive skipped a page so im certain im not on topic here, but one more Hot take.
As a 45 yr old male and already slightly feeling out of time with the world. Not quite on a par with hearing my grandparents being occasionally racist but im getting there......

Im not woke enough (apparently/ definitely)

Im hoping one day to see a huge backlash against "cancelling people for minor deeds of the past. I mean there is literally no one on this planet who if recorded from birth wouldn't be on the blacklist. Yes even Greta Thornberg :) (im not spreading rumours)
I also cant be assed listening to people who want to tell me they are non binary, or Vulcan Jedi blah blah blah - I certainly don't give a shit. Why does it need to be so complicated all of a sudden. Im suspicious people are now doing it just to be a bit more interesting. YAWN. Don't tell me just live your live.
Sam Smith (does his fame travel across the pond?)- Come on is there a more annoying artist - Surely even his fans will get sick of him eventually.
 
ByersVinyl said:
Ive skipped a page so im certain im not on topic here, but one more Hot take.
As a 45 yr old male and already slightly feeling out of time with the world. Not quite on a par with hearing my grandparents being occasionally racist but im getting there......

Im not woke enough (apparently/ definitely)

Im hoping one day to see a huge backlash against "cancelling people for minor deeds of the past. I mean there is literally no one on this planet who if recorded from birth wouldn't be on the blacklist. Yes even Greta Thornberg :) (im not spreading rumours)
I also cant be assed listening to people who want to tell me they are non binary, or Vulcan Jedi blah blah blah - I certainly don't give a shit. Why does it need to be so complicated all of a sudden. Im suspicious people are now doing it just to be a bit more interesting. YAWN. Don't tell me just live your live.
Sam Smith (does his fame travel across the pond?)- Come on is there a more annoying artist - Surely even his fans will get sick of him eventually.
Click to expand...
No one is getting cancelled for minor deeds of the past. Most of those who claim to have been cancelled are shouting about it from major media platforms. That's not being cancelled. If Louis CK can jerk off on unsuspecting women and still have comedy specials, Marilyn Manson can rape and still sell records, Joe Rogan can say the n word over and over and still have offers for $100 million contacts, then these assholes aren't being cancelled. And it takes about two seconds to learn someone's pronouns and treat them with the respect they're asking for. It seems like only people who look like me have a problem with all this and we're the ones who haven't been held accountable for our actions cause we've had the power. The tables are finally being turned and surprise surprise we don't like others having a voice that we've always had. But if you want to speak of cancel culture, again people who look like me and control the legal system are making it illegal to teach about slavery. They make it harder for women to get justice for sexual assault and put them on trial while rapists like that Stanford fuck get a slap on the wrist for raping an unconscious woman. That's the cancel culture. These aren't minor deeds, this is systematic oppression and it makes me embarrassed of those who can't be half assed to learn how to say them/their without feeling like they need to belittle those trying to just be treated as a normal human with equal rights to exist.
 
Lee Newman said:
Hate to break it to you, but it’s a noun:
View attachment 128919View attachment 128920The only reason it would be demeaning is because unlike Man or Woman, it does not denote species. I’ve heard male used much more commonly than female.
Click to expand...

Actually @Lee Newman thats dependent on the dictionary, it’s more than likely both dependent on the situation but the last part of the second screenshot is the viewpoint I’ve been, probably poorly, trying to highlight. Which is why, in concert with what @Hemotep said, I’d never also use it palace of woman/women for the second part of B2.

6762D0B0-69FE-4803-A3D6-1DF5FA6D7789.jpegFC5959E2-6D3B-4798-BB5E-FECB35A94365.jpeg
 
Last edited:
debianlinux said:
I've found it easier to just refer to everyone as them/their. It bothers no one and simplifies my life tremendously.
Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone ever gets upset at genuine mistakes early on, it’s dicks who deliberately use the traditional term to “make a point” or whatever despite knowing. But when I’m writing directions/opinions in the abstract or to to/about a person where I couldn’t be sure I’d always like use them/they/theirs.
 
Speaking of cancel culture, I recently saw an article (clearly click baity) that was discussing it in regards to actors playing certain roles. It's not something I have really read about too much, other than Scarlett Johansson being cast as an Asian character in Ghost In The Shell, but I would be interested in broadening my understanding by hearing what others think.

The 3 that I remember were Dakota Johnson voicing Madame Web (a blind elderly supervillain), Jack Whitehall playing a gay Disney character, and Helen Mirren playing a Jewish character. The point of the article was essentially that Johnson isn't a blind old woman, Whitehall isn't gay, and Mirren isn't Jewish, and therefore they shouldn't have played those roles. Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that exactly what acting is, pretending you are something/someone you are not?

Again, it was clearly a clickbait article so maybe they purposely left out info to stir the pot, but in the 3 examples that I mentioned, I'm not sure I understand what the issue is?

Anyone have any opinions to share?
 
Selaws said:
Speaking of cancel culture, I recently saw an article (clearly click baity) that was discussing it in regards to actors playing certain roles. It's not something I have really read about too much, other than Scarlett Johansson being cast as an Asian character in Ghost In The Shell, but I would be interested in broadening my understanding by hearing what others think.

The 3 that I remember were Dakota Johnson voicing Madame Web (a blind elderly supervillain), Jack Whitehall playing a gay Disney character, and Helen Mirren playing a Jewish character. The point of the article was essentially that Johnson isn't a blind old woman, Whitehall isn't gay, and Mirren isn't Jewish, and therefore they shouldn't have played those roles. Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that exactly what acting is, pretending you are something/someone you are not?

Again, it was clearly a clickbait article so maybe they purposely left out info to stir the pot, but in the 3 examples that I mentioned, I'm not sure I understand what the issue is?

Anyone have any opinions to share?
Click to expand...
I could explain in words that would likely miss the mark or I could just ask if you think it's fine for a white men to act as black men on screen (and not just the one time pauly shore did it)? If you say yes, then I have nothing further to add. If you say no, then try examining all those nuances why not and you pretty much have your answer.
 
debianlinux said:
I could explain in words that would likely miss the mark or I could just ask if you think it's fine for a white men to act as black men on screen (and not just the one time pauly shore did it)? If you say yes, then I have nothing further to add. If you say no, then try examining all those nuances why not and you pretty much have your answer.
Click to expand...
I guess my answer would depend on which context it is used. If it's an offensive stereotype or blackface then, of course, it's not acceptable, and if the colour/ancestry of the character they are playing is intrinsic to the story then it wouldn't make sense either. But outside of that I personally don't see an issue with different races playing any character they see fit as long as it's in a respectful manner.

The same way that I think it pretty well agreed that Samuel L Jackson kills the role of Nick Fury (who was depicted as a white man in the comics), Morgan Freeman's portrayal of Red in the Shawshank Redemption (an Irish character in the book) is iconic, and more recently Zendaya as Mary Jane Watson (a white character in the comics) is perhaps the best portrayal to date (in my opinion anyway).

Of the 3 examples I mentioned earlier I have seen Dakota Johnson voicing Madame Web in Into The Spiderverse and from what I remember she wasn't making fun of her character disability in that role. I haven't seen the other 2 so I can't comment on those I'm afraid.

As an fyi, I'm not bringing this up to cause any friction, I'm generally interested to hear peoples stances on it.
 
My very white/cis/etc. opinion on it is that there's probably two (or more levels) to this discussion. The first are things like ScarJo in GitS or Emma Stone in Aloha where someone is playing someone who physically isn't represented. The performing arts has a really terrible history with both whitewashing of characters (casting Natalie Wood in West Side Story to play the Latina lead) is a popular example - this happened with Asian characters a ton) and changing the physical characteristics of a person to represent that (blackface being the most prominent). Asian/Pacific Islander (AAPI) actors and actresses as well as characters have very low representation in Hollywood - something in the 4-6% range on both. One third of lead AAPI lead roles in the last couple decades (in terms of mainstream movies) were played by Dwayne Johnson. This isn't necessarily out of line in terms of overall population numbers (a bit low) if that matters, but it does mean opportunities for those performers are much more limited. So if you have a movie like Ghost in the Shell and someone like ScarJo playing a Japanese character, they're deciding to cast against physical typing without a real reason behind it. Now, the business argument is that ScarJo might bring in more money or even have the name to get this movie to theaters period, but I think that those arguments have a long and well established history. It's a similar reason to why Lin Manuel Miranda caught flack for In The Heights where it cast almost exclusive lighter-skinned Hispanic characters and relegated darker skinned characters mostly to dancer roles. Hollywood has a not-so-great history at denying opportunities for minority actors on the guise of money or star power when all logic would dictate that a minority actor would be cast - it's a big reason why a movie like Crazy Rich Asians was such a box office and media success - is that an Asian cast was featured in a high quality, mainstream movie.

I think that less physically obvious diversity issues (like the three cited) are trickier and a bit newer as a discussion point, though they are coming from the same place. I try to approach it from the other end: why is Dakota Johnson: a young, vision-abled woman, voice acting someone entirely different (though I think once you get into non-physical differences in voice acting the waters are very muddy). Why was Jack Whitehall cast to play a gay man (my argument would probably be that the point wasn't that his character was gay - his character was comic relief for unrelated reasons) in a company where having any sense of different sexualities would be a big deal. etc.

I dunno, my background always wants to kneejerk to "it's an overreacton, it's not a big deal, it's not malicious", but I try to defer to people in those represented groups and consider their feelings strongly - and when you are part of a group that may get one big Hollywood role every five years and then that role is given to someone who gets five big roles every year, that can be a fair point of concern.
 
Selaws said:
I guess my answer would depend on which context it is used. If it's an offensive stereotype or blackface then, of course, it's not acceptable, and if the colour/ancestry of the character they are playing is intrinsic to the story then it wouldn't make sense either. But outside of that I personally don't see an issue with different races playing any character they see fit as long as it's in a respectful manner.

The same way that I think it pretty well agreed that Samuel L Jackson kills the role of Nick Fury (who was depicted as a white man in the comics), Morgan Freeman's portrayal of Red in the Shawshank Redemption (an Irish character in the book) is iconic, and more recently Zendaya as Mary Jane Watson (a white character in the comics) is perhaps the best portrayal to date (in my opinion anyway).

Of the 3 examples I mentioned earlier I have seen Dakota Johnson voicing Madame Web in Into The Spiderverse and from what I remember she wasn't making fun of her character disability in that role. I haven't seen the other 2 so I can't comment on those I'm afraid.

As an fyi, I'm not bringing this up to cause any friction, I'm generally interested to hear peoples stances on it.
Click to expand...
In all of your cited examples the social power roles are reversed, though.
 
waruv said:
My very white/cis/etc. opinion on it is that there's probably two (or more levels) to this discussion. The first are things like ScarJo in GitS or Emma Stone in Aloha where someone is playing someone who physically isn't represented. The performing arts has a really terrible history with both whitewashing of characters (casting Natalie Wood in West Side Story to play the Latina lead) is a popular example - this happened with Asian characters a ton) and changing the physical characteristics of a person to represent that (blackface being the most prominent). Asian/Pacific Islander (AAPI) actors and actresses as well as characters have very low representation in Hollywood - something in the 4-6% range on both. One third of lead AAPI lead roles in the last couple decades (in terms of mainstream movies) were played by Dwayne Johnson. This isn't necessarily out of line in terms of overall population numbers (a bit low) if that matters, but it does mean opportunities for those performers are much more limited. So if you have a movie like Ghost in the Shell and someone like ScarJo playing a Japanese character, they're deciding to cast against physical typing without a real reason behind it. Now, the business argument is that ScarJo might bring in more money or even have the name to get this movie to theaters period, but I think that those arguments have a long and well established history. It's a similar reason to why Lin Manuel Miranda caught flack for In The Heights where it cast almost exclusive lighter-skinned Hispanic characters and relegated darker skinned characters mostly to dancer roles. Hollywood has a not-so-great history at denying opportunities for minority actors on the guise of money or star power when all logic would dictate that a minority actor would be cast - it's a big reason why a movie like Crazy Rich Asians was such a box office and media success - is that an Asian cast was featured in a high quality, mainstream movie.

I think that less physically obvious diversity issues (like the three cited) are trickier and a bit newer as a discussion point, though they are coming from the same place. I try to approach it from the other end: why is Dakota Johnson: a young, vision-abled woman, voice acting someone entirely different (though I think once you get into non-physical differences in voice acting the waters are very muddy). Why was Jack Whitehall cast to play a gay man (my argument would probably be that the point wasn't that his character was gay - his character was comic relief for unrelated reasons) in a company where having any sense of different sexualities would be a big deal. etc.

I dunno, my background always wants to kneejerk to "it's an overreacton, it's not a big deal, it's not malicious", but I try to defer to people in those represented groups and consider their feelings strongly - and when you are part of a group that may get one big Hollywood role every five years and then that role is given to someone who gets five big roles every year, that can be a fair point of concern.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this, I really appreciate it.

That last line you put is great and really gets to the heart of the issue I think and I have to admit that I hadn't thought of it in that way really.

As I mentioned, it's not a topic I have read about until recently (in the specific sense of film roles) but something that im finding quite interesting so I will dig deeper.
 
Selaws said:
Can you explain this, please?
Click to expand...
White people maintain their hold on the highest social power. I think this is one of the fundamental reasons there's issues with them playing other races/sexes/etc. There's a common argument that only those who hold systemic power can truly be racist as racism is ultimately a power structure and thus those who cannot wield it cannot truly be racist (merely discriminatory). Thus, there is a substantial difference from a white person playing the role of say an american indian than the reverse. When a white man does this it intrinsically whitewashes the role and extrinsically robs that ethnicity of opportunity to represent themselves. With white people being so well represented, one cannot argue the reverse is necessarily true.

Back to your examples, they were all examples of non-whites playing white roles and thus, in my estimation, a deflection from the very question you appeared to be asking to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top