Accidental Racist?

cawacko said:
What is it about her that makes her so untouchable to some? (She's about my age and grew up two cities over from me. I've always wonder if we had any mutual friends.)
Click to expand...

She's a smart, talented, gay woman who reached a level of success enabling her to deliver progressive ideas to a wide audience. I understand the admiration she engenders. I simply find her to be one of the most annoying people on television. She talks to her audience as if they were retarded IMO. She takes 20 minutes to say one thing to her audience, and she says it over and over and over. And I find her antics to be childish. She simply grates on me to no end. But as I said, I walked away from MSNBC years ago. I am not interested in any of it.
 
Darla said:
She's a smart, talented, gay woman who reached a level of success enabling her to deliver progressive ideas to a wide audience. I understand the admiration she engenders. I simply find her to be one of the most annoying people on television. She talks to her audience as if they were retarded IMO. She takes 20 minutes to say one thing to her audience, and she says it over and over and over. And I find her antics to be childish. She simply grates on me to no end. But as I said, I walked away from MSNBC years ago. I am not interested in any of it.
Click to expand...

the above is 'code' for 'i hate lesbians'
 
Darla said:
She's a smart, talented, gay woman who reached a level of success enabling her to deliver progressive ideas to a wide audience. I understand the admiration she engenders. I simply find her to be one of the most annoying people on television. She talks to her audience as if they were retarded IMO. She takes 20 minutes to say one thing to her audience, and she says it over and over and over. And I find her antics to be childish. She simply grates on me to no end. But as I said, I walked away from MSNBC years ago. I am not interested in any of it.
Click to expand...

I hear you on that, nothing more annoying (regardless of who it is) than having a speaker you feel is talking down to you.
 
Darla said:
She's a smart, talented, gay woman who reached a level of success enabling her to deliver progressive ideas to a wide audience. I understand the admiration she engenders. I simply find her to be one of the most annoying people on television. She talks to her audience as if they were retarded IMO. She takes 20 minutes to say one thing to her audience, and she says it over and over and over. And I find her antics to be childish. She simply grates on me to no end. But as I said, I walked away from MSNBC years ago. I am not interested in any of it.
Click to expand...

Speaking truth about Maddow probably gets you as many glares from democratic women and I get from democratic black people when I talk about Obama.

People pigeon-hole themselves into type.
 
Howey said:
I get the message and agree to some extent. But why the hullabaloo about Paisley being racist?
Click to expand...
Because it's a safe assertion in today's society, the only way to definitively not be a racist is to hide somewhere in a closet and hum quietly to yourself. Even then you have to be careful about the tune.
 
I think Paisley and LL Cool J were trying to have their McCartny/Jackson moment, trying to blend country with rap, move past the past, but they fail to realize there are still a generation to close to the history to forget the iron chains and who associate the confederate flag with more than just Lynard Skynard, as does Paisley or so he said in an interview.

It is a poorly written, stupid song, it did the opposite of what they intended.
 
Disillusioned said:
Because it's a safe assertion in today's society, the only way to definitively not be a racist is to hide somewhere in a closet and hum quietly to yourself. Even then you have to be careful about the tune.
Click to expand...

Bull. One does not need to censor their words, just be man enough to stand by them. Rather than crying "I'm not racist!" after repeating an obvious racist stereotype, how about thinking about what was said and how those words could affect others?

It's not rocket science.
 
Rana said:
I think Paisley and LL Cool J were trying to have their McCartny/Jackson moment, trying to blend country with rap, move past the past, but they fail to realize there are still a generation to close to the history to forget the iron chains and who associate the confederate flag with more than just Lynard Skynard, as does Paisley or so he said in an interview.

It is a poorly written, stupid song, it did the opposite of what they intended.
Click to expand...

I just think people are overreacting to it. It's something I kind of hate to see, because the concept of "artistic license" is disappearing. I remember when people thought Spike Lee was advocating violence in "Do the Right Thing", but because he is making a movie from a certain perspective, does not mean he is advocating that perspective. Then, Spike proceeded to do the same thing for both "Mississippi Burning" (which he said made the whole civil rights movement there about 2 white guys), and about a couple of Tarantino movies where they use the "n word" a lot (which guess what? People do & did).

By extension, it goes into this whole counter-culture movement to sanitize art, and make it all very pc - like the folks who wanted to take the n-word out of Twain's books. As though people didn't use that word back then.
 
Darla said:
Lee was not the only one to say that about Mississippi Burning which is a piss-poor film, sorry.
Click to expand...

Well, Lee & everyone else who said it is wrong. All the film was doing was showing one perspective.

It's not a filmmakers responsibility to appease any one group or another, or show some sort of "complete" picture of an incident or period of time. That's why it's art - it's up to those making it what they want to show, and what perspective they want the audience to see.
 
Thing1 said:
Well, Lee & everyone else who said it is wrong. All the film was doing was showing one perspective.

It's not a filmmakers responsibility to appease any one group or another, or show some sort of "complete" picture of an incident or period of time. That's why it's art - it's up to those making it what they want to show, and what perspective they want the audience to see.
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong. Depicting the FBI as the heroes is historically nonfactual. Depicting blacks of that era as helpless fools looking to whitey to save them, is outrageously historically nonfactual. No one needs yet another white perspective on lynching. And being historically accurate is not "appeasement".
 
Darla said:
Lee was not the only one to say that about Mississippi Burning which is a piss-poor film, sorry.
Click to expand...

Mississippi Burning is on par with Birth of a Nation from my perspective. A piss-poor film indeed.

Lee is also correct about Django Unchained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top