Actors playing characters with which they do not share characteristics

[Gorbles]

Either it still happens sometimes, or it doesn't. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't agree with "it doesn't", so there's literally no disagreement here other than you don't like how I phrased it (in, let's not forget, the analogy). Again you're just quibbling over irrelevant details on the basis that your emotional reaction needs to be addressed, whilst completely ignoring the actual point of the analogy. Boring.

How people phrase things indicate how they feel about a specific topic. Words matter and always have. "it still kind of happens sometimes" is not the same as "it still happens sometimes", which is not the same as "it still happens". You can call it quibbling if you want, if that makes you feel better about your word choice when discussing such discrimination.

But sure, spend all those words defending yourself. This is two posts you've made with zero effort to actually engage in the points I've made, instead opting for ridicule, bad-faith interpretations of my arguments, and accusations of "playing dumb" and the like. And no, I wasn't referencing any private conversation, so again - project a bit harder. You're the one who wandered in here looking for some kind of argument instead of a discussion, and I'm afraid I just won't feed that as much as you'd want me to. Peace out.

 

[aelf]

Imagine society had a bit of a problem with randomly shooting left-handed people in the face. Almost everyone agrees this is really bad and really should stop, but you know... it still kind of happens sometimes.

Then a left-handed guy says "hey, maybe let's start shooting an equal number of right-handed people in the face so it's fair!".

The someone else says "Hmm... no, I still think just not shooting anyone in the face would be the best option".

Now imagine someone else saying "And yet that doesn't happen does it? It's no good just saying that should be the best thing when that doesn't happen. If you don't like the idea of shooting right-handed people in the face, what's your solution? You have to have one, or else I can't take your criticism of this plan seriously".

Then imagine what opinion you'd have of that person's critical thinking ability.

Now "imagine" you are that person.

This is a great example of hot take that should never have left someone's underdeveloped thoughts.

 

[EgonSpengler]

This is just a restating of "All Lives Matter", isn't it? An insincere attempt to do nothing and earn a halo for it while leaving an issue unaddressed.

I'm not following the discussion in this thread, but I do like this succinct explanation of the problem with "All Lives Matter."

 

[Kyriakos]

I wonder if Kevin Spacey will land more jobs now that he has stated he is homosexual.
Little over a decade ago, he was regarded as an A-lister and good actor.

 

[cardgame]

I wonder if Kevin Spacey will land more jobs now that he has stated he is homosexual.
Little over a decade ago, he was regarded as an A-lister and good actor.

need a dislike button

 

[Akka]

Well, sorry for the delay, hectic week at work.

Context m8. The two actions you claim are the same are not the same. If an elephant steps on an ant then I'm going to run and get a first aid kit, if an ant steps on an elephant I'm going to be much less worried.

What exactly is "not the same" ? Not discriminating about sexual orientation is "not the same" when it's applied to LGBT+ compared to when it's applied to heterosexuals ?
Or do we should check if someone is in some sort of approved/listed "oppressed list" before deciding if it's okay to discriminate and apply laws ?

Yes, some people are in more difficult situation society-wide than others, but why should this give special treatments when it comes to discrimination, especially when we consider this more difficult situation to be especially not tolerable precisely because it's due to discrimination ?

It is sometimes claimed that the ends do or do not justify the means, but here you almost seem to be saying that the means justifies the ends!

Maybe the ends can be good (or bad) independently of the means???? IDK, this seems kind of obvious.

That's nonsensical. An end can obviously be good or bad in itself, as a theorical objective, but trying to reach an end is of course completely dependant on the way you reach it. I can't even believe I have to point that out.

So if something isn't visible it's fair game? Why?

This point has already been answered in the very beginning, and it's blatantly obvious. You're again veering into straight bad faith/playing dumb territory.

I'm asking the question because you're trying silly comparisons like this. It's not acceptable to discriminate. The problem we have is people do anyway, and when a gay guy expresses his opinion that more authentic LGBTQ representation in casting would be good (because the deck is so stacked against them even nowadays), we get arguments like "he's discriminating against straight people".

So your reason is that it's okay to discriminate because it's not acceptable to discriminate but people do it anyway.
That makes no sense. You can't fight discrimination through discrimination, and actually if you even try you justifies discrimination.

So I ask you what you'd do to fix the existing problems, because apparently Davies' opinion is not the right way to go for you. So what is? If we agree that discrimination is bad, and you say that Davies is discriminating, how would you go about it? I don't see why you're objecting.

"By making society used to treat people equally. That's the whole points of laws, to regulate how we treat each others, and after a time it becomes ingrained."
That was included in the very post you're supposedly answering, but somehow you skipped it and then asked the question again.

Also, treating everyone equally is an end on top of being a mean. That's the entire concept of "equality under the law". You're trying to reach a goal by defeating the very basis of said goal. Once again, it makes no sense and is completely contradictory.

But sure, spend all those words defending yourself. This is two posts you've made with zero effort to actually engage in the points I've made, instead opting for ridicule, bad-faith interpretations of my arguments, and accusations of "playing dumb" and the like.

Actually, his analogy was pretty much spot-on, illustrating the absurdity of penalizing a subset of population to statiscally "make up" for a problem that another subset of population is living through.
I find it difficult to believe that people can't get this point, when nobody had a problem with the "mouse to elephant" analogy Senethro made, which was obviously used to illustrate difference of power and impact (I mean I disagreed with it, but I understood the point, and I didn't act in bad faith pretending that people aren't mouse or elephants or the like - maybe people should do that a bit more and actually try to understand and answer to the actual arguments they don't agree with, rather than just dismiss or pretend they don't get whatever they don't like under flimsy pretexts).

 

[Kyriakos]

This discussion reminds me of a joke once told about Eurovision. Someone argued that it is very good that Eurovision is about sexual and political issues (it was on account of that austrian bearded woman -?- who won that year), and someone else agreed but added that it'd be great if there was also a Eurovision for music.

 

[Gorbles]

This point has already been answered in the very beginning, and it's blatantly obvious. You're again veering into straight bad faith/playing dumb territory.

If I'm asking, it's not obvious. If you have to accuse me of "playing dumb" or the like, the only bad faith here is yours. I've done my best to be fair even though I understand that there is a wealth of opinion between us that doesn't really mesh on subjects like this. At least do the same for me.

So your reason is that it's okay to discriminate because it's not acceptable to discriminate but people do it anyway.
That makes no sense. You can't fight discrimination through discrimination, and actually if you even try you justifies discrimination.

That was not my reason at all, and indeed not what I said.

"By making society used to treat people equally. That's the whole points of laws, to regulate how we treat each others, and after a time it becomes ingrained."
That was included in the very post you're supposedly answering, but somehow you skipped it and then asked the question again.

Also, treating everyone equally is an end on top of being a mean. That's the entire concept of "equality under the law". You're trying to reach a goal by defeating the very basis of said goal. Once again, it makes no sense and is completely contradictory.

Because it's not an answer. That's like asking how to combat the current climate change problems and telling people to "make society affect the ozone layer less". You're not providing any policy. You're not providing any specific suggestion which would bring about this end goal.

Treating everyone equally is an ideal. It does not work out in practise. The reason why homophobia and the like affect things like professional progression, even in a supposed "liberal" utopia like acting, is because your idealism is not how the world works. Which is why I'm asking you for something concrete that you would enact to make this happen. Is your answer simply "wait for change"?

Actually, his analogy was pretty much spot-on, illustrating the absurdity of penalizing a subset of population to statiscally "make up" for a problem that another subset of population is living through.
I find it difficult to believe that people can't get this point, when nobody had a problem with the "mouse to elephant" analogy Senethro made, which was obviously used to illustrate difference of power and impact (I mean I disagreed with it, but I understood the point, and I didn't act in bad faith pretending that people aren't mouse or elephants or the like - maybe people should do that a bit more and actually try to understand and answer to the actual arguments they don't agree with, rather than just dismiss or pretend they don't get whatever they don't like under flimsy pretexts).

No, his analogy was inaccurate because we're not discussing something that "kind of happens sometimes". We're discussing a truism in society, regardless of how generally-progressive, elevated, or developed it apparently is.

As for understanding arguments made that we don't agree with - like I said at the top of this post, I've been doing that since the start. I certainly didn't wander in and repeatedly call groups of people hypocrites, for example. Is that want you want? Petty tit-for-tat references? Your behaviour is you own, but if you're going to decree from on high how people should try to understand arguments, you must also be by definition including yourself in that group of people. But you're not, are you?

 

[zxcvbob]

I'm not following the discussion in this thread, but I do like this succinct explanation of the problem with "All Lives Matter."

The best comeback to "all lives matter" that I've heard was a black woman I heard on one of those CBS news magazine shows. (Sunday Morning?) She said -- I think this is an exact quote but not sure -- "All lives will matter when black lives matter too"

To the discussion at hand, I think you hire the best actor you can get for the money you're willing to pay. (this was parodied in the movie Tropic Thunder with Robert Downey Jr playing a black character. He played it very well but had to spend *hours* in makeup) If being gay for example is an important part of the roll, the gay actor who auditions might have an advantage playing the part over other actors at his/her pay scale. An A-lister might be able to play the part just as well but will cost more (OTOH, then you have an A-lister on the cast and that is worth something) And there's a danger they are relying on stereotypes to play the part and there could be a backlash over that.

If the character is gay but that's not really crucial to the part, anyone can probably play them. I don't think the studio has an obligation to cast a gay actor. But they might want to anyway. I'm glad I don't make these decisions.

 

[Kyriakos]

I recall watching the protagonist of HBO's recent series Terror (s1 anyway) and Chernobyl, in an old 90s film with Harvey Keitel (Smoke, iirc Smoke II). There he played a mentally challenged (low iq) person, and at the time I thought they picked some random person from the street, who just was afflicted (which would bode well with the film, since a number of celebrities were in it explicitly as themselves anyway)
Shows that he was a great actor