hdnmickey

Is this your version of admitting that there was plenty of the kind of posts I described in that thread?

I never said everyone did anything. Only that those posts exist and IMO are examples of the actual problem here given that the people posting those things call out anybody that disagrees with them the labels I posted above.

d2cheer

So me liking the character they way I grew up with for almost my whole life makes me a racist if I don't want it to change?


Get the fuck out of here...

B5Erik

Man, you really seem angry. I mean, seriously angry.

Taking that anger out on people on a message board really isn't going to make things better.

Honestly, I've sen a lot of good people go over the edge since Trump got elected. My wife was facebook friends with a former co-worker who really changed after Trump got elected. He posted a ton of really angry rants, unfriended people who didn't completely agree with his anti-Trump rants, and engaged in behavior that was, up to that point, uncharacteristic of him. And that's just one example of many that I've seen.

It's a shame. There are some good people have behaved badly because of their hatred of Trump. They seem to take it out on anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with them 100%. Trump really has changed some people. Personally, I can't wait for January, 2021.

Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily you, hdnmickey, but it's just something I've observed, and so have some other people that I know.

But INCIVILITY and attacking people's character is not going to make anything better. It's just going to create resentment and more anger on both sides.

Obey The D

hdnmickey

At least you've stopped accusing me of being on drugs. But I do wonder if you're capable of admitting that the posts people me and others have described exist. If you want a reasonable discussion, acknowledging the points of others would be a good start. If not, I have no need to keep this going despite your claim otherwise.

DVD Polizei

Exactly. It's healthy to discuss the subject, but unhealthy to attack the person. Unfortunately, this forum is mimicking the political atmosphere in this country, and it's not how we should operate.

B5Erik

First off, any time someone asks if you're on drugs or says you're on drugs in the context of an internet debate, understand it's tongue in cheek. It's an old cliche - it's a joke. If I truly offended you then I apologize.

Second, as I've said a couple times, attacking someone's character and calling them racist, sexist, homophobe, etc is going nuclear. You are attempting to permanently harm their reputation thus silencing them.

Going nuclear leads to mutually assured destruction - scorched earth. Or, in this case, scorched DVDTalk.

Personally, I don't want DVDTalk to end up looking like the San Diego Wastelands in Babylon 5, but we're on our way, unfortunately.

There are ways to have heated debates without going nuclear. Attacking another board member's personal character should be out of bounds.

GoldenJCJ

That’s why we have Mods. I don’t remember the Ghostbusters thread terribly well aside from one poster who seemed to have problems with women in general and his views spilled over to the Ghostbusters thread. On that case mods should have nipped that shot in the bud instead it was allowed to go on where his views basically turned into a running joke about “women not being able to carry proton packs”.

Other posters who didn’t want women as ghostbusters felt it was a gimmick, and frankly, while i didn’t care too much about the new GB movie one way or the other, I felt it was definitely gimmicky to an extent, not that I’m sexist and against a movie starring a team of women.

Noonan

Define "the way I grew up with" please, considering the first actor to play Bond wasn't even English...

B5Erik

No, but he was from the British Empire.

Noonan

So? If you're a Bond purist you shouldn't accept anyone who isn't from England. Especially considering the history England and Scotland have. No one from Scotland would ever have been a spy for England back then.

I'm trying to understand why people who want the character to "stay the same" are Ok with an actor from a completely different country yet not OK with a black actor from England. A black man being Bond back then is just as unlikely as someone from Scotland.

d2cheer

Fuck off with that nonsense. You are trying to start something and you know it. I made my statement. Call me what you will I don't give a fuck.

Noonan

Negative; I'm trying to understand your POV. I asked the same question in the Bond thread and also didn't get an answer. But if you'd rather just let me believe what I think, that works too.

d2cheer

You missed my edit. You are not going to hurt my feelings thinking I am a racist because I like Bond white. Whatever.

This place...

Noonan

Welp, I'd imagine you'll have a hard time convincing anyone when you're not willing or able to provide any real dialogue on the subject other than "fuck off with that nonsense".

fumanstan

Initially, I thought the explanations for desiring a white actor to play Bond was a big stretch, but I remembered that when it comes to comic book movies I also prefer the race of the actor to match their comic book counterpart as much as possible, so to each their own. I don't think that's racist, as long as the poster's have a well thought out reason. In the case of Bond, I think that's been met even if not everyone agrees.

I keep toeing in the middle line here because I think there's cases where posters do deserve to be called out for saying something ridiculous, whether it be about race, sex, or whatever. But I also think there are posters that are quick to lump too many people in to that boat just because their opinion is similar to the crazies, despite a more reasonable explanation for disliking something, like with the Ghostbusters stuff.

hdnmickey

Or it's an attack on a person's character. More "do as I say, not as I do".

You once again avoided answering my question or acknowledging my point about there being offensive posts worthy of the responses they have received.

The other thing that is killing this forum is just how often people end up convincing others to just refuse to even engage them. Bravo!

hdnmickey

Or Irish. Got to love how that's conveniently ignored by anybody stating we must not ignore the white actor standard.

The Cow

The mods started pushing things in a good direction with trying to reinforce 2 things:

1. Stay on-topic.
2. Post about the posts and topics, and not about the poster.

A problem as I see it is that this isn't enforced much. There is a lot of refrain from suspensions. And I kind of get that, because it should be a last resort. But if people want change, that's where I'd start.

hdnmickey

I could be wrong, but I don't believe that issue was at all about just one poster. And it hasn't even just been that thread. Any movie outside of rom-coms where women are made out to be the heroes gets the same reaction. And if you read up on the groups that have these opinions, you would know where it comes from.

FTR I'm not even trying to say those posts should not be allowed here. I was responding to the idea that calling that stuff out is the problem. The responses to that shit have been completely and totally valid, and not why this place has problems.

hdnmickey

It would also be nice if they dealt with the trolling and turning one forum into their own personal blog extension.

DVD Polizei

Accusations, insults, and memes...are not forms of "engaging" a healthy discussion.

Once again, the politics forum is a great example, and now, in movie talk.

DVD Polizei

And once again, accusations of trolling on this website seem to be the operative way to force people out of the forums if accusations and insults of being a "white person" and racism don't work as intended.

But yet you say want diversity and engagement?

Your hypocrisy is almost as big as your prejudice.

DVD Polizei

An example was posted by myself, actually referencing one of Ian's books because he does mention the race of Bond, and who it is most likely to be.

I have yet to read anything by the accusers of racism, pointing to ANY CONTENT from Ian as a healthy discussion. Which tells me they are just blowing air out their butts and just wanna pick a political fight in a non-political forum, because the political forum has an odoriferous and stagnant aura of insulting commentary to anyone who disagrees there.

Also, as another poster stated, it's not racist to say a person is used to seeing a certain colored character remain that way because they've grown up with that character being that way.

I guess if I said I'd prefer the Black Panther to be a White, drunken hillbilly from Georgia, you'd be ok with this. Or maybe The Shaft movies should be remade with Jim Carrey. Or maybe Fat Albert can be White, and we can have John Travolta do his funny-funny stuff.

Taking the intellectual approach I see so often, if you disagree with me...you're a racist.

Dan

The above exchange with Noonan is a perfect example of what is arguably the bigger problem with these discussions; not that the OP is wrong, but what the OP is talking about is a skewed perspective on what's actually happening.

Person 1: I like Bond the way I grew up with.
Person 2: What do you mean "the way I grew up with"? The first actor wasn't even English.
Person 3: He was from the British Empire.
Person 2: Bond purists should want an Englishman, though. So why is a white Scotsman ok but a black Englishman is not?
Person 1: Fuck off with that nonsense!

Such discourse.

Historical accuracy in fictional work only matters when it suits the needs of toxic fans, apparently.
A black man is being considered for the role of Bond? "Gimmick! Fleming wrote him as a white man and only white men would have the privileges Bond has had!"
But Fleming wrote him as an Englishman and in that era, there's no way a Scotsman like Connery would be allowed to be a spy for the English? "Doesn't matter. British Empire is good enough."
So for current-day Bond, in 2018, why can't he be a Canadian like Ryan Gosling? Or a New Zealander like Russel Crowe? Or an Aussie like Mel Gibson? Or Irfan Khan from India? "Not those parts of the British Empire, though."

The problem, as I see it, is any time anyone tries to drill down the core reason someone doesn't want something to be different (after exhausting the "I want historical accuracy in some cases but not others" and other such arguments), it's taken as insulting, belittling, accusatory, aggressive, etc. when it's usually only meant to be part of the reasonable discourse. Sometimes, it goes too far, but more often than not, it's just that one person is having trouble explaining their point in a way that doesn't come off as sounding exactly like the folks who ARE racist, sexist, etc.

As for the PMs the OP got; that's a textbook example of confirmation bias by way of "atta-boy" type comments. If you look at the actual discussions that some members participated in, you would likely find that they weren't "attacked" for their conservative views, but rather that people disagreed with them and provided solid arguments that they couldn't/wouldn't rebut. Just going off the top of my head:
- One member told me he doesn't wear a MAGA hat in public because he's afraid of having drinks thrown at him. I acknowledged that as a legitimate concern, but also asked if he understood that people feel that way about the color of their skin or other parts of their identity, and the response was... silence. Such discourse.
- One member said he wanted better sex-ed in schools. I asked him to clarify what he thought was good sex-ed vs. bad sex-ed, and he said it was up to the parents to decide. I clarified that I wanted his PERSONAL opinion of what sex-ed should be taught in schools, as parents need to express their opinions to the schools in order for the schools to know what parents found acceptable, and he refused to answer. So he wanted better sex-ed, but refused to explain what that should be. Such discourse.
- One member said that some folks on this forum were hoping for a specific celebrity to get caught with an underage boy, just because he's a conservative. When questioned about this gross generalization about other forum members, he said it was just a joke. No reprimanding, either. Such discourse.
- One member, in response to the above comment, said he only disagreed with him posting it not because of the content, but only because of the reaction he knew it would get. When asked to clarify, that member went off on a tangent about something terrible someone else said in a different thread. Such discourse.

Then these people throw their arms up and say the forum is toxic, they can't express their views anymore, it's too "PC" (), etc. etc. So forgive me if I don't take the same message from their PMs as the OP.

I've likened this to the "widescreen vs. fullscreen" debate before, which is appropriate for this forum. If someone comes in and says, "Hey guys. What's up with widescreen? I hate those stupid black bars. Why can't everything just fill my screen? I paid good money for those 75 inches, and I want them to be used." Dollars to donuts, at least in the mid-2000s, most folks would have reacted fairly negatively: "Fuck off, casual! Google it, bitch! OAR matters! Learn to do your own research and throw all your fullscreen shit in the trash!" There might have been 1 or 2 who were like "Actually, check out this informative link!" but they're drowned out by the anger. Then, of course, there's the handful who respond or PM the new user and say, "Look. I totally agree with you. Those people are assholes, right? Don't worry, you're not alone. Come join us over here and just ignore those elitist jerks. We have a nice collection of fullscreen discs just for you!"
Who do you think the user would gravitate towards? The people who are mean, but ultimately right, or the people who are also misguided, but civil?
In political talk, I'm NOT saying the "left" is always right, or the "right" is always wrong, but agreeing with the general notion that how people react to honest questions can sometimes be harsh, but it's largely in part because of bad actors who ARE racist, sexist, etc. and are really just JAQing off when they ask disingenuous questions that appear, at the surface level, identical to honest folks just trying to get an idea of what the issue is actually about.

The BEST criticism of "the left" comes from a fellow person on the left. I hope you'll give this video an honest watch. It's only 14 minutes, including the credits at the end.