again
the woke mob and modern liberals believe only gays can play gays, only blacks can play blacks, etc
ya know ...
SEGREGATION
SEPARATE BUT EQUAL
SAME THING, REALLY. now watch me get reported by bedshitters who live in their parents basement and couldn't do a pushup to save their own life because they're such sad fat fucks
7 comments
I don't understand the first argument... maybe too far fetched? As for the last one, why would there be any plausible relationship with laziness? If you get reported it's probably for an action on your part, not because of the alleged laziness of everyone else.
the woke mob and modern liberals believe only gays can play gays
I'm a liberal and I have no problem with one of the roles in "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" played by Terence Stamp. I'm not the only one, either.
Kneel before Argument Annihilators!
“the woke mob and modern liberals believe only gays can play gays, only blacks can play blacks, etc …SEGREGATION…SEPARATE BUT EQUAL”
What? Um, no. This is fractally wrong. We get excited when ANY character on screen is gay without being a token stereotype. No one’s upset that Harris played Dumbledore. Or that Baldwin plays Trump now and then. Note also that NONE of the Asgardians in any Thor movie are actualy from another planet.
Wanting representation in mainstream media is kinda (explicitly) the opposite of segregation. And ‘separate but equal’ doesn’t mean anything close to what you think it means.
In a perfect world any actor could play any role and people would accept it as acting.
But, as evidenced by the existence of JonFreeman, this is far from a perfect world.
White actors have used black/brown/red/yellowface for decades to mock and demean other races, while actors of other races have been excluded while white actors profited.
Similarly, straight actors have perpetuated stereotypes of gay people while gay actors have had to conceal themselves or be unemployed.
Redressing old wrongs is not the same as creating new ones.
When I initially posted I lacked the context that it was about acting, made obvious by other comments. I admit being a fan of The Party film, where Peter Sellers parodied an Indian. On the other hand, that film was also a hit in India and Sellers was mostly known for parodic roles, including of French inspectors, Nazis, Chinese emperors, US generals, etc. Perhaps this is one of the cases where it's close to Lucilius' "In a perfect world any actor could play any role and people would accept it as acting"... It was also obvious to everyone that any idiocy displayed by the characters was his own typical antics.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.