General Politics Discussion (III) [ARCHIVED] • Page 612

The author conveniently ignores the solid performances from both Saïd Taghmaoui and Eugene Brave Rock (problematic as the tired character of Chief might be). The film certainly had some representation issues, but the claims that there is not a single POC in the film are patently untrue.

ETA: Representation Matters: Chief From 'Wonder Woman' Is Awesome - Bleeding Cool News And Rumors Upon learning more about Chief's character, the representation is more nuanced than I'd first thought.

 

So does that make Natalie Portman a WOC who was the second lead in a super hero movie?

 

The discussion was about whether Wonder Woman herself should be played by a woc, and the author was then saying that actually she was, because Israelis are poc. This is wrong in many ways, beginning with the fact that "Israeli" isn't an ethnicity or race but a nationality, going all the way down the line to the fact that Ashkenazim are white, and even further to the fact that Ashkenazim are not the only Jews, and there are Jews of color. But Gal Gadot is white. Israeli Ashkenazim are white.

 

Thread explaining it

 

"So consider this a PSA -- if you will -- for those who have called out concerns about there being no person of color in the film."

This was the part of the argument I was addressing.

 

Yeah except Ashkenazim aren't "not white" in Israel or the US. The category the tweeter describes in between "white" and "of color" is a historical European one that doesn't exist as such in either of those countries. Ashkenazim are white in the US and Israel in 2017.

 

I still have a big crush on Natalie Portman.

That's all I got to add to this conversation.

 

i hope this is real

 

Not for nothing but solar panel installer jobs average ~$20 an hour nation wide, not $15

 

We need to stop letting dummies get money

 

Well, it's regional, but the point is still salient. A viable alternative has to be offered to people, particularly in rural areas where union density is non-existent and the populations are more vulnerable to depressed wages.

 

Hillary tried to offer that viable alternative...but her emails*


*Actually it was 'but these people don't want government handouts or job training programs'

 

White House orders agencies to ignore Democrats’ oversight requests

 

The rate at which we're becoming an autocracy with a sham legislature is pretty incredible to behold.

 

I don't think that was it. I think it is difficult to get people to focus on the future when their current existence is precarious and the wages being offered are far below what's being offered by a particular industry. Even Hillary's sixty billion dollar investment wasn't enough and, besides, she was a terrible candidate. We'd need something closer to a trillion dollars.

 

Imagine if there were a candidate in America that made something like this:

 

"Nevertheless, it’s striking that her situation has garnered almost no outrage from the usual free-speech defenders. There are no columns in The New York Times or The Atlantic or New York magazine. There are no fevered tweets, no hand-wringing on her behalf. Instead, we have yet another Times column about the excesses of college liberals.

Taylor is inarguably in more danger than Charles Murray. She is a black person in a country with a long history of white supremacist violence—and in recent years that violence has been especially public. Just last month, a white supremacist stabbed two bystanders to death in Portland when they interfered with his racial abuse. Racism may also have motivated the May slaying of a black college student in Maryland.

Coverage of free speech fights in the U.S. casts the left as illiberal antagonists and lets the right off the hook for its own, much more serious history of censorship. By defending Charles Murray, and not Taylor, the media has shown some revealing inconsistencies in its concerns about free speech."


Where is the outrage for Keeanga Yamahtta-Taylor?