The fact that Egg is on about minority representation not mattering in the context of race makes me chortle, tbh

why fam

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Jon Boyega, but black people enjoying seeing a black guy in Star Wars isn't racist in the slightest.

Acting like his quality as a character has more to do with him being black than the fact he's just written better than Anakin or Obi-wan is placing undue emphasis on race and therefor is racist.

Is it really such a difficult concept to realize that a black person could relate more to another black person than a white person?

When personality, class, circumstance, and a whole host of other, more behavior defining aspects exist? I'd say if all those criteria are met, then the extent to which race improves relatability is so little that it shouldn't warrant the current outcry. But to these people race is a huge deal. They are pathologically obsessed with it.

And again, the idea of relatability isn't even the crux of the discussion; the real purpose behind Abrams' actions is to confront head-on the tendency for a majority-white leadership in Hollywood to favor white actors and staff members.

I'm glad Abrams is resisting the chronies up top.
I'm just refusing to recognize the idea that "I can't relate to white people" is a premise for any action.

Quote from: eggsalad on March 03, 2016, 10:32:24 AM

Minorities should reevaluate how they judge and enjoy movies.

It's not a conscious act, for the most part. It's the same reason a lot of people dislike anime, foreign films, "black" comedies (and I'm speaking racially, not about dark humor), etc. There are movies that you undoubtedly don't relate to; if you're a white person, you probably relate to the vast majority of feature films; if you're not, you likely relate to a smaller number of those films. And in terms of staffing, it really is demonstrable that minorities are underrepresented in Hollywood.

Spoiler

Quote

The issue has come to a head because over the past two years some films with a particular emotional resonance were passed over. The original “Rocky” (1976) won three Oscars, and Sylvester Stallone was nominated (though he did not win) for both acting and writing. Critics and fans alike have heaped praise on 2015's new addition to the Rocky franchise, “Creed”, which sees a black fighter as the hero. But the star and the black director, Michael B. Jordan and Ryan Coogler, will have to make do with fans' appreciation and more than $100m at the box office: the film's only nomination went to Mr Stallone, this time for Best Supporting Actor. “Straight Outta Compton”, a hit film about a black hip-hop group with a black director and producer, was nominated only for its screenplay, the writers of which were white. “Beasts of No Nation” delighted our reviewer, and fans of its star, Idris Elba, hope he will be the next James Bond. It also brought a horrifying phenomenon, child soldiering in Africa, to Western audiences. But the Academy ignored it. All this happens in the shadow of last year's nominations, in which “Selma”, a film about the civil-rights movement which our reviewer found “remarkable”, was nominated but did not win Best Picture, as many thought it should. Neither its director, Ava DuVernay, nor its star, David Oyelowo, were recognised by the academy.

Fingers are pointing at the Academy’s 6,000-odd voting members, 94% of whom are white. Spike Lee, whose “Do The Right Thing” is considered one of the great movies not to have won an Oscar, has lamented “another all-white ballot”; Don Cheadle, who got a Best Actor nomination in 2004 for “Hotel Rwanda”, has joked dryly about parking cars at the event. It is possible that the only black actor onstage will be Chris Rock, who is hosting. He has already said that the Oscars seem to have become a white equivalent of the Black Entertainment Television awards.

These years are far from the first whitewashing in Oscars history: no actors from ethnic minorities were nominated in 1995 or 1997, or in an extraordinary streak between 1975 and 1980. Throughout the 20th century, 95% of Oscar nominations went to white film stars. It is an embarrassing anachronism that the prevalence of white Academy electors has been allowed to continue into the 21st century, a trend that the Academy's (black) president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, has vowed to end.

Could the “whiteout” be a statistical glitch? If the data were random, such a glitch would be hugely unlikely. A 2013 survey of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), an American union for film performers, suggests that 70% of its members are white. If all of the Guild’s members were equally likely to receive Oscar nominations, regardless of race, then over a two-year period 28 out of 40 nominations would be of white actors. The chances of no single person of colour being nominated across two ceremonies would be exceptionally small—even during a 15-year span, the odds of seeing at least one sequence of back-to-back whiteouts are around one in 100,000.

Those are the Oscars. System ran by a bunch of pretentious old white dudes who have created a genre: "Oscar Bait".



I'm talking about movies, stories, casting.
I don't know about you, but when I have trouble relating to a character, it's not because of race. I don't relate to Chris Tucker because of his style of humor, not because he's black. White people having difficulty identifying with black humor has nothing to do with race of the presenter and entirely to do with the fact that black comedy exists as a genre because it is literally a different style that has to deal with black American culture.

Maybe it's just because I watch foreign films often and actually think about characters rather than looking at their skin color idk I can't see this as anything else than racism on the account of minorities.

“I think the better stories are going to come from the more inclusive voices,” he said. “I think that audiences will go to see these movies. The bottom line will increase, will benefit from this inclusivity.”

It's Star Wars, in what fathomable context does the race of a character change the course or shape of a story. Just having someone there doesn't magically change the narrative. In the end all this is about is people having trouble identifying with people who aren't of their race, regardless of context, class, or all the other things that matter more about how similar a character is to you.

What use is it if it changes in accordance with your actions?
Let's say you want to test it so you're gunna shoot yourself.
If it recognizes that you are poised to shoot yourself and adjusts itself to less than a few minutes, but didn't already have it set to such a short time before, then it failed to account for how you would naturally react to it (wanting to test it).

If it can't predict things such as that, how can it predict the rate at which someone naturally ages and will die?

fps is dead

Halo has been dead since Reach (dying of terminal cancer at that point)

Quote from: eggsalad on February 29, 2016, 08:18:05 PM

Quote from: Chief Among Sinners on February 29, 2016, 08:12:25 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on February 29, 2016, 08:07:43 PM

I wouldn't blame Ceasar for not knowing about gravitational waves. I don't see any evidence that the concepts of suffering and morality are post-Rome inventions.

Ours certainly are.

Consider also Caesar's political surroundings. I can summarize in a fairly lengthy post if you're not familiar with them. He was hardly much worse than those he competed with, by the standards of our day. If anything, he was better.

Again, though, the standards of our day aren't anything special.

I don't think anything about how he compares to other of his time is how you should assess the morality of someone. Doing so's not even in alignment with historical impartiality, which would be along the lines of just saying "he did this, events followed".

I'm just going along with a moral history thought process here, for the fun of it. I recognize the influence of taste in my view of history and try to separate my opinion from my understanding.

But, if you are a follower of consequentialist or utilitarian morality, Caesar's alternatives are of great importance to any evaluation of him. If Caesar had not kicked off the civil war and taken over when he did, Pompey would have been the top dog in Roman politics, and he was a power hungry senate shill. Pompey's first interest was amassing power and glory for himself. I doubt things would have gone so well for the plebs if Caesar didn't take over.

I don't know the specifics well enough to say things like "he could have done it differently in a more humane fashion" so I'll concede here.

Here's that official age meter everyone's familiar with

see i dodged a bullet

Quote from: eggsalad on February 29, 2016, 07:55:30 PM

I think it's more of an issue of same-sex relationships having more trouble staying together than how same sex parents actually interact with the child.

How come? Is it just statistically speaking that homosexual relationships end in speraration more often than not?

IIRC yeah

19

got it done before the big 20 phwew

ironic how the people itt trying to appropriate old julio are the same that mock cultural relativism

i am now aware i have misused the verb form of appropriate
what a shit language tbh

I wouldn't say militant atheism and secularism are the same.

Spoiler

yes

80% sure those are just spammed i-frames not actual dodging

Did 24 hours of Dota with bf and his friends.
we all hated our lives by the end