Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's test to see how bankrupt the argument is:"I'm offended because I was cast as a character named 'Beaver's Breath.' I had no idea what I was getting into." Why didn't they walk off when cast as such, beforehand? And, I'm "in be for Q99 says they didn't know what they were getting into until the day of." That's not how casting works. They were already on set. Production had started. This wasn't pre-production where casting occurs. Roles are already assigned. Now you're going to say that they wanted to wait until a day on production, on set, to argue changing the names, huh? Cool. That's not going to fly. Why wait until production starts to make these arguments? Why doesn't that strike you as odd?
"But...but...they were just cast the day before...or something!" Yeah, okay. haha
Aside from the fact that minor roles often *don't* get the script... why would knowing in advance make it not offensive? What about all the stuff outside the script that could've been changed on the spot? Heck, why not change the script?
That's a rather gaping hole in your argument about their complaint. Namely.... it doesn't make their complaint not 100% legit in any way.
They're still right about it being offensive. What's your point?
Aren't counterarguments supposed to counter.... something? Yours really doesn't, it just seems to be complaining that people care.
It feels odd to lump them together as "these people." Regardless, these people certainly were aware of what they were getting into. See my previous arguments to understand why you're now arguing in circles, again.
Of course they knew, they were specifically worried about it, were specifically reassured, found they had issues and things were worse than expected, presented these problems to the producers, as was literally the job of the cultural advisor, and then were blown off entirely even when the changes wouldn't affect the script.
This is what they said in their complaints, and this invalidates their arguments... why exactly?
Whining that "they knews!" doesn't make it not-a-problem. I don't see why you're complaining so much while trying to brush off, you know, the rest of the chain of known events that the actors themselves laid out.
Seriously, you don't *really* think that makes everything free and clear?
From the noise you're making on it you seem to seem to think 'they were worried going in' is an argument against the actors somehow, and that's just dumb.
Still waiting on any sort of substantiation on this reassurance you and others keep touting as legit.
That's exactly what those on the set complained about.
You're rejecting the claims of a few dozen people who quit over it, including the Cultural Advisor, because... what? You think you'll get argument points?
"People quit over not being listened to. Gimme evidence that they weren't listening to!" is not a very good argument on your part. Grasping at straws, even, the evidence is right there at the start.
"I'm offended that the costumes on a satirical comedy - which is satirizing old racist westerns - are not period accurate."Makes complete sense.
"Period accurate" wasn't the complaint. "Dressing characters from one tribe up as another tribe that literally killed them," was.
As well as generally being insulting to the cultures in question.
So, backpeddling, goalpost shifting....
I'm offended, huh? W-what?I can't even. haha Please, take me through your logic. Get me from point A to point B. Tell me how I'm offended.
You're loudly complaining over several posts about these people.
You're certainly acting like you're offended. You're grabbing for flimsy, not-there arguments and moving your goalposts around a lot, and when called in it, you doubled-down. That's not what 'not caring' looks like,
Just edgy, bandwagon "Oh, I'm going to pretend I don't actually care, I'm just going to complain about it and think it makes me look cool," type offended.
Careful, now. Name calling because I don't agree with you is not a way to make your case.
*Shrugs* You were name-calling the actor on extremely shaky grounds.
If you insult people on something, you open yourself on being insulted on the same grounds.
You're being hypocritical, trying to act oh-so-cool for calling people on.... caring that the cultures in question are respected.
Now you are complaining about them on the ground that you find it... too PC? That's too petty for me to take seriously.
I still think you agree with me but refuse to admit it because you think you'll lose points or something for changing your stance. I don't care about that stuff. Nor will I gloat if you changed your position and admitted this situation is fishy.
Nope, your stance is, frankly, dumb, and really comes off as just something you think will make you look cool when it does anything but.
Also, it's not edgy to be tired of the "mad political correctness" trend.
Actually, it is.
People are complaining about something that's truthfully pretty offensive. You think you can score edgy hipster-points by calling it 'mad political correctness.'
When in reality, you're just raising a fuss about something far more petty than the people you're trying to mock, and come across as trying to make yourself look big by mocking people... who have an actual, real point where you don't.
So, would you like some cheese with your whine?
I'm far and away not at the forefront of a trend that hundreds of millions of people people have been pointing out, for years. People have been tired of the absurdist political correctness for over a decade. That trend (the trend of being tired of "when political correctness goes too far"😉 started in the mid-90s.
Ah, so 'bandwagon jumping' is your excuse.
And that's all it is- you think that if you call something 'political correctness gone mad,' you can ignore the actual merits of the arguments and pretend that anyone caring about anything is somehow... bad.
It's just shallow, and people using 'political incorrectness gone mad!' as a lazy cover to protect racist comments is nothing new either.
Stop, step back, re-examine the actual merits, and don't think that just because you can call something 'politically correct' that that actually says anything of substance beyond 'you don't like it/think you can score points by decrying it.'
You're all-over-the-place on your excuses, and don't actually have anything concrete, you just decided you don't trust the article and people involved.... with nothing to back it up other than calling them 'politically correct gone mad,' an empty accusation that itself has nothing to back it up. Because you know better than actual people who study the cultures what's a petty complain and what's not, huh? Even when the cultural advisor was talking about what's going on and it's really, really, really basic stuff that could be fixed no problem and one doesn't actually need to be an expert to realize, oh, hey, the cultural advisor is totally right.
So yea, this was an attempt on your point to act cool and rally against 'PCness,' and it fell flat on it's face.
Originally posted by Q99
Aside from the fact that minor roles often *don't* get the script... why would knowing in advance make it not offensive? What about all the stuff outside the script that could've been changed on the spot? Heck, why not change the script?That's a rather gaping hole in your argument about their complaint. Namely.... it doesn't make their complaint not 100% legit in any way.
They're still right about it being offensive. What's your point?
Aren't counterarguments supposed to counter.... something? Yours really doesn't, it just seems to be complaining that people care.
Of course they knew, they were specifically worried about it, were specifically reassured, found they had issues and things were worse than expected, presented these problems to the producers, as was literally the job of the cultural advisor, and then were blown off entirely even when the changes wouldn't affect the script.
This is what they said in their complaints, and this invalidates their arguments... why exactly?
Whining that "they knews!" doesn't make it not-a-problem. I don't see why you're complaining so much while trying to brush off, you know, the rest of the chain of known events that the actors themselves laid out.
Seriously, you don't *really* think that makes everything free and clear?
From the noise you're making on it you seem to seem to think 'they were worried going in' is an argument against the actors somehow, and that's just dumb.
That's exactly what those on the set complained about.
You're rejecting the claims of a few dozen people who quit over it, including the Cultural Advisor, because... what? You think you'll get argument points?
"People quit over not being listened to. Gimme evidence that they weren't listening to!" is not a very good argument on your part. Grasping at straws, even, the evidence is right there at the start.
"Period accurate" wasn't the complaint. "Dressing characters from one tribe up as another tribe that literally killed them," was.
As well as generally being insulting to the cultures in question.
So, backpeddling, goalpost shifting....
You're loudly complaining over several posts about these people.
You're certainly acting like you're offended. You're grabbing for flimsy, not-there arguments and moving your goalposts around a lot, and when called in it, you doubled-down. That's not what 'not caring' looks like,
Just edgy, bandwagon "Oh, I'm going to pretend I don't actually care, I'm just going to complain about it and think it makes me look cool," type offended.
*Shrugs* You were name-calling the actor on extremely shaky grounds.
If you insult people on something, you open yourself on being insulted on the same grounds.
You're being hypocritical, trying to act oh-so-cool for calling people on.... caring that the cultures in question are respected.
Now you are complaining about them on the ground that you find it... too PC? That's too petty for me to take seriously.
Nope, your stance is, frankly, dumb, and really comes off as just something you think will make you look cool when it does anything but.
Actually, it is.
People are complaining about something that's truthfully pretty offensive. You think you can score edgy hipster-points by calling it 'mad political correctness.'
When in reality, you're just raising a fuss about something far more petty than the people you're trying to mock, and come across as trying to make yourself look big by mocking people... who have an actual, real point where you don't.
So, would you like some cheese with your whine?
Ah, so 'bandwagon jumping' is your excuse.
And that's all it is- you think that if you call something 'political correctness gone mad,' you can ignore the actual merits of the arguments and pretend that anyone caring about anything is somehow... bad.
It's just shallow, and people using 'political incorrectness gone mad!' as a lazy cover to protect racist comments is nothing new either.
Stop, step back, re-examine the actual merits, and don't think that just because you can call something 'politically correct' that that actually says anything of substance beyond 'you don't like it/think you can score points by decrying it.'
You're all-over-the-place on your excuses, and don't actually have anything concrete, you just decided you don't trust the article and people involved.... with nothing to back it up other than calling them 'politically correct gone mad,' an empty accusation that itself has nothing to back it up. Because you know better than actual people who study the cultures what's a petty complain and what's not, huh? Even when the cultural advisor was talking about what's going on and it's really, really, really basic stuff that could be fixed no problem and one doesn't actually need to be an expert to realize, oh, hey, the cultural advisor is totally right.
So yea, this was an attempt on your point to act cool and rally against 'PCness,' and it fell flat on it's face.
All of your post just rehashes your same arguments. You didn't bring anything new. This is how it always is when we argue: you argue in circles. Repeating yourself does nothing. People will read our argument (possibly) and see that you just post "but apples, dammit! Apples! Apples!" Oh yeah? Well oranges. Deal with them oranges.
You're upset because someone called bullshit on something you thought was worth "Social Justice Warrior" fighting for. It's bullshit. They clearly had the scripts. One person, Anthony, was tweeting on set; excited, blessed, and happy to be working with classic characters like Beaver Breath; and then, magically, decided to walk. Smells very funny. Very obvious that he was convinced to walk by others. It's obvious to me that one or more signed up just to make a point of it and make it a Social Justice Warrior stunt and convinced several to leave that same day Anthony was "feeling blessed" to be on set working with others.
And that stunt worked. Went all over the internet and made it to national news.
Every argument you make is factually incorrect (going down the list: they didn't have the script when they did, they had lots of meetings with producers about cultural bla bla and they never did, etc.). They had access to the script (literally states that in the news article), to the names of their characters, they were cast well before production, etc. This was a stunt. Plain and simple. Find a better topic to have your social justice warrior fun with.
In the mean time, enjoy this quote from Netflix that you clearly missed:
"The movie has ridiculous in the title for a reason: because it is ridiculous. It is a broad satire of Western movies and the stereotypes they popularized, featuring a diverse cast that is not only part of -- but in on -- the joke," said Netflix in a statement."
Hey man, are upset that this one "Rock Band Guy" had a script and then left? Or are you upset that a group of extras walked off as well?
Because even if he had the script, that doesn't mean that everybody else did...?
Anything racist or insulting is quickly labelled as "Satire" by organizations, companies, individuals - anything of the like. It's not a way of apologizing or making note of the "failure" of their joke. It's a write-off.
Originally posted by dadudemon
All of your post just rehashes your same arguments. You didn't bring anything new. This is how it always is when we argue: you argue in circles. Repeating yourself does nothing. People will read our argument (possibly) and see that you just post "but apples, dammit! Apples! Apples!" Oh yeah? Well oranges. Deal with them oranges.
Because... the point didn't change? And you're trying to move around the point?
Movie was casually racist in a fairly dumb way. Actors left, and were right to do so. You used a set of empty buzz-word to attack it, and that didn't work, and now you're frustrated.
You're upset because someone called bullshit on something you thought was worth "Social Justice Warrior" fighting for.
Hey, calm down, you're the one who came in stamping in the thread angry.
And more empty buzz-words... 'social justice warrior' is what people call people when they can't actually think of what's wrong with their argument. That doesn't actually say what's supposed to be wrong about them walking off, it just says you don't like it.
It's bullshit.[/.quote]Again, calm down. You're mad. You're stomping mad that people got called on racism.
[quote]They clearly had the scripts.
And we should care why? They were still right, the movie producers were still being racist.
And the job of a Cultural Consultant is to look at something and recommend changes. Even knowing it had bad bits going in, that person was hired to offer recommendations, and the other people thought they could offer recommendations, and it turned out that there was more problems than even the script would have and their bosses rudely blew off any suggestion entirely.
Plenty of people quit jobs if their bosses blow them off, on matters more minor.
One person, Anthony, was tweeting on set; excited, blessed, and happy to be working with classic characters like Beaver Breath; and then, magically, decided to walk.
Because they offered recommendations to change it, and were rudely blown off. That's exactly what they said. Why are you acting like this is some revelation instead of what they said...?
Smells very funny.
Smells exactly like what was described. It seems to be you only consider it 'smells funny' because you don't like people caring about race, and it gets you bothered and frustrated.
Maybe you should, y'know, stop getting mad when people care about respect for cultures?
You do know that they aren't complaining about vague, unspecified problems, right? They said exactly, specifically what several problems were.
Very obvious that he was convinced to walk by others. It's obvious to me that one or more signed up just to make a point of it and make it a Social Justice Warrior stunt and convinced several to leave that same day Anthony was "feeling blessed" to be on set working with others.
Because a bunch of people can't get to together and express grievances?
Or, you know, pissed off about a scene which happened that day? He's one of the minor actors, not the Cultural Advisor, and before the scene that... he's complaining about.
C'mon, you're being silly.
You say 'stunt,' but again, they're listing a number of concrete, real problems.
It's a stunt if those problems are false. If they're true... well, then you're just whining over nothing, aren't you?
Every argument you make is factually incorrect (going down the list: they didn't have the script when they did, they had lots of meetings with producers about cultural bla bla and they never did, etc.).
You say, while blowing off and ignoring the facts of the article because you're frustrated at them for.... some reason.
In the mean time, enjoy this quote from Netflix that you clearly missed:"The movie has ridiculous in the title for a reason: because it is ridiculous. It is a broad satire of Western movies and the stereotypes they popularized, featuring a diverse cast that is not only part of -- but in on -- the joke," said Netflix in a statement."
Oh, I didn't miss that, and it's a dumb argument. The cultures weren't in on the joke- they walked, and the movie is continuing with them after people of those cultures said, 'hey, we don't like this'. They said they were offended by this bit and that bit, and the other bit, and the producers said they, in turn, didn't care.
The conflating of different, historically actively opposed cultures isn't even part of a joke.
Lone Ranger was able to not mix up tribes' appearances, the Comanche were in fact quite happy with it (it still oddly mentioned 'Wendigo,' in one line, but it got most things right even thought it cast Depp as the most visible member. Because they had a cultural consultant too, they just listened to theirs).
You should calm down, step away from the keyboard, and ask yourself, "Is getting pissed off that some people mind casual racism against several groups really something I should spend my time on?"
Let's bottom line this conversation:
Q: Some movie people were being racist and actors/cultural advisor walked.
D: They knew it was racist going in!
Q/Others: Probably not... but so?
D: So, buzzwords about political correctness and social justice! They *totally* knew!
Q: Again, so?
D: You just keep saying 'so?'!
Q: Nothing you've said actually explains why the movie makers aren't totally in the wrong. Also, you seem... rather mad about this for some reason.
---
The problem is still the film makers are being racist and blowing off their Native American consultant when he told them how not to be racist. Whether or not the people knew- and again, the story fits fine, but even if it doesn't thinking something is racist going in doesn't make it not racist- doesn't actually, you know, change anything of importance.
New Interview, by the cultural consultant.
"I wasn't allowed to talk to a producer and they wouldn't allow me to talk to anybody," Klinekole told ICTMN. "They wouldn't let me do anything. Nothing."“I said, 'Okay, that's all, I'm going," he continued. "I felt bad for my fellow people who were there but there was nothing I could do. I couldn't say anything on behalf of my Native people or on behalf of my Apache people who were depicted so badly.”
Shortly before deciding to leave, and after speaking to his friends and pondering for some time, Klinekole appealed to a production assistant (PA) in a last ditch effort to make things work.
“I was waiting, and spoke to a PA named Molly and asked if I could speak with Adam Sandler," Klinekole recalled. "She was the one who directed us where to stand, what to do, how to hold our spears and more. I said, 'Molly, can I talk to Adam?' She said, 'Bruce, you know, you know, you are not supposed to talk to Adam.' I said, 'I know, but I need to talk to him about something. This was really bothering me it was really killing me, my heart was hurting I was bewildered and could not believe what was going on.' She said, 'No, Bruce.' I thought maybe she would say something like she could help or she might reassure me, but she said 'No, no you cannot do that.' That is when I just flew the coop. I said no more, I just can't do this anymore."
Oh yes, and this is the *sixth* movie he's worked on, so plenty of others have gotten the greenlight from him, and he hadn't seen the script:
Though Klinekole has worked professionally on six previous films, he admits he went into the first day of filming on location in New Mexico not really knowing what to expect. When he walked on to the set on day one, he was shocked to see nothing but Native stereotypes."I never saw the script at all when I first went and then I saw the wardrobe of the actors," Klinekole told ICTMN. "The first day, I was the only one dressed Apache. My agent told me these would be Apache scenes."
Not that it'd matter if he had known, by the sound of it.
Also, an Interview with an actress
The script posed more issues, including offensive names for indigenous women, like "Beaver's Breath" and "Wears No Bra." In one scene, a Native American women is passed out on the ground. A group of white men pours liquor on her, and she wakes up and starts dancing. "In Indian country, we're battling that issue right now," Young said. "It's 2.5 times more likely for an indigenous woman to be raped or sexually assaulted. Movies like this perpetuate that and just add to the stereotypes of our native women."
Which is the worst bit I've heard so far.
According to Young, things came to a head when the Native cultural advisor brought some of the extras together and said, "I just can't do it anymore." He approached the assistant director and asked to speak to Sandler directly but was denied. So he left the film, Young said. "He is Apache. He was talking about what his people would say when they see this on the screen. He's a part of it.... For our cultural advisor to leave, I think that says something."The remaining indigenous extras then approached the producer. "One older woman went up, and she was trying to talk to [the producer] about stereotypes. He interrupted her. That was one thing that really made my blood boil. He said, 'Well, if you're overly sensitive, you should leave.'"
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
their fault...sue, sandler for what he's worth...,he'll pay it. they sihn
There's no grounds or reason for a lawsuit that I can see. It's culturally very insulting, but that's a different thing.
Really the best result is if someone got a better movie, hired these people, got native cultures right, and blew Sandler's trash out of the water ^^
Turns out they had access to the script. Script had also been around since 2012.
Here's a point I was wrong on: there was a meeting with the producer about the script. But this occurred before production (which is odd...why didn't they walk out after the producer said "if you're offended by this, leave"?)
Also, people were tweeting from set (lol...that's so against production rules). They were also recording cellphone videos on set (this is a great way to get banned from any movie production for life while also getting sued). This was a ploy.
Perhaps they did this after their pre-production meeting with the producer? Meaning, after they knew they couldn't get the changes they wanted done in pre-production, they decided to stage a walk-out? If so, it was still a ploy and I'm right but it does not seem as bad as before.
But, yeah, this was a planned walk-out. They just didn't convince everyone to leave the set until the day of. I'm thinking it started with the Cultural Adviser since he was the first to walk.
So who still has a social justice boner, still?
I'm going to see this movie, for sure. 🙂
Originally posted by Q99
Really the best result is if someone got a better movie, hired these people, got native cultures right, and blew Sandler's trash out of the water ^^
Why would a movie that gets the cultural representation right, which is supposed to be a satirical comedy of racist Old West films, be better to you than Sandler's film?
Rather, I should ask, in what ways would you satirize the racism to make it better? In what ways would you satirize the racism while also getting the "culture right"? It seems those two ideas are "diametrically opposed."
And before you start in with anything ragey or personal attacks, forget everything we have been discussing and give me a sincere, kind, honest answer. This is your chance to convince me that Sandler has f*cked with his choice of satire. I am not persuaded with insults and condescension. I'm persuaded by well reasoned, calm, and intelligent arguments (check Quincy's post about extras and scripts for an example of the type of thing that convinces me to stop being argumentative).
Personally a good satire and one I've seemed used before often makes light of idiotic racists instead of the people bring target ed for racism.
For example instead of turning the native Americans into racist charictures of their culture you actually make them smart and intelligent so when the the racists are trying to be racist the laughs are against them.
Originally posted by Newjak
Personally a good satire and one I've seemed used before often makes light of idiotic racists instead of the people bring target ed for racism.For example instead of turning the native Americans into racist charictures of their culture you actually make them smart and intelligent so when the the racists are trying to be racist the laughs are against them.
Like...you mean...
Make the racist white people, in the movie, be hillbillies who drink moonshine, love guns, and speak poorly? That's what you mean?
And contrast that with highly educated, well-spoken, Native Americans?
Originally posted by dadudemonIF it's satire of old westerns yes because that is good role reversal. You also don't even have to make the cowboys stupid just make it so their racism comes off as stupid.
Like...you mean...Make the racist white people, in the movie, be hillbillies who drink moonshine, love guns, and speak poorly? That's what you mean?
And contrast that with highly educated, well-spoken, Native Americans?
That would be good satire.
Originally posted by Newjak
IF it's satire of old westerns yes because that is good role reversal. You also don't even have to make the cowboys stupid just make it so their racism comes off as stupid.
👆
That could work. I wonder what Q99's take on your idea would be.
Q99, stop having a life and indulge us! 😠 😠
Originally posted by NewjakRed Dead Redemption did this.
Personally a good satire and one I've seemed used before often makes light of idiotic racists instead of the people bring target ed for racism.For example instead of turning the native Americans into racist charictures of their culture you actually make them smart and intelligent so when the the racists are trying to be racist the laughs are against them.
The Native American character Nastas is far wiser and more likable than the racist Professor McDougal (or whatever the dude's name was).
Originally posted by dadudemon
Turns out they had access to the script. Script had also been around since 2012.
And they still hadn't, personally, read it.
You're still in the wrong about it even being a bad thing for them to act as they did.
The Cultural Consultant's job is to give advice on how to properly portray cultures, his culture, and he was blown off whenever he had a complaint.
Also, people were tweeting from set (lol...that's so against production rules). They were also recording cellphone videos on set (this is a great way to get banned from any movie production for life while also getting sued). This was a ploy.
By you, to defend racists, for non-racists calling them on their crap.
Yea, someone cell-recorded it... during the final meeting with staff, after the Creative Consultant had already left, and the actors wanted answered.
You've completely failed to explain why anything they did is a bad thing, you just keep saying 'ploy' and 'SJW'.
Are you a parrot, or can you actually explain your stance beyond buzzwords?
So who still has a social justice boner, still?
Why do you think racism is a good thing? Why do you think social justice is a bad thing?
And before you start in with anything ragey or personal attacks, forget everything we have been discussing and give me a sincere, kind, honest answer. This is your chance to convince me that Sandler has f*cked with his choice of satire.
Well, Blazing Saddles has already been mentioned.
Having the white characters get it wrong would be one way, but not the only way.
Having fake-Apache next to real ones would be good. Show contrast.
One thing would be to have the Indians act ... well, like these, stupid names and offensive jokes and all, then when others are out of sight, toss off the bad uniforms, knock down the crap-fake-tipi, and look proper and start discussing how they can't believe people actually buy that crap.
There is always more to satire than 'do a thing, but badly'. Especially if it's an area where people do it badly often anyway and most people legitimately cannot recognize some stuff that is cultural offensive but, in fact, matters a lot. Like imagine doing a bunch of Christian stuff with the cross upside down and people disrespecting a bible... buuut done by people who didn't know enough about Christianity to actually make that part of any jokes, they just had that in the background, and instead just gave a priest an insulting name that, in turn, wasn't a joke at Christianity. It wouldn't be a Christian Satire at that point, it's just people getting stuff wrong through laziness.
I am not persuaded with insults and condescension.
Yet, that was your opening post, and your second post, and several more of your posts. Don't complain when people aren't being nice to you when you open acting negative, it's pretty hypocritical.
And heck, isn't your whole thing here that you don't care if people are offended? That's like hanging up a sign 'it's ok to offend me'! Open-season!
'Who cares if something who doesn't care about people getting offended gets offended?' 😄 By your own standards, it's ok to piss you off.
(And if you have a problem with that? Oh hey, you could change your standards!)
Originally posted by Q99
And they still hadn't, personally, read it.
They did.
So where's your argument, now? Be serious, what's left of your argument knowing that they had access to and read the script (and access was available since 2012 with only minor edits since then)? They did a reading (or several), bla bla bla, etc. just like a typical film. Again, for the 6th time, they specifically cited problems with "some of the script." Script was read. They did reharsals/readings. This movie didn't have a special exception to how pre-production was run.
Also, I didn't bother reading your PM which was probably frought with more rage, weird accusations, and insults. I just deleted it. For someone who preaches quite a bit of Social Justice, you do an awful lot of abuse: the same abuse you decry. I tried being nice but you're just not a nice person in public or private (I'm not sure why you're angry about it being obvious these actors ran a ploy to get 15 minutes of fame). You represent the typical SJW that people groan about: abusive, know-it-all, and that thinks people's right to be offended is the number 1 concern on the planet.
By the way, at no point in our discussion did I rage, get upset, whine, cry, etc. But if you want me to, YOU POOPOO! YOU DOODOO POOPY PANTS! There, now you have some rage to have a SJW fit over. "OMG, guys, he tooootally raged on me! Insults were flying! Justice has been served! He's clearly an angry right-wing ultra conservative racist Christian."
Originally posted by Q99
Having fake-Apache next to real ones would be good. Show contrast.
This is a good idea. And make them stand in awkward silence as they look at each other. Then the real Apache just say, "Yup."
Originally posted by Q99
One thing would be to have the Indians act ... well, like these, stupid names and offensive jokes and all, then when others are out of sight, toss off the bad uniforms, knock down the crap-fake-tipi, and look proper and start discussing how they can't believe people actually buy that crap.
This is also a really good idea.
In fact, Sandler should end his film that way after the resolution.