Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah, and let's take it a step further. IIRC one of these "drag kids" took a photo with a naked man for the cover of a magazine. But no there's nothing sexualized about drag.
But yeah, a kid posing with a naked man is clearly not supposed to be allowed.
Originally posted by MythLord
Almost everything can be sexualized. Drag in-of-itself just means wearing exaggerated women's clothing. You can do that and not be sexualized.But yeah, a kid posing with a naked man is clearly not supposed to be allowed.
Did you watch the video though? The kid wasn't strutting down some runway. He was dancing in front of a bunch of men and they were throwing money at him.
Guess this is kind of an odd thing to get triggered on, but adaptations like The Boys always seem off to me. I finally figured out why: They completely changed the roots of the thing. Take Wee Hughie, he was very much Irish American, with a heavy emphasis on the Irish part. This is Garth Ennis's signature stamp in all his works, being that he's Irish himself, and a naturalized American. For me, that Irish lens is part of the charm of his works.
There's none of that in the Amazon show. Every trace of Irish is just gone, either because the writers just don't understand Irish culture, or someone in the production chain didn't think that relatable to modern audiences.
It's a small thing, but for me it changes everything. And, to be blunt, it's also pretty heavily racist, in a world where everyone looks at cultural voices that are "trendy" or well lobbied for, and complain on every media outlet, yet things like this, no one gives a shit about because no one's complaining.
And I don't feel frothing at the mouth mad about it, either. I just think it's kind of a sad loss on works like this. I'm not a little bit Irish, but seeing the world through his eyes is just more interesting then looking at another stock "relatable" character who works at an electronic store..
Originally posted by cdtm
Guess this is kind of an odd thing to get triggered on, but adaptations like The Boys always seem off to me. I finally figured out why: They completely changed the roots of the thing. Take Wee Hughie, he was very much Irish American, with a heavy emphasis on the Irish part. This is Garth Ennis's signature stamp in all his works, being that he's Irish himself, and a naturalized American. For me, that Irish lens is part of the charm of his works.There's none of that in the Amazon show. Every trace of Irish is just gone, either because the writers just don't understand Irish culture, or someone in the production chain didn't think that relatable to modern audiences.
It's a small thing, but for me it changes everything. And, to be blunt, it's also pretty heavily racist, in a world where everyone looks at cultural voices that are "trendy" or well lobbied for, and complain on every media outlet, yet things like this, no one gives a shit about because no one's complaining.
And I don't feel frothing at the mouth mad about it, either. I just think it's kind of a sad loss on works like this. I'm not a little bit Irish, but seeing the world through his eyes is just more interesting then looking at another stock "relatable" character who works at an electronic store..
Another one is the attack on anything male oriented.
Disney outright said to Stallone and Lungreen they won’t even meet up with for a show pitch because there’s not enough women representation.
I saw that, and I agree it's ridiculous. 🙁
The Irish native scrubbing seems like a slightly different category though. Technically, they're in the majorty as white, but Irish American and Irish are two different things. The culture of Ireland is definitely not a majority thing, which makes it a form of "white washing", imo, because it's removing a cultural view point.
Originally posted by Surtur
I'm talking about morally, is a man who tries but fails superior to one who succeeds? Does that man have the moral high ground? If he were to run his mouth about someone who had successfully murdered, would he have room to do so?
A not-murderer is more moral than a murderer. This isn't hard, Surt.
Another way to look at it, if both men then later felt remorse for their crimes of murder and attempted murder, the man who didn't murder is better off than the man who murdered, morally, spiritually, legally and logically speaking. Also take into consideration that our penal system is about remorse and rehabilitation, or at least it's supposed to be. The not-murder has a leg up there.
^It's fun being superior to these petty kunts lol.
Originally posted by Robtard
A not-murderer is more moral than a murderer. This isn't hard, Surt.Another way to look at it, if both men then later felt remorse for their crimes of murder and attempted murder, the man who didn't murder is better off than the man who murdered, morally, spiritually, legally and logically speaking. Also take into consideration that our penal system is about remorse and rehabilitation, or at least it's supposed to be. The not-murder has a leg up there.
Oh kiddo no: an attempted murderer isn't any better than one who succeeds. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Originally posted by Robtard
A not-murderer is more moral than a murderer. This isn't hard, Surt.Another way to look at it, if both men then later felt remorse for their crimes of murder and attempted murder, the man who didn't murder is better off than the man who murdered, morally, spiritually, legally and logically speaking. Also take into consideration that our penal system is about remorse and rehabilitation, or at least it's supposed to be. The not-murder has a leg up there.
That’s...????
Okay then....
Universal Pictures pulls ads for horror film about liberal elitists hunting ‘deplorables’
LMFAO!!! Don't pull the ads! Let this insanity be there for all to see.