|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 11:15:34 GMT
kathryn the actors thing does annoy me. As Skrein said, he wasn't aware at all- and when he found out he took action. And that's to be applauded. However it shouldn't get that far that the responsibility is on the actor, casting directors and producers/directors should be making sure it isn't taken that far. And another thing- while actresses like Tilda Swinton can pick and choose their roles, the average jobbing actor, I'm sorry isn't going to turn down a role- because as much as principles are nice, so is paying rent. (Ideally I wouldn't have worked for Starbucks or Wallmart, if I could stick to all my principles, but I needed to eat so needs must...)
|
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Aug 31, 2017 11:20:33 GMT
Just because a handful exploit and abuse a concept that means the entire concept is terrible? Any political or social concept is open to abuse. The concept of communism (people sharing resources equally and working according to their ability) is sound but was exploited to justify mass oppression and mass slaughter.
Again: loss of privilege feels like oppression. People in majority groups whining that they only get most of the jobs and money and perks and power rather than all of it doesn't mean they are oppressed.
The SJ movement can be highly problematic. It's often quite ableist. The language policing often seen in SJ spaces discriminates against those who don't speak English as a first language or have less access to education. There is also a major problem with antisemitism in the SJ world and amongst the Left in general, and this has led to incidents where white supremacists groups have infiltrated SJ organisations in order to spread antisemitic propaganda, which is shocking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 11:25:21 GMT
No, that's not what I was saying (not speaking for anyone else) I'm certainly not crying for a dropping the entire term, just having a conversation about how there's issues around it we could talk about. SJ movement, as with any group has a problem with a few idiotic or aggressive individuals, and ironically- as you well point out, not being aware of their own damn privilege!
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 31, 2017 11:33:06 GMT
With race I can understand where people are coming from, at least, it's when people complain about straight actors playing gay characters that it really annoys me - like, how do you know that actor is straight, and not gay/bi?
|
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Aug 31, 2017 11:36:40 GMT
Good point, especially considering there is still so much pressure for gay actors to be closeted.
To take the thread in another direction: it's interesting to me that the theatre industry on a whole is very left-wing and liberal. Yet as this board shows, theatre audiences are split between left wing and right wing (sometimes very right wing), or a combination. To the right wingers amongst us: do you feel represented by theatre? Do you resent theatre's liberalism? How can we use theatre to breach these gaps?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 11:39:47 GMT
That is not remotely what "privilege" means. It simply means acknowledging that being part of a specific class of people who are the majority/power (male, heterosexual) have inherent advantages in a society predicated on, for example, patriarchy or heteronormativity. "When You're Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression" You are right- but also the use of the term by some facets of 'Social justice warriors' is often twisted and I think that's the issue Martello was talking about (and certainly I was referring to). I fully appreciate I have privilege in some aspects (being white, living in a Western country etc) but I'm not in others (Being a woman). And that's good to be aware of as a person going through life and as a person wanting to affect change. However it's not a stick to beat people with which is where some extremes of the movements fall down. That's exactly what I meant. I feel sometimes people assume that to be progressive and want to enact positive change you have to endorse every single thing a movement or group does. The reality is, no movement is flawless or even close to it, and saying "actually you've screwed up here" is not akin to saying "I don't like what your movement is trying to do". Look through the replies when Cynthia Erivo has an argument with someone and tell me that her fanbase spamming people who disagree with her with things like "be qwhite", "enough of this white noise" and "typical white people at it again" is a positive implementation of social justice. Take something like feminism for example, people have this idea that critiquing it is on the same level as being a fascist because you're opposing their work but this isn't true. Within feminism there is an entire group ("TERFs") who are dedicated to opposing transgender inclusion and are quite open about the fact that they'd like people like me to be locked up in an institute and certainly not be allowed to speak. There are facets that do, quite openly and unashamedly, hate men, and that's not even getting started on the people who find male mental health hilarious and think male rape is fictional. You can criticise the actions of a positive group without hating the group or thinking that you're being oppressed by them. Quotes like "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression" do nothing except tell people that their feedback isn't wanted and really they ought to just shut up and stop contributing to the discussion. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 31, 2017 11:45:43 GMT
Just because a handful exploit and abuse a concept that means the entire concept is terrible? Any political or social concept is open to abuse. The concept of communism (people sharing resources equally and working according to their ability) is sound but was exploited to justify mass oppression and mass slaughter. Again: loss of privilege feels like oppression. People in majority groups whining that they only get most of the jobs and money and perks and power rather than all of it doesn't mean they are oppressed. The SJ movement can be highly problematic. It's often quite ableist. The language policing often seen in SJ spaces discriminates against those who don't speak English as a first language or have less access to education. There is also a major problem with antisemitism in the SJ world and amongst the Left in general, and this has led to incidents where white supremacists groups have infiltrated SJ organisations in order to spread antisemitic propaganda, which is shocking. I have nothing against social justice - I am very much pro social justice! What I dislike is the way that social justice is used as a stick to beat people with in online spaces - the targets are rarely white supremacists or real bigots, and the 'activists' rarely do anything useful to solve social problems. All too often it's the low-hanging fruit that is targeted. The well-meaning person using the wrong word. The author who includes characters from a different ethnicity or cultural background in their book. The actor cast in a role - even if the film they have been cast in *does* have a racially diverse cast and their casting increases diversity along a different axis, such as gender. There are much bigger issues - much harder issues - to tackle than these, but you rarely see people putting effort into them. They go for the instant gratification of internet outrage. |
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Aug 31, 2017 11:50:19 GMT
I agree with everything you say except the last part. That quote is very famous and makes an excellent, excellent point. It is intended to start people thinking about the advantages they have, and how and why they feel about the perception they are losing some advantages. It's very odd to me that you consider anything other than blanket agreement to be telling you to "shut up."
Martello I'd like to ask you a question: how many family members have you personally had murdered simply for being the "wrong" colour/religion/sex/gender? Certain power structures DO oppress me, and oppress many other people.
|
|
943 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Aug 31, 2017 11:57:33 GMT
I still don't like the word "cis". I also don't like the concept of "privilege". Instead of saying "this group have had a rough time of it, let's make things better for them", you're saying "this group have had it TOO good, let's remove those benefits they have". It's not privilege if you're able to walk down the street at night and notfeel threatened, it's a basic human right. It's not privilege to be able to see yourself represented on television, it's what everyone should be able to expect. The reason there is such opposition to social justice is because a) a large proportion of it is stupid and counter-productive and b) the whole concept is framed around bringing people down and not building people up. The fact that in the last few years it's become acceptable to make abhorrently rude and unsubstantiated comments about entire groups (white people, men, cisgender people, straight people) illustrates that it's completely missed the mark. There is much truth in this. Witness the spectacle of Iron Fist being accused of whitewashing/racism by casting a white lead, when the character in the original comic books is white. The argument being that martial arts stories that feature white protagonists are inherently racist because there's not enough Asian-American representation on screen. Or the Great Comet casting controversy - which obviously was badly handled by the producers - being cast as a race issue when it was really just a case of trying to improve ticket sales to keep the show open. After Ed Skrein decided to pull out of Hellboy because he was cast as a half Asian-American character while being white, there's now an expectation that white actors should check that any role they may be cast in is the same ethnicity as them in the source material before accepting it, and turn it down if not. I had someone on twitter tell me that part of the problem is white actors not researching roles before signing up for them, and that they have a responsibility to do so, when I suggested that it should be casting director's job. I think there's a reasonable step that most people can understand and sympathise with and then there's taking things too far which is a small minority of people. With Iron Fist, one there's no need for him to be white - the character doesn't require it and if he was created now rather than the 1970's more thought would have gone into making him Asian-American. Also it's not as simple as not enough Asian-American representation but also that the comic and series are appropriating Asian culture but still making the white man the hero. In this case I could see why people had an issue - where I thought they went too far in some corners is the kicking the original creator, Roy Thomas, got when he defended keeping him white. I saw the odd comment on twitter saying they could never read his work now as it was tainted. This is a man who was writing stories in the early 1980's about the superheroes of the 1940's but addressing issues, from a liberal perspective, such as racial tension, Japanese interment camps and promoting female characters to leadership roles. He doesn't deserve the extreme reactions he got just because he's maybe a bit out of date these days. But then that was the extreme minority of opinion and all ideologies have their extremes which go to far. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 12:01:43 GMT
Wait, what? Asking people to recognise that privilege exists has never (apart from in the minds of a few noisy zealots I suppose) been about bringing those with the privilege down, just getting them to see where they are so they can understand the need for those without said privileges to be offered more attention at this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 12:03:45 GMT
I agree with everything you say except the last part. That quote is very famous and makes an excellent, excellent point. It is intended to start people thinking about the advantages they have, and how and why they feel about the perception they are losing some advantages. It's very odd to me that you consider anything other than blanket agreement to be telling you to "shut up." Martello I'd like to ask you a question: how many family members have you personally had murdered simply for being the "wrong" colour/religion/sex/gender? Certain power structures DO oppress me, and oppress many other people. It's shocking to me that you are so dismissive ... it comes across like you are saying racism and other forms of oppression do not exist? I said that that's the impact that over-reliance on those sorts of quotes has. I never suggested you were telling me or anyone else to shut up. It's a good quote, it's not a substitute for an argument though. I can't say I see how the question is relevant, but I had a transgender second cousin get seriously assaulted on a night out and then commit suicide the day they were released from hospital. It's not murder but might as well have been. I am not remotely dismissive of the oppression and struggles that people face and reading through all of my posts on this thread I can't actually find anything that has suggested that I am, remotely. I apologise if I have offended you but even a hell of a lot of semantic over analysis wouldn't bring me to the conclusion that you've got to. It actually proves my point more that me saying that not all pro-social justice groups are perfect gets interpreted as "I think what the group is doing is pointless". In fact, didn't I say almost exactly that happens ALL of the time in my last post? As an example I gave the flaws of feminism and somewhere along the line that was interpreted to mean "I think that oppression isn't real". If we can't candidly discuss progressive issues without someone being accused of thinking the issue doesn't exist, then what's the point of having a discussion at all? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 12:13:15 GMT
samuelwhiskers I see that you deleted the last part of your post,I had already started replying before you did that though. I wasn't, as I'm sure you saw on second reading, saying that oppression doesn't exist. Bringing about change is about saying what's right, even if it's unpopular. As a transgender person, if I see awful treatment of trans people become commonplace (as is happening in the US right now) I will speak out about it. Conversely, if I see trans people using their identity as a way of making "cis" people feel like utter sh*t, then I will speak out about that too. The social justice activists love it when I do the first thing, the conservatives love it when I do the second. The first may be more important but it doesn't mean we should outlaw and sweep under the rug the second.
|
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Aug 31, 2017 12:17:06 GMT
Well I'd appreciate it if you didn't use phrases like " think you're being oppressed." There are a lot of people in the world who genuinely don't think racism/oppression exist. If we don't start from a position of accepting minority people's assessment of their own experiences, I don't see how any debate is possible. And we are all just usernames on screens. None of us know what each other's experiences and privileges are. I never suggested you were telling me or anyone else to shut up. Quotes like [the one you posted] do nothing except tell people they ought to shut up. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 12:33:34 GMT
Well I'd appreciate it if you didn't use phrases like " think you're being oppressed." There are a lot of people in the world who genuinely don't think racism/oppression exist. If we don't start from a position of accepting minority people's assessment of their own experiences, I don't see how any debate is possible. And we are all just usernames on screens. None of us know what each other's experiences and privileges are. I never suggested you were telling me or anyone else to shut up. Quotes like [the one you posted] do nothing except tell people they ought to shut up. The context in which I said that was "You can criticise the actions of a positive group without hating the group or thinking that you're being oppressed by them. I was talking about critique of feminism in that specific example, and was talking from a pro-social justice standpoint. I was differentiating from how ill-meaning people, e.g. the alt-right say that feminism, black lives matter, the LGBTQ+ community etc are oppressive forces because they are fighting for good. I have quite literally seen people tweet "being a white male is the most oppressed you can be nowadays". I was opposing that very idiocy and bigotry with that statement. I was saying that you can critique a group without being one of those bigots. I wasn't talking about "thinking you're being oppressed" in the sense of implying that trans people or people of colour "think" they're being oppressed. I think that was pretty clear from the context and I assumed it couldn't and wouldn't be misinterpreted, I apologise that that wasn't the case. This is now the second time you've got to a conclusion about something I've said that seems above and beyond how I could ever see it being interpreted. I explained in my last post what I meant with regards to the "shut up" thing so I'm not sure why you're asking me to do it again. Even in the quotes you've linked it's pretty clear that I was talking about the impact of quotes like that and not the impact of your words. You weren't telling me to shut up, the unintended consequences of using quotes that make sweeping generalisations about entire groups is that you lose nuance and people can feel like they're being told to shut up. I distinctly never said you were telling me to shut up, or indeed implied that general disagreement is akin to telling someone to shut up. I'm happy to explain it a third time if you still don't understand what I'm saying. |
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Aug 31, 2017 12:47:40 GMT
Your explanation ("It's a good quote but not a substitute for an argument") is substantially different from your original post ("the quote you posted does nothing but tell people to shut up") though. You may have meant that, but that's not what you actually said. Which is fine: we all misspeak sometimes. I just don't know why you can't say "I misspoke, I didn't mean that, I meant this" rather than acting like I'm stupid or unreasonable for taking your own words at face value.
I apologise because clearly I misinterpreted your post about oppression. I had no idea you were talking about feminism. I thought you were talking about black people being anti-white.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 31, 2017 13:02:34 GMT
Wait, what? Asking people to recognise that privilege exists has never (apart from in the minds of a few noisy zealots I suppose) been about bringing those with the privilege down, just getting them to see where they are so they can understand the need for those without said privileges to be offered more attention at this time. Privilege is constantly being used to make people be ashamed of something over which they have absolutely no control. And that is a negative way of attempting to bring about change. It is a way of alienating people who might well support what is at the heart of your concerns. The modern (and mainly online) SJW movement has, in many, many ways, done significant harm to the cause of social justice. There are too many who operate under that banner who are regressive and totalitarian when they should be progressive and liberal. It is their sort of behaviour that means that the concept of privilege has been perverted into a stick to beat people rather than a way of raising awareness and helping others move forward. I will not say sorry for being born white. I will not say sorry for being born male. I will not say sorry for being born gay. But there are many who say I should do exactly that. That is not the way to encourage me to support your cause. It is a way that leads to barriers being set up, conversations not happening and friction created. We need to develop a new more balanced and thoughtful set of concepts and language to discuss these complex issues. Until we do so, terms such as privilege and cis will continue to be used as weapons in fights that need not happen. The warrior mentality does not help move issues forward - it just makes the fighter feel special. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 13:07:38 GMT
Your explanation ("It's a good quote but not a substitute for an argument") is substantially different from your original post ("the quote you posted does nothing but tell people to shut up") though. You may have meant that, but that's not what you actually said. Which is fine: we all misspeak sometimes. I just don't know why you can't say "I misspoke, I didn't mean that, I meant this" rather than acting like I'm stupid or unreasonable for taking your own words at face value. I apologise because clearly I misinterpreted your post about oppression. I had no idea you were talking about feminism. I thought you were talking about black people being anti-white. The two things are not mutually exclusive and it was this that I was trying to express. As I said in my last post, the quote is a blanket statement, and hence fails to take into account the many different kinds of struggles people can face, as well as suggesting that critique of a movement is just thinking you're being oppressed (hence why I used the phrase "thinking you're being oppressed" when talking about how that is what critique/criticism isn't necessarily. The quote serves to shut down an argument, you're making a point about said issue, ahh well all you're really doing is trying to stop the wheels of motion, you're anti-equality because you think it's oppressing you. It's telling you to shut up, you're opposed to equality, you need to shut up. It's also lazy and not an argument. It is both a shut down and not an argument. Re-reading my post, the majority of it was about feminism, I used an example of how some of the more militant of Cynthia Erivo's followers make deliberately inflammatory statements, and said how this is an example of how people don't always implement social justice in a positive way, they also use it ways that aren't productive, hence the "critique is necessary" argument I went on to make using feminism as an example. I apologise if the distinctions between the different topics weren't clear enough but I certainly never implied or intended to imply that people of colour "think" they're being oppressed or that being black = being anti-white. I'm sorry if that's how it came across. For me it's very clear that one topic stopped and another started, but this may not have been the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 13:10:15 GMT
Wait, what? Asking people to recognise that privilege exists has never (apart from in the minds of a few noisy zealots I suppose) been about bringing those with the privilege down, just getting them to see where they are so they can understand the need for those without said privileges to be offered more attention at this time. Privilege is constantly being used to make people be ashamed of something over which they have absolutely no control. And that is a negative way of attempting to bring about change. It is a way of alienating people who might well support what is at the heart of your concerns. The modern (and mainly online) SJW movement has, in many, many ways, done significant harm to the cause of social justice. There are too many who operate under that banner who are regressive and totalitarian when they should be progressive and liberal. It is their sort of behaviour that means that the concept of privilege has been perverted into a stick to beat people rather than a way of raising awareness and helping others move forward. I will not say sorry for being born white. I will not say sorry for being born male. I will not say sorry for being born gay. But there are many who say I should do exactly that. That is not the way to encourage me to support your cause. It is a way that leads to barriers being set up, conversations not happening and friction created. We need to develop a new more balanced and thoughtful set of concepts and language to discuss these complex issues. Until we do so, terms such as privilege and cis will continue to be used as weapons in fights that need not happen. The warrior mentality does not help move issues forward - it just makes the fighter feel special. This is spot on and what I have being trying (and probably failing) to say since my first post on this thread. "The warrior mentality does not help move issues forward- it just makes the fighter feel special." So much of social justice is based around validating the people fighting for it and making them feel good. It's not about positive change. I think every single person who's posted on this thread so far is in favour of positive change, they aren't necessarily in favour of the militant way it's being enacted. |
|
1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Aug 31, 2017 13:13:44 GMT
On the subject of SJW co-option: Are you familiar with "tinhats"? Or "Larries"? Basically fans who develop elaborate conspiracy theories involving male celebrities faking their relationships/marriages and children to either hide a secret gay relationships, or for reasons unknown. It's clearly all about sex and repressed sexual desire and internalised misogyny (and often very overt misogyny). Over the last few years there's been a trend of "tinhats" exploiting the SJW movement, claiming their actions (harassing their wives and girlfriends, writing graphic sexual fantasies about wanting to see two men together) are in fact a form of gay rights activism, and if you don't believe these men are secretly gay, you are a homophobe.
Edit: We are going to have to agree to disagree on the privilege/oppression quote. I think it's a brilliant and badly needed quote and my opinion is that it opens, rather than shuts down debate. IMO anyone who would feel silenced at being told to consider their own privilege is probably not someone interested in debating the issues.
My train is arriving now so going offline. Catch you all later.
|
|
943 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Aug 31, 2017 14:01:52 GMT
Wait, what? Asking people to recognise that privilege exists has never (apart from in the minds of a few noisy zealots I suppose) been about bringing those with the privilege down, just getting them to see where they are so they can understand the need for those without said privileges to be offered more attention at this time. Privilege is constantly being used to make people be ashamed of something over which they have absolutely no control. And that is a negative way of attempting to bring about change. It is a way of alienating people who might well support what is at the heart of your concerns. The modern (and mainly online) SJW movement has, in many, many ways, done significant harm to the cause of social justice. There are too many who operate under that banner who are regressive and totalitarian when they should be progressive and liberal. It is their sort of behaviour that means that the concept of privilege has been perverted into a stick to beat people rather than a way of raising awareness and helping others move forward. I will not say sorry for being born white. I will not say sorry for being born male. I will not say sorry for being born gay. But there are many who say I should do exactly that. That is not the way to encourage me to support your cause. It is a way that leads to barriers being set up, conversations not happening and friction created. We need to develop a new more balanced and thoughtful set of concepts and language to discuss these complex issues. Until we do so, terms such as privilege and cis will continue to be used as weapons in fights that need not happen. The warrior mentality does not help move issues forward - it just makes the fighter feel special. In my experience privilege as a concept is used as a way of increasing awareness not shame. There is a very small minority who take it too far but they are easily avoided. Sorry you feel the need to be encouraged to support the cause of equality - maybe that says more about you than anyone else though. SJW is almost never used as a term apart from by people who denigrate the move towards greater equality and they are best ignored I find as they have little of interest to say. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Aug 31, 2017 14:08:12 GMT
Privilege is constantly being used to make people be ashamed of something over which they have absolutely no control. And that is a negative way of attempting to bring about change. It is a way of alienating people who might well support what is at the heart of your concerns. The modern (and mainly online) SJW movement has, in many, many ways, done significant harm to the cause of social justice. There are too many who operate under that banner who are regressive and totalitarian when they should be progressive and liberal. It is their sort of behaviour that means that the concept of privilege has been perverted into a stick to beat people rather than a way of raising awareness and helping others move forward. I will not say sorry for being born white. I will not say sorry for being born male. I will not say sorry for being born gay. But there are many who say I should do exactly that. That is not the way to encourage me to support your cause. It is a way that leads to barriers being set up, conversations not happening and friction created. We need to develop a new more balanced and thoughtful set of concepts and language to discuss these complex issues. Until we do so, terms such as privilege and cis will continue to be used as weapons in fights that need not happen. The warrior mentality does not help move issues forward - it just makes the fighter feel special. In my experience privilege as a concept is used as a way of increasing awareness not shame. There is a very small minority who take it too far but they are easily avoided. Sorry you feel the need to be encouraged to support the cause of equality - maybe that says more about you than anyone else though. SJW is almost never used as a term apart from by people who denigrate the move towards greater equality and they are best ignored I find as they have little of interest to say. At no point have I made this about me and my personal positions. Trying to turn this into an ad hominem attack on me is disrespectful and unwarranted. All campaigns for change need supporters. It is wrong to expect to win an argument if you are not prepared to engage positively in the debate. It is all to easy to exist in spaces where you are surrounded by people who agree with you. All arguments must stand up to scrutiny and examination. If you don't engage in that, then you are rather missing the point about winning hearts and minds. |
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 31, 2017 15:19:12 GMT
In my experience privilege as a concept is used as a way of increasing awareness not shame. There is a very small minority who take it too far but they are easily avoided. Sorry you feel the need to be encouraged to support the cause of equality - maybe that says more about you than anyone else though. SJW is almost never used as a term apart from by people who denigrate the move towards greater equality and they are best ignored I find as they have little of interest to say. At no point have I made this about me and my personal positions. Trying to turn this into an ad hominem attack on me is disrespectful and unwarranted. All campaigns for change need supporters. It is wrong to expect to win an argument if you are not prepared to engage positively in the debate. It is all to easy to exist in spaces where you are surrounded by people who agree with you. All arguments must stand up to scrutiny and examination. If you don't engage in that, then you are rather missing the point about winning hearts and minds. Every positive change that has ever been made for a powerless minority group has happened with the help of the powerful majority group. It can't be any other way - if they didn't need the help of the powerful majority to get that change, they wouldn't have a problem in the first place. As lovely as it is to be ideologically pure, if you want to actually change things you need allies. |
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Aug 31, 2017 16:46:42 GMT
To take the thread in another direction: it's interesting to me that the theatre industry on a whole is very left-wing and liberal. Yet as this board shows, theatre audiences are split between left wing and right wing (sometimes very right wing), or a combination. To the right wingers amongst us: do you feel represented by theatre? Do you resent theatre's liberalism? How can we use theatre to breach these gaps? Okay, I'll bite, though I'll probably regret the inevitable slating. Given my political views are different to most theatre creatives I don't go to political plays, or "issue" plays in general. It is perfectly possible to go to lots of enjoyable, escapist, non-political theatre. Frankly I find it much more stressful trying to negotiate Twitter & skip the endless anti-Brexit & anti-Tory RTs from the actors, opera singers & critics I follow. To answer your specific questions: 1) not politically, but as I don't go to theatre for politics I don't mind that so much. 2) Yes, but there's nothing I can do about it. 3) Do we need to? I have no intention of changing my views & presumably the left wingers feel the same so I don't see how theatre can do anything about political viewpoint gaps. |
|
4 posts
|
Post by mrslovettsmeatpie on Sept 5, 2017 22:53:28 GMT
After a weekend of 'Pride Manchester' and 'The Big Weekend' (note the absence of any reference to homosexuality in the the titles of this disgraceful display of commercialism, £32.50 a ticket please) we're now reclaiming the word 'queer'. Um, why? Nobody asked me, I'm very happy with 'gay' as it happens. Gay (happy) has a positive connotation, queer (odd) doesn't. Who made 'queer' acceptable? Because I'd like a word. Are you for real?! im assuming this thread is for attention? |
|
4 posts
|
Post by mrslovettsmeatpie on Sept 5, 2017 22:54:48 GMT
Can I call black people the N word on that basis then? Oh my! Are u pretending to be stupid? |
|
