I'm willing to admit I only did a brief glance at the stats, and that they were likely out of date (and, in fact, I did just that in my initial post). It's interesting that the demographic breakdown you link is so different to the 2010 one. The source you link cites the number of oscars won by 'black' actors to be 10% since 2000, roughly matching the 12.6% population share. So I will cede that I'm wrong on that front. Your comment on bias against white actors, though, is still pretty inaccurate. Your own source points out the disproportionately small number of 'black' directors and overall has a take home message that there's a significant white washing issue. Edit - Also, both Banderas and Cruz are Spanish, not Latin American, which I assume is why they weren't classified as such
Holy Bane Shift this thread is still going? You snowflakes need to stop getting trgiggered by irrelevant things.
Left: "this offends me. I want it removed." right: "stop being triggered, snowflake" @BurnPyro :"YOU'RE THE ONE WHO IS THE TIRGGERED SNOWFLAKE!!!" This is the political version of "i know you are but what am i?
we're not going to get sympathy from the EU for feminists ruining star wars becasuse A Star Wars is for Americans B Star Wars is for men and the EU is lacking in both
You're so delusional you're too blind to see its all you right wingers jumping in this thread to whine about how big bad hollywood doesnt cast all white males anymore who play the hero.
nobody is into strawmen right wing people made up. undoubtedly there are some strange weird people who are into those things. but Rag and Newsbug act like everyone who doesn't see a problem ( most people) is THOSE people.
Eh, I thought they were made up too, they were at first too caricaturey to be true for me, but sadly, that isn't the case. I've watched enough interviews with the lefties that protest to know it's a more or less accurate representation of what's going on in their heads. I think the issue here is the difference between the collective and the individual. Such leftie that incorporates the aforementioned views usually does that singularly, to a certain extent, determined by his experience and interaction with the specific "ist" and "phobe", but when they rally as a group, they become that collective ideological machine that incorporates all of those ludicrous ideas. At least that's the way I see it. Hence, when you speak to a random person on the street, usually they tend to say some neutral stuff on political issues (or they slant a wee bit to the left), but when you watch interviews with people in protests and rallies, they usually fit really well into that somewhat exaggerated viewpoint. also, I find it quite interesting that both sides are constantly accusing each other of making up sh**. think it shows that their are some big problems with dialogue going on.
At first I liked this but then I remembered that America has become just as feminine (not in the good way) as the rest of the Western world.
Sounds like something a person who listens to fake news would say. I know a person from Russia, not feminine at all but he describes Russian culture as "toxic masculinity" shares your philosophical and spiritual views but is not as snobby as you.
so you are saying that in lrge groups idiots become representatives? because that I think might very well be true.
Could you define fake news? People seem to label everything with that word these days that the meaning of it becomes rather ambiguous. Seems more like a defencive mechanism in which a person expresses his resentment towards an opposing political viewpoint. Russia definitely has a lot of toxic masculinity. Why do you consider me snobby?
Yeah, I suppose, but it becomes more of a collective idiocy rather than a particular individual exuding it.
news that is fake. can you reconcile these views and explain what and why? I do not consider myself feminine but apparently being caring for dogs, cats, and little children does not fin the traditional form of masculinity? this is a complex thing to answer so I just took the most recent thing and tried to explain my sentiment and how it colours my conception of you: by showing admiration for people who seem educated in a certain way and in my view consequently given undue credit to their opinion in fields in which they have no real expertise has through the lens of my complex cultural background translated to contempt for people equally qualified to comment on the same issues who do not share the same unrelated education, speech, and mannerisms.
Well, I think that men ought to have a slightly dominant part of them to be masculine, sort of like their foundation. But every human being needs to have a balance of the two if he wants be happy and have a healthy mental life. Being compassinate and caring doesn't make you less of a man, it just makes you have the right feminine traits. It is good when they don't eradicate traditional masculine ones like ambitiousness, acuteness, nonagreeableness etc. If they do, then imo we tend to get passive and apathetic laymen who sit on the couch and ocuppy all of their free time with sports and sitcoms. If it's young people, then they usually experience a kind of constant anxiety and inclination towards relatively primitive videogames and anime, stay in their room and are terribly afraid of the world. Obviously, this is a generalization, but I think you get where I'm coming from. (btw, I experienced that during my teenage years so I speak from experience when it comes to what it's like when you're not taught how to incorporate masculine traits) How is studying Literature and Philosophy unrelated to topics that cover culture? (assuming you're talking about my comment on Mila's education and manner of speech.) I mean sure, that's not Culturology, but outside of that science, those fields are the closest it gets when it comes to studying how culture works and evolves. Speech and "mannerism" is more of a thing due to how English traditional education shapes people. If you listen to most British intellectuals who went to private schools (Watts, Huxley or even the previous mayor of London for example), they speak sort of the way, with an almost identical "posh" accent and overtones, so really, it gets into your skin so that when you just hear it you know what you're dealing with. It's sort of their trademark, and man, the tradition is really strong and almost always has been. (although maybe today it has slightly degraded due to the overall decline of school education in the Western world.) I don't think that all people are equally qualified to talk on subjects that they have superficial knowledge of. In fact, I think that is the main problem of modern human psychology -- the idea that once you're a specialist in one field you suddenly have a conceit that you're an expert in almost all of them. Ortega-y-Gasset wrote a pretty good book coverting that called The Revolt of the Masses, explaining how the French Revolution shaped the hiearchy and the psychology of the soon-to-be-obsolete lower classes turning them into "faceless" smugs. It's a really good book especially in how it explains collective psychology. (although that is not its main focus.) He, by the way, is slightly snobby but that's due to the time that he was living in. (a lot of modernist writers and culturologists felt an almost unbridgeable gap between themselves and society, hence, most of their works weren't really read other than that of the people who were in their field of study.)
