Brie Larson Isn’t Letting Her ‘Captain Marvel’ Press Tour Be ‘Overwhelmingly’ White and Male

May 22, 2018
4,007
2,813
265
How would starting from a clean slate, removing those whose presence is because of historic preference they've benefited from, and selecting from a pool of diverse talent cause more harm?
Okay so I am just gonna assume you are trolling. There is no way that anyone could look at what you just wrote and not see how that might cause more problems than we already have.
 
Nov 11, 2018
188
51
150
Okay so I am just gonna assume you are trolling. There is no way that anyone could look at what you just wrote and not see how that might cause more problems than we already have.
And you're supposed to be the resident liberal everyone hates? LOL. With allies like you... Diversity causes problems when it encroaches on entrenched privilege. Water is wet.
 
May 22, 2018
4,007
2,813
265
And you're supposed to be the resident liberal everyone hates? LOL. With allies like you... Diversity causes problems when it encroaches on entrenched privilege. Water is wet.
Supporting diversity doesn't mean just throwing out everyone and starting over. The fact you even think thats a good idea is completely insane to me. There are plenty of ways to go about having more equal representation without resorting to our own brand of racism or sexism.
 
Nov 11, 2018
188
51
150
Supporting diversity doesn't mean just throwing out everyone and starting over. The fact you even think thats a good idea is completely insane to me. There are plenty of ways to go about having more equal representation without resorting to our own brand of racism or sexism.
Explain to me how keeping people who benefited from being white and male helps strengthen diversity? And let's say some of them didn't. Let's say some of them were talented journalists who just happened to be beneficiaries of a system that rewarded them for their race an gender. Cool. That still doesn't mean their presence isn't toxic and isn't harmful to a comprehensive rethinking of how these films are covered. No one is saying they don't deserve to have a shot at joining the pool of journalists covering these films. Please understand that I have nothing against white males being included in the group of journalists covering these films. I am simply saying that you cannot honestly want to diversify historically exclusionary institutions without doing so from the bottom and not the top.
 
May 22, 2018
4,007
2,813
265
Explain to me how keeping people who benefited from being white and male helps strengthen diversity? And let's say some of them didn't. Let's say some of them were talented journalists who just happened to be beneficiaries of a system that rewarded them for their race an gender. Cool. That still doesn't mean their presence isn't toxic and isn't harmful to a comprehensive rethinking of how these films are covered. No one is saying they don't deserve to have a shot at joining the pool of journalists covering these films. Please understand that I have nothing against white males being included in the group of journalists covering these films. I am simply saying that you cannot honestly want to diversify historically exclusionary institutions without doing so from the bottom and not the top.
And just to be clear you think that is a realistic and fair way to deal with the situation as well as think that it doesn't cause even more issues than we have already?
 
May 15, 2018
2,310
1,442
350
And just to be clear you think that is a realistic and fair way to deal with the situation as well as think that it doesn't cause even more issues than we have already?
hey guys can we do something to make south america more diverse? can we make africa more diverse? what about china? we arent doing enough
 
Nov 11, 2018
188
51
150
And just to be clear you think that is a realistic and fair way to deal with the situation as well as think that it doesn't cause even more issues than we have already?
Yes, OF COURSE it will be divisive. Does that matter? Did ending slavery not cause more issues than existed before it? Did suffrage no cause more issues than existed before it? Did not allowing gay men and women to marry not cause more problems than existed before it? What are you even arguing against?
 
May 22, 2018
4,007
2,813
265
Yes, OF COURSE it will be divisive. Does that matter? Did ending slavery not cause more issues than existed before it? Did suffrage no cause more issues than existed before it? Did not allowing gay men and women to marry not cause more problems than existed before it? What are you even arguing against?
I'm arguing against rounding up people taking away their jobs and then forcing them to reapply for them you donut. People are not gonna just line up to get their jobs taken away from them and then peacefully reapply. Then wait patiently in the hopes that they get chosen for the job they already had. People would riot in the streets. Left or Right it doesn't matter nobody would ever support this and even less would try to actually do it. And then you wanna sit there and compare that to allowing gay people to get married as if that is a sane comparison? That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of.


I can't believe I am even having to explain this.
 
Jan 25, 2018
3,098
3,748
285
29
Southeastern USA
Of course it would be, since black people are still victims of institutional racism that has prevented them from occupying spaces that have been restricted to anyone who isn't white, straight and male. While she was was speaking on behalf of not just black people but other marginalized classes, I think that was her point. Nuance seems to be lost on you.





Objective reality born out by empirical facts that include metrics charting the quality of life for black people in the past 50 years would beg to differ with your concept of progress.
How would starting from a clean slate, removing those whose presence is because of historic preference they've benefited from, and selecting from a pool of diverse talent cause more harm?
 
May 15, 2018
2,310
1,442
350
I'm arguing against rounding up people taking away their jobs and then forcing them to reapply for them you donut. People are not gonna just line up to get their jobs taken away from them and then peacefully reapply. Then wait patiently in the hopes that they get chosen for the job they already had. People would riot in the streets. Left or Right it doesn't matter nobody would ever support this and even less would try to actually do it. And then you wanna sit there and compare that to allowing gay people to get married as if that is a sane comparison? That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of.


I can't believe I am even having to explain this.
so he argued that automation is a good thing and now people arent gonna line up to get their jobs taken away. youre full of holes baby so which one is it
 
Nov 11, 2018
188
51
150
I'm arguing against rounding up people taking away their jobs and then forcing them to reapply for them you donut. People are not gonna just line up to get their jobs taken away from them and then peacefully reapply. Then wait patiently in the hopes that they get chosen for the job they already had. People would riot in the streets. Left or Right it doesn't matter nobody would ever support this and even less would try to actually do it. And then you wanna sit there and compare that to allowing gay people to get married as if that is a sane comparison? That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of.


I can't believe I am even having to explain this.
Clearly, I'm not saying that these people should simply be excommunicated from the industry they work in. However, moving forward, the employment of those who field questions from people like Brie should be focused at the bottom. That's all I'm saying. Those among the privileged who spent years expecting to interview stars should no longer expect to be selected. Should they be avoided? No, that's not what I'm advocating for. But is it be expected that these personalities whose presence was never earned should still be considered before others from marginalized classes? No. I've read some of your posts, and even given you thumbs up, but your responses to my take on what she said is placing you among the alt-right company of those you usually differ with. Diversity cannot be realized from the top.
 
Last edited:
Dec 18, 2010
8,233
953
660
51
washington d.c.
Here is one of the main quotes that started this

“About a year ago, I started paying attention to what my press days looked like and the critics reviewing movies, and noticed it appeared to be overwhelmingly white male,” Larson told Marie Claire interviewer Keah Brown, a disabled journalist the actress handpicked for the gig. “So, I spoke to Dr. Stacy Smith at the USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative, who put together a study to confirm that. Moving forward, I decided to make sure my press days were more inclusive. After speaking with you, the film critic Valerie Complex and a few other women of color, it sounded like across the board they weren’t getting the same opportunities as others. When I talked to the facilities that weren’t providing it, they all had different excuses.”

Here is a video of her talking about it at an awards show or something, and setting up why she feels the way she feels


This speech is what I originally thought everyone was mad about.

If you watch her speech and give her a chance, she really isn't THAT off base

A Wrinkle In Time WASN'T made for white dudes. That is true. She's saying that statistically movie reviews are represented by a narrow demographic when the audience is a much wider demographic

EDIT

PLEASE watch the speech if you haven't, I think it provides the complete context to this entire debacle
What I see in that initial speech and other statements from her is simply the same victim narrative repackaged. A white woman named Brie is almost like a white guy named Chase, born in to wealth most likely or at least a very comfortable life. It’s actually a stage name but her real name says a lot as well, as does her parents being homeopathic chiropractic doctors. What bothers me about it is referring to ‘ white dudes ‘ as a conglomerate and additionally having the gall to say what movies are for me and which aren’t. Imagine a white male saying well this isn’t for ( insert group ).

And it’s not a debacle to me. I vote with my wallet. All this told me is that they don’t want my money, so Alita wins lol. And I’m under no illusions about the film being successful, I’m sure it will be, just not contributing to it personally. It’s not about hate, just simple respect.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
8,460
9,711
830
Australia
I'm arguing against rounding up people taking away their jobs and then forcing them to reapply for them you donut. People are not gonna just line up to get their jobs taken away from them and then peacefully reapply. Then wait patiently in the hopes that they get chosen for the job they already had. People would riot in the streets. Left or Right it doesn't matter nobody would ever support this and even less would try to actually do it. And then you wanna sit there and compare that to allowing gay people to get married as if that is a sane comparison? That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of.


I can't believe I am even having to explain this.
That moment when NI is the most rational person in the room.
 
May 22, 2018
4,007
2,813
265
Clearly, I'm not saying that these people should simply be excommunicated from the industry they work in. However, moving forward, the employment of those who field questions from people like Brie should be focused at the bottom. That's all I'm saying.
No that is definitely not what you said before. If that had been all you said I would have agreed with you for the most part. But here are some of the things you actually said.

Without removing some - if not at all - of them, you are still allowing the worldview that facilitated their presence to go unchallenged. I think starting from a clean slate is the ideal approach, replacing racial nepotism with a meritocracy that both appreciates different opinions informed by one's relationship to the dominant society and the objective value of their contribution.
But many of those journalists are only there because they are white males who were in the right place at the right time, taking the positions of more qualified minorities who would have contributed different perspectives thanks to their markedly divergent backgrounds.

That is what I took issue with. If you had simply said something like "Brie Larson needs to be more hands on and vocal with who she grants interviews to" I would have been alot more understanding, but its mainly those two points that I took issue with. The problem is you seem to think that the best solution is to take away some peoples voices while giving those same voices to others and that is not at all what Larson was trying to push for here. In fact its the exact opposite of what she was trying to say. And its also the exact opposite of what most people who push for equal representation want. Pushing for diversity means giving more voice to the people who are underrepresented. Not taking voices away from white people.



Once again the proper solution is to add not subtract. When you argue for subtracting thats how you get the people who think that everyone who pushes diversity has some kind of hatred for white people when its not like that at all for the vast majority of us.
 

Kadayi

Probable Replicant
Oct 10, 2012
6,027
3,405
710
theconclave.net
Supporting diversity doesn't mean just throwing out everyone and starting over. The fact you even think thats a good idea is completely insane to me. There are plenty of ways to go about having more equal representation without resorting to our own brand of racism or sexism.
Hey, a Year Zero mindset worked out great in Cambodia ......

I would assume @DaForest thinking is that you can have any colour film Critic you like as long as it's Armond White :messenger_sunglasses:
 
Aug 22, 2018
2,265
3,106
275
In the speech I posted, I think a page back, she cites statistics to validate why she feels inclusion is lacking in mainstream movie reviews. Did you watch it?

Controversial? Sure. Truly racist and sexist? No, I really don’t believe so.
If I posted statistics to prove that black people commit more crime you'd certainly get the feeling that I had an agenda at the very least, and tbh people would be calling me out as racist. The act of quoting stats is not neutral, your choice of stats to quote is a statement of what you were looking for, and thus of your biases.
 
Aug 22, 2018
2,265
3,106
275
1. Can’t be racist against whites.

2. Can’t be sexist against men.

3. She started a conversation.

4. It’s about inclusion and diversity* because those are the only things that matter to the Cult of Social Justice.

*It was discussed earlier in the thread, but the proportion of white male film interviewers is roughly on par with their proportion of the US population (around 61% I believe). What she is asking for is therefore overrepresentation of non-white females. It’s a power grab pure and simple and it is justified by the doctrines of intersectionality. “Inclusion” and “diversity” are just the terms they use to justify said power grab. These are ideological terms designed to elicit emotional responses from low IQ brainlets.
I'd extend that by observing that the vast majority of the interviewers will be from fairly well off backgrounds, yes even the non white people. Certainly in the UK that's true, though I can't be 100% sure about America. So where is the representation of poor people?
 
Aug 22, 2018
2,265
3,106
275
I could not disagree more. The entire point of pushing diversity is to give representation to those who don't have it. You don't do that by taking representation from those that do. It defeats the entire purpose of what you are doing and then you end up becoming the very thing you are trying to get rid of.
I just want to thank you for probably the best post I've seen from you on here. I give you shit for bad posts so it's only right I applaud a good post.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
8,460
9,711
830
Australia
I'd extend that by observing that the vast majority of the interviewers will be from fairly well off backgrounds, yes even the non white people. Certainly in the UK that's true, though I can't be 100% sure about America. So where is the representation of poor people?
If they had that job, they wouldn’t be poor 😉
 
Likes: hariseldon
May 22, 2018
4,007
2,813
265
Probably should, but I'll be honest, NI has gone up in my estimation in this thread. I know that's not important to anyone, but a bit of positivity never hurt anyone.
Look I get that everyone thinks I am the SJW King or whatever, but even I will call out stuff I think is BS when I see it regardless of whether or not it comes from someone who is "on my side". I will also agree with those who I usually disagree with if they say something I agree with. Contrary to popular belief I do in fact have principles and standards.


The ends do not always justify the means regardless of how noble the cause is. Afterall we all know what the road to hell is paved with.
 
Last edited:
May 15, 2018
2,310
1,442
350
Look I get that everyone thinks I am the SJW King or whatever, but even I will call out stuff I think is BS when I see it regardless of whether or not it comes from someone who is "on my side". I will also agree with those who I usually disagree with if they say something I agree with. Contrary to popular belief I do in fact have principles and standards.


The ends do not always justify the means regardless of how noble the cause is. Afterall we all know what the road to hell is paved with.
lmao youre the only one who thinks that buddy
 
May 22, 2018
4,007
2,813
265
lmao youre the only one who thinks that buddy
I fucking wish I was the only one who thought that, but my time here (especially the last few months) has proven alot of people here automatically assume my opinions on everything based solely on me being hard Left on most issues. They assume I am hard Left on everything as a result and sometimes even assume that I am extreme Left on others rather than just letting me present my opinion first. And then when I present something other than what is expected I get called a liar or a fake.

Most people seem to have a fixed image of what I am in their head and god forbid I deviate from it or point it out.
 
Last edited:
May 15, 2018
2,310
1,442
350
I fucking wish I was the only one who thought that, but my time here (especially the last few months) has proven alot of people here automatically assume my opinions on everything based solely on me being hard Left on most issues. They assume I am hard Left on everything as a result and sometimes even assume that I am extreme Left on others rather than just letting me present my opinion first. And then when I present something other than what is expected I get called a liar or a fake.

Most people seem to have a fixed image of what I am in their head and god forbid I deviate from it or point it out.
well its easy to see why. you are default in basically everything you say. textbook. your opinions are almost comical. i mean i think its funny to be honest

i mean you got to know that
 
Last edited:
Jul 16, 2017
1,122
789
345
I fucking wish I was the only one who thought that, but my time here (especially the last few months) has proven alot of people here automatically assume my opinions on everything based solely on me being hard Left on most issues. They assume I am hard Left on everything as a result and sometimes even assume that I am extreme Left on others rather than just letting me present my opinion first. And then when I present something other than what is expected I get called a liar or a fake.

Most people seem to have a fixed image of what I am in their head and god forbid I deviate from it or point it out.
This 100%

The worst is when you clearly state what you mean but they stick to their own perception. Its mind blowing
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
8,460
9,711
830
Australia
I fucking wish I was the only one who thought that, but my time here (especially the last few months) has proven alot of people here automatically assume my opinions on everything based solely on me being hard Left on most issues. They assume I am hard Left on everything as a result and sometimes even assume that I am extreme Left on others rather than just letting me present my opinion first. And then when I present something other than what is expected I get called a liar or a fake.

Most people seem to have a fixed image of what I am in their head and god forbid I deviate from it or point it out.
Oh stop playing the victim. You earned a few brownie points in this thread. Don’t undo that.
 
Aug 22, 2018
2,265
3,106
275
Look I get that everyone thinks I am the SJW King or whatever, but even I will call out stuff I think is BS when I see it regardless of whether or not it comes from someone who is "on my side". I will also agree with those who I usually disagree with if they say something I agree with. Contrary to popular belief I do in fact have principles and standards.


The ends do not always justify the means regardless of how noble the cause is. Afterall we all know what the road to hell is paved with.
I think the thing is we didn't know where your limits were previously. Knowing them now gives us a better idea of where you stand and I think we can now start seeking out common ground and figuring each other out a bit better.