posted
Someone suggested Cliff Curtis for Mazer, and while he doesn't immediately spring to my head as "that's what Mazer should look like" (honestly, Kingsley's angular face really does work in my head, despite the race issue), having really enjoyed his performance in "Push," I could totally see him as Mazer (perhaps a tag young, but what's makeup for
I think there are definitely good ways to bring up the profile of actors - in general, it's tough to cast them in such central roles as a breakout role (and I'm sure there are tons of exceptions). My guess is that studios (who make really weird decisions anyway) are much more comfortable casting a major part in something with a small budget like The Hurt Locker, where they probably won't make a big difference to marketing or hurt the bottom line, but might garner nominations and awards like Jeremy Renner did in that film. (Speaking of which, it's made me so sad that Anthony Mackie hasn't had the same meteoric rise as Renner, though maybe appearing in Captain America: The Winter Soldier as a superhero will help - one can only hope).
(Side note: what's with the Maori culture-bashing? I mean, what race doesn't have widespread skeletons in its closet?)
Long story short - people were throwing around some names of Maori/part-Maori actors when Kingsley was cast (which OSC was also a bit irked at, according to this: http://www.honkifyoulovejustice.com/2011/12/12/enders-game-news-ben-kingsley-and-hollywood-whitewashing). However, I hope that Kingsley's appearance in the film will raise the profile of Maori characters, and maybe open the minds of producers willing to take a chance on doing a similar character, only casting them as Maori.
I also hope the film with 1) be awesome; 2) be successful. I'm really not sure of either. But right now, I'm inclined to be very excited.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: (Side note: what's with the Maori culture-bashing? I mean, what race doesn't have widespread skeletons in its closet?)
They ate people. It's not like there were any non-cannibal Maori. They were all cannibals. It was part of the culture.
I'm not bashing. I'm observing that an entire culture than regularly and enthusiastically killed and cannibalized outsiders is a tough sell to the dominant cultures on this planet.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
We have already determined from before that your definition of the word "racist" includes some things that are good and productive and that we will keep for good reasons.
"We" being me and other people who have paid attention to your ideological tendencies.
So saying that something I advocate is pretty racist doesn't really say anything about it, except that probably gets your dander up as a policy and that you very much so Do Not Like It in your idealized racial theory. The category of "Things Dan thinks are racist" encompasses a lot of good, neutral, and bad things.
As for raceblind ideology: it is that sort of thing you get when someone talks all like "there should be no policy that takes a person's race into account! Our law and our morals should be colorblind!" or any variation on that theme. It's such a useless ideology, yet it comes up even when law isn't at issue, like here wherein I am not even positing something like "it should be illegal for someone to play dress-up as a maori so that they can have their ethnic tokenism while still getting the casting power that said practice often denies actual maori actors" but am instead positing that people should be aware that it is offensive and is Yet Another Example of problematic marginalization endemic to hollywood that movies should strive to be above.
If someone being aware of and speak up about these racial issues turns into "No sam, YOU are the REAL racist!" I should only laugh in response.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So...all Maori culture = cannibalism? And all attempts to have actual Maori actors playing actual Maori characters = "yay cannibalism?"
I simply do not see the point of bringing it up unless you are wanting to bash the culture. It doesn't seem to have relevance to 1) modern Maori culture; 2) fictional future Maori culture in Ender's Game.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Dan, nitpicking Sam's grammar makes you seem petty and. disingenuous. Now, if you had just said: "I don't understand what you mean," which you often do anyway, it might sound like you actually wanted to have something clarified. But this is just another variation on your old strategy: "I don't get your argument (subtext: your argument is too stupid or abstruse to be understood by me, a common sense kind of guy). You do this a lot; I wonder if you know that it is transparent.
You'll probably ask me to clarify what I mean by all this. That would be nice.
Woah! This really speaks volumes about how reluctant most people are to admit to ignorance. I'm not, though, Orincoro.
I don't mind admitting when I don't understand something. It's not a subtle ploy, or a rhetorical trick. I pretty thoroughly hate both of those things. I like clarifying things when I don't understand. That's really all it is. It's just me admitting when something didn't make sense to me.
Now, I might think the common cause of this is that other people are speaking obtusely, but what the hell do I know? I would think that was the reason. You or Sam or Blayne are well within your rights to argue that I'm just not paying enough attention or whatever.
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: So...all Maori culture = cannibalism? And all attempts to have actual Maori actors playing actual Maori characters = "yay cannibalism?"
I simply do not see the point of bringing it up unless you are wanting to bash the culture. It doesn't seem to have relevance to 1) modern Maori culture; 2) fictional future Maori culture in Ender's Game.
Imagine if a Maori actor were cast in that role, and stole the movie, and became really famous as a result. Then imagine the possible PR fiasco that might ensue if the cannibalism came to light, and that particular actor maybe flubs his public response to the inevitable questions.
An unscrupulous (or just unsympathetic) journalist could, quite possibly, cause some real problems that the financiers of this movie would NOT appreciate.
The alternative is a proven bankable actor who probably owned the heck out of the role. Kingsley is a heavyweight, as a draw AND as a performer.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Er...is anyone trying to deny that Maori WAS (in the Past Tense) a cannibalistic culture? Are there instances of people trying to argue that Maori cannibalism wasn't really a bad thing? I...can't see where this "PR fiasco" is coming from. And how casting Ben Kingsley, and making him sport really obvious Maori tatoos, is going to make it any better. Kingsley would probably flub any questions about the culture much worse, since he's...um...not Maori. Which was the point of the complaint in the first place.
It's like casting a white person in blackface as an African slave trader who sold slaves to American and British slave traders. Like...why does casting a white person make it better?
Finally, I agree with you completely about Kingsley being a huge asset to the production in performance and marketing. I think it's a smart decision - and I also have reservations about possible cultural appropriation. Those reservations have nothing to do with my expectation that he will be a great Mazer. I've also said that I think Kingsley actually looks like Mazer in my head (which...erm...might say sad things about my vision of Mazer as a Maori, but...well...there you have it).
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: Er...is anyone trying to deny that Maori WAS (in the Past Tense) a cannibalistic culture? Are there instances of people trying to argue that Maori cannibalism wasn't really a bad thing? I...can't see where this "PR fiasco" is coming from. And how casting Ben Kingsley, and making him sport really obvious Maori tatoos, is going to make it any better. Kingsley would probably flub any questions about the culture much worse, since he's...um...not Maori. Which was the point of the complaint in the first place.
It's like casting a white person in blackface as an African slave trader who sold slaves to American and British slave traders. Like...why does casting a white person make it better?
OK, fine, sue me, I'm culture-bashing.
And as far as a possible PR fiasco, things look different when it's your own money on the line. Things also look different if you are the person whose responsibility it is to make sure this kind of thing CAN'T happen, and your job (and future employability) DEPEND on such things NEVER happening.
I guarantee you that there is more than one person (on this production) whose future employability would be curtailed or damaged if such a fiasco WERE to happen. And if you were in their shoes, you'd see this differently...or you lack a normal sense of self-preservation, one or the other.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you imagine 'fielding potential cannibalism questions' made even the top 10 reasons to go with Kingsley rather than a Maori actor of any or no skill or repute, well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If you imagine 'fielding potential cannibalism questions' made even the top 10 reasons to go with Kingsley rather than a Maori actor of any or no skill or repute, well.
I never said I imagined that, did I, Rakeesh?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, what, then, top 20? That weird cannibalism press conference scenario you posited a PR guy being concerned about wasn't...well, you positing a PR guy being concerned about cannibalism press?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So, what, then, top 20? That weird cannibalism press conference scenario you posited a PR guy being concerned about wasn't...well, you positing a PR guy being concerned about cannibalism press?
Enjoy the box. I'm not coming in.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, so you *do* remember! That's good to have a stock phrase for when you say something silly. Quality by volume!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maori cannibalism didn't really arise until the moa and other large birds had gone extinct and there wasn't a suitable replacement source of meat.
But the idea that they were all cannibals is oversimplifying the matter. AFAIK There's no culture in known history where virtually, or even most everybody was a cannibal.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: So...all Maori culture = cannibalism? And all attempts to have actual Maori actors playing actual Maori characters = "yay cannibalism?"
I simply do not see the point of bringing it up unless you are wanting to bash the culture. It doesn't seem to have relevance to 1) modern Maori culture; 2) fictional future Maori culture in Ender's Game.
Imagine if a Maori actor were cast in that role, and stole the movie, and became really famous as a result. Then imagine the possible PR fiasco that might ensue if the cannibalism came to light, and that particular actor maybe flubs his public response to the inevitable questions.
An unscrupulous (or just unsympathetic) journalist could, quite possibly, cause some real problems that the financiers of this movie would NOT appreciate.
The alternative is a proven bankable actor who probably owned the heck out of the role. Kingsley is a heavyweight, as a draw AND as a performer.
Really?!
Carrying on... As a New Zealander I would have loved to have seen a Maori playing Mazer. We are a small country who are VERY proud (and protective and possessive) of our high achievers, be it sporting, entertainment or academic. We think it's awesome when we see mention of anything "kiwi" anywhere else - I got a thrill when reading Ender's Game and finding that Mazer was a half-Maori and that would have been the same if Mazer had been played by a New Zealander in the movie as well. However, wasn't to be. I never imagined Mazer with a moko (though had no trouble imagining him as Maori), but it looks ok.
Posts: 315 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious - how common is the moko today? I'm just wondering in terms of plausibility of a person many hundreds of years in the future having one.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Heh, so you *do* remember! That's good to have a stock phrase for when you say something silly. Quality by volume!
I don't know what you're referring to when you say "so you *do* remember!", but you seem triumphant for some reason, so...yay?
Why DO you spend so much time in the box, exactly? Do you just enjoy it, or are you getting some kind of perceived benefit from it?
Rakeesh, instead of you aggravating the heck out of me until we get so acrimonious that Blackblade forbids us from interacting, how about you just start ignoring me NOW? I want nothing to do with you.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: So...all Maori culture = cannibalism? And all attempts to have actual Maori actors playing actual Maori characters = "yay cannibalism?"
I simply do not see the point of bringing it up unless you are wanting to bash the culture. It doesn't seem to have relevance to 1) modern Maori culture; 2) fictional future Maori culture in Ender's Game.
Imagine if a Maori actor were cast in that role, and stole the movie, and became really famous as a result. Then imagine the possible PR fiasco that might ensue if the cannibalism came to light, and that particular actor maybe flubs his public response to the inevitable questions.
An unscrupulous (or just unsympathetic) journalist could, quite possibly, cause some real problems that the financiers of this movie would NOT appreciate.
The alternative is a proven bankable actor who probably owned the heck out of the role. Kingsley is a heavyweight, as a draw AND as a performer.
This is the most asinine reason anyone has come up with for why Kingsley playing dress-up as a maori is a preferential alternative. "Oh, so if we let a maori represent a maori character from the book, they might become famous, and people might discover that the maori were cannibals and ask the actor some tough questions. God, wouldn't that be terrible? See why it's better we don't have the maori representing themselves and instead we have non-maori play dress-up in fake moko tattoos.
And besides, it's more bankable!"
It's amazing to me that you're serious about this.
Also. Steven. Shut up about "the box" forever.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why we don't let white Americans become big time actors, you know with that whole slavery thing and all. Embarrassing!
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe steven actually thinks concerns over uncomfortable press questions about cultural cannibalism were much of if at all a reason for choosing not to go with a Maori actor, even though the words he used to describe the scenario certainly paint it as a not-first but still present concern some hypothetical PR guy might have been thinking of.
I think if someone other than myself had pointed out how silly that notion was-and for the record, I didn't suggest it was *impossible* for some PR guy to worry about that, only that there were far, far more reasons to choose a Kingsley before that would even be a factor-this discussion might've gone differently.
But it was me, and so far as I can tell steven really wants that box schtick to sting which is why he continues to use it. As for me, I just thought it was funny and continue to do so. Not only is it an amusing exercise in hypocrisy to come from steven, but the whole exercise of 'Hey, you! [Insult someone else thought up], haha!'
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Looks pretty fascinating - there's a ton of interesting worldbuilding clues revealed. I'm particularly interseted that Mazer is supposed to have died...but they're showing Kingsley in the teaser to the teaser trailer, so seems like there's some odd stuff going on in the marketing campaign.
Furthermore, the 2-child policy is apparently only 15 years old in the film, whilst in Polish Boy, it's clear that the policy has been going on for several years before Ender's father was born.
Thoughts? I'm very excited at the detail here!
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: So...all Maori culture = cannibalism? And all attempts to have actual Maori actors playing actual Maori characters = "yay cannibalism?"
I simply do not see the point of bringing it up unless you are wanting to bash the culture. It doesn't seem to have relevance to 1) modern Maori culture; 2) fictional future Maori culture in Ender's Game.
Imagine if a Maori actor were cast in that role, and stole the movie, and became really famous as a result. Then imagine the possible PR fiasco that might ensue if the cannibalism came to light, and that particular actor maybe flubs his public response to the inevitable questions.
An unscrupulous (or just unsympathetic) journalist could, quite possibly, cause some real problems that the financiers of this movie would NOT appreciate.
The alternative is a proven bankable actor who probably owned the heck out of the role. Kingsley is a heavyweight, as a draw AND as a performer.
This is the most asinine reason anyone has come up with for why Kingsley playing dress-up as a maori is a preferential alternative. "Oh, so if we let a maori represent a maori character from the book, they might become famous, and people might discover that the maori were cannibals and ask the actor some tough questions. God, wouldn't that be terrible? See why it's better we don't have the maori representing themselves and instead we have non-maori play dress-up in fake moko tattoos.
And besides, it's more bankable!"
It's amazing to me that you're serious about this.
Also. Steven. Shut up about "the box" forever.
I only got to that point after giving MANY other reasons why Kingsley is the best choice. None of the common sense reasons worked for you or miller-whatever, so...I came up with some random BS at 1 in the morning. If you didn't like what I came up with, maybe you should have stopped arguing before I ran out of GOOD reasons. ROFL
YMMV, I see no reason to risk a bankable franchise over some BS random choice that OSC made 30 years ago. He can retcon all he wants, but Mazer could just as easily have been from one of 500 other tiny cultures, and we all know it.
As far as the box thing goes, dude, you've not got the guts to talk to me that way in person, and everybody knows it. How about that?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't believe steven actually thinks concerns over uncomfortable press questions about cultural cannibalism were much of if at all a reason for choosing not to go with a Maori actor, even though the words he used to describe the scenario certainly paint it as a not-first but still present concern some hypothetical PR guy might have been thinking of.
I think if someone other than myself had pointed out how silly that notion was-and for the record, I didn't suggest it was *impossible* for some PR guy to worry about that, only that there were far, far more reasons to choose a Kingsley before that would even be a factor-this discussion might've gone differently.
But it was me, and so far as I can tell steven really wants that box schtick to sting which is why he continues to use it. As for me, I just thought it was funny and continue to do so. Not only is it an amusing exercise in hypocrisy to come from steven, but the whole exercise of 'Hey, you! [Insult someone else thought up], haha!'
You're right, my response to you was based on our previous interactions. It was also based on the fact that you have a problem with getting obsessed with specific posters and following them from thread to thread, like you did with me here, in this thread.
I don't care about the box, it's simply a way to get you to shut up. I don't understand why you post here, and I've never had a productive interaction with you. Why not just leave me alone? I nailed you. Get over it. the next step is moderation, like with you and Stone_Wolf. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: I'm curious - how common is the moko today? I'm just wondering in terms of plausibility of a person many hundreds of years in the future having one.
Ta Moko on the body is very very common. Facial moko less so, however, I feel it would be entirely plausible for a Maori hundreds of years in the future to have a facial moko. Maori are fiercely proud of their cultural heritage - tattoos are definitely a way in which they can express their connection with that heritage.
Posts: 315 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven. Seriously. You've now gotten to the point where you're physically thumping your chest, so to speak, about an Internet argument, accusing others of being too afraid to 'face' you. You nailed me exactly to the extent you proved Samprimary a coward and yourself a fearsome specimen just now.
Forget the box. Throw it away. It's more than a little silly. Or...keep bringing it up. I'd count it as better if you ditched it, but continually trying to zing me with it is still funny too. And to be clear, this shift in the conversation? It's you. Had you said 'yeah, I know that's not likely at all' or 'hey, lemme clarify what I meant', or even 'lighten up Rakeesh, I meant this'...but you didn't. Instead you attempted to deny saying it at all, and then when I busted your balls over it 'insulted' me with (oh, no!) the box.
You're a step off of being the guy who says 'let's meet here and fight!' You don't have to be that guy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks so much, stacey! I was very curious, and really enjoy learning more about such details of real life culture, even more so when they make it into great stories like Ender's Game. I wonder if Mazer got his moko before or after the Second Invasion.
steven: Erm...not sure why my username is so hard to type...especially when you quoted me. But I HAVE agreed with many of your reasons - it's the "Maori are cannibals" argument I found confusing and a bit offensive. Kingsley is 1) a great actor (I adore him in Twelfth Night and have enjoyed him a lot in many other films); 2) bankable (especially after doing Iron Man 3, which he's getting rave reviews for, and I'm thrilled, since it means people who may not have followed Kingsley in his art films or his long, long career will be like "Hey, that dude who played the bad guy in that awesome Iron Man movie this year is in this other movie"); 3) looks a lot like my mental image of Mazer - wiry, tan, hook-nosed, bony featured.
So, it's not that you haven't convinced me about Kingsley doing a great job - I think he will - but it's more that I just didn't think the comment about Maori and cannibalism was helpful.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: As far as the box thing goes, dude, you've not got the guts to talk to me that way in person, and everybody knows it. How about that?
I totally would, if for some inconceivable reason I was forced to have a face-to-face encounter with you. I would be able to say so just as effortlessly in person.
Let's say I wasn't, however. Let's say I had some sort of a social anxiety disorder or was for some reason actually intimidated by you and would avoid having to say it to you in person. What bearing would that have here, at all? What would successfully pulling the internet-tough-guy chest pounding prove? The box thing would be just as dumb, and you would only have proven that when challenged on the validity of your ideas, you like to invent validity through posturing. There is none. It's, like, painfully irrelevant as to whether or not I would tell you to stop the box thing in person. Painfully.
I'm actually mostly just surprised you expected or are playing on the notion that posturing gets you any leeway in this environment. I might as well have some fun with the idea that chestpounding grants any sort of argumentative validity here.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then imagine the possible PR fiasco that might ensue if the cannibalism came to light...
Me, I vividly recall the press conference that Richard Donner had to hold when he was removed from Superman 2 after the gruesome story of the Donner Party came to light.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: [I don't mind admitting when I don't understand something. It's not a subtle ploy, or a rhetorical trick.
Yes it is.
quote: I pretty thoroughly hate both of those things.
No you don't.
Here's proof:
quote: Woah! This really speaks volumes about how reluctant most people are to admit to ignorance. I'm not, though, Orincoro.
This is a rhetorical trick. Specifically it is an ad hominem, it is the implication that because I drew the conclusion that you often use an appeal to credulity or ignorance as a ploy that I am afraid of admitting my ignorance, and am therefore unqualified to assess what you say, or otherwise biased against you, and that therefore my assessment is not worth consideration.
This is what we call "rhetoric," and nobody *doesn't* do it. You might as well hate syntax. It's not a thing to be liked or not liked. It's just a thing.
You may respond with some appeal to the etymology of rhetoric: please don't. Rhetoric is not a communist dictator yelling into a microphone, in the sense that this is not what rhetoric encompasses, no more than it encompasses all speech.
quote: It's just me admitting when something didn't make sense to me.
Sometimes. But not always. You tend to overuse a narrow set of rhetorical tricks because you are so used to them, you don't even think they're tricks. This is what I am pointing out to you, and you helpfully supplied an example of exactly what I meant: an appeal to ignorance that you are even using rhetoric, which is in itself rhetorically loaded.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. I have no particular opinion about how reluctant you may or may not be to admit ignorance.
But the assumption you make when someone else admits ignorance is that it's a trick. I guessed that the reason for this is because you very rarely see someone do it in earnest.
You're looking for nasty subtext and implications where I don't intend any. Misunderstandings are easy, though, so you can pretty much do that all day. All I'm telling you is that you're wasting your time.
Do you really think that all rhetoric is rhetorical tricks? That it's impossible to argue without them? Or did I misunderstand? (Oh no I'm allowing that I may have misunderstood again, how nefarious)
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But the assumption you make when someone else admits ignorance is that it's a trick.
No, this is not my assumption. This is my conclusion. About you. One based on my experiences with you.
quote: I guessed that the reason for this is because you very rarely see someone do it in earnest.
Yes, I very rarely see *you* do it in earnest.
quote: Do you really think that all rhetoric is rhetorical tricks? That it's impossible to argue without them?
In the sense that all persuasive speech is rhetorical no, not all rhetoric is a "trick," nor is any rhetoric really a trick, unless the intent is to use rhetoric to disguise actual intent.
In the sense of how you, Dan_Frank, typically argue, the "trick" involved is that you very often attempt to support your opinions (to argue) by misconstruing the meaning of another person's view of the facts: that is, to attempt to disable another person from arguing by refusing to accept the basis of the argument on one ground our another. I am characterizing this as dishonest because it allows you to pretend to be trying to establish facts (or your own understanding of another person's argument), while you actually try to discourage someone from communicating something that you don't agree with *and* establish your own views on the subject (which nobody has time to argue against, because you "don't understand" the responses).
And occasionally, you leap far enough down that road to start criticizing someone's grammar as a proxy for the quality of their thinking or reasoning, as you did earlier in this discussion. Anything *not* to accept a premise you don't agree with, valid as a premise or not, and allow someone else to make a point based on that premise, that puts you in danger of not keeping up. Of course, all the while, you don't keep up, but you at least think you do.
In a few words, this is what we refer to as "bad faith" argumentation, and it is the resort of weak parties to an argument that nevertheless wish to represent their views, and have no other recourse.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So before I waste my time, let me just ask: is there anything anyone could say at this point to change your mind? Any way you think you could be mistaken? Any way you could have misunderstood me?
I think I already know the answer but I want to be sure.
Because you've laid out a broad characterization above and I disagree with pretty much all of it. You haven't really explained why you think I do this, either. Just laid it out as The Thing That I Do.
Arguing against that is tricky. I think it'd be made trickier because you aren't interested in finding the truth, you're certain you've already found it.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And occasionally, you leap far enough down that road to start criticizing someone's grammar as a proxy for the quality of their thinking or reasoning, as you did earlier in this discussion.
Oh I wanted to respond to this specifically too.
I wasn't saying that Sam's bad sentence structure was a proxy for his bad argument. Hell I had a whole different paragraph for that.
I mentioned the sentence, though, because it's indicative of something else. Here, I'll address Sam directly:
Sam I think that you're usually a clear writer. But I've noticed that sometimes when you put on your professorial Smart Person hat in Serious Discussions the readability of your prose takes a hit.
It's not a horrible nosedive or anything (that's Blayne) and it doesn't mean anything you've said is wrong. But your sentences get longer, and more convoluted. You also start using unnecessarily specialized terminology without explaining, upfront, what you're referring to. That's less of an issue than the long, convoluted sentences, though.
Anyway, it makes it harder to follow you, in my opinion. Just so you know.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not a horrible nosedive or anything (that's Blayne) and it doesn't mean anything you've said is wrong. But your sentences get longer, and more convoluted. You also start using unnecessarily specialized terminology without explaining, upfront, what you're referring to. That's less of an issue than the long, convoluted sentences, though.
Anyway, it makes it harder to follow you, in my opinion. Just so you know.
I agree with this. If you look back at the first page of this thread, you'll see that I also asked Sam to restate a sentence which was borderline unreadable.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I understand the offense. I think if he was a Native American character, people would probably quickly understand why such a thing is unfortunate.
However, at the same time, I think that at some point we do relax our rules.
I agree, and my position is that the rules should be relaxed in each and every way that we can see is beyond how race-swap in its current form reinforces a very marginalizing system that creates negative patterns in the portrayal of minorities in media.
This one, right?
Does it require being put in simpler terms for you? Unlike with the other request for rephrase, nothing in this portion is mis-typed, though there are swype errors below it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Does it require being put in simpler terms for you? Unlike with the other request for rephrase, nothing in this portion is mis-typed, though there are swype errors below it.
Yeah, I think simpler terms would help. What does it mean for us to see that a way of relaxing the rules is beyond how race-swap in its current form reinforces a marginalizing system?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to get in the habit-reputation of negative nancying everything about this movie but hey I gotta say some things
1. bad trailer is bad
2. spoiler trailer is spoiler
3. harrison ford's dialogue just sounds more stiff and forced every year and the dialogue in that trailer kinda gives a good example of that
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Really?!
