eyeboogers wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:58 am
Your notion that "the left" is the enemy of art and free speech is completely bonkers and without historical merit.
I have the distinct impression that people who are passionate about "diversity" (also in the realm of arts), are almost always (somwhat) left. I don''t know if this is researched, but I would bet my life on it. From what Rudagger is saying, I know 99,999999% he did not vote for the former president .
You disagree? You see no correlation between political preference and support for "diversity and sensitivity politics"?
eyeboogers wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:58 am
Your notion that "the left" is the enemy of art and free speech is completely bonkers and without historical merit.
I have the distinct impression that people who are passionate about "diversity" (also in the realm of arts), are almost always (somwhat) left. I don''t know if this is researched, but I would bet my life on it. From what Rudagger is saying, I know 99,999999% he did not vote for the former president .
You disagree? You see no correlation between political preference and support for "diversity and sensitivity politics"?
LateReg wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:03 am
The way I interpret what Rhodes is saying is simply that if there's a mandate that doesn't really fit what an artist is going for, then that's a bad thing, full-stop.
Histeria wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:04 am
I don't think the Jade casting was unfortunate. She's awesome and she's a great character. That in isolation isn't the issue. Neither is the cast being mostly white, I already said that too has artistic merit.
But in context it's ill-judged.
I would say that in context, it isn't ill-judged either. Given the current climate, it is a more provocative, interesting, bold statement to cast her as a prostitute than as a lawyer.
Society may be occupied with female empowerment, but art should also incorporate the indecent, forbidden or flatout immoral aspect of human existence. Women who are abused instead of flourish, blacks who are set up for failure, this is probably more artsy and valuable at the moment than a correct film with a predictable scenario.
eyeboogers wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:58 am
Your notion that "the left" is the enemy of art and free speech is completely bonkers and without historical merit.
I have the distinct impression that people who are passionate about "diversity" (also in the realm of arts), are almost always (somwhat) left. I don''t know if this is researched, but I would bet my life on it. From what Rudagger is saying, I know 99,999999% he did not vote for the former president .
You disagree? You see no correlation between political preference and support for "diversity and sensitivity politics"?
If we’re going down that road I’m pretty sure we could find a correlation between conservatives and people who are uncomfortable seeing black people on their TV screens. I think a lot of things you’ve said about culture being under threat from leftists is paranoid guff, but if it’s any kind of olive branch I fully agree that I would like Lynch to be given artistic freedom. Personally, I don’t think he would balk at the suggestion he keep his eyes open for more diverse talent, but even if he did I believe most networks and streaming services are happy to compensate with diversity in behind-the-scenes roles - if indeed they have any quotas at all.
I mean Brad could be right. But I think that would have to be that there was and that it was cancelled. Because, it's clear something at the very least *was* in the works.
Yeah. But his view on the matter hasn't really changed throughout this the history of this thread from what I gathered while lurking and as a keen follower of his Twitter presence.
