Fans Outraged Gay Actress Ruby Rose Isn't Gay Enough to Play Batwoman

When intersectionality is the enemy of progress

|

Ruby
JIM RUYMEN/UPI/Newscom

Disney's forthcoming film The Jungle Cruise will include a prominent gay character, a first for the company. Sounds like a progressive milestone, right? Not according to the intersectional left: Jack Whitehall, the actor cast in the role, is straight—and, gasp, white—which is very problematic.

The CW fared little better in casting Ruby Rose to portray Kate Kane in its upcoming Batwoman show. The character is a Jewish lesbian; Rose is gender fluid and part of the LGBT community, but not Jewish, which isn't good enough for those who think the actor must check off all the same boxes as the character. Rose was attacked on social media and quit Twitter over the weekend.

Both these incidents follow Scarlett Johansson's decision to quit Rub & Tug, in which the cis white actress had been slated to play a trans man. Eviscerated for taking a role that should have gone to a trans person, Johansson finally backed out of the film—a decision that GLADD hailed as a "game changer" for the trans community, even though the actress's departure means the movie might not even get made.

This feels a little like the debate over cultural appropriation all over again: many on the left, including and especially the campus left, do not believe that people should engage in rituals, or borrow from other traditions, or cook ethnic food, or wear ethnic clothing, unless they were born a member of that tribe. Similarly, an actor shouldn't portray a marginalized person unless they were oppressed in exactly the same way as the character.

But controversies over Rose, Whitehall, and Johansson also reflect the growing influence of "intersectionality," a popular lefty academic theory that came into existence in the late 1980s, and generally makes several claims: various forms of oppression—sexism, racism, anti-gay animus, economic inequality—are both distinct and interrelated; they "stack"; the sole authority on a person's oppression is that person. Thus, in intersectional thinking, we cannot and should not turn to Ruby Rose to tell the story of a Jewish lesbian, even if she's an excellent and hardworking actress who endured some of the same struggles that the character did.

Obviously, it's important to listen to the marginalized, and intersectionality has value to the extent it encourages us to open our eyes to other people's lived experiences—to listen and learn from each other. Acting, though, quite literally demands imitation: informed and respectful imitation, we hope, but imitation nonetheless. As we become more aware of the various kind of oppression that are out there—and adherents of intersectionality are always adding more of them; able-ism and size-ism are on the rise—it's going to be more and more difficult to tell complicated stories if we demand that the people involved are perfect intersectional matches. The likely demise of Rub & Tug (the film is in "limbo," but things don't look good, according to The Wrap) serves as a useful example.

I'm thus quite skeptical we should aspire to build a world where these cultural boundaries are more rigid—where the perfect is the avowed enemy of the good. I'll throw one more recent example of supposedly insensitive casting at you: there is a person who's furious about the rumor that James Bond, who has always been played by white actors and was written as white in the source material, will be played by Idris Elba, a black man, in future film installments.

"A Black James Bond would be an act of dispossession far greater than a flotilla of a million refugees," wrote this person on Twitter. "Refugees are, after all, refugees. James Bond is a symbol of British identity—indeed, the British empire—and of European masculinity writ large."

This person, of course, is alt-right leader Richard Spencer.

NEXT: L.A.'s New Police Chief Pretended To Retire and Got $1.27 Million for It

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Spencer is a leftist. He just thinks Jews rather than whites should be the designated enemy.

    1. I was watching some Netflix documentary on white supremacists in which Spencer makes a short appearance in some candid footage and what struck me is how poshly queer he and his buddies com off, like his whole life is some kind of update of Brideshead Revisited made for the CW network.

      1. I was watching some Netflix documentary on white supremacists in which Spencer makes a short appearance in some candid footage and what struck me is how poshly queer he and his buddies com off, like his whole life is some kind of update of Brideshead Revisited made for the CW network.

        It sure did.
        Pretty good doc too.

    2. Truely, at the ends of the spectrum, the Far-left finds itself back-to-back with the far-right – it turns out the political specturim is a ring.

      1. If you stick to two-dimensional political categorization, that is more or less correct. See horseshoe-theory.

      2. Standard left/right templates are a poor construct indeed. If life is a circle, then why not politics? There are dullards that can’t go bigger than an A/B secenario, and it seems they serve up most of journalism today. Oh, the humanity…

      3. I noticed this about 40 years ago. Both sides will eventually demand a police state enforcing the same tyranny for opposite reasons.

    3. “Obviously, it’s important to listen to the marginalized, and intersectionality has value to the extent it encourages us to open our eyes to other people’s lived experiences”

      The problem for Spencer and all of the racist bigots he hangs out with, is normal people do not think this way. Most especially the (not America) cultures he thinks is better than Western culture, which is literally the only culture in history that gives a rats ass about this nonsense.

  2. Tom Hanks better give back his Oscar. Take that, AIDS boy!

    1. Can you imagine the shit storm the idiot gay community would raise if they made that movie today? Fine, just write gays totally out of movies. There are not enough openly gay actors to fill many parts. So just don’t have them. That way the gays and the trannies won’t feel offended. I am fine with there never being another openly gay or tranny character in a movie again. Everyone wins.

      1. There are not enough openly gay actors to fill many parts.

        There are plenty of openly gay actors. Where this is going to falter and break down is in this insistence that only “trans” actors can play “trans” roles. There isn’t ever going to be a big enough community of “trans” actors famous enough to have star-specific vehicles. If you want to make a movie about a trans-gender person and have anyone watch it, it’s going to involve a non-trans-gender actor playing the part.

        1. There are some openly gay actors but not that many and none of them are particularly big stars. The answer to this whole thing is to not have gay or trans characters and then there is nothing for these people to bitch about.

          1. There are plenty of gay and trans actors.
            They are just not good. Or not good enough to get with workout quotas and such as described in the article.

            In the old days we’d get excited when an actor who looked a little like a character too a part and did a good job with it. Think Jamie Foxx with Ray (Charles). To bad he isn’t blind enough to be able to play the role anymore.

            1. I dunno, Kevin Spacey’s a pretty good actor 😉

            2. Kevin Spacey’s a pretty good actor 😉

              1. He could make a good living playing creepy, molesty white dues, no?

              2. And they better cast him when there is a rapist role! Or it’s just stealing roles from rapists.

        2. The weird thing is – in a normal world, because trans are so small a minority, there should be so few films about them that they absolutely could make them with the few trans actors that would be around.

          Its only in *this* world where too many people confuse ‘I wish I was’ with ‘goddamn it, I am!’

          1. No, probably not, actually.

            The thing is that not only are trans a tiny, tiny minority, they’re a largely dysfunctional tiny, tiny minority. The percentage of the population that consists of trans who aren’t too dysfunctional to employ in film making is absurdly small.

            It’s like, surely the number of alcoholics in America are enough to satisfy the need for actors playing alcoholics. Sure, they are, but you can’t use them because they’re alcoholics.

            1. “but you can’t use them because they’re alcoholics.” They have actually tried this. Gene Wilder wasn’t supposed to play the town drunk in Blazing Saddles initially. They had already started filming and the drunk they did hire (Gig Young) passed out from alcohol withdrawal during a scene. Luckily Wilder was available so that production wasn’t delayed.

              It’s s shame that movie couldn’t be made again today. With the penchant towards remakes, I’d be curious how they could remake that one!

              1. The sheriff is (not) near?

              2. Made me think about Otis from the Andy Griffith Show. Maybe the best comic drunk acting.

                So I checked it out. Hal Smith who played Otis did not drink at all.

                Dean Martin who made a shtick out of drinking did, but not nearly as much as portrayed. It was just a bit. Smoking did him in. He was a great talent and underrated.

      2. I take it the line is that Hanks was acceptable for that role back then, at that level of societal progress, but that it would be scandalous today. Kind of like looking back at the ’47 Dodgers. To them it’s like you’re saying, “Hey now, if Branch Rickey showed up with that team, with one black dude on it, today, can you imagine the shit storm? Whereas clearly it was proper that he was celebrated and considered a hero to liberals, as he was at the time.”

        Actually I take that back. In fact, these days there would indeed be nothing particularly remarkable about a MLB roster with only one black dude on it.

        1. Again, we have made so much progress that you just don’t make the movie because there are no gay male actors who have the star power of Tom Hanks. If you don’t have any characters that are gay, you don’t have this problem.

        2. MLB teams often have black players, but many aren’t “African-American,” tending to be from places like the Dominican Republic. Still,

          Major League Baseball revealed an increase to the percentage of black players from the U.S. and Canada on opening day active rosters, reaching the highest level since at least 2012.

          The league {sic} announced the number rose 8.4 percent and was based on the 750 players who were active March 29. It did not include the 127 who were disabled, suspended or on paternity leave.

          The Sporting News, 11 April 2018 See: https://outline.com/LkmSfx

          (MLB has 2 leagues, hence the “sic.”)

          So, in baseball terms, was Roberto Clemente “intersectional” – black and Puerto Rican?

      3. Nobody is outraged as you, John, and I find it funny that you’re steaming at the ears over phantom people’s perceived outrage.

        The gay community is mostly easygoing. Hardly the hive mind of the PC police. We have drag queens for god’s sake.

        1. Go tell that to Scarlett Johanson and this woman. The gay community is not easy going. Some are. But many are crazy neurotic fucks like you. There is no reason for anyone in Hollywood would write a movie with a gay character at this point. Just write gays out of the popular culture and you don’t have to worry about finding a gay enough actor. I am totally fine with that and it is apparently what gays want.

          1. That’s one way it could go. Or the activists could achieve some steps in reducing the amount of discrimination in movie casting. You seem upset that people are engaging in activism at all. What does it matter to you of Scarlett dropped out due to pressure from said activism? Why do you throw pots and pans around and cry like a toddler over something that doesn’t affect you in the slightest?

            FTR I have no problem with straight playing gay or trans or whatever. It’s called acting, after all. But that’s not actually the core issue.

            Again, you’re more outraged over nothing than any of these people are. It’s just the sad, sad hypocrisy of your every waking breath–it tickles me.

            1. “Or the activists could achieve some steps in reducing the amount of discrimination in movie casting.”

              Isn’t the point of casting to be, you know, discriminating?

              But I don’t think most gay people are hung up on this stuff.
              The problem is the activist community, probably 1% of the 3% of the population that’s gay.
              Believe it or not, they’re going to make things tougher for regular gay folk from here forward.
              It is the activist community that insists that a person’s identity is “a gay, who happens to be named Tony” rather than “Tony, who happens to be gay”.
              Most of the gay people I’ve known were individuals first, and representatives of an abstract identity class (at most) second.
              Unfortunately, activists insist that a person’s identity be defined by orientation rather than their own personality. It benefits nobody but the activists.

              1. The goal is actually to get more minorities hired in a notoriously discriminatory industry. It’s not something that’s meant to be important to straight white men, as they’ve already achieved fair representation (and then some).

                The thing about identity is that straight white men have a ridiculously hard time empathizing with the fact that it’s not we who impose our identities on ourselves just for the fun of it; we have to walk around in the world knowing that mainstream culture tags us with a label immediately. There are still plenty of Johns out there who throw tantrums when they see gay people acting gay in public.

                1. they’ve already achieved fair representation

                  Define “fair representation”. Seriously.

                  gay people acting gay in public

                  What does it mean to act gay? Seriously.

                  1. Let’s put it this way: a fair amount of representation. There is no problem of white male underreresentation in Hollywood, and there never will be, so the problem being discussed doesn’t involve them.

                    Acting gay can mean a man being effeminate, a woman being butch, or two members of the same sex expressing affection. People get the shit beat out of them for these things.

                    1. “There is no problem of white male underreresentation in Hollywood, and there never will be,”

                      That, of course, is not because white males aren’t under represented in Hollywood. They are, by a considerable margin, so that other groups can be over represented. (It’s a zero sum game, after all.)

                      That’s because it’s officially designated as not a problem.

                    2. I don’t care who you are if you are being overly affectionate in public. I don’t want to see anyone feeling up their partner, gay or straight. So if you see my look of derision with your hand on your partners ass as you walk, try not assuming it is because you are gay.

                      Come back with your extreme edge case of someone got beaten because someone else used it as a means for existing violence. I expect it. What I do know is that folks that do that are just assholes. Those folks are always just looking for something that is different from them to make excuses for being assholes. Humans look natively for things that differentiate. Assholes take action on it. Some might blame their heightened awareness of their primitive brain.

                    3. That’s not acting gay dude. That’s acting effeminate – or butch. That’s different.

                      Don’t confuse gender for sexuality.

                2. The white people you see dominating the entertainment industry are basically the 1% of the already very small talent pool. You could say similar things about black representation in th NBA.

                  Representation is a subjective standard, especially in any art form. There are tv shows is Asia that have nothing but Asian people. It bothers no one. My parents lived here for 20 years and do not watch 90% of anything from American TV or Hollywood. They most watch dramas and variety shows from Asia. “There HAS to be more Latinos in our tv shows because representation” is an arbitrary mandate.

                  The only thing that matters is the freedom for different cultures to intermingle or include others in their lives. That’s it. Americans almost never anything subtitled, even when 100% of the cast is non white and the storyline is more representative of their culture than anything Hollywood can produce. Diversity is not a primary selling point for most American consumers. The market will conduct itself accordingly.

                3. Nice try, but we all know that the goal is the demonization of white people.

        2. So “easy-going” they can’t or won’t check the idiots that are busily ruining their hard-won gains. *hat-tip

        3. I agree these twitterings are from people have nothing better than to get enraged on the internet and they stir up shit with their internet hitsquads to try and bring down whoever doesn’t agree with them. They make money from it and get more internet famous which gets them more twits following them. They are basically useless human beings that add nothing to society. Much like most of us rambling here on Reason comments section.

      4. There are more than enough openly gay actors to play all the gay characters Hollywood would need, if they didn’t deliberately over-represent gay characters by a factor of 5-10 over their proportion of the population.

        The only reason there’s a shortage is that they’re deliberately portraying a world that doesn’t actually exist.

      5. I’m so sick of all the whining about the homos. Can’t we get a cure already? Then everyone can be straight (except hot chicks) and all this endless bitching about who 2% of the population likes to fuck can go away forever.

        On a side note, leftist gays who appear to invest their entire existence in their sexual orientation are pathetic. Without fixating on their sexuality, they have and are nothing.

    2. Tom Hanks wasn’t even born until 1956 – how the hell could he save Private Ryan?

      Couldn’t they have given the role to someone who actually fought in WWII?

      1. ^ THIS

        Steven Spielberg was gaslighting us with his agist rewriting of history.

      2. I was upset when I found out Joerg Stadler isn’t actually a Nazi.

      3. And Matt Damon has never been to Mars. Couldn’t they find an actor who was actually stranded there?

        1. He was unavailable, due to still being stranded there.

      4. GOD DAMNIT! Mel Gibson is NOT Scottish!

    3. [cancels audition for Ayn Rand – The Musical]

  3. So I guess no more WWII movies, since only German Nazis could play German Nazis and Italian Fascists play Italian Fascists. Only adults with Polio could play FDR as well, I suppose.

    1. Nobody should be allowed to play Superman unless they are bullet proof and can fly (except in the interest of diversity a black, Lesbian, transsexual might be acceptable)

      1. Only actual Kryotonians. And don’t anyone try and sneak in some fucking Daxamite poser either. That shit won’t stand!

    2. Well, according to SJWs there’s no shortage of Nazis to take those roles…

      1. But is literally Hitler available?

        1. He can easily be resurrected. It’s done all the time.

          1. Or go find him in Brazil.

            1. I thought Jeremy Black went to New York.

            2. I thought he went to Argentina.

        2. Presumably they’d accept his being played by Trump?

            1. It’s a shame Ronald Reagan didn’t live to portray literally Hitler.

    3. Well, its certainly not hard to find fascists in Italy today.

    4. Cue Special Polo Olympics & Pallio for Italian ponies with polio.

  4. “Similarly, an actor shouldn’t portray a marginalized person unless they were oppressed in exactly the same way as the character.”

    Can we drop the act of trying to understand the mental gymnastics that lead to their dumb worldview?

    The actor is being hired to *act* the part of a comic book hero. No one in this situation has been *marginalized* or faced any *oppression*.

    1. “and intersectionality has value to the extent it encourages us to open our eyes to other people’s lived experiences?to listen and learn from each other.”

      There are no *lived experiences*- it’s FICTION!

      1. I find your dismissive attitude toward the lived experiences of comic-book superheros to be problematic.

        1. If my family was wiped out in a trapeze “accident” my choice of local billionaires would be Mark Cuban or Jerry Jones. Hmm.

          1. I want Jerry Jones playing Robin ASAP.

          2. I would just sue the circus.

      2. I’m pretty sure Tobey McGuire never delivered pizzas or was bitten by a radioactive spider.

    2. Christian Bale went ‘method’ for Batman Begins.

      He even had his parents murdered in an alleyway.

    3. You can’t invent a backstory for a fictional character that some available actor hasn’t had the “lived-experience” of. It is known.

    4. So they’re saying the actor needs to be tortured and crippled by a psycopathic villain with a clown motif in order to play Batwoman?

      Jared Leto is certainly the actor for the job. Too bad the version of the Joker he plays sucks.

      1. “Too bad the Joker sucks.” Fixed that for you.

        It’s a shit screen character, the exact same mustache twirling nogoodnik from the early silent movies, only the suit color is different. Any asshole can play that role. Saying he’s ‘crazy’ instead of ‘villainous’ isn’t the brilliant character distinction you think it is. Every line is just his main character motivation restated over and over again ‘I’m evil and crazy… I’m evil and crazy…’

        However, clearly someone at DC has recognized a long standing tragedy in the ‘bat people’ screen properties, and is now trying to (over) compensate by hiring Ruby Rose… that the ‘bat costume neck’ does not work in real life, and only by casting someone with a freakishly scrawny neck, they can avoid the issue as exaggerated by Affleck’s latest work.

      2. That’s Batgirl/Oracle, not Batwoman.

  5. @negative-purple:

    actresses: trained to identify as whatever the fuck they want.

  6. the actor must check off all the same boxes as the character

    Unless it’s Hamilton.

    1. Or any other black person playing a historically white character.

      1. It is another example of turn about it fair play. Minor grumbling about the Human Torch and Heimdall being black from the right, who were told to shove it. I have no sympathy for the lefties getting eaten by their own.

    2. Hey, Hamilton cast its Puerto Rican writer as the West Indian title character. So close enough geographically I guess.

      1. Fact: Pop history is the shittiest brand of history

        Just ten years ago, when the John Adams miniseries came out on HBO everyone was raging about how terrible Hamilton was (who was not presented in a kind light), but now if you don’t love Hamilton than you’re literally Burr

        1. You’re either woke or you’re Burr.

        2. when the John Adams miniseries came out on HBO everyone was raging about how terrible Hamilton was

          True, and while you are correct about pop history, the John Adams miniseries was considerably more historical than Hamilton, which grants Hamilton a greatly outsized role in the Revolution, and attempts to turn him into a quasi-messianic figure who legitimized the Revolution just by being part of it.

          1. I never saw Hamilton. I like the HBO miniseries which was based on an actually researched book of history.

            1. I know the soundtrack, and I’ve seen the “kids” version. It doesn’t go much into the ideology of the Revolution. It’s mostly “Hamilton is Great! Hamilton was in the Revolution! The Revolution succeeded and was Great because Hamilton is Great!”

              OTOH, I like that Hamilton has made it okay again for progressives to like the Revolution, the Founding Fathers, and some of their ideals, so while aspects of it annoy me I think it’s a net gain.

              1. There’s a kid’s version? What is that and how did you see it?

                1. There’s a kid’s version? What is that and how did you see it?

                  You must not have kids. When you put your kid in a drama class, what they’ll perform is a “Broadway Junior” version of a famous musical. They take a famous musical and edit it down to about an hour, and smooth out stuff that isn’t quite as “kid friendly.”

                  Amusingly enough, the production I saw was pretty much 100% white, with the kids trying really hard to imitate a Harlem accent while rapping.

                  1. I did not know those existed. I thought schools just performed the regular shows (I don’t remember the length; I wasn’t in drama club myself in HS, just saw the shows) maybe bowdlerized for the edgiest ones. (Of course everything is probably edgy nowadays. The Js in Hair would probably be one of the few things never on the chopping block–in pretty much any musical from any era. Certainly not that number in Hair where the black girls and white girls are lusting after the boys of the opposite race! And calling gay sex “Sodomy” is so triggering! Don’t even get me started on the appropriated “tribal” themes…) The big thing I knew you had to watch is to make sure there isn’t another production of the same play anywhere near the area. (Maybe this is why I’ve never heard of baby Hamilton; obviously there are none in New York.) How does it differ from the grown-up version anyway?

                    That is fucking hilarious with the accents and I totally want to see it with my own eyes if it is still running; I wouldn’t have guessed they’d go that route. Actually Lin-Manuel Miranda is from Washington Heights, which was actually quite gritty especially at the time, but he himself grew up bougie as fuck and sounds it! No fronting for him (unlike so many of my UES friends)! My boy knows his real people, and he knows you don’t gotta sound hood at all to flow!

                    1. How does it differ from the grown-up version anyway?

                      They pretty much just do the first half, and stick to the most famous songs.

                      Actually Lin-Manuel Miranda is from Washington Heights, which was actually quite gritty especially at the time, but he himself grew up bougie as fuck and sounds it!

                    2. Wow – the whole second half of my comment got eaten.

                      The gist was that his father and sister run a political consulting group for NY Democrats, but they tend to represent a faction of Democrats who chafe against some of the crazier things coming from the left and who caucus with Republicans sometimes.

                      While I think he’s over-rated and that Hamilton is a lot more politically partisan than a lot of people realize, he seems like basically an okay guy, and I’ll always have a soft spot for the Moana soundtrack.

        3. Oh what did they say about him? I’m surprised.

          I feel like Big History (or at least Big Public Intellectual History–comprised of the kind of historian who would actually fill out one of those “rank the presidents” surveys) has had a huge hardon for Hamilton for as long as it has existed. Basically of course it loves Great Leaders who have had the Vision to see bold new possibilities for what government can do, and gives a reluctant and timid American public the Courage to embrace that potential. Who mobilizes the country–exactly as for a nation’s highest calling, war–to slay our civilization’s abstract domestic enemies.

          1. …Anyway Hamilton, the disappointed monarchist, is of course like the OG foreshadower of that mentality. Did you know he was in favor of all sorts of things way ahead of his time, that in his time were perversely considered elitist, illiberal, and plutocratic? Of course now we know better.

            He did have that inconvenient feud with Jefferson, but he pretty much gets off the hook for sticking his neck out for him against a guy he preferred politically, simply because he knew the other guy was a dick. It’s almost too perfect a demonstration of character, even before he got killed by him! Also did you know Hamilton was way better on slavery?

            The Great Man worship industrial complex has been pushing their “contrarian” Hamilton-vs.-Jefferson assessment for more than a century now. It has, indeed, managed to maintain a semblance of contrarianism because indeed there is enough America left in America that we have remained stubbornly attached to honoring the slave-schtupping old redhead.

            1. I heard an interesting podcast recently about the conflict between Hamilton and Madison and how it continues pretty much to this day, but the guy pointed out that the reason the conflict is so intractable is that while Hamilton was right that the infant country did benefit from the protectionist and crony-tastic policies of Hamilton, Madison was also correct that it led to a great deal of corruption, unnecessary public spending, and unhealthy government meddling in the economy.

              1. Linkses! Linkses!

                1. It was this one, if I remember.

            2. Hamilton struck me as the kind of guy who’d plant an acorn in order to get a mighty oak, all the while assuring the folks who didn’t WANT a mighty oak that it was just a seed, after all.

        4. the Left discovered that Hamilton gave us big government, so now he’s cool.

          1. Yeah – I can’t help but suspect that that is what makes him the most appealing of the Founding Fathers for the left.

    3. Pfftt…..

      ‘Hammilton’ is better……

      http://www.adultswim.com/video…..hammilton/

  7. As a Totally Real Gay Female Bat, I am outraged that a Humanoid would play me !!!

    1. I was chuckling to myself about Gertrude Stein as Batwoman.

    2. The Ballad of Bat Boy takes an unexpected twist.

  8. Progress? The best actor/actress available should play the part, it should not be based on their cultural or sexual identity.

    1. Racist!

      1. Your forgot transphobic.

        1. I’m transfatphobic, ‘fatphobic’ for short.

          Okay – I don’t like fat chicks.

          1. Transfatphobic means you’re afraid of being suprised by fat dicks.

            1. That is a common phobia in prison.

          2. Once again the timing has been awful for libertarians and our perpetually missed moment?s. If we had only managed to run the clock out for a few more years, the FDA would have never been permitted to implement its cisfatist discriminatory ban in these more enlightened times.

          3. I like them. And skinny chicks. Thicc chicks. Y’all. Short. Pale. Dark. MILFs. I draw the line at GILFs.

            Kinda depends on mood.

    2. I’ll bet you think the most qualified person should get the job, too.
      Well I just, just, can’t …

      Hitler!

      1. Horrible idea. Hitler is not the most qualified to play Kate Kane. He’d indeed make an adorable Jewish lesbian if he just lost the mustache, but physical appearance is not everything in this industry.

  9. Sounds like a progressive milestone, right?

    No, sounds like a very creepy identity politics milestone.

    1. Hey, a character from a designated identity group that is stuck into a movie for no reason other than virtue signaling is what quality art is made of.

    2. Should have been a milestone. Turned out to be a millstone.

      1. Meh. This’ll die down in a few days, by the time the movie comes out people will have largely forgotten about it. There might be another news cycle or two about it at that point, but it probably wont’ change anything.

        Y’all give the twitter-mob way too much credit.

  10. Rose was attacked on social media and quit Twitter over the weekend.

    If a category 5 twitstorm falls in the woods, get out of the glass kitchen.

  11. I’m not seeing blue checkmarks on the included tweets. If twitwit tells you she loves you, check it out!

  12. >>>Obviously, it’s important to listen to the marginalized

    what is marginalized?

    1. It’s when someone can’t afford real butter.

  13. It’s almost like part of acting is being able to portray a character that you are not.

  14. It doesn’t matter what you are. It only matters what you identify as.

  15. Many of the anti-whatever outrage is just ginned-up hype.

    There was a lot of hand-wringing during the Cosby Show in the 80s that the family doesn’t accurately portray a real-life black experience but I only recall the media analysis of it rather than actual complaints about the black family being yuppies.

  16. “”..do not believe that people should engage in rituals, or borrow from other traditions, or cook ethnic food, or wear ethnic clothing, unless they were born a member of that tribe. “”

    Due to my not all that unique change of birth, the comfort food of my culture consists of… cheeseburgers, tacos, sushi, and fried ricet. Yet due to my skin color I am only allowed to ever cook and eat one of them.

    Fuck progressives.

    p.s. To be fair, my not so unique culture also include dolmas and beerocks as comfort food.

    1. >>>beerocks

      grandma made them. yum.

    2. cheeseburgers, tacos, sushi, and fried ricet.

      Rice-T, great name for an Asian rapper.

      1. Or a Category 5 twitstorm.

      2. Featuring special guest Sue-She

      3. “Rice-T, great name for an Asian rapper.”

        Or his Caucasian imitator, Vanilla Rice.

        1. Vanirra Lice!

    3. Meh. It’s just another excuse to stomp on someone for being ‘bad’. Being so provincial as to say, “No, absolutely not” when face to face with bulgogi or bo ssam would also be beyond the pale.

      It’s Calvinball.

    4. When I was growing up, I was taught that immigrants come to the United States, and they bring the best of their culture with them to share with everyone, and they then partook of the cultures of the people who are here. This was called “the melting pot” because everyone melted together.

      In other words, cultural appropriation *is* American culture.

      Those who are telling us we can’t appropriate culture are straight-up Anti-American, no to ways about it!

  17. I wonder what the “intersectionalists” would say if a straight actor refused to play a gay character because the character is gay.

    1. Triggered.

    2. *giggle*

  18. You can find outrage about anything. There’s only a vocal small minority that’s angered over this whose complaints are being amplified just by easy access to media.

    1. I love trolling those losers. Their outrage is hilarious.

  19. I am actually quite shocked that the Jews still have this kind of intersectional status left in the bank at this late date. Can’t the producers just say they auditioned tons of Jewish actresses, but none would take full responsibility for her genocidal control over United States foreign policy?

  20. Disney’s forthcoming film The Jungle Cruise will include a prominent gay character, a first for the company.

    So Ken wasn’t gay?

    1. Disney did a remake of The Wizard of Oz a few years back. There were definitely a few friends of Dorothy in that.

  21. If we have to pay attention to the intersexual police or whatever whenever any random tweeter gets an outrage boner, then you guys are responsible for all the stuff the Nazis say.

      1. Run with an outrage boner? I can do it in an emergency but I prefer to wait it out as a rule.

        1. I think of it as the run up to the pole vault

        2. It’s similar to a fear boner………

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uWNVYYKkBno

    1. Don’t you already hold the right accountable for that? Do we need to go back to check the videotape?

      1. The right is already a fringe element, but they’re permitted to have their own fringe. Everyone to the left of John McCain gets implicated when the lefty wackos do something wacko. At least that’s how I feel.

        1. For a fringe element, they sure do seem to win an awful lot of elections

          1. Far-right movements taking over countries is nothing new.

            1. Like Venezuela and Mexico?

            2. The Overton Window continues to shift. Anyone to the Right is now “far Right”.

              1. Yeah it continued to shit to the right until a Nazi sympathizer was elected president. Perhaps after an election cycle or two we’ll have evidence that it has shifted back somewhat to sanity.

                Reagan would be booted out of the GOP today, etc., etc.

                  1. Rouse me when we elect a president who is sympathetic to antifa.

                    1. When we do elect such a president, you will deny to the hilt that he is actually sympathetic to antifa and then change the subject about “both sides”.

                    2. If the US ever gets a government that openly endorses violent tactics by private citizens to achieve political ends… oh wait we already have that.

                    3. Funny how the only violent people out there are progtards like you. I do hope you keep it up though. Soon the public will demand progressives be dealt with using any means necessary.

                      When that happens, progressives are going to be very unhappy.

                    4. Rouse me when we elect a president who is sympathetic to antifa.

                      Do you mean “sympathetic” in the “refuse to quickly and explicitly condemn” sense that you mean when you use it to describe Trump?

                      If so, this would describe every Democrat currently in the running.

                      Or do you mean in the “explicitly endorsing” sense that you always pretend Trump does but never has in fact done?

                    5. Trump has condemned “racism on all sides,” which is a moderately loud dog whistle. That’s this year. Last year he accomplished what many consider his most shameful moment when he equivocated about the same event. Even though the Nazi crowd was small, they still had Trump signs. Did he condemn that? Or does he realize that without the Nazis, he’s toast?

                      And then there’s the concentration camps.

                    6. Gotta love the dog whistles. They explain away all lack of evidence

                    7. So it’s the first one – gotcha.

                    8. If you don’t see Trump as a willing ally of white nationalists then you’re just not paying attention or are stupid. His entire political strategy is to get those morons in a tizzy over brown people. I don’t care if he’s an actual white nationalist, but you can’t with a straight face deny that he’s been doing Southern Strategy for Dummies ever since his fat ass got off that escalator.

                    9. The Southern Strategy is a myth that isn’t supported by the Republican party’s electoral results until the mid 90’s. In order to believe that the Southern Strategy is real, we need to accept that the South was more racist in the mid 90’s then it was in the 70’s and 80’s

                    10. You can call Trump a racist, but you should have something to back it up besides “dog whistles” that only seem audible among rich white liberals.

                      Why can’t we just all agree that he’s dumb? I doubt there is a lot of disagreement with that.

                      But, instead we need to pretend that he is a notorious bigot, despite being praised by Jesse Jackson just ten years ago, and that half of the country are unrepentant bigots.

                      These are delusional fantasies

                    11. 40% tops.

                      We hear it because we’re sensitive to it. You don’t hear it because you are in active denial. I don’t know what’s in Trump’s soul (probably a the charred remains of a cheeseburger), but I do know that when he says “low-IQ” and only applies it to black people, it’s a fucking dog whistle.

                      And by Southern Strategy I mean appealing to white racism in order to win elections and pass an agenda by making white racists think the social safety net is a giveaway to brown people. If you don’t see this politics going on as we speak, then, again, there’s something wrong with your eyes and/or ears.

                    12. >>>white nationalists

                      thought the lesson of yesterday was “dude that’s like 6 people and a bloodhound”

                    13. thought the lesson of yesterday was “dude that’s like 6 people and a bloodhound”

                      ^ This. Yet somehow these people are a very, very important voting block.

                      Tony – have you ever read this?

                    14. I am the last person who would want to let Trump take all the heat for his party’s long history of appealing to white racism. They’re not getting off that easy.

                    15. Tony|8.13.18 @ 3:58PM|#

                      Yeah it continued to shit to the right until a Nazi sympathizer was elected president. Perhaps after an election cycle or two we’ll have evidence that it has shifted back somewhat to sanity.

                      Reagan would be booted out of the GOP today, etc., etc.

                      Tony|8.13.18 @ 5:54PM|#

                      I am the last person who would want to let Trump take all the heat for his party’s long history of appealing to white racism.

                    16. I’d love to see some evidence of this. The Democrat platform for the past 20 years has explicitly stated they are in favor of race-based discrimination. I assume you fight that just as hard, right?

                    17. The adjective form is “Democratic” you fucking hillbilly.

                    18. No Tony, you blithering idiot, it isn’t. It’s just democrat.

                      You really need to learn your place. And it isn’t correcting anyone.

                    19. It isn’t meant as a pejorative. The DNC call themselves Democrats, and in modern English proper adjectives group often just use the noun unmodified. E.g. Chicago deep dish pizza, Boston salt water taffy, Starbucks latte, Arkansas whetstones, Harvard Online Courses, etc.

                      Incidentally you say “white people” a few posts ago which is a pejorative because you are specifically saying “people with white skin”(which incidentally is no one I have ever met) whereas “White people” refers to people of European descent.

                    20. “I am the last person who would want to let Trump take all the heat for his party’s long history of appealing to white racism. They’re not getting off that easy.”

                      Unlike your party, which catered to anti black eugenecists and created runs the Klan. Among so many things in its shameful, racist history. Like your master, FDR, amd his policy of internment.

                      Tony, you are not against racism and oppression. You just want to be the one holding the whip, or running the gas chamber. As long as you’re the one oppressing or committing genocide you’re just fine with it. Same goes with every other progressive too.

                    21. It is said that Nixon won the South because he appealed to racists, the so-called “Southern Strategy”. I have looked at the map where Nixon won, and discovered that he won the South because two racists — one of them a Democrat — split the vote. In a couple of Southern States, the third party candidate actually won a few Electoral College votes.

                    22. “If you don’t see Trump as a willing ally of white nationalists then you’re just not paying attention or are stupid. His entire political strategy is to get those morons in a tizzy over brown people. I don’t care if he’s an actual white nationalist, but you can’t with a straight face deny that he’s been doing Southern Strategy for Dummies ever since his fat ass got off that escalator.”

                      This is progressive gospel.

                      It is a fantasy, wholly created by progressive neurosis, that has now come to occupy the place of reality in progressive perspective.

                      You know what it’s called when fantasy takes the place of reality?

                      Psychosis

                    23. Another reason why the progtards should be destroyed.

                    24. Tony, you need to stop trying to correct people. You are a lying, stupid, piece of shit. Your information is either just plain wrong, or you’re outright lying.

                    25. Trump’s toast without all 24 Nazis? Sure Tony.

                1. Tony, you have never been on the right.

                2. When did George Soros get elected?

                3. Stupid Tony, a Nazi regime would be a massive shift to the left. As they are SOCIALISTS.

        2. At least that’s how I feel.

          Well, by all means proceed to attack some random people, then, as long as you “feel like” they’re responsible for your personal sense of persecution.

          1. John’s up there.

            1. John’s up there.

              I don’t always disagree with John, but John’s rabid homophobia is hard to not notice, so I 100% understand you having a personal problem with John.

              1. John is perfectly willing to live and let live where gays are concerned though. Tony is not willing to do the same for those with whom he disagrees. Tony is a progtard slaver.

        3. The right is already a fringe element,

          Slow down there, spinach chin, who said the future of the party is essentially The Cultural Revolution?

        4. Tony, it’s reasonable to blame all of you since you are all drones in a hive mind.

          1. Sad but true.

            See above.

            And notice precisely who are the people responding to “dog whistles”

    2. only the stuff in english, my conversational german is rusty.

  22. “…intersectionality has value to the extent…”

    …that it identifies total lunatics who nobody with any sense will pay any attention to.

  23. There are things that are core to a character, and things that are not. Being white is not core to James Bond. Being British IS. Idris Elba is a British black man, and it’s the capital B that makes the difference.

    To compare, Adam West was once offered the role of James Bond, but he turned it down, as he felt it would be insincere for an American to play the part. Similarly, when Captain America was put into production, the casting call was restricted to Americans, as it would be just wrong for a Brit, an Aussie, or any other nationality to play Steve Rogers.

    On the other hand, you get into the point of being ridiculous. Acting is the art of pretending to be someone you are not. Religion and sexuality can be acted much better than skin tone.

    1. Louis CK cast a black woman as his ex-wife in his show despite their biological daughters being played by blonde white girls. It added a soupcon of surrealism that fit with the show, but otherwise I don’t think anyone was maimed or killed by the decision, and I suspect the same would be the case if RuPaul were hired to play James Bond. It’s just playing.

      1. Louis CK cast a black woman as his ex-wife in his show

        Was the before or after he forced her into a bathroom and made her watch him masturbate?

        1. I love stand-up. I rewatch comedy specials all the time. I haven’t been able to rewatch his yet. You?

    2. I rather liked Lazenby’s Bond

      1. I’d like to see Bond played by that Lost in Space robot.

      2. Lazenby had a great script. I love Bond films but his was the only Bond film with a real sense of humanity.

      3. I would like everyone I socialize with to be played by hot looking nymphomaniacs.

    3. Ideas Elba is too old. His hair’s already gray.

      A Bond has to be young enough to carry the franchise for at least three or four films. If he plays Bond in the next film he’ll already be older than Roger Moore was when he debuted in Live and Let Die and everyone agrees he was already past it.

      1. Idris, not Ideas.

        Ducking autocorrect.

        1. I don’t favor Idris but not for that reason. Old is not as old as old used to be in days of old. Courtney Cox is Golden Girls age. All our top presidential candidates were just way older than the oldest ever had been before–and certainly way older than when it was this huge deal when Reagan was that old. Daniel Craig was pretty damn craggy looking…well, pretty much from when he started his career as an actor; if Idris is healthy enough I don’t see why he couldn’t pull it off.

          I guess I mostly oppose Idris because I just don’t see him as a proper Bond. I vote the dude from the Tanqueray commercials.

      2. I was fine with Idris Elba as Roland Deschain, but Bond is expressly Scottish and of an ancestry that makes little sense for a black person. He’s also a little lomg in the tooth for such a physical role. One that he would be expected to play for ten years or more.

    4. In the United Kingdom of intersectionality, does Irish or Scottish = British? I know I’ve been corrected at least once for every permutation.

      I think Idris Elba would be wrong as Bond for simple continuity reasons. This is something I think lots of people forget, overlook, or ascribe to latent racism or whatever. Plenty of people get pissed when a TV show substitutes one actor for another even just in voice over. For a ‘new to the screen’ and/or non-cultural character like Batwoman it’s one thing but for a long-running or culturally-oriented character like Bond, it’s a different story. Nobody would want to see John Shaft played by a white American, even if he’s been played by 5 different black actors.

      1. In the United Kingdom of intersectionality, does Irish or Scottish = British?

        Scottish = British; Irish =/= British.

        The key is that Britain is the island that contains England, Scotland, and Wales.

        Plenty of people get pissed when a TV show substitutes one actor for another even just in voice over. For a ‘new to the screen’ and/or non-cultural character like Batwoman it’s one thing but for a long-running or culturally-oriented character like Bond, it’s a different story.

        So Bond should still be played by Connery?

        Wasn’t Lazenby Australian?

        1. There’s about 1,300 people in Ulster who are greatly offended by that generalization.

          1. I am being a bit generic, but the number of people who consider Ireland “British” is vanishingly small, and there are far more people in Ireland who are far more offended at being considered “British” than there are people in Ireland who are offending at being called “not British.”

        2. Scottish = British; Irish =/= British.

          Right, so Pierce Brosnan isn’t a ‘British Bond’ either.

          So Bond should still be played by Connery?

          No, I mean switching race runs afoul of deus ex machina in a way same race, same ‘nationality’, different actor does not (necessarily).

          1. No, I mean switching race runs afoul of deus ex machina in a way same race, same ‘nationality’, different actor does not (necessarily).

            Piers Brosnan, Sean Connery, and Roger Moore are all the same race?

            I know some Irish who would like to have a word with you . . .

            1. Piers Brosnan, Sean Connery, and Roger Moore are all the same race?

              I think I plead ignorance when we started. I believed what you said to be the case, Scottish and English, being from the same island were British.

              Ben of Houston|8.13.18 @ 3:28PM|#

              Being white is not core to James Bond. Being British IS. Idris Elba is a British black man, and it’s the capital B that makes the difference.

              And, my point being, being white is more core to James Bond than being British considering the number of Bonds we’ve had who were all white but not exactly British.

              1. I stand corrected on the “British” part due to the Irish Brosnan. Lazenby doesn’t count because that movie was horrible (though Australia at least still recognizes the queen).

                Question: does anyone know what is the proper collective term for “Person from the British Isles”?

            2. Piers Brosnan, Sean Connery, and Roger Moore are all the same race?

              I know some Irish who would like to have a word with you . . .

              Stupid ones, yes?

              Because it’d have to be very stupid Irish people who didn’t understand that Irish is an ethnicity. not a race.

      2. There is no continuity for more than a couple of bond films anyway. He’ll be a great Bond if he ever plays him.

    5. Idris Elba will be an awesome Bond, so long as it’s James Bond and not Black Bond

      1. Like all Bond films, it needs to be about the character – not the color of his skin

        1. The culture doesn’t need a black bond, we already have Black Dynamite.

    6. In this reality, you are making a racist suggestion that Elba cannot play Bond. It is also racist to suggest that a white man could play Shaft.

      I realize there is no internal consistency there, but our reality is apparently run by drooling morons.

    7. But somehow Superman is British.

    8. A black man can’t play James Bond, British or not, for the same reason that a black man couldn’t play Robert Neville or James West.

      The characters are written with a past that matters to the slice of the character one sees in each outing of the character.

      There are elements of being Bond that a black man could not have experienced because they’re black.

      To play Bond, Elba would have to play him as if he were white–which he could do, but what then is the point of having a black person in the role?

      Will Smiths ‘Raceswap Remakes’ tried to take advantage of having a black man in the role……and failed miserably. Because the character was not written to be black, the reactions, internal dialogues and feelings were not informed by being part of a black family or community–and it showed. Jim West’s easy cockiness was replaced with ‘swagger’ which comes not from over confidence but from proving one is not inferior. And Robert Neville was just a name in ‘I Am Legend’–the character was gone.

      Idris Elba should refuse the role, if offered.

      1. This is pretty similar to what I was going to say. It would need not just a great actor, and I think Elba could hold his own, but I think it would also need a fantastic writer and director. Even if all the pieces came together, they’d be walking a thin line between a ‘Bond, Uncle Tom Bond’ and ‘Black Bond’. Vodka martinis, Aston Martins, and PPKs go along with the role of Bond and cast certain types of people, even of the same race, in a bad or cheesy light and without those elements, it’s not a Bond movie. Elba’s certainly above Ewan McGregor or David Spade, but none of them are right for the role of Bond.

  24. various forms of oppression?sexism, racism, anti-gay animus, economic inequality

    Godfuckingdamnit Robby!

  25. Hell, kd lange is still around. Go hire her. That should be gay enough for anyone.

    1. she’s geriatric at this point; i don’t think she’s going to be much for swinging from building to building with their batapaults.

  26. those who think the actor must check off all the same boxes as the character

    will be tots disappointed in a few years when all actors are CGI.

    1. I said it here first – they’re gonna be fucked if they ever want to remake The Helen Keller Story.

      Not to mention, there goes historical dramas. How you gonna find a dead guy with a big hole in his head to play Abraham Lincoln?

  27. I object to the hideous tattoos.

  28. Not only does ruby rose not identify as a lesbian but she’s not Jewish either.

    I failed intersectional mathematics. Don’t these criteria Adam Sandler, Seth Rogan, Paul Rudd, etc. ahead of Ruby Rose for the part of Batwoman?

    1. I’m sure anyone of them would identify as lesbian if that were asked of them.

  29. Yeah, the left is as crazy as the right on these matters.
    Most Americans ignore them both. They’re visible, but meaningless.

  30. a decision that GLADD hailed as a “game changer” for the trans community

    I suspect they may be right. You had a lot of sympathy and support from the live-and-let-live quarter when you were talking about the right to be left alone, you squandered it the minute you decided to start telling other people how to live their lives.

  31. Jack Whitehall describes himself as something like a straight man in a gay man’s body. It won’t be much of a stretch. But that’s probably just from growing up rich in England.

    1. Rich white liberals always get a pass

      1. Then why are they the ones being ostracized every time they grab a pussy, but rich white asshole conservatives get to keep their jobs up until the moment it’s proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they fucked children?

        1. Yup, it’s hard being a rich white liberal. They are the real persecuted people, unlike those greedy coal miners who can’t vote the right way

        2. Then why are they the ones being ostracized every time they grab a pussy,

          You misspelled “why are they the ones who have gotten a pass for the last thirty years while the rest of the country re-adjusted its entire culture around sexual harassment laws?

          1. No I’m the bigger victim! WAAAHHH WHERE MY BINKIE.

            1. Tony: “My side is the victim, pity me!”

              Me: “Your ‘side’ hasn’t been particularly victimized by this.”

              Tony: “You’re a whiner!”

              1. You’re not supposed to whine about what a victim you are as a part of your politics. You’re supposed to be rugged.

                I realize that this is a laughably absurd characterization of what is really the most incessant and shrill politics of whining in the civilized world, but you’re supposed to at least pretend it’s not the case.

                1. I fail to see where Square=Circle was whining.

                  I think he was just pointing out your hilarious hypocrisy

                  1. All anyone ever does on the internet is whine. And masturbate.

                  2. I fail to see where Square=Circle was whining.

                    Yeah – I don’t get what I was whining about. Maybe Tony can enlighten me.

        3. Stupid Tony, don’t you remember the former CEO of HP? He got shit canned just for having an inappropriate realtomship with a consultant that didn’t even involve sex.

      2. Like when Gov. Cuomo just admitted he violated federal law protecting birds of prey?

    2. I wish I had a gay man’s body. Unfortunately, I’m a straight man trapped in a straight man’s body.

  32. I would also like to point out that we’re getting worked up over what a minority (albeit a loud one) of identity politics idiots has to say on the subject. No one really gives a shit, not even these outrage porn addicts.

    1. “outrage porn addicts”

      For a second there, I thought you were dissing porn addicts.

      1. Maybe he was just dissing outrage-porn? I’d check hamster but I’m afraid what will come up…

  33. If they are truly outraged, were they ever really fans?

  34. various forms of oppression?sexism, racism, anti-gay animus, economic inequality?are both distinct and interrelated; they “stack”

    …no, they intersect. The “progressive stack” is a method of determining the order in which people speak.

  35. Thus, in intersectional thinking, we cannot and should not turn to Ruby Rose to tell the story of a Jewish lesbian, even if she’s an excellent and hardworking actress who endured some of the same struggles that the character did.

    Also, this is really about “standpoint epistemology,” not intersectionality.

    1. You wasted your money in college. You realize that, right?

      1. “I’m going to throw out words like epistemology and then cite David Hume and maybe Foucault to cover for the fact that this whole methodology of thinking is no different than the ideas that animate other racists. But this is different. My college philosophy professor told me so.”

        1. I don’t advocate standpoint epistemology. That doesn’t mean I have to pretend I don’t know what it is.

          1. The problem that I have with intellectualizing these positions is that we are pretending that its practitioners even understand any philosophical underpinning to what they are spouting. Even professors who spout this stuff have just devised the justification from the conclusion that they already want to reach.

            It’s exactly like white supremacists spouting Charles Murray’s work. I highly doubt that any of those Nazis sporting a C cup have ever even read “The Bell Curve”.

            Both of their ideas are derived from garbage ideas and I don’t care to pretend otherwise

            1. Saying “this is called standpoint epistemology, not intersectionality” neither intellectualizes the position nor pretends it’s not garbage; it merely names it accurately. I believe in understanding the positions I disagree with.

              1. Understanding an ideology that is really just based in nothing more than malice and ignorance doesn’t sound like a worthwhile endeavor.

                Do you also feel the need to understand Richard Spencer’s viewpoint before criticizing him?

                I just don’t get the purpose of that when none of the acolytes of identity politics (both Left and Right) can even justify their position with anything more than broad platitudes and stereotypes, no matter what the armchair revolutionary insists.

                1. I just don’t get the purpose of that when none of the acolytes of identity politics (both Left and Right) can even justify their position with anything more than broad platitudes and stereotypes [?]

                  I’m having troubling detecting, is this irony self-aware or not?

                  1. Defending identity politics to own the….libertarian

                    Cute

                    1. I’m going to assume the irony was unintentional then.

                      That said, if you think pointing out the irony in your statement is “defending” anything, that says more about you then me.

                    2. I think the fact that you take issue with the irony rather that intellectualizing bigotry is not surprising coming from you

                    3. Identifying irony is not the same as taking issue with irony. Sometimes a meta-comment really is just about the meta.

  36. Someone should do some research on how our “National discourse” is controlled via the web by people with borderline and narcisistic personality disorders. The Evergreen mess was dominated by them…The borderlines are the screaming minions and the narcissists are the “leaders”. The mentally ill are playing a larger role in determining our cultural directions than ever before, largely due to the internet and, I believe, a larger percentage of the population suffering from these disorders.

    1. They passed the borderline a long time ago.

    2. I think the internet is an enabler but not the cause.

      I think the shift of focus from local politics to national politics has made it possible to find the one in a million nutjob that can divide the populace into teams on non-issues.

      Non-issues are the stock in trade of career politicians and bureaucrats. A real problem can be solved – a faux problem can be milked forever if it’s good enough.

    3. Evergreen desperately needed to send in some heavy handed private security with nightsticks (that are surprisingly effective during the day) to beat down those dirty hippies. Because that’s where a dirty hippie belongs when it runs it’s mouth. Facing down the business end of a nightstick.

      1. I suppose the real takeaway here is that I am in no way fond of hippies, and consider them to be generally lacking in personal hygiene.

  37. I’m no Einstein, but I sure look like one in comparison with these retards. I should hang out with them more, make myself look smart by comparison.

    1. paradox is you’ll be stupider two ways for hanging with them

  38. And a movie named *Rub and Tug* won’t get made? What a tragedy!

  39. This is hilarious.

  40. Maybe this actress should fit in more by adopting a Jewish name. /sarc

    1. Meanwhile, gentiles should get all the gentile roles. /sarc /sarc /sarc

      1. (But Rose is gender-fluid, so I guess it doesn’t matter if she has gentiles or not)

        1. *hi-hat*

        2. “Gender fluid”

          WTF does that even mean?

          By my thinking I excrete gender fluid periodically. I’m thinking that the progtards have different idea about this than I do.

      2. (((gentile)))

        Just wanted to see how that would look

  41. But Orson Welles as Othello is still OK, right?

    Right?

  42. I can’t wait to see americans grow up so they can join the rest of the world at the adult table for supper and joined-up conversation.l’m afraid that it involves sacrifices like empathy and respect for others though,and trying to understand their point of view without scoffing & jeering.Thinking is hard,l know,change is frightening.l understand that your traditional values don’t include respect for yourselves and especially others but,it’s really enjoyable once you get used to it.Shutting down conversation with insults like social justice warrior,snowflake and intellectual don’t hurt anyone else but the person who closes themself off to another point of view.Also,political debate is as useless as religion,it doesn’t change anything or achieve a single thing.Just like religion.Why are you trying to turn your country into a religious dictatorship,even pre trump.

    1. What kind of dressing would everyone like for this word salad?

      1. Napalm

    2. Go back to selling salvaged droids, Jawa.

    3. When statements begin with sentences such as:

      “l’m afraid that it involves sacrifices like empathy and respect for others…”

      You know the rest is going to be worthless, and probably identical word for word to something you’ve read before.
      Sanctimonious eunuchs (aka Eurotrash) need to start making use of thesaurus… (ok, I’m going to admit I don’t know how to pluralism that word)…es?

  43. Who said batwoman is/was lesbian?
    Who says whats-her-name is female, let alone lesbian?
    Who cares?

    1. The writers when they reinvented/updated her in the New 52 thing a few years back.
      Herself.
      A surprising number of people, apparently.

    2. Who said batwoman is/was lesbian?

      Well, one of them is, Kate Kane. Kathy Kane who is also Batwoman, and a completely different person, isn’t.

      And neither should be confuse with Catherine Kane, who is the stepmother of one of them.

      Got that?

      Yeah, neither does anyone else.

      1. The real question is, has Bruce Wayne gotten them to lez out on each other while he watches? Or to double team him?

  44. This a new party game. You get points for every “oppressed” identify group you can fit in (or can make up).

    1. Hetero white males will just declare they get triple points.

      1. It must be miserable being an identity zealot. Do you always introduce yourself to people as “I’M GAY YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT YOU FAG-HATING STRAIGHT WHITE BIGOT??!?!?!”

        You should try leading with “I’m Tony.” Perhaps it’s a little dry, in comparison, but combined with a smile it’s a great way to hit it off with people who aren’t seething bags of pathological garbage.

        1. NOW WHO’S THE DECONSTRUCTED POTATO, BITCH?

          Mic drop

        2. Of course neither I nor any of my friends are 1/1,000th as obsessed with identify as Trumptards.

          1. Maybe it’s a vicious circle, or chicken/egg mechanism with the posts that knock you for playing the gay card so often, and the actual playing of said gay card. You do exemplify the resentful, bigoted left-winger who holds fast to their sweeping prejudices about white people, religious people, people who drive pickups, people who support the First Amendment, country music, white people who live south of the Mason-Dixon (excluding yourself, conveniently), the reasons people voted for Trump, etc etc. That’s very shakey ideological ground you stand on. You’re not as bad as Arty or He Who Must Not Be Named, but I’ve never read any cogent, reasoned defense of your positions.

            1. What, I’m not allowed to criticize people for voting for Trump? Have you seen Trump?

              1. Oh, you can criticize people for voting Trump all you want.

                Just keep in mind that one of those who did so — calling them Deplorables — just convinced a lot of people to vote for Trump. Heck, they embraced the name. And some people who didn’t vote for Trump nonetheless embraced the name as well.

                And that was a factor in her losing the election.

                Of course, some might argue that, rather than criticizing people for voting for Trump, it may be more worthwhile to reach out to them, listen to their needs, and form campaigns around those needs in an effort to convince them to vote for you….

                Nah, they are Deplorable, so we don’t need to do that. After all, they voted for Trump!

                1. No, Stupid Tony thinks that it was The Hag’s turn t be president and those fucking Hicks from flyover country better fall into line and help coronate……..I mean vote her in.

  45. Look on the bright side – at least there won’t be any more slavery movies.

    1. They could always import actors from North Africa.

  46. “Thus, in intersectional thinking, we cannot and should not turn to Ruby Rose to tell the story of a Jewish lesbian, even if she’s an excellent and hardworking actress who endured some of the same struggles that the character did.”
    This, in my mind, captures the problems inherent in the current mindset. Acting is, well, acting. A good actor can play a god, even though they’re not demi-deity 🙂 Demanding absolute representation is a good way to so balkanize the field that no one will be able to play any role.

  47. Well, who are we going to allow to play the serial killer roles?

    1. I hear Trump is giving audiences to advocates of prison reform, so if you have any ideas it might be the time to reach out to potus@whitehouse.gov

    2. And who is acceptable for the role of a terminal cancer patient?

      1. CGI Swayze

  48. “…even if she’s an excellent and hardworking actress…”
    I just her in The Meg. Trust me, she’s not.

  49. Tattoos on women’s upper arms are tacky and look horrible.
    This woman is also an idiot. She was traumatized as a child as she had no super heroes to relate to as a young lesbo?
    I cal b.s. ..

    1. Yeah, I look at these idiots who are disfiguring their bodies, and think, “Today you’re young and hot, and that makes people ignore that you look like you took a nap in the same room as a bored child with a sharpie. But some day you’ll be old, and you’ll STILL be all inked up, only it will be faded and look like crap, only you won’t have anything going for you to get people to ignore it.”

      1. you look like you took a nap in the same room as a bored child with a sharpie

        Awesome! I’m stealing this. Thank you 🙂

      2. Yep. I knew a woman who had gotten a nice looking Snoopy tat on her ‘waist’. She said she had no regrets, but suspected it might look like a Shar Pei by the time she retired.

    2. You clearly don’t know anything about her, and good luck with that judging people with tatoos as being of less worth than you.

  50. Listen to the marginalized ? Why ?
    What a throw away bullshit saying.

  51. “…a decision that GLADD hailed as a “game changer” for the trans community…”

    Well, no. H’wood panders to SJWs on a regular basis.

  52. What is a “lived” experience? How is it different from plain old experience?

  53. I’ve had it with Hollywood! I’m pretty sure Robert Englund never actually murdered teens, it was he a burn victim.

    Anthony Hopkins took a role that should have gone to an actual cannibal! Way to marginalized humivores, Hopkins! You know, they need to eat too!

    And don’t get me started on Gary Oldman. For one thing, even now, he barely qualifies as an old man…that’s name appropriation! And he certainly was fairy young, very much still alive, and not Eastern European when he played a certain undead nobleman. How are actual vampirically-inclined performers supposed to get any work?

    It’s all so unfair.

    1. *nor was he a burn victim.

    2. No, it’s okay with vampires.

      They don’t show up on film.

  54. So, doesn’t the logic of genderfluidity mean that Johannson could have just declared “I feel like a man today” and gone on with the project?

    1. I had a similar thought.

  55. “If you have any poo, fling it now.”

  56. I guess NPH should stop playing straight roles that made him famous, huh? If only trans and gay can play trans and gay, then only straight should be able to play straight. I’m tired of this double standard bs because they’re “marginalized”. I guess the only way I’m allowed to get ahead in life as a cis-gendered white male is to find and use the mythical “white privilege” that everyone talks about. God forbid we allow actor auditions to be fair and unbiased and the role given to the best actor/actress for the job.

  57. Really impressive post. I read it whole and going to share it with my social circules. I enjoyed your article and planning to rewrite it on my own blog.

    http://vex3friv.com/paris-red/

  58. Really impressive post. I read it whole and going to share it with my social circules. I enjoyed your article and planning to rewrite it on my own blog.

    http://vex3friv.com/paris-red/

  59. This reminds me of the Paul Newman movie WUSA. One character was the human skunk who stinks when triggered by whatever. This character now appears to outnumber everyone else in Hollywood, and Scarlett reacted appropriately.

  60. Obviously, it’s important to listen to the marginalized, . . .

    Damnit Robbie.

    1. No, no its not important to listen to the marginalized when they’re spouting shite.

    2. Your whole article is basically saying they’re spouting shite so don’t listen to them.

    1. . . .and intersectionality has value to the extent it encourages us to open our eyes to other people’s lived experiences?to listen and learn from each other.

      1. That’s just called ‘not being a dick to strange people’, not ‘intersectionality’.

      2. Intersectionality does not encourage us to ‘open our eyes to other people’s lived experiences’. It specifically says that other *can’t* understand those lived experiences and then attempts to create and justify a hierarchy of victimhood to determine who gets to tell who to shut up and do what they’re told and take the abuse hurled at them by people higher in the hierarchy than they are.

      1. And by the way – they’re using intersectionality to justify this over *a fictional character who has no ‘lived experiences’ and was created by straight white men!*

        1. Created by straight white men to counter accusations that the Batman character was homosexual.

          And Batwoman wasn’t a lesbian *or* Jewish until 2006. How’s that for ‘lived experience’?

  61. I think I’m going to go on Twitter and have a spasm that NPH has been playing heterosexual characters for his whole career.

    1. You’ll just get told you’re wrong. It’s like how black people “can’t be racist”, because “racist” now means “bigot with power“, and isn’t actually tied to any sane definition of “power”.

      It’s not appropriation for NPH to play straight people because gay people definitionally have less power than straight people.

      (I’m not saying I agree, just predicting what you’ll hear.)

  62. “intersectionality has value to the extent it encourages us to open our eyes to other people’s lived experiences”

    Hilarious.

  63. Jesus tap dancing Christ. When will this insanity end?

    I love how it’s always a double standard with them too. The stupid newer Netflix show cast a black guy as Achilles, which is completely ridiculous… He was a Greek dude yo! And same thing with James Bond if they do that. It’s fine to screw over anything to do with white culture, but you do anything even remotely not perfect for any other culture/group and it’s LITERALLY HITLER all of a sudden.

    I demand a remake of Uncle Tom’s Cabin played by Anthony Hopkins! Or how about a Roots remake starring Johnny Depp?

    Some of this stuff is LITERALLY as ridiculous as that, yet they can’t see it.

    Generally speaking I’m fine with trying to get somebody that’s ballpark the right look for a role, like casting a black guy as a character that’s traditionally supposed to be black, but this shit cuts both ways. Greek heros were not sub-Saharan Africans, just the same as Zulu warriors were not Chinese. Appropriate-ish casting within reason is fine, but there’s a line beyond which is becomes insane.

    1. Zulu warriors were not Chinese.

      Yet I got the highest grade earned in one college class for proving that very thing.

      Admittedly, it was a creative writing class.

      1. Nowadays they would probably do the same in a biology or history class! 🙁

    2. If there were no progtards, none of this would be happening. The next time I suggest doing something about progtards, think about all the misery they caused before attacking me.

  64. Producers are going to be in a real pickle if they ever do a remake of Elephant Man.

  65. Unless you are an anthropologist, intersectionality’s value is negative.

    1. Unless you are an anthropologist, intersectionality’s value is negative.

      FTFY

  66. Just recently found out that Morgan Freeman never spent 30+ years in prison, so the whole Shawshank thing is apparently all made up.

  67. Check your affirmative action boxes. Fill your boots.

    That may satisfy your racist, sexist and ideological bigotry, and inspire you to enjoy the film, but not me.

  68. Check your affirmative action boxes. Fill your boots.

    That may satisfy your racist, sexist and ideological bigotry enough to inspire you to watch and maybe even enjoy the film, but not me.

    1. A ripple in the matrix indicates big brother is watching

  69. Hate that I agree with Spencer, but when I heard the Idris Elba was up for the Bond part, I had no problem with it. I like Elba and think he’s an excellent actor. We he was cast in The Dark Tower, I was similarly situated. I had no problem with it. Look how far we’ve come!

    But in the spirit of intersectionality and “proper” casting requirements, it sure seemed odd that Elba was being cast to play a character from a book in which the characters whiteness–while race was never an issue for the character himself, him being above all that and all as a gunslinger–was a crucial part of the racial interplay between the Roland character and the black woman he ends up traveling with. That Odetta was one racist bitch and her racist diatribes against Roland were used to establish her character and highlight the changes that she undergoes later. Of course, they simply left her out of the movie…

    Same with playing Bond. Good for him if he can get the job, but we’ll hear the media touting how grand this is that a black man can play a historically white role!

    If Elba can be cast to play Bond and Roland (who is described as being a dead wringer for Clint Eastwood’s Good/Bad/Ugly character), and the media fawns over the “bravery” of the decision, why not shut the hell up about a white man playing a black woman or a straight man willing to play a gay many, or a woman who plays the part of a transsexual!

    1. Roland and Heimdall

      Both are EXPLICITLY white. Both of their stories reference that fact to extreme levels.

      The fact that they stuck a black guy in is just Hollywood. The same black guy though?

      1. In Hollywood there is only one Black guy at a time who is not Morgan Freeman or Samuel L Jackson.

  70. >many on the left, including and especially the campus left, do not believe that people should engage in rituals, or borrow from other traditions, or cook ethnic food, or wear ethnic clothing, unless they were born a member of that tribe.

    Unless, of course, you are a woman aspiring to be a man, or vice versa. In that case you are permitted to appropriate all the rituals, mannerisms, traditions, and clothing you like to complete your transformation.

  71. What is this… E? I’m calling bull – nobody really cares, and this woman has gotten one too many ugly tats.

  72. But who ever came up with the idea that Batwoman was a lesbian in the first place? Doesn’t this go against canon?

    What next, an 85 year old great-grandmother playing John Rambo?

    1. “What next, an 85 year old great-grandmother playing John Rambo?”

      I’d watch it.

    2. No it doesn’t she has been gay in the past. You must not be a comics person.

  73. I don’t care if Batwoman is gay and/or jewish, or is played by someone who is, or isn’t, gay and/or jewish. I care that Batwoman is going to be played by this stick figure. How much suspension of disbelief would be required to imagine that she (Ruby Rose) is capable of doing a single pull up, or lifting more than a saltine cracker.

    1. Well, that’s the problem with all these action movies.

      The truth is a guy like Clint Eastwood COULD conceivably kick the shit out of a half dozen other big guys in a row, because he is a big and strong dude. These modern action movies showing 95 pound chicks beating up guys who weigh 300 pounds is simply not possible. Even with mad martial arts training it just ain’t gonna happen. It’s all just BS ultra egalitarian nonsense.

      1. If 6 guys of the same size jump a similar sized guy (Clint Eastwood) they are going to kick the shit out of him, he doesn’t stand a chance unless they come at him one at a time, and that doesn’t happen in real life. Your argument holds no water.

  74. Meanwhile, it’s OK for an interracial cast to play the founding fathers in the musical “Hamilton”.

    How is that acceptable other than being a blatant double standard?

    1. What aboutism is over there ->

  75. They realize that acting and TV and movies is not reality, right? it is just dress-up and pretend…make believe.

    Mark Hamill can’t really move rocks with his mind, Henry Cavill isn’t really faster than a speeding bullet and truth be told, if Gal Godot tied me up with a lasso I’d tell her anything…but the Lasso of Truth is just a silly prop…

    it’s not real.

  76. Bugs bunny was a tranny.

    He was grey and white so race unknown.

    https://youtu.be/pDR9_pMWDIw

  77. Identity politics is for idiots. You can safely ignore all of it.

  78. Actor Yaphet Kotto, who played Kanaga in Live and Let Die, said James Bond is a white hero and should remain so

    1. Well, some people aren’t retarded. I’ve noticed that older “people of color” have a tendency to be super sane and reasonable about all this nonsense. When I’ve talked to older black folks, like the kind that were ACTUALLY alive when there was REAL shit to complain about, they just want nothing to do with the kind of stupid the left is pushing now. It’s mostly the young morons who have never really had to deal with legit oppression who make a mountain out of a mole hill, and then try to apply double standards to boot!

    2. Bond was not a hero. He was a spy, a Cold War spook. As a character in the novels he had flaws.

      As did the actual spies and turncoats.

  79. Is the LGBT community listed as a terrorist group yet? It seems they are working their way towards it.

  80. So black characters should be played by black actors but when a white character get played by a black actor complaining about it is racist? I am willing to bet that was not the only person that complained about the possible character change.

  81. Fuck the haters. Ruby will do a great job, she’s very athletic and certainly as talented as any current CW comic book series starts. P A T H E T I C

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.