• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Racists & Misogynists Out in Force Because....Ghostbusters?

Hahahahaha. I have to get that t-shirt.


screen-shot-2016-07-22-at-11-11-16-am.png




calamity said:
for Milo

Milo Yiannopoulos Does Not Deserve Twitter | | Observer
Click to expand...
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Well, to bring this back around to the topic of the thread a bit, I guess that's what makes it extra depressing that there's been a lot of that sort of hate on this, because here's an example of gender stuff working perfectly, according to "SJW's" and their protractors alike, going by what they both say they supposedly want.

The developers didn't set out to have an all-female leading team. That's just how it happened. Since the new Ghostbusters were never supposed to be a direct lineage to the old Ghostbusters anyway, there's no conflict with that. You've now seen it, and you don't really get any political whiff from it.

It isn't a case of Star Trek, where they're politically writing Sulu as gay even above the protestation of the gay actor who originally portrayed Sulu. It's a simple case of, this was the cast that worked well.

So why is this "SJW" criticism, even going over the line well into the realm of bigotry, being projected on top of a project that is, actually, what everyone pretends they want out of gender relations? The developers didn't give a damn who played the Ghostbusters, as long as they worked well. That's what everyone says they want. So why the issue? Why so many people even in this thread who are boycotting it simply because the reboot Ghostbusters are women?
Click to expand...

As has been noted elsewhere in the thread, I don't think it's all, or even necessarily most, people who are upset by the "gender" of the players involved in this film. It's only a very vocal minority. A lot of people are just unhappy that the film is being remade at all given what a classic the original was, and by the perceived lack of quality evidenced by the initial trailers.

Where those who are concerned by the gender of the actors are concerned, I'd honestly say it varies a bit from person to person, and group to group. There certainly are some legitimate MRA/misogynist types out there, who are bound and determined to be unhappy no matter what happens, just because women are involved. However, there are also a lot of people like myself, who only really had an issue with the film because we perceived it as being a cash-in piggybacking off a larger, heavily politicized, feminist trend in Hollywood and modern media in general which we happen to dislike. Of course, on the opposite side of the spectrum, you've got the crusading feminist and "white knight" SJW types who were always going to be bound and determined to defend this film, regardless of its actual quality, simply to support "the cause."

If we're being completely honest, it's not like this film exists in a vacuum. It really kind of is "piggybacking" off of the larger feminist trend in Hollywood mentioned above. That's clearly what the studio had in mind when they green-lit the project, and why they greenlit it in the first place.

It simply happens to be a substantially less heavy-handed example of the phenomena than a lot of others I could name. In the interests of fairness, I actually would say that it goes a long way towards showing that the movement doesn't necessarily HAVE to be a negative influence, or a divider of political interests, as such. It can produce some decent quality, non-offensive, films.

Unfortunately, however, seeing as how this whole thing seems to have simply opened up as yet another front in the on-going "culture wars," a certain degree of conflict was basically inevitable among the usual suspects either way regardless. It's simply the nature of the beast. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Wtf?

No wonder I believe Black people and women have it rougher than us white men.

Leslie Jones says she's in 'personal hell' after barrage of racist, abusive tweets - LA Times

How misogyny impacted 'Ghostbusters' opening weekend — and its future - LA Times

When you get this worked up over who is playing the Ghostbusters, you clearly need to get a life. Sheesh, are these guys all living in their mamma's basement?
Click to expand...

As someone who has a public face and a growing fanbase . . . the #1 rule is don't engage your negative responders. Report them when they become abusive. But don't directly respond, they'll only know they're pissing you off and hurting your feelings (their goal) and they'l amp up their **** (because it's fun to them to do this).

When you respond to bull**** - you become worth their time.

So . . . don't respond to harassment and bull**** - just report it, block them, move on.

Only if it begins to jeopardize your livelihood do you take more direct action. But tread carefully. Some people have destroyed their careers because of how they responded to such ****.
 
Gathomas88 said:
As has been noted elsewhere in the thread, I don't think it's all, or even necessarily most, people who are upset by the "gender" of the players involved in this film. It's only a very vocal minority. A lot of people are just unhappy that the film is being remade at all given what a classic the original was, and by the perceived lack of quality evidenced by the initial trailers.

Where those who are concerned by the gender of the actors are concerned, I'd honestly say it varies a bit from person to person, and group to group. There are some legitimate MRA/misogynist types out there, who are bound and determined to be unhappy no matter what happens. However, there are also a lot of people like myself, who only really had an issue with the film because we perceived it as being a cash-in piggybacking off a larger, heavily politicized, feminist trend in Hollywood and modern media in general which we happen to dislike. Of course, on the opposite side of the spectrum, you've got the feminist and "white knight" SJW types who were always going to be bound and determined to defend this film, regardless of its actual quality, simply to support "the cause."

If we're being completely honest, it's not like this film exists in a vacuum. It really kind of is "piggybacking" off of the larger feminist trend in Hollywood mentioned above. That's clearly what the studio had in mind when they green-lit the project, and why they greenlit it in the first place.

It simply happens to be a substantially less heavy-handed example of the phenomena than a lot of others I could name. In the interests of fairness, I actually would say that it goes a long way towards showing that the movement doesn't necessarily HAVE to be a negative influence, or a divider of political interests, as such.

Unfortunately, however, seeing as how this whole thing seems to have simply opened up as yet another front in the on-going "culture wars," a certain degree of conflict was basically inevitable among the usual suspects either way regardless. It's simply the nature of the beast. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, of course it's a cash cow. But so are about a dozen other reboots released in the last few years, and none of them got even a tenth of the backlash. A quiet grumble at worst. Some were welcomed with open arms.

I don't think it had anything to do with why the green-lit the project. They've been trying to do it for years with and endless slew of potential casts, mostly men. They green-lit it because they finally got it off the ground.

There's a particularly horrible vocal minority saying especially horrible things, yes. But there's also a much bigger swath of less outrightly horrible moaners, whose primary complaint does seem to be simply that they're women and projecting malicious political motives on top of that, despite that there seems to have been a total absence of any political motivation at all.

The team were perfectly happy to do it with men, and tried several times. It just didn't work out that way.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Well, yeah, of course it's a cash cow. But so are about a dozen other reboots released in the last few years, and none of them got even a tenth of the backlash. A quiet grumble at worst. Some were welcomed with open arms.

I don't think it had anything to do with why the green-lit the project. They've been trying to do it for years with and endless slew of potential casts, mostly men. They green-lit it because they finally got it off the ground.

There's a particularly horrible vocal minority saying especially horrible things, yes. But there's also a much bigger swath of less outrightly horrible moaners, whose primary complaint does seem to be simply that they're women and projecting malicious political motives on top of that, despite that there seems to have been a total absence of any political motivation at all.

The team were perfectly happy to do it with men, and tried several times. It just didn't work out that way.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's any coincidence that we wound up with an all female reboot of Ghostbusters right at the time when the fad of pushing for "strong female leads" (often in place of what had formerly been male leads where reboots are concerned) in Hollywood seems to be hitting its peak. As I said before, a certain number of people are inclined to "groan" at examples of that fad simply because we're kind of sick of it, the politicized messages that so often go along with such films, and the often hackneyed quality of the storylines and characterizations involved in them (just like a lot of people feel an almost automatic negativity towards the modern 'reboot' trend in Hollywood in general as well).

Again, granted, that's not entirely fair, because the GB reboot actually isn't as "in your face" political or hackneyed as some of the other examples of that fad I could name. However, a lot of people are inclined to judge off of their initial perceptions either way regardless. A certain subset of those people are also inclined to take that preconceived judgement and go on the offensive with it before they've actually had a chance to evaluate the product in person as well. That only escalates further when other persons, of contrary viewpoints, take a "kneejerk" approach reacting to those criticisms by aggressively going on the defensive themselves. After a certain point, truth ceases to matter, and the simple reality of stubborn conflict between two different largely ego-driven groups takes over.

That's basically what we saw here. One group assumed certain negative things about the GB film based off the political, professional, and creative atmosphere that can be observed to exist in Hollywood at the present moment. A second, opposite, group responded by going on the offensive against that first group, and even going so far as to unilaterally try and lump ANY person who criticized the film in with it (i.e. as being 'misogynists'), regardless of whether that was actually true or not. The end result was an irrational self-perpetuating **** storm that almost made the movie itself, and its merits, fade into the background by way of comparison.

Again, that's simply human nature, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
As someone who has a public face and a growing fanbase . . . the #1 rule is don't engage your negative responders. Report them when they become abusive. But don't directly respond, they'll only know they're pissing you off and hurting your feelings (their goal) and they'l amp up their **** (because it's fun to them to do this).

When you respond to bull**** - you become worth their time.

So . . . don't respond to harassment and bull**** - just report it, block them, move on.

Only if it begins to jeopardize your livelihood do you take more direct action. But tread carefully. Some people have destroyed their careers because of how they responded to such ****.
Click to expand...

"Don't feed the trolls."

We all know it; few people can avoid doing it though.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Well, yeah, of course it's a cash cow. But so are about a dozen other reboots released in the last few years, and none of them got even a tenth of the backlash. A quiet grumble at worst. Some were welcomed with open arms.

I don't think it had anything to do with why the green-lit the project. They've been trying to do it for years with and endless slew of potential casts, mostly men. They green-lit it because they finally got it off the ground.

There's a particularly horrible vocal minority saying especially horrible things, yes. But there's also a much bigger swath of less outrightly horrible moaners, whose primary complaint does seem to be simply that they're women and projecting malicious political motives on top of that, despite that there seems to have been a total absence of any political motivation at all.

The team were perfectly happy to do it with men, and tried several times. It just didn't work out that way.
Click to expand...

The racial and sexist backlash was ridiculous and totally over the top. And, IMO it was flamed by certain players in the social media sphere who went there simply because they knew it would resonate with a large segment of their followers. So, it was deliberate.

The good news is that the effort failed.
 
Gathomas88 said:
I don't think it's any coincidence that we wound up with an all female reboot of Ghostbusters right at the time when the fad of pushing for "strong female leads" (often in place of what had formerly been male leads where reboots are concerned) in Hollywood seems to be hitting its peak. As I said before, a certain number of people are inclined to "groan" at examples of that fad simply because we're kind of sick of it, the politicized messages that so often go along with such films, and the often hackneyed quality of the storylines and characterizations involved in them (just like a lot of people feel an almost automatic negativity towards the modern 'reboot' trend in Hollywood in general as well).

Again, granted, that's not entirely fair, because the GB reboot actually isn't as "in your face" political or hackneyed as some of the other examples of that fad I could name. However, a lot of people are inclined to judge off of their initial perceptions either way regardless. A certain subset of those people are also inclined to take that preconceived judgement and go on the offensive with it before they've actually had a chance to evaluate the product in person as well. That only escalates further when other persons, of contrary viewpoints, take a "kneejerk" approach reacting to those criticisms by aggressively going on the defensive themselves. After a certain point, truth ceases to matter, and the simple reality of stubborn conflict between two different largely ego-driven groups takes over.

That's basically what we saw here. One group assumed certain negative things about the GB film based off the political, professional, and creative atmosphere that can be observed to exist in Hollywood at the present moment. A second, opposite, group responded by going on the offensive against that first group, and even going so far as to unilaterally try and lump ANY person who criticized the film in with it (i.e. as being 'misogynists'), regardless of whether that was actually true or not. The end result was an irrational self-perpetuating **** storm that almost made the movie itself, and its merits, fade into the background by way of comparison.

Again, that's simply human nature, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

The general criticism of what was perceived to be the PC-ification of GB is, IMO, a fair argument. It's the over the top actual racist and mysogynist slurs that were the problem, and those slurs reinforced the SJW claim that we have a problem that needs fixing.

The haters played right into the hands of the speech police.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Well, yeah, of course it's a cash cow. But so are about a dozen other reboots released in the last few years, and none of them got even a tenth of the backlash. A quiet grumble at worst. Some were welcomed with open arms.
Click to expand...

I was super bitching about the Red Dawn remake...because god damned it! I am also bitching about the Big Trouble in Little China remake. I love the Rock, but **** him and that movie. I am also bitching about the Roadhouse remake. Jesus f'n Christ on a pogo stick, we don't need to remake these movies. They were already made, they rock, they're perfect, you're not going to do better. And while RoboCop may not have been perfect when it came out, that reboot was god awful and I think everyone involved with it should be marched off a cliff. They essentially tried to turn RoboCop into some love story....WTF!?

It's just that with Hollywood these days, it's not about art, it's not about story telling, it's not about originality; it's all about the money. Lowest common denominator tripe. And these reboots are the laziest of all things they can do. There's not a lot of effort to make a reboot, you have the rough story line and everything already provided. Just need to get some hack writers to make some new dialog, maybe shake it up someway like a gender swap, and then **** out a movie. Spend some money on effects, but end of the day it's just turning a crank. And they make money, so the process goes again.

Part of the reason those 80's and 90's movies were awesome was because they were new IPs. Also, the ultraviolence of the 80's and 90's allowed us to put a lot of stuff on screen that we'd never consider now. There were reboots, even then, but it wasn't the thing to do all the time. But now, it's about all they can manage. Reboots and comic book movies...and reboots of comic book movies. It's annoying, it's lazy, and maybe they can make something that is entertaining (they should be able to as the originals are awesome), but been there done that, come back with something new.

I won't watch the new Ghostbusters, make a new movie.
 
calamity said:
The general criticism of what was perceived to be the PC-ification of GB is, IMO, a fair argument. It's the over the top actual racist and mysogynist slurs that were the problem, and those slurs reinforced the SJW claim that we have a problem that needs fixing.

The haters played right into the hands of the speech police.
Click to expand...

There are trolls on the Internet. People need to deal with that. It was only an issue because Sony deleted all other critical comments except those by the trolls, thus making it look like the only people who hated the trailer were the trolls. Sony specifically set up the pins so the SJWs could knock them down.
 
Manc Skipper said:
I had never heard of any of these before today. Makes you think.....

The Furiosa Test developed from female presence in Mad Max: Fury Road | Calvin College Chimes
Click to expand...

I have a "Tomb Raider" test. Does the female lead possess unrealistic strength, demonstrated primarily by her ability to beat the hell out of men twice her size? I find that most films coming out of Hollywood fail in that regard.

Whenever I see a Sandra Bullock like waif Karate chop her way out of a sticky situation with some dude built like the Rock, I just roll my eyes.
 
calamity said:
I have a "Tomb Raider" test. Does the female lead possess unrealistic strength, demonstrated primarily by her ability to beat the hell out of men twice her size? I find that most films coming out of Hollywood fail in that regard.

Whenever I see a Sandra Bullock like waif Karate chop her way out of a sticky situation with some dude built like the Rock, I just roll my eyes.
Click to expand...

The liberal utopian fantasy has all but taken over Hollywood.
 
Howler63 said:
In the new Wonder Woman, I can overlook this...she is Wonder Woman after all!
Click to expand...

I actually agree. Superhuman strength would be expected from a superhero. Now, if Wonder Woman were to kick Superman's ass....well, that would be eyeroll worthy.
 
blaxshep said:
Do you remember the Wonder Woman TV show? I don't remember her doing much ass kicking.

View attachment 67204759
Click to expand...

Lynda carter looked like she could have been an amazon.

The actress they have playing the part now does not.

How can you believe the performance by this actress?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom