Cougar, on 04 December 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:
Gnaw, on 04 December 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:
There simply is nothing to debate in those two 'arguments'. One is intelligent and meaningful for those interested in popular culture, social studies, deconstructionism (gawd I hate Foucalt).
I'm not that shocked you don't like Foucault if you constantly confuse him with Derrida (Foucault was famously critical of deconstructionism).
Also, I know Gnaw thinks he's being clever by postualting what he might have said to a hypothetical (yet thinly veiled) individual, but he isn't. So I'll warn all of you that attempting to find ways to call anyone:
" a fucking mouth breathing neanderthal who is apparently not capable of thought beyond 'which sheep shall I fuck this afternoon' while picking your nose and watching the clouds make pretty pictures."
is a breach of forum rules. Please make your comments snide, but polite.
Thank you for correcting that name mixup; it's been 9 or 10 years since I last read anything about deconstructionism other than the occasional magazine article and, like any area of knowledge if you don't use it you lose it.
For the record, the person I was referring to as a Neanderthal sheep fucker was the "James Bond always been white just like me" fellow. The idiot is the one who equates a black James Bond to a white Martin Luther King.
I would love to know why you chose to focus on what is probably the least important statement in my post (and completely ignoring the follow up reply to worrywort.)
Now on to the important stuff.
Quote
These constant claims to knowledge are tiresome. As I said elseforum, make the argument, don't claim your half-baked opinion is superior merely by dirnt of claimed knowledge.
I made statements of opinion as well as statements of fact. So, just for you, I will post a couple of questions.
Quote
I was wrong. There are not 2 'arguments' in the thread. There are 3.
- What are the 'essential' elements of the character.
- Can Idras play the character convincingly.
- Can the character be black.
Would you agree or disagree with that breakdown? If not, why not?
I'll skip 1 and 2 because they are purely subjective opinion.
I posit that it is a statement of fact that the fictional character James Bond can be black. There may be facts that would make me change my stand, but I have not read them on this thread. I admittedly only scanned posts 30ish through posts 121 so I may have missed one. Please feel free to point that out to me. Or produce them on your own.
I also stated as a fact that there is no debateable defense of the idea that "Bond the person is and always has been a white man, the same as me. I certainly don't expect to wake up tomorrow and discover that I've turned black over night."
Do you agree? If not, why not?
I implied, but did not actually state, that in my opinion, the statements made by others in the intervening posts that support the idea that there is a defensible position for the "Bond can't be black" are much, much closer to the "...is and always has been white..." than the "James Bond is a iconic fictional character and what impact is there by changing the ethnicity, sexual orientation, race, etc of the character".
I assume that you would disagree with that statement. Yes or no? And why?
And finally I heavily implied that the two statements of yours that I quoted lead me to believe that you are simply saying "Bond the person is and always has been a white man, the same as me. I certainly don't expect to wake up tomorrow and discover that I've turned black over night." You simply couched your language more carefully.
Again, I'm fairly certain that you will disagree with that. But I doubt I will see any response from you.
I popped into the movie thread last night to make a post about how thoroughly I had enjoyed watching "Life of Brian" for the first time in 20 years. I was distracted by the title of this thread and started reading (mostly due to the OP being Shin, somebody I like and respect). The thread quickly dissolved into what it is now.
I would definitely be interested in reading a discussion of a confirmed signing of a new Bond actor who is black. I would find a discussion of the impacts that such a change would have would be interesting, but not something I would stick around for. But this thread is neither of those things. It is a series of posts by a few people positing that the Bond character is white. Period.
That position is racist. And should be called that. If people want to try to say otherwise, they need to come up with something much, much better than idiotically comparing a black Bond actor to a white actor playing Martin Luther King.
As for mouth breathing, nose picking, sheep fuckers? "Bond the person is and always has been a white man, the same as me. I certainly don't expect to wake up tomorrow and discover that I've turned black over night." How would you describe the person who stated that "fact"?
Now that you've got your knickers in a knot, do your mod god worst.
Or move the.thread to the Inn. (Not discussion; there can be no true discussion when the "other point of view" isn't rational. And racism certainly isn't rational.)
Or, just for shits and grins, you could answer some of my questions. Preferably without prefacing them with "Now don't get me wrong..." or ending them with "why some of my best friends are..."
"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor Frankl