[polishgenius]

Cougar, on 03 December 2012 - 11:53 PM, said:

Worry, I can't work out which post you are adressing here. I can't work out what you are trying to say - how can one gain any benefit from continuing to read previous posts that hasn't already be gained? Perhaps you could clarify for me.
I wouldn't let the same point being made several times piss you off though, in every thread we're guilty of that!

He means that Ranty McShout up there declared he wasn't reading any more of the thread past what he quoted then posted his rant as if it was some vital new insight into the subject. Mind you, there was one sentence that wasn't completely pointless:

Quote

Now a female Doctor is long past due.

Why? I mean, if they got it right I wouldn't be too fussed but it would make no sense with the current mythos (bar one throwaway line in Gaiman's ep and we know from the Thirteen Doctors problem that we need to be very careful indeed which throwaway lines we take as read) and in this case changing gender would change the dynamic enormously. Maybe it shouldn't do that and maybe one could argue that Doctor Who making that step would go some way to ensuring that in future, the perception of such things changes, but it'd need bloody careful handling and it's certainly not one of the roles where we can go 'oh female Doctor because equality and shit.

[Cougar]

ah, I see. thanks.

[Gnaw]

worrywort, on 03 December 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

You should also continue reading threads after you disagree with somebody just in case, you know, multiple people have already made the same counter-arguments you're trying to make. Just tossing out that hypothetical.

Oh, I know that. Just spent too many years in North Carolina listening to 'discussions' on race that begin with "don't get me wrong...."

It took me a long time to realize how deeply hidden some of that stuff was in my own person. 10 years listening to it blatantly expressed cured me of a lot. Still working on it though.

As for the mod bit: yeah, this is neither the Inn nor the Discussion thread. (Maybe it should be moved?) But comparing the skin color of a fictional character to that of real historical figures is getting rather low on the rational, intelligent argument scale.

Quote

It is aways dissapointing when someone makes a point whilst simultaneously making it clear they are leaving the thread. It shows you have no confidence in your ability to argue

Further, since apparently this is annoying me more than I expected, let me help you with the parsing of my statement:

"Here is where I stop reading the thread."

I did not say I was leaving the thread. I did not say that I was not going to participate in further discussion.

I simply said that I was not going to read the rest. By actually commenting on the thread, I was showing intention to enter dialogue. But the intervening comments are mostly irrelevant because they were truly predictable.

I spent the time between my first post and this one by taking my dog out to piss and, upon returning, trying to figure out why anyone would give Abyss a negative rep for the post 4 above mine. I was next going to tell WW that I would have repped her for the Austin Powers thing and Abyss but I'm out for the day.

Finally, I am very confident in my ability to argue (as in the "debate' definition of the word) but I will not give credence to the idea that there is any equivalence to "James Bond is a iconic fictional character and what impact is there by changing the ethnicity, sexual orientation, race, etc of the character" and "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!".

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).

The other is willful ignorance. And willful ignorance is, to appropriate and misuse a wonderful SE phrase, "wide eye stupid". And that is being generous. Had I wanted to be argumentative (in the "sticking my fingers in my ear and shouting la-la-la" definition of the word) I would have worded it somewhat differently. Something along the lines of

Spoiler

"you sir are 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."

See the difference?

[worry]

I hear ya. It just sounded very much like you were saying "I'm quitting this thread, this is my final word on the matter, huffiness, exeunt, etc." rather than "I'm responding to the last post I read so far, as I am leaving work or whatever right now, but fret not for I will return anon." The difference between the two things has basically defined every reaction to your post, so thanks for clarifying. This is, after all, a place where several people have made threads announcing they were quitting the board -- so it pays to be careful. The actual part of your post that was your opinion on the matter is dandy, in the clarified context.

[Gnaw]

worrywort, on 04 December 2012 - 12:54 AM, said:

I hear ya. It just sounded very much like you were saying "I'm quitting this thread, this is my final word on the matter, huffiness, exeunt, etc." rather than "I'm responding to the last post I read so far, as I am leaving work or whatever right now, but fret not for I will return anon." The difference between the two things has basically defined every reaction to your post, so thanks for clarifying. This is, after all, a place where several people have made threads announcing they were quitting the board -- so it pays to be careful. The actual part of your post that was your opinion on the matter is dandy, in the clarified context.

I'm sorry for the confusion. I do have a bad habit of drive by posting, so my statement is easily taken that way.

And, taking your suggestion, I did scan through. Only stopped a half dozen times. )2 of those yours.)

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.

The first is opinion and I mentioned my 'essential' list in my McShouty post. I do have to agree with the "he must be British because MI6 is British." But that has nothing to do with the origins of the actor. Sean Connery was a crappy Russian because he didn't even try. Hugh Laurie makes a fantastic bitter American. The difference is the ability of the actor. Again see my McShouty "the actor makes the role".

The second is less subjective. I am not familiar with The Wire so cannot have an opinion on him one way or the other. Lennie James (Snatch, the utterly worthless Prisoner remake, Line of Duty) would be wonderful though he is getting out of the age range by the time the Craig contract is over.

The third is not a valid argument. There is no equivalence between the sides of that 'discussion'.

I have not actually ran across any posts by this person. But both of these statements could easily be prefaced by "Don't get me wrong...." They are just worded a bit less obvious than the post where I "stopped reading".

Cougar said:

...but I don't think Bond works as black at this particular juncture. I don't want to see him being racially abused during a mission to Poland, or refused access to the Golf Club, or indeed being repeatedly pulled over by the British Police for a random search because his car is too expensive.


None of those requirements exclude a black actor. I'm struggling to think of a black actor up to the job, but if anyone's ever seen Rugby pundity Jerremy 'Jezebel' Guscott, you'd know that there is nothing unreasonable about an elegant, public school type English black chap.

Got to love the "Bond can't be black because racism really does exist and I don't want to be reminded of it."

worrywort said:

James Bond is only white until he's not. Then he won't be. He is inherently not stationary in time or background. It matters who plays him about as much as who's hosting SNL this week.

[amphibian]

Also, worrywort is a boy and the cartoon character in worrywort's avatar is also a boy. Tekkon Kinkreet, wut.

[worry]

I did it! I'm a real boy!

[Gnaw]

amphibian, on 04 December 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:

Also, worrywort is a boy

Eh. I though right after I joined that I saw him referred to as her.

Apologies for several times mis-genderiing you worry.

[worry]

I represent all peoples, all genders.

[worry]

In other words, all possible James Bonds.

[Gnaw]

worrywort, on 04 December 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

In other words, all possible James Bonds.

[Use Of Weapons]

What if...?

What if MI6 leased the Bond name to other countries? A true 'Bond Franchise.' American Bonds, Russian Bonds, Mexican Bonds, Guatemalan Bonds, Vietnamese Bonds... Extend the logic of the 'Bond is an office, not a person' further. Alien Bonds? 'The name's Bond. James Zargleflaxx Bond.' Licensed to kill using enormous teeth and tentacles. And think of the sex scenes!

[Illuyankas]

I'm Bondacus.

[Use Of Weapons]

Illuyankas, on 04 December 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

I'm Bondacus.

*snerk!* You owe me a coffee! and a new keyboard!

I see Bond people.

[Abyss]

...and then there's that movie where Bond is sent back in time to prevent Skynet from taking over the world....

"Come with me if you want to Bond!"

...and that one where he goes shark fishing....

"We're gonna need a bigger Bond."

...and that one where he joins the rebels to fight against the evil Empire....

"I find your lack of Bond disturbing."

[Cougar]

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).

A gaawd, not another pseudo-intellectual. I'm not that shocked you don't like Foucault if you constantly confuse him with Derrida (Foucault was famously critical of deconstructionism). 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.

All I can say is that when someone declares they are not going to read any more of the thread it implies that they will neither read, comment nor engage with the thread's topic any further. You must surely understand how the actual words you wrote lend themselves largely to that interpretation (without resorting to Derrida, obviously). If one were to have stopped reading then, unless one was going to post random comments based on a guess concerning what had been posted since that juncture, it would proculde further engagement.

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.

[stone monkey]

Whilst it would be interesting to see a black Bond - played by Idris Elba or Colin Salmon (the previous frontrunner for the first black Bond, who was actually even in a few Bond movies) or someone else - it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime, I think. As a black Briton it pains me on a fairly personal level to say this, but the reason is fairly simple; Bond's entire image rests on his Britishness and, unfortunately, when the home or international audience thinks of Britishness, they generally don't see it as being embodied in the person of a black man.

We could argue all around the houses on this forever, but there it is. Although if anyone wants to give me a call, I'd give it a go

[Gnaw]

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..."

[D'rek]

Gnaw, on 04 December 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

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.)

He's an admin. Makes perfect sense for him to focus on the part that violates forum rules.

Gnaw, on 04 December 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

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.

I don't really have an opinion on this argument, but the above strikes me as a bit illogical. Technically speaking, the statement that "the character of Bond is and always has been white" is factually true (unless there's some non-white portrayal of him I'm not familiar with). Certainly the way people might express such a thing and the argument they make using that statement might be racist, but simply noting, accurately, that a character has so far had a particular characteristic in his/her depictions doesn't seem to be inherently racist by itself, to me, since the statement doesn't say anything about "shoulds" or "can/can't ever be" etc. So blankly stating that everyone who even dares note such a fact is a sheep fucker seems not only to be pretty offensive to me, but also illogical.

[Abyss]

MODGOD NOTICE OF IF THIS THREAD DEVOLVES
INTO ARGUING ABOUT ARGUING,
THE THREAD WILL BE PURGED.
AND THEN COMES THE RAIN OF FROGS, PESTILENCE AND BOILS.
YES. BOILS. YOU KNOW WHERE, TOO.
CARRY ON.