Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who was the best person for the job?" Exactly this. We were not at the auditions so really can not comment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who was the best person for the job? Exactly this. We were not at the auditions so really can not comment." The way the story has been written and if true the reactions of some are that, it's a character who is deaf and therefore should be played by someone who is deaf. Maybe. As you said who played the roll the best? But if you follow that logic then surely you're closing off opportunities, as it implies characters who are "hearing" should only be played by actors who have hearing. Which is obviously nonsense (and possibly illegal?) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who was the best person for the job? Exactly this. We were not at the auditions so really can not comment. The way the story has been written and if true the reactions of some are that, it's a character who is deaf and therefore should be played by someone who is deaf. Maybe. As you said who played the roll the best? But if you follow that logic then surely you're closing off opportunities, as it implies characters who are "hearing" should only be played by actors who have hearing. Which is obviously nonsense (and possibly illegal?) " Ok...do you need to be a killer to play a killer? Or a drug addict to play a drug addict? .... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a deaf actor had their back to the director and he shouts “Action”..." It's called 'Reasonable adjustment'.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a deaf actor had their back to the director and he shouts “Action”... It's called 'Reasonable adjustment'.." It was just a joke!   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is going to be a problem for all those murder mysteries involving forensic scientists. "We've got this great role for you, only downside is you have to be dead for the autopsy scenes."" A once in a lifetime opportunity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is going to be a problem for all those murder mysteries involving forensic scientists. "We've got this great role for you, only downside is you have to be dead for the autopsy scenes." A once in a lifetime opportunity "
Her x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is going to be a problem for all those murder mysteries involving forensic scientists. "We've got this great role for you, only downside is you have to be dead for the autopsy scenes." A once in a lifetime opportunity " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Charlize Theron played a rather unattractive serial killer....not quite sure how well qualified she was for that real life role." Dear Santa, I've been awfully well behaved this year, can I have a night of role play with Charlize Theron please.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Charlize Theron played a rather unattractive serial killer....not quite sure how well qualified she was for that real life role. Dear Santa, I've been awfully well behaved this year, can I have a night of role play with Charlize Theron please.. " I get first dibs matey...I mentioned her first and I'm pretty sure I've been the better boy.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a deaf actor had their back to the director and he shouts “Action”... It's called 'Reasonable adjustment'.. It was just a joke! "Only because you've not heard of "reasonable adjustment". It is the law and the amount of ignorance about it is staggering! Maybe a joke to you but did you know that unemployment among the disabled is over twice that of non disabled people... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Charlize Theron played a rather unattractive serial killer....not quite sure how well qualified she was for that real life role." How is this even remotely comparable? I hope the role had been advertised openly, auditions were fair and the best person got it. That’s equality in my eyes.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Charlize Theron played a rather unattractive serial killer....not quite sure how well qualified she was for that real life role. Dear Santa, I've been awfully well behaved this year, can I have a night of role play with Charlize Theron please.. I get first dibs matey...I mentioned her first and I'm pretty sure I've been the better boy. "Excuse me, you pretty boys, I'm first in line! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Charlize Theron played a rather unattractive serial killer....not quite sure how well qualified she was for that real life role. How is this even remotely comparable? I hope the role had been advertised openly, auditions were fair and the best person got it. That’s equality in my eyes. "No deaf actors were invited to audition, which is the main complaint of those who have raised it as an issue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all getting about ridiculous. It's acting. They are pretending. It's not documentary. " Acting is a job. As such there are employment laws that state we should have targets (note not "quotas") on fair access to work. Industries like Hollywood has a shocking track record! How many women do you know have won Best Director? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a deaf actor had their back to the director and he shouts “Action”... It's called 'Reasonable adjustment'.. It was just a joke!
Only because you've not heard of "reasonable adjustment". It is the law and the amount of ignorance about it is staggering!
Maybe a joke to you but did you know that unemployment among the disabled is over twice that of non disabled people..."The DDA was a good Act in terms of reasonable adjustment but it was never policed anything like it should have been and then sadly it was all but swallowed up bt the Equality Act | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Charlize Theron played a rather unattractive serial killer....not quite sure how well qualified she was for that real life role. How is this even remotely comparable? I hope the role had been advertised openly, auditions were fair and the best person got it. That’s equality in my eyes.
No deaf actors were invited to audition, which is the main complaint of those who have raised it as an issue."Do we know if any applied? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm going to say they have a right to be miffed; if the deafness is key to the part then surely only a deaf person would understand the nuances. One of my sons is partially deaf and I can't understand what that's like so wouldn't be able to accurately represent him never mind a stranger. Positive prejudice is a good thing generally and the status quo won't change without it . Of course there are exceptions and of course some people who will be offended by it but i think thats a price worth paying. " Exactly! There was a time when White people believed Black people can't possibly act so we can't find any. And so we really had no choice but to black faces up! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm going to say they have a right to be miffed; if the deafness is key to the part then surely only a deaf person would understand the nuances. One of my sons is partially deaf and I can't understand what that's like so wouldn't be able to accurately represent him never mind a stranger. Positive prejudice is a good thing generally and the status quo won't change without it . Of course there are exceptions and of course some people who will be offended by it but i think thats a price worth paying. " That's where an actor doing their research comes in, or the screenwriter doing their research before hand. It's like saying Peter O'Toole shouldn't have played Lawrence of Arabia because he wasn't actually TE Lawrence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Charlize Theron played a rather unattractive serial killer....not quite sure how well qualified she was for that real life role. How is this even remotely comparable? I hope the role had been advertised openly, auditions were fair and the best person got it. That’s equality in my eyes.
No deaf actors were invited to audition, which is the main complaint of those who have raised it as an issue.
Do we know if any applied?"Not based on the news report I read - which just says no deaf people were "invited" to audition. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55361273 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We've seen similar threads, mostly to do with black actors playing James bond or white actors playing.. Jesus as examples. But here's another "outrage".... "Members of Hollywood's deaf community are boycotting CBS's new mini-series The Stand, based on Stephen King's novel, after a hearing actor was selected to play a deaf character." What are peoples thoughts? It is after all, acting. " Do you know of any deaf actors or actresses I don’t plus did a deaf actor actually apply for the part | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When the director shouts action and the deaf person does fuk all. Thats prob half the reason why deaf actor doesn't get the job " And that's a ridiculous, irrelevant and fairly insulting argument - as mentioned further up look up "reasonable adjustment" Do you really think an experienced deaf actor, qualified to play the role, wouldn't be able to find other ways to get their cue? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not based on the news report I read - which just says no deaf people were "invited" to audition. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55361273" Thank you. You are a worthy contribution to this thread. I'm outta here! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Charlize Theron played a rather unattractive serial killer....not quite sure how well qualified she was for that real life role. Dear Santa, I've been awfully well behaved this year, can I have a night of role play with Charlize Theron please.. I get first dibs matey...I mentioned her first and I'm pretty sure I've been the better boy.
Excuse me, you pretty boys, I'm first in line!"Please go ahead, I relinquish my turn gladly but I get to watch!!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Charlize Theron played a rather unattractive serial killer....not quite sure how well qualified she was for that real life role. Dear Santa, I've been awfully well behaved this year, can I have a night of role play with Charlize Theron please.. I get first dibs matey...I mentioned her first and I'm pretty sure I've been the better boy.
Excuse me, you pretty boys, I'm first in line!
Please go ahead, I relinquish my turn gladly but I get to watch!! "Ok | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Charlize Theron played a rather unattractive serial killer....not quite sure how well qualified she was for that real life role. How is this even remotely comparable? I hope the role had been advertised openly, auditions were fair and the best person got it. That’s equality in my eyes.
No deaf actors were invited to audition, which is the main complaint of those who have raised it as an issue."Then that's different. I assumed it was open casting for all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Charlize Theron played a rather unattractive serial killer....not quite sure how well qualified she was for that real life role. Dear Santa, I've been awfully well behaved this year, can I have a night of role play with Charlize Theron please.. I get first dibs matey...I mentioned her first and I'm pretty sure I've been the better boy.
Excuse me, you pretty boys, I'm first in line!
Please go ahead, I relinquish my turn gladly but I get to watch!!
Ok "THAT is a Christmas present I'd want to unwrap this year!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Charlize Theron played a rather unattractive serial killer....not quite sure how well qualified she was for that real life role. How is this even remotely comparable? I hope the role had been advertised openly, auditions were fair and the best person got it. That’s equality in my eyes. "I'm merely saying it's not unprecedented for actors to ACT a rold, like say, Al Pacino playing a blind man. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We've seen similar threads, mostly to do with black actors playing James bond or white actors playing.. Jesus as examples. But here's another "outrage".... "Members of Hollywood's deaf community are boycotting CBS's new mini-series The Stand, based on Stephen King's novel, after a hearing actor was selected to play a deaf character." What are peoples thoughts? It is after all, acting. " I’m a big believer of equality of opportunity over equality of outcome. So long as the role was open to deaf actors to audition then I have no problem with it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm going to say they have a right to be miffed; if the deafness is key to the part then surely only a deaf person would understand the nuances. One of my sons is partially deaf and I can't understand what that's like so wouldn't be able to accurately represent him never mind a stranger. Positive prejudice is a good thing generally and the status quo won't change without it . Of course there are exceptions and of course some people who will be offended by it but i think thats a price worth paying. That's where an actor doing their research comes in, or the screenwriter doing their research before hand. It's like saying Peter O'Toole shouldn't have played Lawrence of Arabia because he wasn't actually TE Lawrence. " Nope its nothing like that. There was no discrimination against 'TE Lawrences' there is discrimination against people with hearing difficulties. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you know of any deaf actors or actresses I don’t plus did a deaf actor actually apply for the part " You may not know them, but there are plenty - over 70 signed the letter protesting against the decision. As for applying for the part, we don't know if it was open auditions to allow people to "apply" but according to the reports I've read no deaf actors were "invited" to audition. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Storm in a teacup. " Not read that one! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Charlize Theron played a rather unattractive serial killer....not quite sure how well qualified she was for that real life role. How is this even remotely comparable? I hope the role had been advertised openly, auditions were fair and the best person got it. That’s equality in my eyes.
I'm merely saying it's not unprecedented for actors to ACT a rold, like say, Al Pacino playing a blind man. "Scent Of A Woman was one of my first thoughts when I opened this thread and partly what prompted some of my thoughts in my first post here. That said it was also made at a time where positive discrimination wasn't such a thing as it is now, and there weren't as many disabled actors as there are now as a result - does that mean I think if the film was made now it shouldn't go to a sighted actor? No, just that there may be other options for the role to be played by a blind actor. Although Pacino was phenomenal in the role there's no denying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When the director shouts action and the deaf person does fuk all. Thats prob half the reason why deaf actor doesn't get the job And that's a ridiculous, irrelevant and fairly insulting argument - as mentioned further up look up "reasonable adjustment" Do you really think an experienced deaf actor, qualified to play the role, wouldn't be able to find other ways to get their cue?" well I dont know do I. 1 im not a actor 2 im not deaf so how the fuck would I know. And it seems like a reasonable theory to me that it would be easier to have someone who can hear everything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Storm in a teacup. Not read that one!" I see what you did there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I guess if I was a deaf actor and I'd not been aware this role was up for audition, and I then found it was given to a hearing actor then I guess I'd be miffed. We don't really know the back story tho so its all conjecture. " But hey ho it's given people the opportunity to make dodgy jokes and air their ignorance  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When the director shouts action and the deaf person does fuk all. Thats prob half the reason why deaf actor doesn't get the job And that's a ridiculous, irrelevant and fairly insulting argument - as mentioned further up look up "reasonable adjustment" Do you really think an experienced deaf actor, qualified to play the role, wouldn't be able to find other ways to get their cue? well I dont know do I. 1 im not a actor 2 im not deaf so how the fuck would I know. And it seems like a reasonable theory to me that it would be easier to have someone who can hear everything. " You don't need to be either an actor or deaf to come to the logical conclusion that someone who is deaf would find a way to get a cue though. It might be "easier" to have someone who can "hear everything" play the role, but that's the point of the debate, is it "right"? Because if the argument is that it's "right" it's effectively discounting any deaf actor from playing a role that effectively is what they are (i.e. deaf) because it's "easier" for the studio, which is blatantly wrong. If having considered and auditioned deaf actors they came to the conclusion that a hearing actor was the better actor for the role on merit of acting ability then I'd have no problem with it - but because it was "easier"? Never | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you know of any deaf actors or actresses I don’t plus did a deaf actor actually apply for the part You may not know them, but there are plenty - over 70 signed the letter protesting against the decision. As for applying for the part, we don't know if it was open auditions to allow people to "apply" but according to the reports I've read no deaf actors were "invited" to audition. " Well then that's discrimination against all the other actors who the casting director didn't audition. The film business doesn't open audition all roles, they'd never get anything cast if they did. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you know of any deaf actors or actresses I don’t plus did a deaf actor actually apply for the part You may not know them, but there are plenty - over 70 signed the letter protesting against the decision. As for applying for the part, we don't know if it was open auditions to allow people to "apply" but according to the reports I've read no deaf actors were "invited" to audition. Well then that's discrimination against all the other actors who the casting director didn't audition. The film business doesn't open audition all roles, they'd never get anything cast if they did. " I know and am not suggesting an "open audition" *should* have been held - but the fact not one deaf actor was "invited" to audition (whatever the casting process) you can understand why people would be upset - to use a different example if they were making a series/film of Othello can you imagine the outrage if no black actors were "invited" to audition? I don't see this as any different | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When the director shouts action and the deaf person does fuk all. Thats prob half the reason why deaf actor doesn't get the job And that's a ridiculous, irrelevant and fairly insulting argument - as mentioned further up look up "reasonable adjustment" Do you really think an experienced deaf actor, qualified to play the role, wouldn't be able to find other ways to get their cue? well I dont know do I. 1 im not a actor 2 im not deaf so how the fuck would I know. And it seems like a reasonable theory to me that it would be easier to have someone who can hear everything. You don't need to be either an actor or deaf to come to the logical conclusion that someone who is deaf would find a way to get a cue though. It might be "easier" to have someone who can "hear everything" play the role, but that's the point of the debate, is it "right"? Because if the argument is that it's "right" it's effectively discounting any deaf actor from playing a role that effectively is what they are (i.e. deaf) because it's "easier" for the studio, which is blatantly wrong. If having considered and auditioned deaf actors they came to the conclusion that a hearing actor was the better actor for the role on merit of acting ability then I'd have no problem with it - but because it was "easier"? Never"  Your not listening to what im sayin are you. Your just intrested in your own point of view. I understand what your saying from a discrimination point of view. But from a logical point of view . It will be easier on all fronts for the actor to be able to hear everything that's goin on. From the director to there co stars . Im not sayin its right it prob just less hassle to make it all work and flow easier. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you know of any deaf actors or actresses I don’t plus did a deaf actor actually apply for the part " Marlee Matlin won an Oscar. Deaf. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a deaf actor had their back to the director and he shouts “Action”..." exactly that's what I thought | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Your not listening to what im sayin are you. Your just intrested in your own point of view. I understand what your saying from a discrimination point of view. But from a logical point of view . It will be easier on all fronts for the actor to be able to hear everything that's goin on. From the director to there co stars . Im not sayin its right it prob just less hassle to make it all work and flow easier. " But you could equate that to any walk of life...... So do we just stop taking reasonable steps to make life more accessible to people with addition needs? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Your not listening to what im sayin are you. Your just intrested in your own point of view. I understand what your saying from a discrimination point of view. But from a logical point of view . It will be easier on all fronts for the actor to be able to hear everything that's goin on. From the director to there co stars . Im not sayin its right it prob just less hassle to make it all work and flow easier. But you could equate that to any walk of life...... So do we just stop taking reasonable steps to make life more accessible to people with addition needs? " you prob can do lots of things for people with disabilities and in a world where we live for equal opportunities today there are things that can be put in place to help them. But sometimes people are goin to think you know what its easier to go with this able person more than the less able. Thats all im sayin, im not the guy who didn't give the deaf actor the job im just sayin maybe why they didn't give a deaf actor the job . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When the director shouts action and the deaf person does fuk all. Thats prob half the reason why deaf actor doesn't get the job And that's a ridiculous, irrelevant and fairly insulting argument - as mentioned further up look up "reasonable adjustment" Do you really think an experienced deaf actor, qualified to play the role, wouldn't be able to find other ways to get their cue? well I dont know do I. 1 im not a actor 2 im not deaf so how the fuck would I know. And it seems like a reasonable theory to me that it would be easier to have someone who can hear everything. You don't need to be either an actor or deaf to come to the logical conclusion that someone who is deaf would find a way to get a cue though. It might be "easier" to have someone who can "hear everything" play the role, but that's the point of the debate, is it "right"? Because if the argument is that it's "right" it's effectively discounting any deaf actor from playing a role that effectively is what they are (i.e. deaf) because it's "easier" for the studio, which is blatantly wrong. If having considered and auditioned deaf actors they came to the conclusion that a hearing actor was the better actor for the role on merit of acting ability then I'd have no problem with it - but because it was "easier"? Never Your not listening to what im sayin are you. Your just intrested in your own point of view. I understand what your saying from a discrimination point of view. But from a logical point of view . It will be easier on all fronts for the actor to be able to hear everything that's goin on. From the director to there co stars . Im not sayin its right it prob just less hassle to make it all work and flow easier. "I'm listening to everything you're saying - I just happen to disagree for the reasons I've made quite clear, which if you choose to see that as only being "interested in my own point of view" then that's your prerogative and is probably right as my point of view is my opinion, which is what I am offering here. I totally understand that it would be "easier" but sometimes you have to look beyond the easy solutions to arrive at the right ones is all I am saying. I've also made it clear I have no issue with a non-deaf person playing the part *IF* deaf people had been given the opportunity to audition for it also and had the part was chosen on merit NOT what is "easiest" - there are any number of simple solutions anyway, ones that deaf people work with every single day of their lives, so I stand by my comment that the "easier" thing is largely irrelevant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When the director shouts action and the deaf person does fuk all. Thats prob half the reason why deaf actor doesn't get the job And that's a ridiculous, irrelevant and fairly insulting argument - as mentioned further up look up "reasonable adjustment" Do you really think an experienced deaf actor, qualified to play the role, wouldn't be able to find other ways to get their cue? well I dont know do I. 1 im not a actor 2 im not deaf so how the fuck would I know. And it seems like a reasonable theory to me that it would be easier to have someone who can hear everything. You don't need to be either an actor or deaf to come to the logical conclusion that someone who is deaf would find a way to get a cue though. It might be "easier" to have someone who can "hear everything" play the role, but that's the point of the debate, is it "right"? Because if the argument is that it's "right" it's effectively discounting any deaf actor from playing a role that effectively is what they are (i.e. deaf) because it's "easier" for the studio, which is blatantly wrong. If having considered and auditioned deaf actors they came to the conclusion that a hearing actor was the better actor for the role on merit of acting ability then I'd have no problem with it - but because it was "easier"? Never Your not listening to what im sayin are you. Your just intrested in your own point of view. I understand what your saying from a discrimination point of view. But from a logical point of view . It will be easier on all fronts for the actor to be able to hear everything that's goin on. From the director to there co stars . Im not sayin its right it prob just less hassle to make it all work and flow easier.
I'm listening to everything you're saying - I just happen to disagree for the reasons I've made quite clear, which if you choose to see that as only being "interested in my own point of view" then that's your prerogative and is probably right as my point of view is my opinion, which is what I am offering here.
I totally understand that it would be "easier" but sometimes you have to look beyond the easy solutions to arrive at the right ones is all I am saying.
I've also made it clear I have no issue with a non-deaf person playing the part *IF* deaf people had been given the opportunity to audition for it also and had the part was chosen on merit NOT what is "easiest" - there are any number of simple solutions anyway, ones that deaf people work with every single day of their lives, so I stand by my comment that the "easier" thing is largely irrelevant."thats all I wanted for you to understand and agree that it would be easier, thank you my work here is done ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If a deaf actor had their back to the director and he shouts “Action”... It's called 'Reasonable adjustment'.." This | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When the director shouts action and the deaf person does fuk all. Thats prob half the reason why deaf actor doesn't get the job And that's a ridiculous, irrelevant and fairly insulting argument - as mentioned further up look up "reasonable adjustment" Do you really think an experienced deaf actor, qualified to play the role, wouldn't be able to find other ways to get their cue? well I dont know do I. 1 im not a actor 2 im not deaf so how the fuck would I know. And it seems like a reasonable theory to me that it would be easier to have someone who can hear everything. You don't need to be either an actor or deaf to come to the logical conclusion that someone who is deaf would find a way to get a cue though. It might be "easier" to have someone who can "hear everything" play the role, but that's the point of the debate, is it "right"? Because if the argument is that it's "right" it's effectively discounting any deaf actor from playing a role that effectively is what they are (i.e. deaf) because it's "easier" for the studio, which is blatantly wrong. If having considered and auditioned deaf actors they came to the conclusion that a hearing actor was the better actor for the role on merit of acting ability then I'd have no problem with it - but because it was "easier"? Never Your not listening to what im sayin are you. Your just intrested in your own point of view. I understand what your saying from a discrimination point of view. But from a logical point of view . It will be easier on all fronts for the actor to be able to hear everything that's goin on. From the director to there co stars . Im not sayin its right it prob just less hassle to make it all work and flow easier.
I'm listening to everything you're saying - I just happen to disagree for the reasons I've made quite clear, which if you choose to see that as only being "interested in my own point of view" then that's your prerogative and is probably right as my point of view is my opinion, which is what I am offering here.
I totally understand that it would be "easier" but sometimes you have to look beyond the easy solutions to arrive at the right ones is all I am saying.
I've also made it clear I have no issue with a non-deaf person playing the part *IF* deaf people had been given the opportunity to audition for it also and had the part was chosen on merit NOT what is "easiest" - there are any number of simple solutions anyway, ones that deaf people work with every single day of their lives, so I stand by my comment that the "easier" thing is largely irrelevant. thats all I wanted for you to understand and agree that it would be easier, thank you my work here is done ? "And do you understand their position? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Your not listening to what im sayin are you. Your just intrested in your own point of view. I understand what your saying from a discrimination point of view. But from a logical point of view . It will be easier on all fronts for the actor to be able to hear everything that's goin on. From the director to there co stars . Im not sayin its right it prob just less hassle to make it all work and flow easier. But you could equate that to any walk of life...... So do we just stop taking reasonable steps to make life more accessible to people with addition needs? you prob can do lots of things for people with disabilities and in a world where we live for equal opportunities today there are things that can be put in place to help them. But sometimes people are goin to think you know what its easier to go with this able person more than the less able. Thats all im sayin, im not the guy who didn't give the deaf actor the job im just sayin maybe why they didn't give a deaf actor the job ." "you prob can do lots of things for people with disabilities and in a world where we live for equal opportunities today there are things that can be put in place to help them" You say the above, but then go on to say "But sometimes people are goin to think you know what its easier to go with this able person more than the less able." If that's what you say happens in the world (because it does), then we don't have equal opportunities, do we? We nominally have it written in a law, but that law is flagrantly ignored by many employers. Also the attitude here describing disabled people as "less able people". How insulting. In terms of doing my job, I'm very fucking able, thank you. I just sit on my arse in a wheelchair to do it. All I need is to be able to move around my workplace by wheelchair (which I can). That's it. I'm no less able than the walking person. Disabled people are routinely discriminated against in society. It's pervasive, it's everywhere and in the case of this acting role, actually I'd like to see disabled people being represented in the media more. So perhaps opting for a deaf actor over a hearing actor might have been a good idea in this instance. I'd like to see a film that portrays wheelchair users in a positive and active way, rather than them being the one dying of some terrible disease, having to be pushed around etc. No-one ever pushes my chair, yet I get around beautifully but I've never seen that in a film character. If I were a child using a wheelchair, I'd want to be seeing people like me in the media. The same for deaf children/people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Your not listening to what im sayin are you. Your just intrested in your own point of view. I understand what your saying from a discrimination point of view. But from a logical point of view . It will be easier on all fronts for the actor to be able to hear everything that's goin on. From the director to there co stars . Im not sayin its right it prob just less hassle to make it all work and flow easier. But you could equate that to any walk of life...... So do we just stop taking reasonable steps to make life more accessible to people with addition needs? you prob can do lots of things for people with disabilities and in a world where we live for equal opportunities today there are things that can be put in place to help them. But sometimes people are goin to think you know what its easier to go with this able person more than the less able. Thats all im sayin, im not the guy who didn't give the deaf actor the job im just sayin maybe why they didn't give a deaf actor the job . "you prob can do lots of things for people with disabilities and in a world where we live for equal opportunities today there are things that can be put in place to help them" You say the above, but then go on to say "But sometimes people are goin to think you know what its easier to go with this able person more than the less able." If that's what you say happens in the world (because it does), then we don't have equal opportunities, do we? We nominally have it written in a law, but that law is flagrantly ignored by many employers. Also the attitude here describing disabled people as "less able people". How insulting. In terms of doing my job, I'm very fucking able, thank you. I just sit on my arse in a wheelchair to do it. All I need is to be able to move around my workplace by wheelchair (which I can). That's it. I'm no less able than the walking person. Disabled people are routinely discriminated against in society. It's pervasive, it's everywhere and in the case of this acting role, actually I'd like to see disabled people being represented in the media more. So perhaps opting for a deaf actor over a hearing actor might have been a good idea in this instance. I'd like to see a film that portrays wheelchair users in a positive and active way, rather than them being the one dying of some terrible disease, having to be pushed around etc. No-one ever pushes my chair, yet I get around beautifully but I've never seen that in a film character. If I were a child using a wheelchair, I'd want to be seeing people like me in the media. The same for deaf children/people." sorry I never meant to offend you with my choice of words. I think you only find it offensive if you look to find fault. Im not in your position so I see things and think differently that's all. Never meant no harm | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Your not listening to what im sayin are you. Your just intrested in your own point of view. I understand what your saying from a discrimination point of view. But from a logical point of view . It will be easier on all fronts for the actor to be able to hear everything that's goin on. From the director to there co stars . Im not sayin its right it prob just less hassle to make it all work and flow easier. But you could equate that to any walk of life...... So do we just stop taking reasonable steps to make life more accessible to people with addition needs? you prob can do lots of things for people with disabilities and in a world where we live for equal opportunities today there are things that can be put in place to help them. But sometimes people are goin to think you know what its easier to go with this able person more than the less able. Thats all im sayin, im not the guy who didn't give the deaf actor the job im just sayin maybe why they didn't give a deaf actor the job . "you prob can do lots of things for people with disabilities and in a world where we live for equal opportunities today there are things that can be put in place to help them" You say the above, but then go on to say "But sometimes people are goin to think you know what its easier to go with this able person more than the less able." If that's what you say happens in the world (because it does), then we don't have equal opportunities, do we? We nominally have it written in a law, but that law is flagrantly ignored by many employers. Also the attitude here describing disabled people as "less able people". How insulting. In terms of doing my job, I'm very fucking able, thank you. I just sit on my arse in a wheelchair to do it. All I need is to be able to move around my workplace by wheelchair (which I can). That's it. I'm no less able than the walking person. Disabled people are routinely discriminated against in society. It's pervasive, it's everywhere and in the case of this acting role, actually I'd like to see disabled people being represented in the media more. So perhaps opting for a deaf actor over a hearing actor might have been a good idea in this instance. I'd like to see a film that portrays wheelchair users in a positive and active way, rather than them being the one dying of some terrible disease, having to be pushed around etc. No-one ever pushes my chair, yet I get around beautifully but I've never seen that in a film character. If I were a child using a wheelchair, I'd want to be seeing people like me in the media. The same for deaf children/people. sorry I never meant to offend you with my choice of words. I think you only find it offensive if you look to find fault. Im not in your position so I see things and think differently that's all. Never meant no harm " Thank you for your words above, it's appreciated. The fact you say you're not in my position and think differently - this is the problem. Able bodied people NEED to start thinking differently, because it's mainly able bodied people who design the environments that disabled people have to navigate. An example would be when they built our new bus station. What they built was a danger to people with sight impairments because they'd omitted to include any way for them to detect where the passenger waiting areas ended and the roadway started, and no audio announcements or Braille was included. After an outcry by visually impaired people, they spent a lot of money rectifying it. Why was it designed wrongly in the first place? Because sighted people didn't think like a visually impaired person, nor did they consult visually impaired people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The amount of casual discrimination against disabled people in this thread makes me sick. "I was only joking." "I didn't mean any harm." The get-out-of-jail-free cards of bullies and bigots the world over since time immemorial. Be better than this. " if your referring to me , im not a bully in any way or form. Im not perfect and sometimes say or do the wrong things. Its not intentional and im big enough to admit when im wrong. Like I said we don't all see the same we don't all think the same that is what makes us individuals | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The amount of casual discrimination against disabled people in this thread makes me sick. "I was only joking." "I didn't mean any harm." The get-out-of-jail-free cards of bullies and bigots the world over since time immemorial. Be better than this. if your referring to me , im not a bully in any way or form. Im not perfect and sometimes say or do the wrong things. Its not intentional and im big enough to admit when im wrong. Like I said we don't all see the same we don't all think the same that is what makes us individuals "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The amount of casual discrimination against disabled people in this thread makes me sick. "I was only joking." "I didn't mean any harm." The get-out-of-jail-free cards of bullies and bigots the world over since time immemorial. Be better than this. if your referring to me , im not a bully in any way or form. Im not perfect and sometimes say or do the wrong things. Its not intentional and im big enough to admit when im wrong. Like I said we don't all see the same we don't all think the same that is what makes us individuals " And that's how to do it... Well done fella. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Thank you for your words above, it's appreciated. The fact you say you're not in my position and think differently - this is the problem. Able bodied people NEED to start thinking differently, because it's mainly able bodied people who design the environments that disabled people have to navigate. An example would be when they built our new bus station. What they built was a danger to people with sight impairments because they'd omitted to include any way for them to detect where the passenger waiting areas ended and the roadway started, and no audio announcements or Braille was included. After an outcry by visually impaired people, they spent a lot of money rectifying it. Why was it designed wrongly in the first place? Because sighted people didn't think like a visually impaired person, nor did they consult visually impaired people." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The amount of casual discrimination against disabled people in this thread makes me sick. "I was only joking." "I didn't mean any harm." The get-out-of-jail-free cards of bullies and bigots the world over since time immemorial. Be better than this. " I’m neither a bully or a bigot, and my post was quite clearly said in jest, tho I’ll admit that when reading things it’s a lot harder to get the meaning, however consider context, and the way it was written. I’m in no way saying that casual discrimination isn’t still a problem, but if we don’t stop the offended bus soon, we’ll end up in a situation where you can’t say anything about anyone in case they get upset. There are very obvious racist, sexist, and homophobic remarks around, and subtle discrimination is still a problem, but please take this thread in context. I don’t think one person that mentioned, or suggested the director wouldn’t be able to communicate with a deaf person actually meant it in all seriousness! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who aren't bullies or bigots don't say bullying or bigoted things. Whether or not someone "means" the discriminatory thing they said is wholly irrelevant. They still said it. Intent does not trump impact. Throw a plate on the floor. Watch it smash. Apologise to the pieces. Is the plate whole again now? "Stop the offended bus"? Why? What problematic things do you want to say that you don't want to be called to account for?" That bus seems to run better when it is knee deep in snowflakes.. just because people are offended does not mean they are right.. You can find people offended these days if the sky appears blue.. the list goes on and on.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who aren't bullies or bigots don't say bullying or bigoted things. Whether or not someone "means" the discriminatory thing they said is wholly irrelevant. They still said it. Intent does not trump impact. Throw a plate on the floor. Watch it smash. Apologise to the pieces. Is the plate whole again now? "Stop the offended bus"? Why? What problematic things do you want to say that you don't want to be called to account for?" your not even worth having a debate with. Your just after an argument and your not worth my time or effort. You don't know me or my thought process you just have this judgmental attitude and think your right and im wrong. I say things how I see them weather its right or wrong. Im not here to please anyone or brown nose anyone it is what it is. Iv never been a bully I never will be a bully cos I dont need to be a bully. I take people the way they are and accept them , you obviously can't and if someone says somethin you don't agree with you throw the bigot or bully or racist card around to try to make them look bad and make yourself look like the good guy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm guessing no one sees the irony in the people get offended by everything/woke/snowflake argument put forward by people who get offended by issues that dont offend them." some people just like to be heard i think. I know we can all have diffrent opinions and I can accept that. But when you get called a bully cos you have a diffrent point of view well its a bit sad isn't it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm guessing no one sees the irony in the people get offended by everything/woke/snowflake argument put forward by people who get offended by issues that dont offend them." Hang on... I've read that 5 times and still trying to comprehend! But I do like finding a bit of irony. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm guessing no one sees the irony in the people get offended by everything/woke/snowflake argument put forward by people who get offended by issues that dont offend them. Hang on... I've read that 5 times and still trying to comprehend! But I do like finding a bit of irony. "
I struggled to word it right.
There is always a bit of hoopla over stories like this.
'Oh look the snowflakes are getting upset at anything 'Is the narrative
Yet these people themselves are getting upset/angry over issues that dont concern them.
It's like that alanis morissette song. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who was the best person for the job?" Hear, hear, nail on the head. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who was the best person for the job? Hear, hear, nail on the head." Hear Hear? Is that a slip or a thinly disguised swipe.. Either way the thought police are on to you.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who was the best person for the job? Hear, hear, nail on the head. Hear Hear? Is that a slip or a thinly disguised swipe.. Either way the thought police are on to you.." Oops, actually was a genuine mistake, I often say that in threads if I agree with a post....hold on there's a knock at the door! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm guessing no one sees the irony in the people get offended by everything/woke/snowflake argument put forward by people who get offended by issues that dont offend them." Lionel, I often agree with you, but not sure I do here. If the only people who expressed offence about something were the people who are directly affected, then we'll never achieve equality and fairness for all. Example: I am not gay. If someone uses a homophobic slur, I am not the person who is directly affected. However, should I not express my distaste? Should I ignore it, because I am not gay? No. Same applies to offensive or derogatory comments about disabled people. Non disabled people DO need to be offended that I can't catch a train at my local station or that I have to plan trips to restaurants, cafés, clubs etc with military precision because too many places are inaccessible. Etc. That said, I am not calling any individual on this thread offensive | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm guessing no one sees the irony in the people get offended by everything/woke/snowflake argument put forward by people who get offended by issues that dont offend them. Lionel, I often agree with you, but not sure I do here. If the only people who expressed offence about something were the people who are directly affected, then we'll never achieve equality and fairness for all. Example: I am not gay. If someone uses a homophobic slur, I am not the person who is directly affected. However, should I not express my distaste? Should I ignore it, because I am not gay? No. Same applies to offensive or derogatory comments about disabled people. Non disabled people DO need to be offended that I can't catch a train at my local station or that I have to plan trips to restaurants, cafés, clubs etc with military precision because too many places are inaccessible. Etc. That said, I am not calling any individual on this thread offensive "Not even me sugarplum | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm guessing no one sees the irony in the people get offended by everything/woke/snowflake argument put forward by people who get offended by issues that dont offend them. Lionel, I often agree with you, but not sure I do here. If the only people who expressed offence about something were the people who are directly affected, then we'll never achieve equality and fairness for all. Example: I am not gay. If someone uses a homophobic slur, I am not the person who is directly affected. However, should I not express my distaste? Should I ignore it, because I am not gay? No. Same applies to offensive or derogatory comments about disabled people. Non disabled people DO need to be offended that I can't catch a train at my local station or that I have to plan trips to restaurants, cafés, clubs etc with military precision because too many places are inaccessible. Etc. That said, I am not calling any individual on this thread offensive
Not even me sugarplum "It takes a hell of a lot to offend me, personally. No-one on this site has even come close, Tom. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm guessing no one sees the irony in the people get offended by everything/woke/snowflake argument put forward by people who get offended by issues that dont offend them. Lionel, I often agree with you, but not sure I do here. If the only people who expressed offence about something were the people who are directly affected, then we'll never achieve equality and fairness for all. Example: I am not gay. If someone uses a homophobic slur, I am not the person who is directly affected. However, should I not express my distaste? Should I ignore it, because I am not gay? No. Same applies to offensive or derogatory comments about disabled people. Non disabled people DO need to be offended that I can't catch a train at my local station or that I have to plan trips to restaurants, cafés, clubs etc with military precision because too many places are inaccessible. Etc. That said, I am not calling any individual on this thread offensive
Not even me sugarplum
It takes a hell of a lot to offend me, personally. No-one on this site has even come close, Tom."I think people mistake speaking out against something for taking offence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm guessing no one sees the irony in the people get offended by everything/woke/snowflake argument put forward by people who get offended by issues that dont offend them. Lionel, I often agree with you, but not sure I do here. If the only people who expressed offence about something were the people who are directly affected, then we'll never achieve equality and fairness for all. Example: I am not gay. If someone uses a homophobic slur, I am not the person who is directly affected. However, should I not express my distaste? Should I ignore it, because I am not gay? No. Same applies to offensive or derogatory comments about disabled people. Non disabled people DO need to be offended that I can't catch a train at my local station or that I have to plan trips to restaurants, cafés, clubs etc with military precision because too many places are inaccessible. Etc. That said, I am not calling any individual on this thread offensive
Not even me sugarplum
It takes a hell of a lot to offend me, personally. No-one on this site has even come close, Tom.
I think people mistake speaking out against something for taking offence.
"No. I think some people mistake humour for causing offence.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm guessing no one sees the irony in the people get offended by everything/woke/snowflake argument put forward by people who get offended by issues that dont offend them. Lionel, I often agree with you, but not sure I do here. If the only people who expressed offence about something were the people who are directly affected, then we'll never achieve equality and fairness for all. Example: I am not gay. If someone uses a homophobic slur, I am not the person who is directly affected. However, should I not express my distaste? Should I ignore it, because I am not gay? No. Same applies to offensive or derogatory comments about disabled people. Non disabled people DO need to be offended that I can't catch a train at my local station or that I have to plan trips to restaurants, cafés, clubs etc with military precision because too many places are inaccessible. Etc. That said, I am not calling any individual on this thread offensive
Not even me sugarplum
It takes a hell of a lot to offend me, personally. No-one on this site has even come close, Tom.
I think people mistake speaking out against something for taking offence.
No. I think some people mistake humour for causing offence.."Humour is subjective. Bullying and harassment cannot be explained away by humour. If I happen to find it funny to poke fun at gay people or disabled people or black people, it doesn't stop that causing offence to people who overhear or who are the "target" of the so-called joke. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm guessing no one sees the irony in the people get offended by everything/woke/snowflake argument put forward by people who get offended by issues that dont offend them. Lionel, I often agree with you, but not sure I do here. If the only people who expressed offence about something were the people who are directly affected, then we'll never achieve equality and fairness for all. Example: I am not gay. If someone uses a homophobic slur, I am not the person who is directly affected. However, should I not express my distaste? Should I ignore it, because I am not gay? No. Same applies to offensive or derogatory comments about disabled people. Non disabled people DO need to be offended that I can't catch a train at my local station or that I have to plan trips to restaurants, cafés, clubs etc with military precision because too many places are inaccessible. Etc. That said, I am not calling any individual on this thread offensive
Not even me sugarplum
It takes a hell of a lot to offend me, personally. No-one on this site has even come close, Tom.
I think people mistake speaking out against something for taking offence.
No. I think some people mistake humour for causing offence..
Humour is subjective. Bullying and harassment cannot be explained away by humour. If I happen to find it funny to poke fun at gay people or disabled people or black people, it doesn't stop that causing offence to people who overhear or who are the "target" of the so-called joke. "So please enlighten what topics can humourists cover these days.. ? Come back in a month.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm guessing no one sees the irony in the people get offended by everything/woke/snowflake argument put forward by people who get offended by issues that dont offend them. Lionel, I often agree with you, but not sure I do here. If the only people who expressed offence about something were the people who are directly affected, then we'll never achieve equality and fairness for all. Example: I am not gay. If someone uses a homophobic slur, I am not the person who is directly affected. However, should I not express my distaste? Should I ignore it, because I am not gay? No. Same applies to offensive or derogatory comments about disabled people. Non disabled people DO need to be offended that I can't catch a train at my local station or that I have to plan trips to restaurants, cafés, clubs etc with military precision because too many places are inaccessible. Etc. That said, I am not calling any individual on this thread offensive "I think you mistook what I meant(,though I'm probally a bit too thick to put it any more eloquently) What I meant was when there is this sort of issue (and there has been plenty)you get the usual suspects frothing at the mouth about political correctness gone mad/snowflakes getting annoyed with everything. But they dont see the irony in themselves getting angry over every story which comes out like that. They are complaining about other people getting offended over something, when they are doing exactly the same. If that doesnt work I give up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm guessing no one sees the irony in the people get offended by everything/woke/snowflake argument put forward by people who get offended by issues that dont offend them. Lionel, I often agree with you, but not sure I do here. If the only people who expressed offence about something were the people who are directly affected, then we'll never achieve equality and fairness for all. Example: I am not gay. If someone uses a homophobic slur, I am not the person who is directly affected. However, should I not express my distaste? Should I ignore it, because I am not gay? No. Same applies to offensive or derogatory comments about disabled people. Non disabled people DO need to be offended that I can't catch a train at my local station or that I have to plan trips to restaurants, cafés, clubs etc with military precision because too many places are inaccessible. Etc. That said, I am not calling any individual on this thread offensive
I think you mistook what I meant(,though I'm probally a bit too thick to put it any more eloquently)
What I meant was when there is this sort of issue (and there has been plenty)you get the usual suspects frothing at the mouth about political correctness gone mad/snowflakes getting annoyed with everything.
But they dont see the irony in themselves getting angry over every story which comes out like that.
They are complaining about other people getting offended over something, when they are doing exactly the same.
If that doesnt work I give up
"Ahhhhhhh. Comprende | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm guessing no one sees the irony in the people get offended by everything/woke/snowflake argument put forward by people who get offended by issues that dont offend them. Lionel, I often agree with you, but not sure I do here. If the only people who expressed offence about something were the people who are directly affected, then we'll never achieve equality and fairness for all. Example: I am not gay. If someone uses a homophobic slur, I am not the person who is directly affected. However, should I not express my distaste? Should I ignore it, because I am not gay? No. Same applies to offensive or derogatory comments about disabled people. Non disabled people DO need to be offended that I can't catch a train at my local station or that I have to plan trips to restaurants, cafés, clubs etc with military precision because too many places are inaccessible. Etc. That said, I am not calling any individual on this thread offensive
I think you mistook what I meant(,though I'm probally a bit too thick to put it any more eloquently)
What I meant was when there is this sort of issue (and there has been plenty)you get the usual suspects frothing at the mouth about political correctness gone mad/snowflakes getting annoyed with everything.
But they dont see the irony in themselves getting angry over every story which comes out like that.
They are complaining about other people getting offended over something, when they are doing exactly the same.
If that doesnt work I give up
Ahhhhhhh. Comprende " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm guessing no one sees the irony in the people get offended by everything/woke/snowflake argument put forward by people who get offended by issues that dont offend them. Lionel, I often agree with you, but not sure I do here. If the only people who expressed offence about something were the people who are directly affected, then we'll never achieve equality and fairness for all. Example: I am not gay. If someone uses a homophobic slur, I am not the person who is directly affected. However, should I not express my distaste? Should I ignore it, because I am not gay? No. Same applies to offensive or derogatory comments about disabled people. Non disabled people DO need to be offended that I can't catch a train at my local station or that I have to plan trips to restaurants, cafés, clubs etc with military precision because too many places are inaccessible. Etc. That said, I am not calling any individual on this thread offensive
I think you mistook what I meant(,though I'm probally a bit too thick to put it any more eloquently)
What I meant was when there is this sort of issue (and there has been plenty)you get the usual suspects frothing at the mouth about political correctness gone mad/snowflakes getting annoyed with everything.
But they dont see the irony in themselves getting angry over every story which comes out like that.
They are complaining about other people getting offended over something, when they are doing exactly the same.
If that doesnt work I give up
"What the heck are you on about Lionel.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Charlize Theron played a rather unattractive serial killer....not quite sure how well qualified she was for that real life role. Dear Santa, I've been awfully well behaved this year, can I have a night of role play with Charlize Theron please.. I get first dibs matey...I mentioned her first and I'm pretty sure I've been the better boy.
Excuse me, you pretty boys, I'm first in line!"I have met her....
Drops the mic... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who was the best person for the job?" We totally agree with you. This frustrates us about society. We see people as equals, no matter your background. Your skills should be rewarded no matter your ethnicity, impairment etc etc. It should always be the best person for the job/role. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who was the best person for the job? We totally agree with you. This frustrates us about society. We see people as equals, no matter your background. Your skills should be rewarded no matter your ethnicity, impairment etc etc. It should always be the best person for the job/role. " Fair enough, sounds great. But if persons with some kind of impairment or of a certin ethnicity are not sought out and invited for interview, how can they ever be the 'best person'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Who was the best person for the job? We totally agree with you. This frustrates us about society. We see people as equals, no matter your background. Your skills should be rewarded no matter your ethnicity, impairment etc etc. It should always be the best person for the job/role. " How do you know if I'm the best person for the job if I can't get up the steps into the office to interview? Or if your interview task involves visuals with no adaptation - how would a visually impaired person demonstrate their suitability? Two words: reasonable adjustments. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We've seen similar threads, mostly to do with black actors playing James bond or white actors playing.. Jesus as examples. But here's another "outrage".... "Members of Hollywood's deaf community are boycotting CBS's new mini-series The Stand, based on Stephen King's novel, after a hearing actor was selected to play a deaf character." What are peoples thoughts? It is after all, acting. I’m a big believer of equality of opportunity over equality of outcome. So long as the role was open to deaf actors to audition then I have no problem with it. " Exactly this. Equality of outcome is a nonsense. Take it to its logical conclusion and you would have to require equal representation by all groups in all roles ... Never mind what the individuals actually want to do, enjoy doing, have the necessary competencies for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We've seen similar threads, mostly to do with black actors playing James bond or white actors playing.. Jesus as examples. But here's another "outrage".... "Members of Hollywood's deaf community are boycotting CBS's new mini-series The Stand, based on Stephen King's novel, after a hearing actor was selected to play a deaf character." What are peoples thoughts? It is after all, acting. I’m a big believer of equality of opportunity over equality of outcome. So long as the role was open to deaf actors to audition then I have no problem with it. Exactly this. Equality of outcome is a nonsense. Take it to its logical conclusion and you would have to require equal representation by all groups in all roles ... Never mind what the individuals actually want to do, enjoy doing, have the necessary competencies for." Agree with you - the problem in this instance, and what appears to have been overlooked by many on this thread and the headlines behind the story, is there was no "equality of opportunity" - per all the reports I've read including the one at the BBC link I posted way up thread, no deaf actors were "invited" to audition, and it's that which appears (rightly) to have been the crux of the protests being made, *not* necessarily the fact that a deaf actor didn't get the role. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We've seen similar threads, mostly to do with black actors playing James bond or white actors playing.. Jesus as examples. But here's another "outrage".... "Members of Hollywood's deaf community are boycotting CBS's new mini-series The Stand, based on Stephen King's novel, after a hearing actor was selected to play a deaf character." What are peoples thoughts? It is after all, acting. I’m a big believer of equality of opportunity over equality of outcome. So long as the role was open to deaf actors to audition then I have no problem with it. Exactly this. Equality of outcome is a nonsense. Take it to its logical conclusion and you would have to require equal representation by all groups in all roles ... Never mind what the individuals actually want to do, enjoy doing, have the necessary competencies for. Agree with you - the problem in this instance, and what appears to have been overlooked by many on this thread and the headlines behind the story, is there was no "equality of opportunity" - per all the reports I've read including the one at the BBC link I posted way up thread, no deaf actors were "invited" to audition, and it's that which appears (rightly) to have been the crux of the protests being made, *not* necessarily the fact that a deaf actor didn't get the role." That is a huge problem if that is what happened. Obviously there will be roles that require a good sense of hearing, and for which no reasonable adjustment could be made for a deaf person. But acting is not one of those roles, and if deaf actors were not given the opportunity to audition then that would be unlawful in the UK, to say nothing of morally reprehensible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest "snowflakes" are, without fail, the people screaming about snowflakes. The lack of self-awareness would be astounding if it were not so routine by now. A false assumption that I see again and again on this site is that the playing field is already perfectly level. It's not. I too often see "equality of opportunity" misused to mean that accommodations should not be made to ensure fairness. Imagine someone arguing "Everyone has an equal opportunity to climb those stairs to get to the top!" So, people who can't climb stairs should just be fucked off then, should they?" Yup. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
when did this first appear as a term to insult a person ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That word snowflake when did this first appear as a term to insult a person ? "Against abolitionists of slavery in the US, then as a commentary on the rise of and encouragement of individualism in the 1990s (not an insult). Politicised insult in the last 5 years or so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Roger Daltrey played Tommy. He wasn’t deaf, dumb, blind or a kid! He should be ostracised for his selfishness! " What a crap film that was! Great music Mark you. Folks, I've learned a lot from this thread thanks for keeping it mostly in good spirit... Take a bow. And a morning wank perhaps. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Equality of outcome is a nonsense. Take it to its logical conclusion and you would have to require equal representation by all groups in all roles" Please explain why this would be a bad thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We've seen similar threads, mostly to do with black actors playing James bond or white actors playing.. Jesus as examples. But here's another "outrage".... "Members of Hollywood's deaf community are boycotting CBS's new mini-series The Stand, based on Stephen King's novel, after a hearing actor was selected to play a deaf character." What are peoples thoughts? It is after all, acting. I’m a big believer of equality of opportunity over equality of outcome. So long as the role was open to deaf actors to audition then I have no problem with it. Exactly this. Equality of outcome is a nonsense. Take it to its logical conclusion and you would have to require equal representation by all groups in all roles ... Never mind what the individuals actually want to do, enjoy doing, have the necessary competencies for. Agree with you - the problem in this instance, and what appears to have been overlooked by many on this thread and the headlines behind the story, is there was no "equality of opportunity" - per all the reports I've read including the one at the BBC link I posted way up thread, no deaf actors were "invited" to audition, and it's that which appears (rightly) to have been the crux of the protests being made, *not* necessarily the fact that a deaf actor didn't get the role." How many deaf actors applied for the role initially? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Exactly this. Equality of outcome is a nonsense. Take it to its logical conclusion and you would have to require equal representation by all groups in all roles ... Never mind what the individuals actually want to do, enjoy doing, have the necessary competencies for. Agree with you - the problem in this instance, and what appears to have been overlooked by many on this thread and the headlines behind the story, is there was no "equality of opportunity" - per all the reports I've read including the one at the BBC link I posted way up thread, no deaf actors were "invited" to audition, and it's that which appears (rightly) to have been the crux of the protests being made, *not* necessarily the fact that a deaf actor didn't get the role. How many deaf actors applied for the role initially?" That's an unknown, all that's known based on news reports, and quotes from those that have raised issues with it, is that none were "invited" to audition - so yes it's possible some applied and were turned down before the audition stage, but if that were the case the studio could have nipped any protests in the bud by saying so, which they've not. That said, I very much doubt this would have been an open audition thing either so would likely have been by invite only in the first instance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a difficult one and to an extent comes down to subjectivity as to who is "best" to play the role, which makes it even more difficult - it does lead to the question as to how far you take it too, can only one legged actors play one legged parts for example, or is it right a thin actor is hired to play a larger person and "bulks up" for the role, which often happens? That said, I can understand the argument put forward by the deaf community, especially as it appears no deaf actors were even given the opportunity to audition, so the decision doesn't even appear to have been a subjective one in this instance. I guess you also have to balance out how "big" a part it was in terms of drawing an audience which will have been a factor in the programme makers decision (rightly or wrongly) - ultimately for their series to be successful if it was a big part a "name" actor may have been required - not saying that's right but would have been part of the things considered. There's also the argument that "acting" ultimately means playing a character that isn't necessarily the type of person (physically as well as in terms of personality) the person playing that part normally is, so why is "acting" deaf any different? Am on the fence to be honest, had they auditioned deaf actors but ultimately decided a hearing actor was better for the role I may have had more sympathy with the studio." I agree with this with regards to acting. Open auditions to everyone, regardless of anything. Obviously you can set certain criteria. Male/female, general age range, in some cases height. Usually depending on accuracy or staying true to a character - but sometimes the best actor does not fit certain criteria perfectly. For example the x-men movies, Wolverine specifically, is a character who is originally 5ft 3 by design in the comics. Hugh Jackman is about 6ft 3. But he was a perfect casting for the role in terms of performance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Equality of outcome is a nonsense. Take it to its logical conclusion and you would have to require equal representation by all groups in all roles Please explain why this would be a bad thing. " Equality of outcome means every job role having an equal mix of all groups of people. It would mean having quotas. That would result in people having to fill vacancies they didn't want to fill, or were not competent to fill. It is better for people to have equal opportunities, and choice. That way, they get to choose jobs they want to do, that play to their strengths, and employers get employees who are motivated, enjoy their work and are good at it. Win-win. This is all predicated on equality of opportunity, which I will admit is not easy to police or enforce. But I think it is still the better option. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Equality of outcome is a nonsense. Take it to its logical conclusion and you would have to require equal representation by all groups in all roles Please explain why this would be a bad thing. Equality of outcome means every job role having an equal mix of all groups of people. It would mean having quotas. That would result in people having to fill vacancies they didn't want to fill, or were not competent to fill. It is better for people to have equal opportunities, and choice. That way, they get to choose jobs they want to do, that play to their strengths, and employers get employees who are motivated, enjoy their work and are good at it. Win-win. This is all predicated on equality of opportunity, which I will admit is not easy to police or enforce. But I think it is still the better option." All baddies to be played by convicted criminals.. who would you like to play Hannibal Lechter ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Roger Daltrey played Tommy. He wasn’t deaf, dumb, blind or a kid! He should be ostracised for his selfishness! " A 70s film, made around the time the black & white minstrels was popular on TV. Probably not our proudest period of enlightenment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Equality of outcome is a nonsense. Take it to its logical conclusion and you would have to require equal representation by all groups in all roles Please explain why this would be a bad thing. Equality of outcome means every job role having an equal mix of all groups of people. It would mean having quotas. That would result in people having to fill vacancies they didn't want to fill, or were not competent to fill. It is better for people to have equal opportunities, and choice. That way, they get to choose jobs they want to do, that play to their strengths, and employers get employees who are motivated, enjoy their work and are good at it. Win-win. This is all predicated on equality of opportunity, which I will admit is not easy to police or enforce. But I think it is still the better option. All baddies to be played by convicted criminals.. who would you like to play Hannibal Lechter ? " If that's the best argument you have, you lost already | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Roger Daltrey played Tommy. He wasn’t deaf, dumb, blind or a kid! He should be ostracised for his selfishness! A 70s film, made around the time the black & white minstrels was popular on TV. Probably not our proudest period of enlightenment." I loved that show and the innocence of the time.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Roger Daltrey played Tommy. He wasn’t deaf, dumb, blind or a kid! He should be ostracised for his selfishness! A 70s film, made around the time the black & white minstrels was popular on TV. Probably not our proudest period of enlightenment." So you focus on the bad from the 70’s and forget all the amazing things achieved. You sound like a glass half empty person. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Roger Daltrey played Tommy. He wasn’t deaf, dumb, blind or a kid! He should be ostracised for his selfishness! A 70s film, made around the time the black & white minstrels was popular on TV. Probably not our proudest period of enlightenment. So you focus on the bad from the 70’s and forget all the amazing things achieved. You sound like a glass half empty person. " I think he was using it to illustrate the point that Tommy was made at a time when what was considered acceptable was somewhat different and that we've since moved on - back then people with disabilities for the most part didn't ever feature on TV and certainly not in acting roles - fortunately we've come a long way since then - either way the point is that using Tommy as a point of reference is pretty irrelevant. That's not negativity either, just plain and simple facts about how times have changed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Roger Daltrey played Tommy. He wasn’t deaf, dumb, blind or a kid! He should be ostracised for his selfishness! A 70s film, made around the time the black & white minstrels was popular on TV. Probably not our proudest period of enlightenment. So you focus on the bad from the 70’s and forget all the amazing things achieved. You sound like a glass half empty person. I think he was using it to illustrate the point that Tommy was made at a time when what was considered acceptable was somewhat different and that we've since moved on - back then people with disabilities for the most part didn't ever feature on TV and certainly not in acting roles - fortunately we've come a long way since then - either way the point is that using Tommy as a point of reference is pretty irrelevant. That's not negativity either, just plain and simple facts about how times have changed " Times have definitely changed, that is for sure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd like disabled actors to be found for such parts and only when none are suitable, would another actor be sought. " It's a tough one, because should they go for a suitable actor or the best actor. We watch shows for entertainment. If they went for suitable for every role, wouldn't the shows we watch be just suitable, rather than the best they could be? I think disabled actors should be given a chance to audition (which by the sounds of it, is what was wrong with this show), but feel the best actor should be selected. Let disabled people get the role for their skills, not for their disability. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe Charlize Theron played a rather unattractive serial killer....not quite sure how well qualified she was for that real life role." Well, she did watch her mom shoot her father so maybe more qualified than most! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
