Jump to content

New York City Bans The N-Word


R!ck

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 36
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

No, we can't have a simple discussion with you because it always has to go there. He asked a question, you imediately pull out the racist card and start being very combative. Now how is that suppose to be simple discussion when you come at someone like that? And now you wanna cry wolf? Sorry, that isn't going to work with me, not this time. I'm sick and tired of having to go through this with you every damn time a thread like this gets started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When you become "part of a discussion," you are accountable for your opinions. I have some issues with how you've approached this right from the get-go. So if you say something I find objectionable, I will "get on [you]" for it. You want to be able to say anything and everything you want about what others say, but you want everyone to leave what you say alone because... what? You don't like it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I quote his post because it was in direct response to his comment. Also, the you was more intended to be a general you. Would you have rather I said, "Why do all white people feel that they want to have the right to use the n-word? Why do they feel the need to say it?" knowing full well, that if I had you'd've gotten on me for generalizing?

For the record, I agree with you completely. I hate when my community uses it. It was originally an attempt to diminish it's power and it's failed miserably. At the same time, it's definitely not going to stop the white community from using it, nor will it stop them from finding something negative about the black community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

See, I don't think my question at all comes off that way. I personally never say that word and get upset with my friends that do use it. Again, like I said in my previous posts, I wish the word would just go away altogether - I think it perpetuates hate and doesn't help society as a whole move forward.

I still think its a legitimate question though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But he wasn't talking about white people wanting to use it. He was pointing out how frequent it is used in the black community, moreso than white people use it (but then you might have accused him of him denying that white people use the word and being in denial that the US has a problem with race) so he wanted to know would they be excluded from the ban or be included. Thats all, nothing more, nothing less. No need to start up the same tired mess because (as if it hasn't been learned) it gets us NOWHERE and the board always ends up in a fight. Its just not needed right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am fully aware that I am accountable for my opinions. I'm not asking anyone to leave what I say alone. I think it's great for the discussion. You can totally get on something that I said because I'll easily clarify and explain further. It's a totally different can of worms when you decide to insult my character, that's not to say that I haven't done it myself because I have. I am sure you've seen how the discussion can actually be civilized and mature when there's no personal attacking involved.

If you don't want to go through it, you can either close the thread or use the ignore button. Simple as that. I'm not making you read the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You say you will explain and clarify, but you haven't yet. I haven't insulted your character; I have pointed out my observations from what you've posted. If you find something insulting in there, well, only you can change that. Not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, tell me what exactly do you want me to explain and clarify, and I will do so to the best of my abilities. Instead, all you do is just !@#$%^&*] at me because I decided to post my opinion, naturally nothing's going to get explained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
    • Interesting.  It seems to allude to that statement that Warren Burton made around that time about some AW actors getting special treatment.  I wonder who was resentful about not getting to go. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy