Comments by "TheEvertw" (@TheEvertw) on "The Critical Drinker"
channel.
-
257
-
110
-
90
-
82
-
69
-
61
-
57
-
47
-
43
-
42
-
33
-
32
-
29
-
28
-
26
-
23
-
20
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@sheadoherty7434 My point is that the feminists had a point 50 years ago, but not anymore. And that by denying that their goals have already been met, they have moved over to an extreme position where men are the enemy and are baaaad.
What we need instead of feminism is a renewed appreciation for the differences between men and women. And I mean real differences, not those caused by habit or tradition. Because men and women are different, though of equal value. Current feminism doesn't acknowledge this simple fact.
If you think I am misogynistic, you are wrong. The same qualities that make a woman good at managing a house hold, make her excellent at managing businesses. Some of the best managers I have known are women. I wish there were more female managers. The world would be a better place. But to become one, you need to engage in a constant pissing contest with other people that want that position, which is something even most men do not want.
So a feminist would say that this pissing contest needs to stop. And that is happening in some companies. But because power is involved, this is just how it works at most places. You either play the game or you don't, your choice. But don't blame the game for not wanting to compete.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
Hollywood has repented of white-washing like Taylor playing Cleopatra. But at the time it was a logical decision. Movies at the time were made for white people by white people. Because white people invented the medium and popularized it, and it took some time before it spread to other ethnicities.
For that particular movie, they wanted a true STAR to play the leading character, and at the time there simply were no great stars of Macedonian ethnicity. Nor any other ethnicity than white Caucasian, with a few exceptions like Omar Sharif. But I don't think Omar would have been a great choice to play Cleopatra, even though he was actually Egyptian.
An actress like Irene Papas, who was actually Greek, might have played her, but she was nowhere near the box-office draw that Taylor was. And at the time, whether a movie was a success or not was largely determined by who starred in it. So then it is an easy business decision to cast Taylor instead of Papas. Gina Lollobrigida was considered for the role, which might have been a better match to Cleopatra's ethnicity, but other matters than ethnicity were more important at the time. Like business interests.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@j.ceasar Having the right to spread opinions that hurt others is called Freedom of Speech. There is no right Not To Be Offended, it doesn't exist.
People take offense at certain opinions, that is an active choice. THEIR choice.
Now, if I dehumanize or demonize specific people groups, or incite hatred against them, that is NOT (or shouldn't be) covered under Freedom of Speech. Except in cases where a higher body has judged the situation, as in calling Trump a rapist or Hamas a terrorist group. Those are facts, established by courts of law / government bodies. But having an opinion that clashes with your opinion, that just means your opinion is wrong. Usually. Because I think my opinions through and am open to correction. But dehumanizing me for my opinion, that is actual hate speech -- which is done far too often by people who get offended by someone's opinion.
So we have the weird situation where many people use actual hate speech because they accuse someone else, falsely, of using hate speech. That has a name, and it is HYPOCRISY.
Case in point: J.K. Rowling. Those who rail against her often use hate speech, while I have NEVER caught her in uttering actual hate speech. She does pose questions, and points out where women are endangered by policies that promote rights of trans people. But that is healthy debate, NOT hate speech.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What is happening at Disney is so outrageous, I am starting to believe that this is exactly what its leaders want it to be. Next question is, WHY?
I don't for a second believe it is because the higher-ups want The Message to permeate the world. That is what the underlings want, but not the higher-ups. Disney is controlled by some of the most wealthy individuals and organisations on this planet. And they are ONLY interested in money.
So, they believe it will financially benefit them to drive Disney into insolvency by letting it make stuff nobody wants. That does not compute. EXCEPT if in doing so, they can protect their other assets. Which, I believe, would be by triggering an anti-woke, pro-fascist movement that is too distracted to vote for parties that would reform tax laws to make the ultra-rich pay their fair share.
We will see what happens next. If for example Kennedy stays on, and this Headland creature, this conspiracy starts becoming more plausible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1