3 hours ago, BlodVargarna said:

What about the sequels is “totalitarian left nonsense”?

Racists don’t like seeing people of color in their Star Wars

Sexists don’t like seeing more than one speaking part for a woman in their Star Wars

Homophobes don’t like seeing gay people in their Star Wars.

I’m wondering where you fit in?

Questioning what is totalitarian while being totalitarian.. ironical.

I'm wondering why you think calling someone racist, sexist ,or homophobic would matter to someone who is actually racist, sexist, or homophobic.

Also explain why people of colour is better than coloured people.

I love bacon.

Cheers

Baaa

12 hours ago, Hobojebus said:

And being fan does not mean you automatically like everything, it's fine to oppose bad parts of a fandom.

No, it's not. It's fine to NOT LIKE parts of the fandom. But it's not fine to oppose them, and act like you're defending the fandom from the evil-doers.

9 hours ago, Frimmel said:

JJ has come right out and said he put Finn in the movie because there aren't enough black people in Star Wars. So now we come to the second

Did he? Did he make up a role just so could have a black person in the movie? Or did he have a role, and decide to give it to a black person?

Quote

But the reason I feel zero respect for him is because he's black right?

But the reason I feel zero respect for her (before her sacrifice play) is because she's female right?

Psychology is interesting, not least because experiments are so hard. For instance, if we were to create a fan edit of The Last Jedi but replace Finn with a white person and Holdo with a man, it would not be a suitable experiment to have you watch it and see if your opinion changed. Because your brain has already been changed by the experience of watching the first movie the first time, so we can't repeat an experiment.

Now, I read a paper a while ago, and I've spent like, ten minutes looking for it but I can't find it so you'll either have to take my word for it or find it yourself, but the gist of it was this:

Individuals were required to talk to other individuals through a video telephone link. Like facetime or something. But the researchers put in an intermittent delay, so that sometimes it appeared as if the person you were talking to was ignoring you or starting to talk over you.

When talking to people of the same ethnic group, people reported no negative feelings. However, when they talked with people of different ethnic groups these delays caused friction. The participants cited lack of understanding, lack of education, cultural differences, rudeness, etc, despite NOT reporting these things when the delays were not used, and NOT reporting these things even when the delays WERE used, if they were talking to people of the same ethnic group.

The very short version of the findings was that even people who consider themselves to not be racist at all, were less prepared to be forgiving of their conversation partners when those people were from a different ethnic group. Person A does a thing and it's ok, because they're the same as me. Person B does the same thing, and I don't like it. And coincidentally, they're not the same race as me.

So I'll just leave you to think about the implications of that study, on how you viewed those characters.

8 hours ago, McFoy said:

Also explain why people of colour is better than coloured people.

Geez, that's a loaded question. Or a baited hook, I guess is a better descriptor. Better? I don't think anyone has said it's better. But if we're going to have a new character introduced, why *shouldn't* it be a "person of colour" to use your term? What sort of things should we be considering when we choose who to cast in a role, and why? What sort of things would you be considering?

Now to avoid the self-righteous chest-beating, let's assume that we have ten different applicants for any given role, and they're a wide range of ages, genders, ethnicities, etc, but ALL of them bring the same level of chemistry and appropriateness to the role. If your response is just going to be "Well I'd just cast whoever is the best fit for the role!" then don't even bother replying. We're going to assume that ALL the applicants are the best fit for the role. Lets assume they've been shortlisted from thousands of applicants and it's literally impossible to decide which of them is bet for the role.

So who do YOU choose to cast, and why?

And a supplementary question: A little kid is watching Star Wars. They see a person on the screen that shares a trait with them. The person on the screen is a hero. The kid feels validated, and normal, and lifted, because this trait which is a large portion of their life, is being shown in Star Wars as something that's ok, and not a big deal.

How do you feel about that scenario?

On 5/21/2018 at 12:32 PM, Hobojebus said:

It's been confirmed lando hits on soylo, and there's a shower scene between soylo and chewie.

It is sjw star wars.

Have you seen it or have you just seen the you tube outrage? Without spoiling the plot I can't offer much of a rebuttal, but nothing happened which wouldn't otherwise have been seen as humorous or entertaining had the hot button term 'pansexual'not been used in an interview.

Anyway I really came here to see if the rumours of an obi was movie were true. I actually hope not and would rather see something new. Don't get me wrong, I like obi wan, but we have 4 films and 6 seasons of animation on him already.

Disney is not getting my money I am part of the soycott.

2 hours ago, Hobojebus said:

Disney is not getting my money I am part of the soycott.

?

11 hours ago, Chucknuckle said:

So I'll just leave you to think about the implications of that study, on how you viewed those characters.