Cras wrote:
You think you're having a debate about social equality.
And you think we disagree with you
Cras wrote:
Your stance and opinions are totally valid, and the stand you take on such things is admirable.
Also this. Especially the last bit.
DavPaz wrote:
Said colleague surprised me by revealing that his surname was given to his grandfather by a passport officer in Liberia when the grandfather revealed that he didn't have one during the process to emigrate to the UK in the 40s. The officer basically said, "You need a surname for a passport" and pulled one out of the air.
This happens a LOT more than you'd realise. I know of some people whose ancestors emigrated to America in the 1800s and had their surnames changed because the immigration officers couldn't pronounce or say them. A lot of this is covered if you take the Ellis Island tour in New York.
I always thought Muhammed Ali was just being a dick when he was going on about his "slave name" but it turns out that many African American families still bear the names of the families that used to own their ancestors.
Grim... wrote:
And you think we disagree with you
No, that's not it. It's more nuanced than that. I'm not saying you actively oppose what I talk about, I just think generally perhaps you don't think about them or think it's necessarily important. Case in point, your insensitive comments regarding white actors in non-white acting roles, whatever your logical reasoning behind it (which is sound, btw).
I went on that Ellis Island tour.
Lots of Chinese people coming to the UK change their names (both names) to western names, too. I have a friend who teaches in a private school that gets a lot of overseas students, and the Chinese kids are always called "John" or "Jane" or something super-English, and often (to start with) they don't react when being referred to by it. He (the teacher) has asked them why they do it, as their actual names are often not hard to pronounce and they'll go back to them when they're not in the UK, but apparently it's a cultural thing.
Lots of Chinese people coming to the UK change their names (both names) to western names, too. I have a friend who teaches in a private school that gets a lot of overseas students, and the Chinese kids are always called "John" or "Jane" or something super-English, and often (to start with) they don't react when being referred to by it. He (the teacher) has asked them why they do it, as their actual names are often not hard to pronounce and they'll go back to them when they're not in the UK, but apparently it's a cultural thing.
DavPaz wrote:
I always thought Muhammed Ali was just being a dick when he was going on about his "slave name" but it turns out that many African American families still bear the names of the families that used to own their ancestors.
Absolutely. The next time you meet a black man with the surname Smith, it's probably his ancestor's slave's surname.
Curiosity wrote:
The Christian analogy surely falls down on the comparison of one thing (equality of human life) being objectively moral and the other (belief in a very specific supreme deity at the exclusion of all other possibilities) being extremely subjective.
Personally, reading the likes of Everyday Sexism, Criado-Perez and a raft of other writers has genuinely made a change in my understanding of society, and my thought processes. The current increased focus in society on the likes of sexism and racism is surely evidence of at least the start of a productive output of the sort of behaviour Myp exhibits?
Personally, reading the likes of Everyday Sexism, Criado-Perez and a raft of other writers has genuinely made a change in my understanding of society, and my thought processes. The current increased focus in society on the likes of sexism and racism is surely evidence of at least the start of a productive output of the sort of behaviour Myp exhibits?
I imagine your conflating things which I'm not meaning to - The christian thing is purely a "How do other people see and interact with you" rather than any comment about the end beliefs. The parallels are certainly striking to me. Although you also somewhat show something from purely your own stand point - that is to say that for many people, religion is a primary driver of what is 'objectively' moral and doesn't always agree with what you think is 'objectively' moral. So yeah, not objective at all. I do have a suspicion that western society, as is, is rather ill anyway, and only looking to get iller. (And no, not because of the subject at hand)
And, as it to be expected when talking about generalisations, there will be some exceptions to the rule - although I'd hazard a guess that before your new understanding, you didn't have an overly fixed understanding in the first place? I'd also hazard a guess that you're more likely to think things through than many others.
I'm still of the opinion that the best way to go about it is to lead by example, and offer more questions with ideas attached than outright answers. Personally, I also value a certain amount of intellectual honesty, which has certainly been lacking in some areas, but that's often secondary to other factors such as Charisma.
--
And for what it's worth, I have no interest in the film. Partly because I don't think it's honest to change the character, partly as I have little to no interest in the Hollywood output as a whole (Guns, Gangsters and Zombies all the way), partly as I don't see any need to remake what was already good just for a more closeminded audience and partly because hollywood is even crapper at remaking foreign works than it is at making it's usual knock off fare)
Future Warrior wrote:
Grim... wrote:
And you think we disagree with you
No, that's not it. It's more nuanced than that. I'm not saying you actively oppose what I talk about, I just think generally perhaps you don't think about them or think it's necessarily important. Case in point, your insensitive comments regarding white actors in non-white acting roles, whatever your logical reasoning behind it (which is sound, btw).
The original post about Maggie Q?
Grim... wrote:
I went on that Ellis Island tour.
Lots of Chinese people coming to the UK change their names (both names) to western names, too. I have a friend who teaches in a private school that gets a lot of overseas students, and the Chinese kids are always called "John" or "Jane" or something super-English, and often (to start with) they don't react when being referred to by it. He (the teacher) has asked them why they do it, as their actual names are often not hard to pronounce and they'll go back to them when they're not in the UK, but apparently it's a cultural thing.
Lots of Chinese people coming to the UK change their names (both names) to western names, too. I have a friend who teaches in a private school that gets a lot of overseas students, and the Chinese kids are always called "John" or "Jane" or something super-English, and often (to start with) they don't react when being referred to by it. He (the teacher) has asked them why they do it, as their actual names are often not hard to pronounce and they'll go back to them when they're not in the UK, but apparently it's a cultural thing.
Yep, I went to school with two South Koreans and they both had English names. I insisted they told me their real names and called them by those, though. They seemed to appreciate it.
Future Warrior wrote:
Grim... wrote:
I went on that Ellis Island tour.
Lots of Chinese people coming to the UK change their names (both names) to western names, too. I have a friend who teaches in a private school that gets a lot of overseas students, and the Chinese kids are always called "John" or "Jane" or something super-English, and often (to start with) they don't react when being referred to by it. He (the teacher) has asked them why they do it, as their actual names are often not hard to pronounce and they'll go back to them when they're not in the UK, but apparently it's a cultural thing.
Lots of Chinese people coming to the UK change their names (both names) to western names, too. I have a friend who teaches in a private school that gets a lot of overseas students, and the Chinese kids are always called "John" or "Jane" or something super-English, and often (to start with) they don't react when being referred to by it. He (the teacher) has asked them why they do it, as their actual names are often not hard to pronounce and they'll go back to them when they're not in the UK, but apparently it's a cultural thing.
I insisted they told me their real names and called them by those, though. They seemed to appreciate it.
My understanding of it is that Chinese people wouldn't appreciate it - although I'm buggered if I could tell you why.
Grim... wrote:
Future Warrior wrote:
Grim... wrote:
And you think we disagree with you
No, that's not it. It's more nuanced than that. I'm not saying you actively oppose what I talk about, I just think generally perhaps you don't think about them or think it's necessarily important. Case in point, your insensitive comments regarding white actors in non-white acting roles, whatever your logical reasoning behind it (which is sound, btw).
The original post about Maggie Q?
Yeah, fair point.
Grim... wrote:
I went on that Ellis Island tour.
Lots of Chinese people coming to the UK change their names (both names) to western names, too. I have a friend who teaches in a private school that gets a lot of overseas students, and the Chinese kids are always called "John" or "Jane" or something super-English, and often (to start with) they don't react when being referred to by it. He (the teacher) has asked them why they do it, as their actual names are often not hard to pronounce and they'll go back to them when they're not in the UK, but apparently it's a cultural thing.
Lots of Chinese people coming to the UK change their names (both names) to western names, too. I have a friend who teaches in a private school that gets a lot of overseas students, and the Chinese kids are always called "John" or "Jane" or something super-English, and often (to start with) they don't react when being referred to by it. He (the teacher) has asked them why they do it, as their actual names are often not hard to pronounce and they'll go back to them when they're not in the UK, but apparently it's a cultural thing.
And Nigerians, generally.
Mr Dave wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
The Christian analogy surely falls down on the comparison of one thing (equality of human life) being objectively moral and the other (belief in a very specific supreme deity at the exclusion of all other possibilities) being extremely subjective.
Personally, reading the likes of Everyday Sexism, Criado-Perez and a raft of other writers has genuinely made a change in my understanding of society, and my thought processes. The current increased focus in society on the likes of sexism and racism is surely evidence of at least the start of a productive output of the sort of behaviour Myp exhibits?
Personally, reading the likes of Everyday Sexism, Criado-Perez and a raft of other writers has genuinely made a change in my understanding of society, and my thought processes. The current increased focus in society on the likes of sexism and racism is surely evidence of at least the start of a productive output of the sort of behaviour Myp exhibits?
I imagine your conflating things which I'm not meaning to - The christian thing is purely a "How do other people see and interact with you" rather than any comment about the end beliefs. The parallels are certainly striking to me. Although you also somewhat show something from purely your own stand point - that is to say that for many people, religion is a primary driver of what is 'objectively' moral and doesn't always agree with what you think is 'objectively' moral. So yeah, not objective at all. I do have a suspicion that western society, as is, is rather ill anyway, and only looking to get iller. (And no, not because of the subject at hand)
And, as it to be expected when talking about generalisations, there will be some exceptions to the rule - although I'd hazard a guess that before your new understanding, you didn't have an overly fixed understanding in the first place? I'd also hazard a guess that you're more likely to think things through than many others.
I'm still of the opinion that the best way to go about it is to lead by example, and offer more questions with ideas attached than outright answers. Personally, I also value a certain amount of intellectual honesty, which has certainly been lacking in some areas, but that's often secondary to other factors such as Charisma.
--
And for what it's worth, I have no interest in the film. Partly because I don't think it's honest to change the character, partly as I have little to no interest in the Hollywood output as a whole (Guns, Gangsters and Zombies all the way), partly as I don't see any need to remake what was already good just for a more closeminded audience and partly because hollywood is even crapper at remaking foreign works than it is at making it's usual knock off fare)
I just think there's a large difference between someone saying, "Well, that may be prejudicial against people" to saying, "Well, God told me that was bad". For a starter, the latter will immediately alienate over half of the people in the world, as they likely won't share your religious views.
Future Warrior wrote:
Anyway, I think this has run its course. Putting this very carefully so as not to offend, a predominantly white, male, straight crowd is very difficult to have these discussions with, as it gets a bit defensive. You guys are better than most, especially in the gaming community (see GG for an example at the other end of the spectrum)! I don't expect most of you to agree with me now, but you will eventually, though.
I am also aware of my privilege and know that if I were black or a woman standing up making these comments today, I'd get a lot more abuse (again, not from you, in general). Most of what I've talked about today is information I've gleaned from listening to people of colour, women and transsexuals who experience discrimination every single day. So if there's one thing I'd recommend above all others is to listen to what they want to change.
Or you could drop a toaster in the bath a la Mel Gibson.
Your assumption about what other people think and know about privilege and discrimination based on a few posts in a forum is amusing to me personally
I'll tell you why that is, who I work for and why it's amusing next time we are drinking an overpriced poncy craft beer together Trooper wrote:
Your assumption about what other people think and know about privilege and discrimination based on a few posts in a forum is amusing to me personally I'll tell you why that is, who I work for and why it's amusing next time we are drinking an overpriced poncy craft beer together
I'll tell you why that is, who I work for and why it's amusing next time we are drinking an overpriced poncy craft beer together Because you're secretly not English? The mafia? Because he's now sleeping (with the fishes)?
Trooper wrote:
Your assumption about what other people think and know about privilege and discrimination based on a few posts in a forum is amusing to me personally I'll tell you why that is, who I work for and why it's amusing next time we are drinking an overpriced poncy craft beer together
I'll tell you why that is, who I work for and why it's amusing next time we are drinking an overpriced poncy craft beer together I can only go by what people post on here or tell me in real life. If you don't, I have to make some kind of assumptions. It's good to know I'm wrong sometimes.
Assume I'm perfect
I assume the best of people until proved otherwise. It seems to work well for me.
Trooper wrote:
I assume the best of people until proved otherwise. It seems to work well for me.
I've obviously been ground down to a nub of cynicism over the last year or so.
Future Warrior wrote:
Trooper wrote:
I assume the best of people until proved otherwise. It seems to work well for me.
I've obviously been ground down to a nub of cynicism over the last year or so.
Ahh, the Dawkins Effect.
I'd agree with Trooper though. And Grim...
I reckon she been cast as they're shooting it as an American movie for American people who have never heard of the manga rather than a japanese movie for a japanese audience who have heard of the manga.
Y'know, like Sarah Michael Geller in The Ring remake.
Y'know, like Sarah Michael Geller in The Ring remake.
Ghost in the Shell fans can get dressed up at Uniqlo at the moment:
http://www.uniqlo.com/uk/store/feature/uq/ut/ghost-in-the-shell/
http://www.uniqlo.com/uk/store/feature/uq/ut/ghost-in-the-shell/
Edited: Shortened link
There's also a new TV series - sort of. I'm not sure I entirely understand what it is, but it looks to be a remake / re-edit of the four border films, along with some extra stuff. Maybe. Dunno.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell:_Arise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell:_Arise
I've watched Arise 1+2 and they were very good. But thus far 3 won't play with subtitles on Netflix. Which is annoying.
Gold. GOLD. Shark jumping GOLD
Here's a nice video about the art of the first film.
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG
Well, here she is, folks.
Oh dear. It's a shame there are no Asian actors available.
Racist.
Doesn't most manga make a deliberate point of making characters not look Asian? I thought that was very much a known thing
People who cry that they haven't chose an asian for the main character are either stupid or incredibly naive. A movie is made for profit and having a recognizable actor as the lead is a very big factor in it. What where they expecting?
RuySan wrote:
People who cry that they haven't chose an asian for the main character are either stupid or incredibly naive. A movie is made for profit and having a recognizable actor as the lead is a very big factor in it. What where they expecting?
Oh dear.
Grim... wrote:
Racist.
Reverse-racism doesn't exist.
Cras wrote:
Doesn't most manga make a deliberate point of making characters not look Asian? I thought that was very much a known thing
You're right, Motogo Kusanagi is a very non-Asian name.
It's almost like you have become a parody tribute act 
Trooper wrote:
It's almost like you have become a parody tribute act
I don't see why this isn't a problem - unless you're colourblind because you just don't see race. *rolls eyes to infinity*
Anyway, I don't particularly care about the film in of itself, I'm just interested in it from a 'whitewashing' angle. See also Gods of Egypt.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/scarlett ... 35cb6f2e70?
It's a Japanese character in a Japanese story. If you want to remake it for a western audience then fine, but they haven't done that. They're talking about using technology to make Johansson look more Asian, which is gross.
And I have nothing against ScarJo, I'm sure she'll be fine. Just shouldn't have been cast.
Lonewolves wrote:
Cras wrote:
Doesn't most manga make a deliberate point of making characters not look Asian? I thought that was very much a known thing
You're right, Motogo Kusanagi is a very non-Asian name.
Appearance, not names. Manga art styles deliberately remove identifiably Asian features.
Cras wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Cras wrote:
Doesn't most manga make a deliberate point of making characters not look Asian? I thought that was very much a known thing
You're right, Motogo Kusanagi is a very non-Asian name.
Appearance, not names. Manga art styles deliberately remove identifiably Asian features.
I feel you're being deliberately obtuse here. Why are they using technology to make her look more Asian then?
Here's an article about the problem by an actual Asian.
https://mediadiversified.org/2016/04/17 ... ut-asians/
Cras is quite right. A western appearance is considered more attractive, apparently, so Anime characters are often made to look less Japanese.
I don't think Cras was supporting the casting, though.
I don't think Cras was supporting the casting, though.
Lonewolves wrote:
an actual Asian
Hello!
The one in that article seemed to miss the original GitS announcement last year. S/he should hang round here.
Don't disagree in the least Myp - making her look more Asian is crass and offensive. However, find me a single picture of Kusanagi where she looks Asian - good luck with that. Manga art styles deliberately create characters, especially female characters, that are as white as possible, large breasted, and completely lacking in typical Asian features. Now that's a potentially deep-seated racial issue among Japanese people - God it's not like Geisha's aren't powerfully fucking offensive - but at the same time if you're catering to an audience who's coming because they like Manga, what do you do? Cast Japanese people in a role that is representative of a comic character who's deliberately made to look non-Japanese?
It's a powerful clusterfuck and if the studio didn't see the backlash coming, they're idiots - but I've no idea what the properly sensitive approach would actually have been.
It's a powerful clusterfuck and if the studio didn't see the backlash coming, they're idiots - but I've no idea what the properly sensitive approach would actually have been.
*cough* Anime != Manga.
Although GitS is a Manga film.
Although GitS is a Manga film.
Devon Aoki is pretty hot
For those that don't know, here is a picture of Kusunagi from the recent PC game.
So she's not Asian because her eyes are big, despite her name and where she lives. Ok
Lonewolves wrote:
So she's not Asian because her eyes are big, despite her name and where she lives. Ok
Of course, I've not said she's not Asian. I've said that every representation of her, including primarily the actual source material, portrays her as not looking Asian. So picking someone not Asian to play the role isn't exactly as wild a leap as it appears on the face of it. I'm not saying it's the right choice, but on the face of it I don't think a japanese actress who looks Japanese would be right either.
This isn't as clear cut as you're making it out to be. There's no textual source material, only artwork - so going by any efforts to be faithful to the source you wouldn't pic an actress who looks Japanese.
As I said, I've no real idea about the rights and wrongs of this (though making an actress 'look more Asian' is certainly pretty offensive). I don't know what they should have done instead. Pick a Japanese person with the most caucasian features they can find? Is that any better? Or ignore the fact that Kusanagi is meant to look caucasian - but isn't that in itself pretty offensive to a genre of Japanese creativity? I have no idea.
She's also pretty much all robot, so I don't think she's meant to have much in the way of facial expressions either.
Not that that's anything to do the rest of the conversation.
Not that that's anything to do the rest of the conversation.
Cras wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Cras wrote:
Doesn't most manga make a deliberate point of making characters not look Asian? I thought that was very much a known thing
You're right, Motogo Kusanagi is a very non-Asian name.
Appearance, not names. Manga art styles deliberately remove identifiably Asian features.
To be fair, they don't really target looking like humans.
