MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > why is it wrong to make race/people spec...

why is it wrong to make race/people specific movies?

posted 3 years ago by 123Guy (7315)
116 replies | jump to latest

let's have a level headed, thought provoking discussion on this.

why is it wrong to make race specific movies?

for simple example:
- white dudes (too many to mention) make movies staring many white dudes forever, aimed at white audiences
- blacks, like Jordan Peele and Tyler Perry, make movies with many black actors for black audiences
- women make movies staring, about, and for women
- Indian people make movies featuring all Indian actors for Indian peoples
- gays make movies staring gays for gay audiences
- Asians make movies staring Asians for Asian audiences

and many more. those are not absolutes, just some obvious examples, where statistics, and even stereo types are factual.

along comes IMDB comments in most films that say:
"Why aren't there MORE blacks/asians/indians/gay/trans/women/etc in the film? We are under represented and too much white"

I'm summarizing and paraphrasing with that, to present my question,
"Why is it so wrong for specific groups or races to make films that mostly or only include people of that group?" Why? What is WRONG with that? Why is diversity required?

One goes to watch a baseball game and doesn't yell, "Why aren't there more football players or golfers or basketball players in this?"
One doesn't drink an orange soda pop and wonder, "Why isn't there more grape and vanilla and root beer and alcohol and tea flavor in this?"
One does not buy a pick up truck and think, "Why doesn't this float on the water better or cling tighter on the race track or mow the lawn better?"
Where's that diversity?

Jordan Peele literally says, "I don’t see myself casting a white dude as the lead" and I get that, and I am fine with that - I encourage that and love his work - but, people will take it wrong, and sensationalize that. Why? He's seen that movie with the white leads and gets to make films with black leads. I'm great with that, have no problem with that, encourage that, and also have no problem with all white movies. Films are made for specific audiences.

I've never gone to an action sci-fi film and thought, "Why isn't there more touching, female drama in this?" Or watched a RomCom and thought, "Why isn't there more action and robots and explosions in this?"

Trying to wrap my head around specifics as to why it is wrong for race or groups to make films aimed at their audiences... why is there always a mixed race couple shoe horned in, why a gay, an Asian, etc... all the characters have to be diverse.
Where does this make sense?

Blacks, women, Indian, gay, Asian, etc can make race/group specific, but whites can not?

[–] moviechatterer (15686) 3 years ago

It was a lengthy OP , with some elaborate metaphors
I particularly enjoyed the speed boat one .

but I lost track of what you're pissed off about

Is it women, gays or blacks?

" Films are made for specific audiences."
Are you saying you cant enjoy a film with a black man in the lead, becasue you are a white man?
Are you further saying there are not enough films with white folk in for you?

[–] sokar (2098) 3 years ago

Does trolling come naturally to you or do you pracitce.

Nothing in your reply is even remotely close to what he asked or implied but you already know this.

[–] 123Guy (7315) 3 years ago

Do you really not understand what I am asking?

Why do you think I am "pissed off" about anything? I'm not even remotely pissed off, just asking a question to a global audience. If you see asking a question about something and hoping for a mature discussion about it as being pissed off, well, I can't help you with your perspective, and I won't even try to change it, but I'm far from pissed off about this. I'm simply asking a question.

I think I adequately expressed I already do enjoy much variety in films from black cinema to bollywood, so my interests there don't really affect this discussion at all.

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

Today, I cannot enjoy a film with a black man/woman leading it because it feels like we MUST like him/her/the film or we are racist. People generally don't like to be told what to like or how to think. I am no exception.

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 3 years ago

That is an excellent and thoughtful post, and you totally misunderstood it, Bubba. You should probably just go back
to watching your Transformers and Fast and Furious movies.

🤨

[–] 123Guy (7315) 3 years ago

looks like many honest and decent replies here, thanks for the feedback, and I look forward to reading and discussing more, like civilized humans that can do that. :)

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

"Blacks, women, Indian, gay, Asian, etc can make race/group specific, but whites can not?"

You mean like "12 Angry Men"? "The Fight Club"? "Wolf on Wall Street"? Every John Wayne movie? "Frozen"? "21"? "The Irishmen"? "1917"? "“Ford v Ferrari”" 95%+ of movies?

A better question to ask is why do you have an entitled need to discriminate and want ALL movies to revolve around only whites? The norm for decades was white only movies. Nonwhites were purposely left out of movies or relegated to small stereotyped roles. Now, it's everyone else's turn to tell their stories.

BTW, most "white dude" movies were targeted for everyone, not just white dudes.

"One doesn't drink an orange soda pop and wonder, "Why isn't there more grape and vanilla and root beer and alcohol and tea flavor in this?""

You're basically saying that there should be segregation because race-mixing isn't normal. Americans are diversified, therefore our movies reflect our diversity. Period.

Most movies made today have a worldwide audience which is mainly nonwhite.

Welcome to the 21st century!

I'm sure Polish or Hungarian movies are white-only. You could watch those.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

BTW, most "white dude" movies were targeted for everyone, not just white dudes.

This is why all these "diversity casting" happened.

White audience will consume movies anyway. Why not sprinkle some non-white actors here and there to attract non-white audience to the movie as well?

This is exactly what happened to Chinese production movies adding white actor (even as the lead actor) e.g., The Great Wall (2016).

It has nothing to do with the Chinese wanting diversity in their movies. Why would they, duh. They simply wanted to attract white people to watch their movie too, in addition to the built-in Chinese audience.

Why do they want to make all-white Avengers movie if they can add non-whites and expand the markets? Just why not? There is no disadvantage, really. It's not like white people would stop watching Avengers just because Nick Fury is now Samuel L.Jackson instead of David Hasselhoff. I bet the audience of Avengers movies are still predominantly white, because there are simply more white people than the minorities.

White people WILL ALWAYS consume the movies anyway, whether Nick Fury is black or white. But having Samuel L. Jackson has the potential to bring more black people to watch Avengers in addition to the built-in white audience.

I actually wonder why Hollywood has just realised this now. There is simply nothing to gain financially by making all-white cast movies just for exclusively white audience.

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

I agree with you that it's financial and people like to see themselves reflected in movies, but it really started with the Civil Rights movement in the 60s when Black people began appearing in mainstream films and TV more regularly. I Spy, Julia and Star Trek come to mind and later Blaxploitation movies of the 70s. Other ethnic groups are much more recent.

This study supports diversity :
"... movies that had casts that were between 31 to 40 percent minority actors earned the most at the box office. And those with casts that had a majority of non-white actors provided the greatest return on their budgets at the box office, as they generally cost less to make than other top films.

The report also found that minority ticket buyers accounted for the majority of ticket sales for five of the top 10 grossing films in 2017."
https://www.thewrap.com/ucla-study-non-white-lead-best-roi/

Minorities are 40% of the U.S. pop. but are underrepresented in lead roles on TV and in movies. In answer to your question, racism, sexism, etc. still exist. Older white men control the industry.

"The Great Wall" was a joint American/Chinese movie made to profit in both countries. I consider it more American since the star, writers, and producers are American.

BTW, I'm still patiently waiting for the first Native-American family show to air on network TV.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

BTW, I'm still patiently waiting for the first Native-American family show to air on network TV.

Because there is currently no financial advantage of doing it.

Hollywood is liberal-leaning and it has always been that way. But why is it so?

Because liberalism / progresivism pushes the boundaries of what can be considered ok to be made as entertainments. Early Hollywood productions were basically soft-porns. Even in black and white. Visual entertainment needs "progress" (as in more and more open) to thrive.

If Hollywood was ultra conservative they would only churn out Bible stories all the time and no "progress" would be made. It's impossible to thrive. See Chinese movie industry in 1950s to 1990s. Not Hongkong, mainland China. They only make the same movies over and over and over again, no "progress" at all, because what can be considered entertainment was very limited.

It's only natural that when given freedom, any entertaiment industry would lean towards progresivism, because there is where the money is.

My point is that Hollywood ultimate goal is simply money, not politics. They were always liberals because that's what would give them the most potential for maximum profits and not the other way around.

We all know that Hollywood is mostly run by the Jews / jewish people. But most movies actually have Christian undertone, themes and symbolisms instead. How many movies depicted the main characters as Jesus? Characters like Superman and Iron Man etc. were depicted in crucifix pose.

But why they do that? Because that what makes most potential for maximum profits. They put aside their own thing to appease the market. It's just business.

Therefore, eventhough Hollywood is liberal-leaning they won't produce your dream Native Americans family shows because there simply no money to be gained from it, yet.

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

Hollywood isn't progressive or there wouldn't be a long history of discrimination in the industry. Most films and shows still revolve around white male characters even though the population is 40% POC and majority female.

Conservative Hollywood produces shows like Leave It to Beaver, John Wayne westerns, Andy Griffith show, superheroes who are overwhelmingly white males, Sheldon, NCIS. POC play sidekicks, minor characters or at best a costar the majority of time.

You don't have to be Native-American to watch the show. Streaming services appear to be a way to produce more diversity. "Reservation Dogs" looks promising. More shows with Indigenous casts come from Canada, but I have zero access. "Little Mosque on the Prairie" was really good.

I agree it's all about money.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

Well, by being progressive I mean by pushing the boundaries of what can be done in entertainment, you know, to "progress." The opposite of being conservative.

It doesn't mean they are already all ideal, diverse, feminist, no racism, etc. That's the image they want to sell, but actually has nothing todo with Hollywood. They're all about money, nothing else.

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

Conservative = Maintaining the status quo; keep things the same way

Progressive = Change

I'm saying that Hollywood isn't as progressive as they believe they are.

[–] 123Guy (7315) 3 years ago

THIS is a great thread read right here! Thanks for your input.

Keelai, if you are talking Hollywood in America, and POC being 40%, are you talking >>ALL<< non-white in that percentage? I dont keep up on all the changing race terminologies coverages to know what includes what this week.

After we FIX Hollywood and get that all evened out, lets look at that racist NBA group. note that when I google "best basketball players" I see 14 POC, then Larry Bird token white guy. What's up with that? We need to equalize that shit don't we? Talk about NBA being racist, bigoted, entitled whatever buzzwords blah blah blah - in the end, ol whitey is not equally represented in the NBA diversity, BECAUSE though they are 60% of the population.... ...yeah. That's how life works on Earth, yeah. :)

Anyway, I enjoyed reading you two's back and forth. I learned some stuff which is why I asked the question to begin with: to hear other's perspectives.

Bottom line, IF I was a movie writer, I would want to write however I felt like it. If I wrote about an all white family and all white friends in their all white neighborhood, I should have to think about INCLUSIVE other races, gays, horses, UFOs whatever if it wasn't in my story that I wrote. And that group may be what I know the most about. Other races do the same thing - using example Tyler Perry, or Bong Joon Ho... speaking of Parasite (which I enjoyed tons until the >SPOILER< slasher film style ending) I forgot to notice if diversity was smashed into that award winning film? Anyone remember? I just remember the characters and the fun story, not the races.

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

You're welcome. 40% of the U.S. population is minority.

You may find this report about Hollywood and minority representation interesting:
https://socialsciences.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/UCLA-Hollywood-Diversity-Report-2019-2-21-2019.pdf

"If I wrote about an all white family and all white friends in their all white neighborhood,"

You mean the TV show "Friends"? BTW, New York City isn't all white so the neighborhood is unrealistic.

Woody Allen makes all white movies. There are tons of all white movies. You also don't have to limit yourself to American movies which aren't that good anymore. Watch foreign movies, too.

Your topic was interesting which is why I tried to answer it. It's not possible to discuss race in movies without discussion racism which is a very complicated subject.

re: Basketball. As usual, there is racism and discrimination at the top and in leadership roles. Whites are 78% of head coaches, 22 out of 30 are general managers, est. 28 out of 30 owners, majority in operations.

[–] sokar (2098) 3 years ago

Basketball. As usual, there is racism and discrimination at the top and in leadership roles. Whites are 78% of head coaches, 22 out of 30 are general managers, est. 28 out of 30 owners, majority in operations.

We will just by pass the stats on players in your racism against white people narrative.

You are so transparent it isn't even enjoyable to make fun of anymore.

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

Don't forget Whites are the ones doing the hiring. You're upset that any Black players are hired. Shame on you!

[–] sokar (2098) 3 years ago

Right on queue.

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

Your nonreply is a concession.

[–] sokar (2098) 3 years ago

No it isn't. You stated racism in the NBA because coaches and general managers are white. I have no idea I don't care about basketball, pointless sport.

But you forgot to mention the players because it would have gone against your racism narrative, hence why you ommited it.

I concede nothing because there is nothing to concede. My point still stands.

Everytime anyone replies you will automatically call them racist just like above no matter what is writtem or discussed because you have literally zero other discussion point. You are so blinded by CRT youo see nothing else. Why do you think you are laughed at and called a troll because that is exactly what you are.

How can i be upset about players I couldn't even name or point out. Nice try.

Let me guess in 5 minutes you will call me racist even though I have said nothing or stated nothing that is racist. You have though, funny that.

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 3 years ago

I agree completely! What an excellent and thoughtful post!

Diversity itself is NOT a good thing. It's NOT a bad thing. It's neutral. Diversity itself creates NO advantage in any endeavor. Unlike the slogans from the Woke companies, diversity does NOT make us stronger. It does NOT make us weaker. It has no effect except to make the smug virtue signaling Leftists feel good.

🤨

[–] moviechatterer (15686) 3 years ago

well , it might make the "lesbian midget dwarves" that i hear so much about feel a little better

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 3 years ago

Say what??

🤨

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7176) 3 years ago

The point about making more money by appealing to more audiences is probably the best answer as to why diversified casting works better overall and is employed more these days.

But on top of that, media strongly shapes societal perceptions.

For example, Mae Jemison, the first black female astronaut, credits Star Trek and the character Lieutenant Uhura as her inspiration for her interest in space travel. So having diversity in film and TV is not only about representation, but also inspiration.

You stated that men didn’t show up for the reboot of Charlie’s Angels – which, to be fair, was a pretty average film. But you know what there are a lot of in this world? Average male-led action films that people showed up to see. The problem isn’t that they diversified the cast or upturned expectations regarding plot. The problem is that society as a whole isn't exposed to women in this kind of role at the same level as they are to men in the same role. It doesn’t matter if men realistically participate in more action-based activities than women irl because, were they represented in media, this would likely change irl. And that can be said about a lot of different groups of people.

I mean, just look at how many Superman based films and shows there are – at least 25 by my count. There’s one Wonder Woman TV show and 2 recent WW films. Is Superman simply more popular, or is he just more overexposed? The fact is that the former can only be true because the latter is true. In other words, how can we know we like something better when there’s nothing of equal visibility to compare it to?

[–] moviechatterer (15686) 3 years ago

I think superheroes are over represented by diversity quotas.

as a non superpowered male , i dont want to see these films about people that arnt my demographic.

that sounds stupid eh?
but thats basiclaly what I hear when people complain about they cant watch films with women or blacks in them.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

If you asked the General Discussion you'll see that most of out residents here don't want to see superhero movies. So it's actually not that stupid.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7176) 3 years ago

Put like that, it does sound pretty funny. It would be like saying "I can't watch animated talking animals in Disney films because I'm not an animated talking animal" - and we know people love Disney so that ain't true.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

Technically, humans are talking animals.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7176) 3 years ago

You got me there. They can also be animated.

[–] NitroHangover (1142) 3 years ago

The problem is that society as a whole isn't exposed to women in this kind of role at the same level as they are to men in the same role. It doesn’t matter if men realistically participate in more action-based activities than women irl because, were they represented in media, this would likely change irl.

No. The most feminist nations on Earth are the Scandinavian countries of Northern Europe, i.e. Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland. Traditional gender roles and representations have largely been done away with in that region, and in fact, opposite representation in gender roles have been the prevalent standard there for decades.

And in these countries where men and women are less influenced and restricted by traditional gender roles, the result is that both men and women freely choose more traditional gender roles. In other words, it has had the opposite result that feminists thought it would have.

In the most feminist countries on Earth, women freely choose more traditionally feminine roles and jobs.
It's referred to as the 'Gender Equality Paradox.'

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190831-the-paradox-of-working-in-the-worlds-most-equal-countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox
https://nordicparadox.se/

It's almost as if men and women are inherently different, and have different interests, and have different priorities in life...

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7176) 3 years ago

Nothing in any of the links provided suggest women are choosing more traditionally feminine roles and jobs, and everything to suggest that they are being held back by the systems in place, namely welfare states. You yourself pointed out traditional roles have been largely done away with, so if they're done away with, then who's actually choosing them?

Some quotes that show this:

Nordic welfare states are – unintentionally – holding women back. Public sector monopolies and substantial tax wedges limit women’s progress in the labour market. Overly generous parental leave systems encourage women to stay home rather than work. Welfare state safety nets discourage women from self-employment. On the other hand, the much-avowed affirmative action laws in Norway have not helped further women’s career possibilities.

Thus, for all their gender equal progress, the Nordic countries in fact have relatively few women entrepreneurs, managers and executives. And there is really not a paradox why this situation has developed. It’s all about the policy choices made in the Nordics. As is clear, an expansive welfare state may be good for some things, but expanding the ranks of managers for women is not one of them.

Not to mention that western countries clearly do not work in the same way as European countries, so it doesn't even matter if your point was actually right. As one article pointed out:

The likelihood of a women reaching a managerial position as compared to the same likelihood for a man in the United States is found to be 85 per cent. This is far higher than any other country in the study.

This shows that women can and do succeed in positions of power where it's possible to do so. And maybe if women had the opportunities to tell these stories, to audiences that were open to hearing them, maybe things would be different in these societies.

[–] Enigmaticocean77 (2440) 3 years ago

I'll answer this with one sentence. People are dumb, and look for racism in everything.

[–] 123Guy (7315) 3 years ago

hahahaha, yeah very concise summary there! :)

I love Morgan Freemans answer to cure racism: stop talking about it. I've heard that from many other black people as well. And related, I didn't even know I was racist until someone else told me my great, great, great grandfather HAD TO have done something bad once, therefore, I am guilty as sin itself. Using DNA, I'm hoping to track my ancestry back to the cavemen, recover all their transgressions, and start giving back to all who were harmed. That makes sense given 100 years to play with. :)

Morgan: https://youtu.be/-u8gMkSL730?t=89

[–] Kowalski (75736) 3 years ago

WHO TOLD YOU THAT?...WAS IT BAD RONALD?🤔

[–] 123Guy (7315) 3 years ago

sorry, I don't get it, if its a joke

[–] Kowalski (75736) 3 years ago

ALUCARD?🤔

[–] 123Guy (7315) 3 years ago

IS THIS ENGLISH??? :D

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

It's "Dracula" spelled backwards.

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

You didn't take Freeman's advice! Your topic is talking about race. You should never talk about all white movies in order for any issue to resolve itself.

DNA only goes up to 200 years. Exception is that you can find out what percentage of Neanderthal is in your DNA with 23andme test.

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

"Actor Morgan Freeman is bringing the conversation about racism and police brutality to the big screen, as the executive producer of "The Killing of Kenneth Chamberlain."
https://www.kenoshanews.com/entertainment/morgan-freeman-tackles-police-brutality-with-new-film/video_c46f8c43-066b-5353-b742-f58fb742f34c.html

This just made his "not talking about racism as cure" speech moot.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

If the race plays a role in the plot of the film or if the joke is about race, I don't see a problem with it. Overall it should serve a purpose, such as in Blazing Saddles, not only were the race jokes hilarious but they were also conveying how absurd racism was in the first place. What I disagree with however is throwing race in there just for the heck of it and I also disagree with it being OK to make race jokes one way but not the other.

As far as casting certain actors of specific races in certain roles, I think that the actor should be able to convey who the character is. For example if we were to make a biography about Dr. Martin Luther King it would be absurd to cast a white guy in the lead role. Same thing with James Bond, James Bond is a straight, white, misogynistic British male. The actor playing Bond should be: White, Male, able to speak in a believable British accent, be able to convincingly play a straight, misogynistic character.

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

Jesus wasn't white. Neither was King Tut. But, white actors play them all the time.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

So you are justifying bad behavior with bad behavior?

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

So does that mean you’d be ok with a white guy playing Dr Martin Luther King Jr or Barack Obama?

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

Why are you OK with this?

"Jesus wasn't white. Neither was King Tut. But, white actors play them all the time."

You're not critical of this. You're only criticizing fictional characters like James Bond who can be played by anyone.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

That’s because I don’t watch many movies about Jesus and King Tut. Also you strawmaned me, I only pointed out James Bond because there is a push in the SJW community to make him black which is absurd. Also I watch far more movies about James Bond than movies about King Tut or Jesus which is why I’m naturally more passionate about him. Me not mentioning King Tut or Jesus is a non sequitur

Also did you notice how I said casting a white guy as MLK would be a horrible idea?

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

It doesn't matter if you personally watch. Everyone knows how they are represented in movies and art.

A white guy as Jesus and King Tut is worse because it perpetuates a white supremacist lie about only white achievements existing.

The white guy as savior of POC is common in movies like Dances with Wolves so white guy as MLK would be more of the same.

Even Othello is normally played by a white singer.

I don't see anything wrong with a POC James Bond. Why is that an issue for you? Nobody had a problem with Lupin.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

There you go, you just admitted that it’s ok for a black person to play a role that was traditionally white but not the other way.

Thanks for owning up to your racist double standard

Edit: are we even sure Jesus Christ was a real person?

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

Your reading comprehension is bad:
rif.org

You're welcome.

Of course, Jesus lived. He caused quite a ruckus, too.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Nope my reading comprehension is clearly far beyond yours.

What is your evidence that he lived? Why do you believe the evidence you based your assertions on? Do you seriously think he rose from the dead?

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

"Nope my reading comprehension is clearly far behind yours."

LOL! Yes, it is!

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Beyond you idiot, autocorrect got me and I’m typing from my phone.

I see you also believe in the magical sky daddy, you should be in therapy.

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

Excuses, excuses! You can't read!

First century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Iēsous aka: Jesus. Being the dimwit that you are, you're confusing historical Jesus with biblical Jesus. Learn the difference!

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

So a historian believes he existed? I’m sure there is someone out there who thinks the world is flat that doesn’t make it so.

Lol you actually believe these stupid fairy tales. You need help.

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

Let's see if your stupidity can be cured.

Define:

1. Historical Jesus

2. Biblical Jesus

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Still too much of a chickenshit to address anything I just said, just more cowardly deflections

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

Nope, your stupidity can't be cured.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Your TDS and your devotion to your cult can't be cured.

[–] chilone (17883) 3 years ago

Hey Komrade Keelai, how come you dip out of EVERY thread you're in when I ask you to prove your LIE that I made racist posts? Admit that you lied, loser.

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

Hi stalker!

[–] chilone (17883) 3 years ago

You can not divert from your LIE by pathetically calling me a stalker. You lied about me and you slink away like the worm you are when I call you out, which I'm going to continue to do until you admit that you LIED about me. LIAR.

[–] 123Guy (7315) 3 years ago

....aaaand this is why all discussions online should STOP after two days. :)

It real life, we talk FOR A LITTLE WHILE, then agree to disagree, get on with our lives and discuss something new tomorrow.
On the internet, things stay live and open forever, getting hopelessly side tracked, too many deeper meanings misread into statements, and everything turns to yelling with name calling.

Internet discussions should STOP after two days.
Every forum needs a two day auto comment disable.

[–] Keelai (34880) 3 years ago

Your post has nothing to do with the trolling stalker. He rarely replies to topics and would show up if your post were only 10 minutes old. He usually harasses different posters in Politics where I prefer he would stay since he makes no attempt to address the topic.

[–] 123Guy (7315) 3 years ago

Thanks for all the replies here! I'm out.
Post has exceeded its two day limit of reasonableness, and can only get unhinged here on out.

Good luck. Stay and fight pointlessly if you feel the urge, but I was happy to have a short discussion about the OP

Thanks to ALL (and I mean ALL) who responded with their input.