Apparently "Master Bedroom" is now racist

So . . . "any actor can play any role" is right out the door now?

"Davey, were those SJWs?"
"Yes, Max. Those were SJWs."


That said, if the phrase makes you uncomfortable, don't use it. I play Mafia off-and-on elsewhere, and we recently decided we were no longer comfortable using "lynching" to describe voting someone out of the game. Nobody got high and mighty about it, we just quietly agreed to try something else. We're still trying out other phrasings, but there are a lot to choose from.


I remember visiting a Mennonite store in northern Missouri once as a young child. On a large chalkboard behind the register was a long list of euphemistic exclamations, like "golly" or "geeze", and the religious word each replaced. I was startled to see some of them up there, but it got me thinking about intent vs. intrinsic meaning. If you say "gosh!" and mean "God!", is that still bad? I think it's a little rude, at the least. If you say "gosh!" as a generic noise-word through which to convey emotion, is that still bad? I suspect the Mennonite and I disagree there, as it's just a noise-word at that point that has no other meaning to degrade.


This kind of nitpicking is essentially grammar Nazism. If you're attacking people over "master bedroom" or "male/female couplings" then you're the equivalent of someone coming into a debate and picking apart everyone's spelling and punctuation. Nobody's going to like you or your cause.

Is this the hill you're willing to die on?

Jesus.

https://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3258548/

Is it the one you are? You either make race an issue or you see it for the artificial construct of archaic nonsense that it is. It's time for the human race to grow up. If it's wrong for a white actor to play a non-white character, then it's also wrong for a non-white actor to play a white character.

Or you can grow up and realize that none of that actually matters beyond adapted material and being faithful to the source.

Sure, because putting out a house on fire is exactly like setting a house on fire.

Because faithfulness to the source is much more important than battling racism.

Remained mired in your parochial binary idiocy, then. I wash my hands of you.

That's not my blood. I'm white, and far away.

Good.
Good riddance to all of it.
Burn all the master bedrooms down.
Use Redskins merchandise as kindling, and Aunt Jemima syrup as accelerant.

While we're at it we should get rid of maestro as well. I understand the criticism people have with words having multiple meanings, some of which have negative connotations, but if we start down the road of changing terms because of it we run the risk of bad actors poisoning word meanings on purpose to force others to stop using them.

What a complete distraction. Oh, done by the wannabe woke CNN people. Must have been a slow news day, have they found that malaysian airliner yet?

Why am I not surprised?

I think I will get on this when it is actually an issue, but for right now I am pretty sure the main issue is racism and the police force who keeps killing, abusing, and stripping black people of basic human rights and respect. Since I do not think that involves using master bedroom as they kneel on their necks or blow them away I am not bothering with this. I am probably even going to wait to worry about this until black people own more homes and can get a mortgage and job as easily as a white person.

The only thing this does is reinforce why I do not watch CNN.

You are not welcome in the House of George Carlin.

You fucking pretender.

You were supposed to cry, not be nasty.
You ruined my trick.

I agree that "Redskins" and "Aunt Jemima" are offensive. There is no other interpretation.

Just don't go bananas with the language police. Nothing racist whatsoever with the term "master bedroom".

See the video in the OP.

We should rename maturbation to masterbation and see how long before al the crazy left wing people give the fuck up on being the language police.

A slavemaster bringing someone to climax with hand stuff would be a GIVING act, and they weren't known for that kind of thing.

LOGIC!

Although it would also, by definition, not be masturbation.

I know you love bringing this up as a pet passion, so I'll just repost what I said about about it last time:

This. and this some more for @Diacanu .

What if @Federal Farmer reads this. He would be very confused and might think he was not an incel because he was having sex with himself.

Pulling the issue of race out of the topic, for the moment, let me turn folks back to when RDJ was announced as playing Tony Stark in Iron Man. Lots of people were butthurt over the idea for some reason. Presumably, they didn't think that RDJ had the necessary chops to do the job. To me, it seemed like a genius bit of casting, given the fact that RDJ had struggled for years with drug and alcohol addiction, something that Tony Stark had also dealt with. We now know who was right and who was wrong on the subject. Yeah, sure, somebody like Liam Neeson could have brought something unique to the role, but would he have been Tony fucking Stark the way RDJ was? I don't know. And I'm also not really interested in finding out. I mean, if someone did a deep fake that had Al Pacino in the role of Han Solo, I'd watch it, because Pacino is so radically different an actor than Ford, while still embodying the image of a rebel. But who could you bring to the table to replace RDJ as Stark? Charlie Sheen? He's the same age as RDJ, same ethnicity as RDJ, and has had the same struggles as RDJ. Would he have been as good an Iron Man as RDJ? I don't see it.

Now, to bring ethnicity into the discussion, let's look at the musical Hamilton, where most of the cast didn't match the ethnicities of the people who inspired it. The argument made there is that the ideals expressed in the founding of America were larger than the men who created the nation. Anybody want to argue against this? Most of the Founding Fathers would have been opposed to the idea of giving women the right to vote, but I think all of us would agree that women should have the same rights as men. We can argue over if Hamilton was the kind of person who should have been memorialized in a hit musical (because the man was a prick and Aaron Burr did the nation a favor by shooting him), and if the alterations to history that the musical makes actually serve society, but I don't think that it can be successfully argued that the ideas undergirding this nation's birth were larger than those who created this nation.

So to circle back around to the topic of if any actor can play any role, it really depends upon the role, and what folks are trying to say. As part of the WPA during the Great Depression, Orson Welles staged a Broadway version of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar with an all black cast, set on Wall Street. Absolutely not keeping with who would have been imagined by old Will when he (or more likely, Emilia Bassano), but holy shit, that must have made a statement about society at the time. I wish that someone had filmed it.

If you stick a white person in a role that was written for somebody who wasn't white, like Mackenzie Davis in the role of Mindy Park in The Martian (who should have been played by a Korean-American), that raises a few questions: Was the role originally written for someone of a specific ethnicity? Did folks have a legitimate reason for changing that ethnicity? Or were they just being lazy? Because when I was listening to the original version of the audiobook for The Martian, I had Chiwetel Ejiofor in mind for the Mark Watney. I've yet to hear a good reason why Ejiofor wasn't cast in that role. Nor have I heard a good reason for why Venkat Kapoor was changed to Vincent Kapoor. I suppose that one could argue that Venkat Kapoor is too hard for Americans to pronounce, but that kind of falls apart when you cast a guy with a name like Chiwetel Ejiofor in the role.

To sum up: If you're going to cast a role with an actor of a different ethnicity than what the role specifies, you really need to have a good reason for doing so. Otherwise, expect people to call you on your shit.

Ok cool, so when Lois Lane is played by a Latina actress in the next Superman reboot or Harley Quinn is played by an Asian in the future, you won't cry in your Wheaties about it. You know, as long as they embody the role they're adapting.

Also the "be faithful to the source!!!" arguments will often overlook many other changes that affect the characters more.

this has been making the rounds on FB

Dean Kane, or whatever the name of the guy is who played Supes in The New Adventures of Lois and Clark is of a mixed ethnic background. I don’t remember anyone bitching about that. Now, they would, but that’s because he’s turned out to be a giant flaming douchbag.

I didn’t like him because he didn’t look like Superman, but I got over it and eventually liked the show.

Because he didn't look like Christopher Reeve? Or he didn't have the right musculature? Height? Or something else? I've never watched the show, so I have no idea how he was as Supes.

He's recently been doing the rounds saying he wouldn't be allowed to portray Superman as being all an American hero nowadays, like Captain America isn't one of the biggest cinema characters.

He didn’t look like Christopher Reeve, which was the Superman I grew up with, but in the 70s and 80s the Superman portrayed in the comics looked like this.
https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Superman_Publication_HistoryThat was the definitive look for me growing up. Reeve pretty much encapsulated that look. That’s what I thought Superman should look like.Cavil looks close to that version as well as the guy who plays him on Supergirl.

Does anyone else remember how Psylocke started out as Caucasian, but then inexplicably became Asian, before becoming Roma or some shit? It was the 80s, so my memory might be a little fuzzy.

I can see that. Reeve inspired a classical view of Supes, in the sense that he matched idealized figures from classical Greece.