I don't want to derail this, so I'll try to answer in a concise way: I did not understand it as a general attack on white people, but as an attack on the type of "exclusive white male commedy group" set up. By no means did I understand it as "all white men are bad" or "we will not employ white men", just "we will not have an exclusively white male commedy group that forms these days on BBC".
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Terry Gilliam says "I tell the world now I’m a black lesbian" as he rants about diversity
- Thread starter Khanimus
- Start date
That makes sense.
Yeah, I'm tired of that shit too. My dad does it when he brings up 'the bathroom thing'.
Shut up Terry, I'm trying to still enjoy your films over here.
John Cleese is still cool though, that's nice to see.
John Cleese is still cool though, that's nice to see.
It's not even attack on that, just saying shit is different today. Comedy isn't the same as it was 10 years ago, let alone 30-40 years ago.
Aww, poor old white man getting criticized for his privilege for the first time in his life.
*wipes tears*
*wipes tears*
I get his point - I mean he's right that you can't "paint by numbers" assemble a comic ensemble that's going to redefine the topics and the comments from the BBC dude while properly PC are actually nonsensical in terms of artistic honesty - but man does Gilliam really, really badly made his point. It's shrill and strident and makes me want to disregard it. You don't assemble something like that in any way that kind of ensemble assembles itself.
Cleese puts it well enough and with far less troubling language and Gilliam would have been better served just re-tweeting it.
Cleese puts it well enough and with far less troubling language and Gilliam would have been better served just re-tweeting it.
Gilliam was always the weakest Python. He could never act, and didn't contribute much in the writing stakes. He did add the visual flair and dressing, for which you have to give him credit. I do like some of his films too; he's an interesting though uneven director. One thing he has always been, however, is a true cantankerous arsehole. So, I'd never listen to him when he flaps his gums about social issues and these comments don't surprise me.
Fuck him and the horse he rode in as.
Fuck him and the horse he rode in as.
Last edited:
I guess one's tolerance for bigoted statements really does depend on whether you like something they made or not
Celebrity worship, tribalism, and tolerance for bigotry really do go hand in hand
I wonder how many people ITT were whipping out the same excuses when Bill O'Reilly popped off a similar take
"He's a cantankerous old man, no surprise"
"That's just how his generation is"
"His point is poorly worded but I get it"
GTFO
Some really disappointing responses in here
Celebrity worship, tribalism, and tolerance for bigotry really do go hand in hand
I wonder how many people ITT were whipping out the same excuses when Bill O'Reilly popped off a similar take
"He's a cantankerous old man, no surprise"
"That's just how his generation is"
"His point is poorly worded but I get it"
GTFO
Some really disappointing responses in here
You know, I had an inclination to look into this as I hadn't heard of him doing that, but the fact that I don't consider that to be a bridge too far for him with all the other things he's said and done over the years kinda says it all right there. Some folks out there are born assholes.
i like the man. i like his comedy. but what he said is garbage fire putrid feces and he should be crapped on from a great height for it.
Yeah, I imagine the people who "can see where he's coming from" are the type of people to catch freight every time the see a non-white person and start questioning if they really belong there
"This area is for college students only"
"I am a student here"
"Well, I bet you got in because of affirmative action", they assume because duh a white person certainly must have been denied something if a non-white person exists in a space
In the centeriues long relay race of forced hegemony, "forced diversity" the real enemy of meritocracy in 2018. Anytime you see a non-white person, they took that air from a more deserving white person, obviously. I joke but that's actually was the reality for a long time in America and it lead to a lot of unjust murders that will rarely if ever be acknowledged
I totally see where he's coming from: Black lesbian comics are so in these days but aren't really to take all the slots away from white men as they have...
Last edited:
Terrible way to put it, but I agree that adding diversity simply for the sake of adding diversity is not great...
However in most cases I don't think that's what is happening, most of the time when you put together people from different genders, races, ages and backgrounds it also gives you a wider array of viewpoints. But at the end of they I do think that the best person(s) for the job should be given the job, if that ends up being a white man then so be it.
But yeah, he definitely put his foot in his mouth with that statement.
However in most cases I don't think that's what is happening, most of the time when you put together people from different genders, races, ages and backgrounds it also gives you a wider array of viewpoints. But at the end of they I do think that the best person(s) for the job should be given the job, if that ends up being a white man then so be it.
But yeah, he definitely put his foot in his mouth with that statement.
Yeah, the "black lesbian" bit is resounding in my head and making me increasingly pissed off. He manages to combine racism, homophobia, transphobia, and misogyny with the associated breathtaking ignorance and entitlement all at once. And this is a "joke" that's been around since before I was born and it's never been true. I saw it the other day in an early episode of Yes, Minister from the 80s. This bullshit idea that you get any advantage over white men from being female, gay or black or whatever. The absolute best you can ever hope for is some equality and that it's not held against you, and you rarely get that. What an arsehole.
He's a comedian, he'll say anything for a laugh, even if there's only a few laughing.
In your opinion, I'd say there's some pretty diverse posts in here
In your opinion, I'd say there's some pretty diverse posts in here
I know this guy is banned(and has no real point) but I have to point out the brilliant irony...there's a comedy troupe called "The Whitest Kids U'Know" which got a five season show on IFC and an apparent upcoming movie.
Wait, fuck, their troupe only consists of five white guys. I guess six white guys really don't ever get a chance.
This is the mindset that assumes that the playing field is even at the start. It isn't and never has been. Coincidentally, the "best person for the job" was used after the CRA of 64 to perpetuate racial inequality. Races had to be treated equally, but at the time, the group that had the better education were white men and they were given jobs and positions of power. Minorities were not given as many opportunities to advance or succeed. And it's not just limited to education. There's a whole lot of ways the playing field favors one group over others.
"Diversity for diversity's sake" is the stupidest phrase and thing to "disagree with"
Imagine feeling to the need to check the credentials of any person of color anytime you see them in a space you deemed unnecessary or unnatural for them like "Why is there a non-white person here? Who gave them these privileges? Where are your papers?"
Got to clear and make sure all the diversity hires are "natural" like white people being the default which is the most natural holy state for everything to be in.
Imagine feeling to the need to check the credentials of any person of color anytime you see them in a space you deemed unnecessary or unnatural for them like "Why is there a non-white person here? Who gave them these privileges? Where are your papers?"
Got to clear and make sure all the diversity hires are "natural" like white people being the default which is the most natural holy state for everything to be in.
Yeah to me what he is trying to say is diversity is fine but forcing diversity into things that might not need them isn't always the best course of action. Six white dudes can make a comedy show, so can six black dudes. He seems to think BBC wouldn't approve of either, but if they're funny, who cares?
I laughed at the BLT part. And damn Cleese with the dagger. But yeah, he definitely could have worded it better, there's nothing really offensive or ignorant here imho.
Agree with all of this and I wasn't saying that this story was a case of "diversity for the sake of diversity"... my thinking and comment very likely is more suited to a more ideal scenario than the current world we live in unfortunately.
I guess all I'm saying is that if I personally found out I was hired for something simply because of my race/gender/age I would be equally as disappointed and annoyed as if found out that I had not been hired for something simply for those same reasons.
Haha, he's a fart. Eventually he'll die, and his misplaced anger and ignorance will go with him.
You're posting in a thread where many of the posts indicate they don't know much about him.
Monty Python humour would not fly as well today and would need a change of words
After deriding the Belgians they go on:
http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode37.htm
But as you know on this programme we're not just prejudiced against race or colour, we're also prejudiced against - yes, you've guessed, stinking homosexuals! (applause) So before the streets start emptying in Chelsea tonight, Let's go straight over to our popular prejudiced panel game and invite you once again to - Shoot The Poof! And could our first contestant sign in please.
After deriding the Belgians they go on:
http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode37.htm
But as you know on this programme we're not just prejudiced against race or colour, we're also prejudiced against - yes, you've guessed, stinking homosexuals! (applause) So before the streets start emptying in Chelsea tonight, Let's go straight over to our popular prejudiced panel game and invite you once again to - Shoot The Poof! And could our first contestant sign in please.
It's constantly depressing how threatened some people get at the suggestion of a more diverse future. I especially like how they jump to the 'black lesbian' stuff they say in a ridiculous fashion like that's so absurd, and act as if that would be having a leg up in competition.
These people will never face the fact that they are the ones that had an advantage for hundreds of years in the modern world, just for being 'the right kind of people'. In entertainment, finance, business, every single fucking thing. And now that the tide is finally turning and there are systems being put in place to correct that imbalance, they are acting like it's an attack on them. Pathetic.
These people will never face the fact that they are the ones that had an advantage for hundreds of years in the modern world, just for being 'the right kind of people'. In entertainment, finance, business, every single fucking thing. And now that the tide is finally turning and there are systems being put in place to correct that imbalance, they are acting like it's an attack on them. Pathetic.
I dunno, I think you can express frustration if you want.
Cleese did it better though.
The way this is worded I see it more as making fun of casual homophobia. Kind of like the Simpsons episode Homer's Phobia. Yeah, Homer says some dumb things but he's framed as being the idiot who needs to change.
What does forced diversity even mean?
Like any media with 10 white people is a-ok, but suddenly a person with darker skin and it's like "whoa whoa whoa! hold on buddy, stop trying to force your agenda!!1!"
These people honestly believe there can't be a POC just appearing in a piece of media like any other white person, there always has to be a reason, otherwise it's 'forced', but a white person just appearing? oh that's okay because reasons.
These people are so transparent.
Like any media with 10 white people is a-ok, but suddenly a person with darker skin and it's like "whoa whoa whoa! hold on buddy, stop trying to force your agenda!!1!"
These people honestly believe there can't be a POC just appearing in a piece of media like any other white person, there always has to be a reason, otherwise it's 'forced', but a white person just appearing? oh that's okay because reasons.
These people are so transparent.
Of course not, calling yourself a tasty sandwich is a funny joke
Ain't that the goddamned truth.
Chris Rock breaks it down in a way I wish I could.
Two things here:
1. How can you possibly PROVE that any particular person was hired "simply for diversity's sake"? We are not a part of the creative process behind these show and such. We have no insider info here. How do we know that these diverse hires were made exclusively for its own sake, as opposed to the shocking possibility that these folks are actually talented and EARNED their place? Why do we never for one second question the qualifications of a straight white male when he gets a job, but Heaven forbid that a woman, minority or LGBT person gets the job instead; oh, it MUST be Affirmative Action! Damn SJW ruining Hollywood yet again!
2. Again, how can you prove that the best person got the job? You never hired the other potential employees, so you can't compare and contrast. And just because the person you hired worked out great for you, that doesn't mean there isn't someone else out there, whether you screened them or not, that can't also do just as great of a job, or possibly even better. There can be hundreds, if not thousands of people out there willing and able to do any specific job out there, and many of them would be considered a diversity hire.
These sorts of arguments can only happen if we were in a world where there was true equality, not the lip service that we currently use when we talk about "equality". When we have true equal opportunity; meaning equal access to education, health care, job opportunities (when people with black and other foreign names aren't considered, even with their qualifications being equal to those with white sounding names), real estate/housing (and not getting redlined or ran out of the neighborhood by prejudiced neighbors), sentencing within the justice system (where minorities get hit with larger sentences for equal crimes in comparison to whites, who sometime even get no jail time, thanks to biases as well as being able more often to afford actual lawyers/having friends in high places) and just being able to have a decent, non-hostile encounter with law enforcement, then and only then can you use that argument.
Until that time, don't come to me talking about "you should only hire the most qualified person for the job". I don't want to hear that noise.
dude's weapons will do negative damage on that hardcore mode.
First of all, though I quoted you, this wasn't addressed only for you. There are a lot of people, both in this thread/message board and in the world at large that espouse these same type of statements. While your post was the catalyst for my reply, it wasn't meant only for you.
Secondly, if you can see the fallacy of the whole "simply hired for diversity's sake" argument, why would you even entertain using it? The people who generally use that argument are those who, quite frankly, you wouldn't want as your allies. No one should ever think that hiring with diversity in mind means that you don't care about the qualifications of the diverse hire. Of course you're going to go after quality people, whether they're white, black, Latino, Asian, female or LGBT. You're not going to just pick up some random person on the street and hire them just because they tick a box in the diversity chart. That's the implication when you make that argument. You're saying the person is being hired SOLELY on their minority status, not in ANY WAY based on any other metric, including their qualifications.
Now again, I'm not saying this is you specifically, but anyone who uses this argument is implying this. And again, no one would bat an eye if this hire was instead a straight white male. So why use this argument?
Thirdly, again, if you can't come up with a way of empirically proving no one else could do this particular job, why say this person was the "Best person for the job"? It's just a silly platitude that doesn't really mean anything in practice.
Fourthly, context matters. The real world has much inequality within it. You and I can have practically the same upbringing, as far as wealth, education and many other metrics. But if you're white, and I'm black, we can both go out for the same job interview and most likely you'd get the job. Or you wouldn't be pulled over by a random cop but I would. Or your neighbors would fully accept you while I'd get the cops called on me for attempting to get into my home/car late at night. I can come up with a ton of other situations where, everything else being equal, life is anything but.
My whole point is that there ISN'T true equality in the real world, so let's stop pretending that there is. It's a nice dream, but we're no where near it. If we lived in a real meritocracy of a society, then those statements would hold water. But they are empty in our actual society, and only really benefit one group of people.
I'll let you guess which one.
Lol in this very thread we have people goingWell off white men acting like diversity is such a burden for them...
"Look, I get it"