Silence. It was an obvious statement. Casting is not necessarily all about race and sex. Sometimes, although not always, people are cast because they are good.

I find that hard to question or add a 'perhaps' as if it is somehow contentious.

It is a problem if they feel intimidated into casting, or not casting, someone based on others ideas of race/sex or whatever.

You cannot please everyone.

I would find it interesting if there was a drama made about race/sex relations where all the actors played their visual opposites. I am kind of surprised it hasn't happened yet because they'd be SO much media attention on such a film that it'd sell out instantly :D

It appears we've both misread each other. — TheMadFool

We wouldn't be here if that wasn't almost always the case in almost every situation :)

Never say always but also, never say never. Oops! That's what reality does to you. — TheMadFool

The 'perhaps' still looks misplaced to me.

By saying you are not sure about something being unsure means you think it is either black or white.

If you misread you misread. Look ...

So, no. It is not necessarily racist or sexist to cast someone for a role in a film.
— I like sushi

Perhaps. At least the Ancient One was in Kathmandu :lol: and not in New York. Wait "she" comes to New York. :roll: — TheMadFool

So you are saying that perhaps it has to be about racism and/or sexism rather than sometimes being about racism and/or sexism.

Looking at your other response I guess you are stating that perhaps being 'sexist'/'racist' is a natural state of affairs. I don't think so. I would say 'sexism'/'racism' is political language that is taught. I think something vaguely along the line of broad 'tribalism' could have more of an inbuilt aspect in terms of fear of the unknown and evolutionary survival (but that is mostly speculation).

So I disagree. If however you misread or mean something else tell me.

According to you. You seem insistent to view this as a decision made on race rather than on their view of the actor.

None of this is me saying it wasn't a conscious choice. Perhaps at the back of their mind they thought it was also a bonus to cast her as it would give the film some extra publicity knowing that some folks are always looking for controversy (genuine or otherwise simply to sell articles or make a name for themselves).

Perhaps. — TheMadFool

Saying 'not necessarily' is not the same as saying 'not at all necessary'. You must've misread.

Hence why I said "it can be though". To look at every choice as character as a decision made purely on race - unless that is the subject matter of the production - seems silly.

As for the casting someone asian as an ancient martial arts master ... well, yeah. Why wouldn't you considering that in asia there is an established and long held tradition in the martial arts? It does seem strange (excuse the pun) that they when for a woman, but it may just have been because she applied for the job, did a good job and so they hired her.

I would be surprised if they only asked white women to attend the casting. It could also have been that they didn't ask anyone else and someone enjoyed her work and had a vision for the movie?

So, no. It is not necessarily racist or sexist to cast someone for a role in a film.

there is no such thing as race — tim wood

Scientifically there isn't. Sadly old ideas have mostly died out but the terminology carried on. 'Race' is effectively a cultural phenomenon. In terms of genetics there are differences between broad groups but such differences go far beyond outward appearances.

Between ethic groups that have some slight genetic distinctions there is little difference compared to within the group - which automatically dismisses the idea of a humans being of scientifically distinct 'races'. This is actually important when it comes to diagnosing diseases and conditions more prevalent in some groups more than others, yet the stigma attached to this whole area makes people feel dread and fear.

Strangely enough on a science forum when I posted about scientists having to take a more proactive role in combatting misconceptions of 'race' due to faulty archaic pseudo science and a lack of spokespersons in this area they practically all announced that 'race' doesn't exist even though I pointed out that they have a boxes on forms where they ask people their race so it does have a place in society outside the scope of the hard sciences.

The social sciences are extremely flimsy and many core scientists (physicists and such) are not exactly sure it should even be called a 'science' (and in universities it isn't classed as a 'Science' it is under the category of 'Humanities and Arts').

It's not. It can be though. People can be many things.

In art there artist license. Some may choose one way to do something whilst another another. Some will prefer one way to the other. I would caution confusing discrimination with taste, or taste with discrimination - especially when others wish to stir things up and sell articles and/or force a political ideology in against the intent of the artistic/creative endeavor.

But well, maybe in the US they construct it through provocation, but with their strict felony murder rule I think you would be hard pressed as a lawyer when you are on the rapist's team. — Tobias

That was my point. I don’t know exact ins and outs and it seems to vary from state to state.

I was simply stating in regards to the hypothetical.

It seems obvious that in the act of committing a violent act, you have no right to defense from others trying to stop your violent act. — Harry Hindu

Laws and interpretations of the law vary from place to place.

The fact that this example is being used in a thread which has nothing to do with the Rittenhouse case or circumstances is an example of a red herring. — Harry Hindu

Possibly? Don’t know. Just stating what I have picked up from Rittenhouse case about how ‘provocation’ plays into how people are charged/convicted from state to state.

If the rapist is killed it would be manslaughter. If the rapist kills the husband I think you can define that as 'provocation' (raping his wife) so claims to self-defense would be very hard to call but I am sure there are some other mitigating circumstances (convoluted even!) that could warrant a claim of 'self-defense' - state depending if we're talking about US in general here.

You immediately end the conversation to question this necessity of life or life itself by saying it’s juvenile. — schopenhauer1

Call me slow but just realised this is framed as an extension from antinatalism. I am not saying antinatalism is 'juvenile' (as an intellectual position). I think it has numerous holes in that I argued with the same sake who posted in these forums about it. It was a good discussion and we both agreed to disagree. I have called it ridiculous and another things I'm sure to try and get to the bottom of what the other person meant.

My point was simply that in youth we are not made to hold many responsibilities. In youth we generally have it easy because we don't see the work involved to allow us to live in such a way. Clearly some people are burdened with more responsibility than others - parent shoulder the burden of providing necessities due to human's extended infantile and juvenile states compared to other species.

This thread looked like something else. This thread I thought was focused mainly on ways to reduce working hours.

You mentioned Marx so I thought it worth pointing out that if we're reducing hours then surely we're reducing pay if we're talking about the very same job - unless the person could do the same amount of work in 3 hrs that they could in 5 hrs?

If you are saying it is 'necessary' to earn a wage then this isn't exactly true. You don't have to it is just that you have to learn how not to earn a salary and live by other means - becoming completely self-sufficient. But you would still be 'working' just not earning a wage. It would be difficult to fit this into most societies so you'd have to give up the benefits of a 'wage living society' in favour of another (or convince everyone else your way is better).

Often enough people either don't realise what freedom they have by disbelief or fear. I know I fear the realisation of the degree of my freedom very often as I know with freedom comes responsibility. I can try and inform people but generally there are types of people at points in their life that simply won't listen (due to disbelief/fear). We all suffer from a lack of conviction, but there is something to gain in caution too ... there doesn't appear to be a one-size-fits-all solution but there can be improvements made to try and communicate and understand and this will, so it seems to me, at least lessen the number of phantoms that can stand in the way of us becoming whatever it is we're to become. Of course the fatalists will mock such an attitude but they only do so because they don't believe they can do otherwise :)

So it was just bait? You were baiting me.

Why?

If work is necessary to survive and you don't want to work then you want to die? Okay. I kind of enjoy work. Work isn't exactly always a 'chore' so to speak. Like here and now writing this - although I'm not exactly getting paid for it but it is at least honing a skill little by little.

Trying to explain things is basically the best way to understand them I would say. Even if you make a hash of it you can at least build on your next attempt.

I really don't see how talking about the physics definition of 'work' fits into this specific topic?

You have issues.

The context was in terms of experience and maturity. When I was younger, like everyone else, I didn't understand the extent to which I was juvenile - but I was because I was young (juvenile means young and not fully developed). Teenagers are juveniles. Some people mature more slowly than others due to circumstances. Is that so hard to take in?

What is it that I said that you find so threatening here? I honestly don't know why you just snapped at one word and assumed I was stating some kind of "law"?

as if a law of some sort — schopenhauer1

Rhetoric ^^

Explain then. I must be more foolish than you.

Anytime someone says “juvenile” as if a law of some sort, I immediately get red flags of a straw man argument- that is an argument based on false and personal assumptions of the person claiming something juvenile. So juvenile that is. See how anyone can use it like a condescending tool of vapid, useless rhetoric? I can tar and feather you with no argument at all..just a word. — schopenhauer1

Juvenile as opposed to mature. If you have a problem with it you have a problem with it. If you are just looking for red flags you'll find them everywhere from everyone all the time.

As long as we consider antiwork, anti-life, we’re fucked. — schopenhauer1

It depends what people define as 'work' and 'anti-work'. Like I said, people often think 'this is hard, so why should I suffer?' It is a very juvenile way of viewing the world. Most seem to grow out of it though, and some cotton on quicker than others.

I believe it was Twain who said something about work and play being essentially the same thing. That is a healthier view I think.

I see but consider physics. — TheMadFool

Not exactly on topic. So nope.

although it seems rather nebulous. — TheMadFool

Because no one is a set of numbers. We have to constantly adjust and readjust, so yeah, 'nebulous' rather than 'rigid'.

To say we lack a measure for work is nonsense. We have multiple ways to measure work (and if we mean work in a 'nebulous' sense or not). Economics is about - roughly speaking - getting and distributing 'resources' (which can be literally anything that is of value to someone/something).

We measure everything by the immediate and long term cost/requirement (be this money, time, expertise and/or whatever else including physical energy).

As we're CLEARLY talking about paid work then if we reduce our hours we reduce our wage (assuming we're doing the same job) unless whoever you are working for is willing to restructure the payment system.

Hence why I am an anarchist internally (at odds with any authority even my own) and generally conservative outwardly, because I've lived enough to realise things are more complex and silly than I did when I was younger so it is sometimes best not to shake things up 'out there' and rather do it 'in here' (my head/myself) and it will bleed through anyhow.

Of course I fail all the time and stubbornly refuse to adhere to what other people do as what I should do because that is how things are done :D

Well, not really. We pay some people more not merely because they work more. We pay some people more because they are good at what they do. In economics (not necessarily mere 'finance') efficiency is key.

The problem is generally that people get 'comfortable' and expect comfort to be the normal state of affairs for human life. Then they demand these 'rights' for free.

I think this problem is related to the one about age. Is time a good measure of age? — TheMadFool

I assume you mean 'maturity'?

This is where the whole Marxist idea gets messy with reality.

Is doing a job for 3 hrs worth the same as doing a job for 5 hrs if paid hourly? Should jobs be paid equally or not - how/why?

Without laws, anarchy. With laws, oppression. How do we tackle this dilemma? — TheMadFool

Emit conservative values and infuse yourself with anarchic values.

... I recommend people who can do so, reduce their needs and wants so that they can keep themselves afloat on less the 40 hours per week, maybe 30, maybe 25. This is no easy thing, especially after 40 years of inflation and stagnant wages. It's like unto impossible in high-cost areas, like San Francisco, NYC, LA, Washington D.C., Boston, etc. — Bitter Crank

Quite often what seems hard is easier than expected. Maybe this is truer for me than others due to mindset though? I generally expect something, leaning toward horrific, for any plan I have. Then things appear much easier than I thought.

A lot of people are simply not willing to take a risk and many more simply keep on keeping on hoping to stumble upon someone they love and pursue that instead of pursuing something that doesn't generally make them completely miserable and seeing where that takes them.

People find it incredibly difficult to have an honest conversation with themselves (myself included). If you REALLY want to reduce your working hours you have to ask yourself why and what benefits there are from this. Followed by 'would I be willing to take advantage of these benefits or squander them?'

@schopenhauer1

I've been out of work now for months (due to the pandemic) and I'm not that bothered about work as I have enough saved to keep myself going. When I was working prior to the pandemic I was working 25 hrs a week and taking a holiday (for 7-10 days) roughly every 3 months. People who live back in my country of birth find it hard to get their head around that I can do this. It can be done but the simple truth is many are not willing to move out of their comfort zones.

It seems too many get stuck wanting things that don't really serve any significant benefit (short or long term) because people are - as a I said - not very willing to have a conversation with themselves.

Can hours be reduced? Yes, if the public simply refuse to bend to the will of the employers and take control of their situation in some little way. Much easier for some than others, but imo it is usually easier than people think (not that it is EASY though). The true difficulty is understanding the use of failure and understanding because it has to be worked for doesn't mean it is not worth it.

I'll amend the opening post.

↪Kenosha Kid It is. One mistake is he had his gun out already then rushed into a dangerous situation with gun in hand looking to help Rittenhouse. — I like sushi

That was the mistake^^ Are you saying this is a 'fiction'? I am happy to provide time marks and links to the live recording if that will help assure you?

List everything I said you view as 'fiction' and I'll post link to video here with appropriate time stamps to each instance. I am willing and able to do the work if you cannot. No problem. This might sound like I am trying to be annoying but all I am doing is trying not to show something false and correct mistakes if I see them.

Transcripts of the parts of the trial I watched? I heard them why would I bother to read them.

Yours seem... well, invented tbh. — Kenosha Kid

How so? Because I don't mention Mr. Blake? You're not making sense anymore so I'll just leave it at that for now if you have nothing of substance to offer other than 'look online'.

Perhaps you'd have a better idea if you had taken the time to watch the witness accounts (both Rittenhouse and Gauge). There is no way you have and refute what I said today as it was a blow by blow account from re-viewing the account of Gauge.

I merely interjected a page or two back to add detail to something Frank said (cannot even recall what it was?) and you or some other person jumped in and pointed out a mistake I had made (I think?) because I hadn't looked at the evidence for a while and confused who the paramedic was with someone else other than Gauge.

To make sure I didn't say anything misleading I reviewed Gauge's account and then gave it - it was not 'invented'.

Now you're not even being consistent with yourself, let alone testimony. I have noticed that obfuscation via verbiage is definitely your thing. — Kenosha Kid

I am just asking for evidence. You've shown me nothing new to date just hinted that I missed something. You said 'FUCK the trial' (incorrect you didn't @James Riley did) but do you not find this telling that the things you linked were in the parts of the trial I watched? Maybe, just maybe, you didn't watch more than 2-3 minutes of it out of context to the whole? I certainly admit, and have admitted, to only watching a few hours where Rittenhouse and Gauge give their accounts. It feels a bit like you are suggesting I shouldn't have watched the trial at all and tried to inform myself. Instead, correct me if I'm wrong, you want me shout out that Rittenhouse is a racist and murderer and went out that night to shoot black people and/or people supporting BLM.

The context that matters is running at someone who has a gun and who you've threatened to kill - who is actively trying to get away from you - and this person then raises his weapon to stop your approach, yet you just slow a little then keep running at them .. well, it is asking for trouble. As for Rittenhouse simply being where he was at the time, yeah, I can say he was 'asking for trouble' too but to a far lesser degree. Simply carrying a weapon - in the context of what had happened previously and what led to the protests - doesn't effect the way the law is carried out. The protests were in reaction to the police using excessive force and worthy protests. They were not protests about people (members of the public) owning firearms. If he took his gun to an anti-gun rally and mingled with the crowds then we have an entirely different context. Yeah, context matters.

IN context to Jacob Blake the law (which exists whether you like it or not) does give police officers WAY too much immunity IMO. I am not going to argue that at all. Nor am I going to argue that there are hundreds of cases showing how even police officers don't really know the law and act in a manner that is baffling.

For reason 'excessive force' is something the police are allowed to use if there is even a slight suggestion of a slight threat to them. It is dumb. The problem is in the way the laws are written and interpreted.

Nothing I have said here has been in defense of anyone. I have merely attempted to report what happened in the trial of Rittenhouse without bleeding it into the reasons for the protests and vandalism.

There was vandalism and there were protests. I know that. Why people were out there is not massively important as it bears no significant context to whether Rittenhouse shot people out of an intent to kill or an intent to protect himself. The general view seems to be exactly what mine was. He should've been charged with a lesser charge because the evidence (as the law works over there) wasn't nearly enough to expect an outcome other than what happened.

We can certainly question the WHY the charges laid out were the charges laid out. Use of excessive force would've protected a police officer in his situation - no doubt at all because the law biases police officers from what I've learnt - but he wasn't a police officer so shooting someone FOUR times even in quick succession would be the most obvious point to focus on when it came to prosecuting.

Why didn't that happen? Could it be because there was public pressure through social media with people like yourself screaming murderer and the prosecution acting far too quickly? Or could it be due to some conspiracy to have him acquitted of all charges to bolster some pro-weapons ambition of the government? Or could it have been in order to show that this guy can shoot people and get away with it as a message to any civil disorder as BAD unless the police say otherwise?

We can speculate ALL these things and discuss it. We cannot claim the evidence in the trial is somehow biased because evidence isn't biased. We can profess that some evidence was missed out or that there is new evidence. If we cannot show such evidence and rely on someone saying there is 'a metric shit ton' alone then I think we need to check ourselves. I even took the 'metric shit ton' seriously (and maybe there is?), but if there are piece of evidence out there that could have effected this case then you need to present it not simply say it is there. I even tried to look for it and didn't find anything much, and the one piece you linked referred to something I heard in the trial (Rittenhouse's account when probed by the prosecution).

I'm not really hoping to reach you anymore tbh but hope that some of this will be read by others here and that they may think twice about blindly accusing someone of something when they've only seen pieces of evidence. I am willing to admit that there are possibly huge pieces of evidence relating to this case that I didn't see/hear in the few hours I've watched.

Overall the whole thing was a mess. It will continue to be a mess until the next time someone gets shot in the US (likely a few seconds/minutes ago) and then continue to be a mess again in a slightly different way. Eventually maybe things will turn around for the better if people keep protesting or making their voices heard in some other way.

NOTE : I made an error in confusing what James said with what you said. mistakes happen. They don't need to be covered up though.

If anyone can tell me who said 'get some' to who let me know. Cannot find anything.

You have issues. Sorry.

Anyway, will look into this 'get some' comment and see if I can find anything given you're unwilling to simply offer a link to it and it doesn't appear in my google bubble.

What does it mean to say I am attached to a feeling as opposed to simply being aware of the feeling? If I feel love for someone, do I need to be attached to that love in order to act lovingly towards them? — Janus

You tell us it is your point.

The water thing I knew about too (from the trial).

The 'get some Rittenhouse' shows nothing atm but I'll look later.

The reason I'm not giving you more is because I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole with someone who's mind is made up; confirmation bias, like talking to anti-vaxxers about science. — James Riley

You think that is fair statement I guess. It precisely these kind of reactionary accusations I hoped to avoid rather than things to turn into 'You're just biased/stupid or whatever'.

My bias is that I think carrying guns around for safety is ridiculous and that US laws in this area are pretty messed up.

I will look for sure. Thanks for having a little faith in humanity :) It doesn't hurt to inform other about information when they are asking for it after failing to find anything much.

I can't believe you can't find anything. Maybe that's because you still have your head stuck in the trial. FUCK the trial. Focus on what happened before, during and after the shooting; not just the shooting. — James Riley

I genuinely couldn't. I looked at the trial and accounts from Gauge and Rittenhouse because that seemed like a sensible place to start to get evidence from. I wouldn't call that an error.

Any law that allows a 17 yr old to run around the streets with a rifle is crazy imo. The law is the law though and my bias is (to repeat) that I think carrying guns around is not the norm in my life experience (even for police). The US is the US though.

As an example it is not possible to feel pain and not feel pain at the same time (assuming it is the same 'pain'). Not that I believe that is what you were saying. It is problematic to get our words around some things though.

Fair enough. You do appreciate that language is a barrier here though so we're kind of in a position where to be more explicit parenthesis is required and/or some distinction made clear bewteen two uses of the the same word.

Is this a game of people going back and forth asking no no, you first . What do you think?

I will go first. It is fairly clear that someone "not attached" could be interpreted as "not caring" because they cannot care about something they have no attachment too. In opposition to this we could also state that having a degree of non-attachment will help us draw a more objective conclusion.

IF however we are saying COMPLETE non-attachment then what does this mean. That needs to be settled first I feel. Agree?

Kind of obvious?

I will simply state I have been in a state where if someone walked up to me with a gun and said they were going to shoot me I wouldn't have felt scared at all. I would have been overwhelmed by the path that led them to that point and been tearful and ... no words ... about it.

I would not call this having 'no attachment' but the opposite to 'no attachment' is the same as 'no attachment'. What seems to happen in these extreme altered states of consciousness is that lines of distinction fade away (or are realised as merely 'lines of convenience' rather than 'reality').

Note: I don't think such states are necessarily termed as 'enlightenment' but what I experienced is certainly something that drew me more towards an understanding of what certain historical people are said to have experienced.

@Tom Storm I think Jung is a great guide to understanding the possibilities of the human psyche. His term of 'Individuation' has something in common with 'enlightenment'. Individuation is about assimilating unconscious content with the ego to form the Self.

Jung was generally against (not the best method of approach) Western cultures reaching out for Eastern mythos as he viewed it as pointless given that Western mythos had enough immediate impact and ease of relation to get to where Westerners need to get without relearning a whole new history.