Wtfwriter has not created any debates.
I think people forget what the occupation of “acting” is and what it does. The fact that the trans community will get any representation from a A-List actress in a movie is a good thing. I dont yndertabd why people are making it out to be such a bad, controversial thing.
Its not really disputed about whether or not it exists. Its disputed about WHY it exists. Its a huge grey area. But to say something so complex is because one gender is discriminated against is just stupid. 1) its against the law and 2) if women were laid less than me then wouldnt more companies actively seek to hire women over men? There are numerous factors outside of gender discrimination and most of it revolves around personal choices. Women tend to work less hours than men to spend time with family and friends. Women tend to work in lower paid jobs such as teacher and daycare workers while men tend to occupy higher laying positions such as engineers.
From what little i know of the show, its like one major guilt trip all around. One girl who blames everyone in her life for why she took her life and i get the impression that its to get people who may be suicidal to think more critically about who they hurt by committing suicide, which is kind of a guilt trip there as well. I do agree that such a show should do more to dial down the perceived romanticism of mental illness, since younger generations seem more drawn towards imitating that sort of thing for some reason. Like i said, i havent watched any episodes because these were my thiughts from the start.
Speaking out against racism is not the same thing as saying “all white people should die”. So i agree reverse racism doesnt exist. Racism does and its not limited to white people. Racism is an ideology abd institutional power is only the capacity in which someone can act on their ideology. A majority of white people do not, in the present, have such a power.
Having the NRA as a supporter of that sort if task force is different and i would support that. As long as the support that they give has limitations and restrictions to it and the money they donate, if at all, goes directly to the task force to use for operational costs instead of dispersed across the government never to be seen again.
Nudity and pornographically suggestive are two different things. While the lines between the two can become blurred, art usually contains a message in it. Pornographically suggestive material doesnt. The only thing is conveys is sex. This is the distinction i make between the two and art, in all its form, BECAUSE of the message it tries to convey in an aesthetic form, should not be censored in any way. If you want to add a sign that says “art ahead may contain nudity” then i will back that. But thats as far as i will go doen that road in censoring art.
I think its very dangerous to get all your information from the news. Meaning while the news, either conservative or liberal in nature, provides a skewed political perspective, they also gloss over all the dry and heavy, but important, information behind the news stories they prevent. For example, “a recent study shows that coffee could be killing you.” In a way, regular news is meant to be entertaining to the extent that its dramatic to bring in its readers. In the limited time they have, they only gloss over the study and the parts they do cover are somewhat vague but informed enough to spark a discussion. Or they may try to keep something relevant and further persuade viewers to take political stances. CNN, for example, had an entire segment on analyzing Donald Trumps signature. Despite ones view on Trump, his signature is irrelevant. But it can be used to further show viewers how incompotent he is. My stance is that if you watch news, watch one of each political standing for a fuller picture and, given time and interest, dig deeper on stories they cover. Regarding the Infotainment Shows, they are indeed comical and meant to only cover things that provide jokes. I agree with you that while these shows are indeed entertaining, they shouldnt really be used as a source of information. Watching them should be moderate to minimal.
I recently read an article in The National Review website that states almost the same thing. The difference is “my” article proposed that concerned parents and school administrations could get an emergency meeting with a judge and, providing proof, can get the weapons of a student confiscated, all while respecting due process and so on. The similarities between our two articles is that they both agree that there are red flags present before tragedies happen. However, i disagree that we should have the NRA, a highly controversial organization at the moment, be the one to monitor for red flags, something that the NSA and FBI are supposed to do. In a sense, the NRA would be placed into governing/federal position and it would draw an interesting question of the limits and powers that an organization in such a position would have.