“I do not believe you can be born gay, and I do not believe homosexuality is right, though the law of this land has made it legal doesn’t mean it’s right,” Omooba wrote in the post. “I do believe that everyone sins and falls into temptation but it’s by the asking of forgiveness, repentance and the grace of God that we overcome and live how God ordained us to, which is that a man should leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh.”
Hmm, being homophobic and trying to have a career in theater. Thats a bold move, lets see how it pays off.
After hearing testimony in 2021 that Omooba had previously told her agents that she refused to play gay roles and had not bothered to read the script for the musical version of The Color Purple before accepting the role, an employment tribunal dismissed the actor’s religious discrimination claim, The Telegraph reported.
How can you not even read the script, the book its based on, or even at the least watch the Hollywood movie for a part you’re trying to land in an acting performance?
“I have long forgiven all those who have sought to ruin my theatre career,” Omooba said in a statement following the ruling, “but the theatre world needs to be told, loud and clear, that canceling people for their Christian beliefs is illegal and wrong.”
As someone of color, I wonder if she would agree with the KKK discriminating against her, as they also consider themselves “Christians” spreading hate against people over things they do not control.
Yeap, a lot of slavery in America was perpetuated and validated by religious beliefs. Plantation owners believed that black people were cursed by the mark of ham, and thus were entitled by an act of God to enslave people.
Also, the Bible literally says: “but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” 1 Timothy 2:12
So according to Christian dogma, SHE wouldn’t be allowed to speak up against men, even if they are breaking some other rules, or try to teach the theatre world anything.
But it’s a fair bet saying she’s never opened a bible in her life, seeing she can’t be bothered to even check out what the story is about when applying for roles.
Edit I realised this might read quite neutral, so I’m adding a fuck monotheism here just to make my view on the matter clear
Eh, fuck all religions, not just monotheism. Religions are the worst, the amount of gods doesn’t matter much. They’re abusive and a detriment to society and progress.
Dogma makes religions bad, but not all religions have dogma. Also when does faith become religion?
I get your point and I don’t mind saying fuck all religions, but historically, polytheistic societies were more tolerant and usually pretty progressive. Much less (if any) dogma.
The intolerance of narrow monotheism is written in letters of blood across the history of man from the time when first the tribes of Israel burst into the land of Canaan. The worshippers of the one jealous God are egged on to aggressive wars against people of alien [beliefs and cultures]. They invoke divine sanction for the cruelties inflicted on the conquered. The spirit of old Israel is inherited by Christianity and Islam, and it might not be unreasonable to suggest that it would have been better for Western civilization if Greece had moulded it on this question rather than Palestine.
get your point and I don’t mind saying fuck all religions, but historically, polytheistic societies were more tolerant and usually pretty progressive. Much less (if any) dogma.
Idk, I think that’s a pretty hard claim to make. One that’s mainly dependent on the fact that the majority of written history happened after the advent of monotheism, especially in the west.
If we examine the body of evidence of polytheistic cultures outside western influence, things get a bit more complicated. Especially considering that terms like progressive and tolerant are subjective concepts entrenched in the eurocentric cross-examination of cultures.
In ancient Mesopotamia, people were more able to accept the concept of dualism and polytheism, however they were also much more likely to participate in the destruction of entire cultures to capture the idol of a rival god. How do you weigh that with the modern understanding of concepts like progressiveness or tolerance?
In ancient Mesopotamia, people were more able to accept the concept of dualism and polytheism, however they were also much more likely to participate in the destruction of entire cultures to capture the idol of a rival god
“RIVAL” god.
a person or thing competing with another for the same objective or for superiority in the same field of activity.
That’s the proto-version of dogmatic monotheism. That’s the origin of the first commandment. That’s THE reason monotheism is so unaccepting and violent.
I’m not going to write a several page essay detailing why this is so. Do you know why Jesus was accepted as a deity to the Roman and Greek pantheons at the time, instead of being seen as a rival god? How the same thing happened later in the North of Europe as well with norse polytheism?
Polytheism by its very nature has more explanatory power, as not every explanation is “God works in mysterious ways” as one god is considered omnipotent and infallible, whereasin polytheism gods are often more humane, fickle, and fallible, despite being very powerful.
terms like progressive and tolerant are subjective concepts entrenched in the eurocentric cross-examination of cultures.
Not really. Do you kill everything different from you? Then you’re not too tolerant. “Progressive” is also not too subjective. Before the Christianisation of the Nordics, for instance, “Viking” rape laws were far more progressive than their so-called “civilized” European counterparts. On the continent, women were considered property and so rape was a property crime – there was no “victim,” but the father or husband, whose property had been damaged.
That’s not really subjective of a take, is it? To think that an attitude of “women are people” is more progressive than “women are things”?
I beg to differ. I think you’re making some assumptions about the innate qualities of polytheistic societies.
Just because deities within certain polytheistic religions were rivals, doesn’t imply the advent of monotheism. Most polytheistic religions had sects or cults that conflicted with other sects within the same pantheon.
Not really. Do you kill everything different from you? Then you’re not too tolerant.
Okay, then explain the Mongol empire? They were polytheistic, and more liberal with religious freedoms than nearly any other empire in history… Does their use of violence negate their tolerance?
We can look at branches of the Mongolian empire 200 years later that would transition from polytheism to monotheistic islamist. Did they become more violent after the transition? Nope, they assimilated into the culture and became the local government for generations.
“Progressive” is also not too subjective. Before the Christianisation of the Nordics, for instance, “Viking” rape laws were far more progressive than their so-called “civilized” European counterparts. On the continent, women were considered property and so rape was a property crime – there was no “victim,” but the father or husband, whose property had been damaged.
We have no written record of any laws of the Viking. We have second hand information from the perspective of Christian priest, but I’d hardly claim that gives us any information about the actual practice and context of “Viking rape laws”.
For all we know these laws could have been based on the same proprietary motivation of monotheistic societies who recorded it. And if you are interpreting secondary sources as your primary sources, then we must assume their other observations of the same culture to be true. That the Viking culture was based on the rape and pillage of Christianity, not exactly a progressive perspective…
That’s not really subjective of a take, is it? To think that an attitude of “women are people” is more progressive than “women are things”?
First of all, that argument is entirely dependent on assuming that Viking in Viking culture women were thought of as equals…which is doubtful. Just because they aren’t labeled as property, doesn’t mean they weren’t second class citizens. More than likely Viking cultures just didn’t have the same cultural understanding of property as their monotheistic counterparts.
Secondly, yes with added context that statement is entirely subjective. If a society treats their own women as people, but is perfectly fine with raping and enslaving women in other cultures, are they truly progressive? Or do they just understand that what’s good for the cow is good for the farmer?
I do find it funny that one of my primary complaints with this historical interpretation is that it is too dependent on a eurocentric representation of history, and your rebuttals have only been composed of European examples.
Whenever there is a belief in something supernatural, it will be abused, it will end badly, because we’re already talking about people believing things without any proof. Sooner or later, a leader will pop up and it’s it’s rather easy to make these people do your bidding by inventing new wonders or dogma or whatever works for said leader(s)
People need to grow up. Yeah, maybe there is a mighty system operator that manages our simulation, or maybe I’m a Boltzmann brain or whatever. Thinking about it, these two ideas are more plausible than any religion out there, yet we don’t have the great Boltzmann church.
Science is finding out reality, maybe we should focus more on that
Religious philosophy is fine. Not everything needs to be crammed into the framework of hard sciences. And the social aspects of religious organizing are no more good or bad than the individuals who take part in it.
You can just as easily find religiously motivated abolitionists as slavers. You can just as easily find religiously motivated homeless shelters as pedophile priests. The spiritualist language used to describe our social bonds is no less legitimate than some Evo-Devo prattle about brain chemicals, at least from the perspective of setting useful policy.
They’re abusive and a detriment to society and progress.
You can just as easily find abusive and detrimental habits in business economics and the hard sciences. Rationalization of a perverse or destructive behavior often follows the decision to embark on it. And you don’t need religious beliefs to rationalize bad behaviors.
Yeah, no. How many wars were fought over atheism? None. How many over religions? Too many to count.
The average Catholic is a fine person, I’m sure, but the Catholic church is a horror show. How many people have suffered because of that organization? More than I could count. How many wars has it started? More than I’d like to know.
Want to try a different religion? Any religion? Any cult? Scientology, maybe? No? How about Jim Jones temple of what was it called again?
Individual spiritualism then? In on itself harmless, maybe, but it’s still pure nonsense in the level of believing in unicorns and Santa Claus, and it still will end in either groups starting to form, that makes cults that either die out or become organised religion. And in its entire trajectory, it WILL cause suffering and abuse.
Yes, abuse is possible in any organization, but no organization will allow and tolerate abuse as religious organizations do. Give us your money, old grandpa with cancer, god will cure your cancer and return you your money double, I swear! Climate change isn’t real, god would not allow it! All our thousands, millions of followers should just continue to pollute the hell out of this world because God will fix it, people! Hurricanes are caused by gay wickedness and women won’t get pregnant from rape, god will stop that unless they like it.
I see no positive point in any religion or spirituality that could not be made without it.
So yes, fuck all religions, they’re a detriment to the growth of humanity.
But what about the charities then? Charities don’t require religion, you can do one perfectly fine without the other, and that ignores that charities only exist due to governments not fixing issues.
Yeap, a lot of slavery in America was perpetuated and validated by religious beliefs
Goes even beyond that. Christianity - specifically, the New Testament verses that extolled the virtue of earthly toil on behalf of a secular lord in exchange for heavenly reward - was leveraged to convince the slaves themselves that their lot in life was justified. And for a great long period of time, it was successful. Even after the Confederacy’s back was broken, mobilizing a population that had been wiped into submission for centuries was legitimately difficult. The Freedman’s Bureau had a herculean effort put at its feet - to engage, re-educate, and empower millions of newly emancipated black men and women after a lifetime of debasement and degradation.
When you get into why Reconstruction failed, a big part of it was like looking at a spouse in an abusive relationship trying to get out from under a hyper-domineering partner and scaling that sociological problem up to the scale of whole cities and states.
When you get into why Reconstruction failed, a big part of it was like looking at a spouse in an abusive relationship trying to get out from under a hyper-domineering partner and scaling that sociological problem up to the scale of whole cities and states.
I mean that, but also Andrew Johnson was a horrible person and even a worse president
Not just theater but musical theater the absolute stronghold of the LGBTQIA+… Yeah let’s just talk openly about how I believe the vast majority of my coworkers and peers (who probably have backgrounds of religious trauma) are morally defunct and how their ability to feel loved and supported shouldn’t be considered protected by society!
I want to grab her by the shoulders and say : For fuck sake honey. No one in your field wanting to touch you with a 9 ft pole isn’t their fault. Having someone openly homophobic in a role where getting the gold star of casting has been for the past several years meant actually choosing someone who has actual experience in a similar identity to what they are potraying… It would be suicide for a production. People are going to look to a queer character to project themselves in those situations. Knowing you’re just a bigot doing it for self agrandizement, accolades and cash is going to cause fucking boycotts from the very target audience of the show!
Spilling your theocratic dirty laundry on twatter because you can’t hold it in can be a “career limiting move” and that’s just normal in a pluralistic society.
Oh they live in reality. When reality bites them they feel it. For the most part I respect belief. These people legitimately believe that there is a power which will inevitably maliciously destroy us and that to save other people they must be discouraged in any earthly way possible. They believe that to be a noble thing because the foundation comes from a rock solid belief in the divine and honestly there’s not much you can do to shake that belief so what they are doing makes sense from that perspective.
The issue with that being around people with that belief who act on it as though it’s their job to dissuade people from what they perceive as that particular danger is miserable. Like okay, you believe that we’re gunna burn do so quietly because LGBTQIA folk aren’t going to change because even if you believe in God with those tenants it’s really hard to believe he is actually benevolent. Most of the LGBTQIA Christians who believe that God hates the only terms under which they can be happy end up killing themselves. That’s part of why conversion therapy is considered a human rights issue.
Alright, so what? What good does treating them petulantly do? If you cannot treat them in a way where they feel understood and cared for they don’t change. If you treat someone poorly or like you are superior they are more likely to double down on their belief and spit in your face. Unless your aim is to bash their faces in and straight up use force you have to see the human in them to get started reversing the programing because a lot of religions preach that unbelievers are evil and the first step in any questioning of the whole is to show that no… You aren’t evil. You are moral and kind actually.
What’s the end goal of disrespect? To be rude to them for fun?
You don’t have to. Only if you want to try and stop them from being religious nuts that’s where you start.
It’s not your job to interact with them so don’t. If they are actively causing you pain where you are you have a right to defend yourself to get them to stop but like any violence there is a line where you cross from self defence to just taking out your anger and trauma on someone else to make yourself feel better. People who do that make the job harder for those of us who want to stop religious trauma from perpetuating.
Respecting religious belief is part of the healing process of religious trauma. It doesn’t mean subscribing to belief in religion. It means seeing the actual human beings inside the system that hurt you.
Respecting religious belief is part of the healing process of religious trauma. It doesn’t mean subscribing to belief in religion.
Not if I’m moderating an atheist site and they come to provoke me and to flaunt their ignorance. Whey they come to my place, they will eat shit if they don’t behave.
It means seeing the actual human beings inside the system that hurt you.
If “the actual human beings” are indoctrinated beyond any chance of redemption, who says I need to keep trying?
I’m not sure that I agree that a queer character can only be played by a queer actor. That is called acting, the entire idea is to be someone you’re not. If wr put that rule, then you can also say that straight characters cannot be played by queer or gay actors, not something we want, I’d say.
I think its more a push toward making space for people who have marginalized identites to act. For a long time being openly queer was career suicide. So now that those stories are finally being told, people also want actors writers and producers of those identities involved in the process.
I think its less that straight actors cant play queer characters and more so that there are already plenty of roles for them. Maybe in a more equal future that pressure wont be there but right now it is.
I also think it depends on the role. A side character that happens to be gay? Yeah a straight actor can definetly play that. A lead role in a comming of age tale about discovering your gender identity? Probably best played by someone who has lived experience.
Imo it’s the same idea as having black people play black characters instead of white people with black makeup. If everyone was treated as equal then it wouldn’t be an issue. However, that’s not reality. People are treated differently based on gender, sex, race, age and so forth. Wanting queer characters to be played by queer actors is a way of making sure they have a space to demonstrate their skill, talent, and potentially make a living off it. Same thing with black people playing black characters, or women playing female characters.
There’s another element, however, in which good acting can’t fully replace personal experience. A queer actor playing a queer character will likely be able to identify with said character much better than a straight actor could, and as such, they would be able to harness their personal experiences and channel them through the character they’re playing.
While my latter point doesn’t refute your point about straight characters being played by queer actors, the former hopefully explains why it isn’t universally applied. I do believe though, that in a just and equal world, things like sex, race, gender and so forth shouldn’t be (dis)qualifiers for any given character, it’s just that we don’t live in that kind of world.
To be fair I never said “can only be played by” just that the gold standard has become preferred casting of actors who can apply their personal experiences to the role be it people who come from a specific place or culture (like a queer culture) , have a specific racial background or a disability those roles particularly are earmarked with a growing cultural preference for people because there’s some wider cultural issues of stereotyping, typecasting or framing out people who can tell you is something the playwright put in is full of shit. More people are becoming wise to media literacy and can spot things off with an uninformed take on a performance.
There is a silver and bronze standard that are still acceptable. Sometimes you cast someone outside the gold standard for a bunch of reasons. Availability, overwhelming directorial notions that it was an audition above and beyond… but in leftist spaces particularly - like audio drama podcasts as an example the gold standard of preferred applicants is explicitly listed on audition sides.
No, the entire thing about acting is that people can play people other than themselves. If you can’t play outside your own experiences, you’re not the “gold standard”, as you randomly claim, you’re a bad actor.
Well you can cast your creative projects as you like.
You do seem to be missing the point and leaving most of my point untouched however. It isn’t that a person without the experience can’t play the part. It’s that when you are not accostomed to seeing people like yourself lifted up it is far more thrilling to see it happen. It’s not about the actor. It’s about the audience.
That’s what I have trouble understanding - not even reading the script. Apparently she counted on her agents to “filter” things for her. Sounds highly unprofessional.
In the case of a good, reputable agent who makes you their top priority, it can be. In other cases, if the agent sees a role for a black woman in her 30s(?) who can sing, that’s good enough. Unusual, specific demands/requirements could slip through the cracks. They pass the script along, expecting her to at least skim the damn thing, and leave the final decision up to her.
How can you not even read the script, the book its based on, or even at the least watch the Hollywood movie for a part you’re trying to land in an acting performance?
More curious how she got hired on those terms. It seems like a simple line reading might have clued everyone involved in on what this story was about.
Hmm, being homophobic and trying to have a career in theater. Thats a bold move, lets see how it pays off.
How can you not even read the script, the book its based on, or even at the least watch the Hollywood movie for a part you’re trying to land in an acting performance?
Doesn’t look like it turned out well for her.
As someone of color, I wonder if she would agree with the KKK discriminating against her, as they also consider themselves “Christians” spreading hate against people over things they do not control.
Yeap, a lot of slavery in America was perpetuated and validated by religious beliefs. Plantation owners believed that black people were cursed by the mark of ham, and thus were entitled by an act of God to enslave people.
Also, the Bible literally says: “but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” 1 Timothy 2:12
So according to Christian dogma, SHE wouldn’t be allowed to speak up against men, even if they are breaking some other rules, or try to teach the theatre world anything.
But it’s a fair bet saying she’s never opened a bible in her life, seeing she can’t be bothered to even check out what the story is about when applying for roles.
Edit I realised this might read quite neutral, so I’m adding a fuck monotheism here just to make my view on the matter clear
Eh, fuck all religions, not just monotheism. Religions are the worst, the amount of gods doesn’t matter much. They’re abusive and a detriment to society and progress.
“Religion” is a every wide term though.
Dogma makes religions bad, but not all religions have dogma. Also when does faith become religion?
I get your point and I don’t mind saying fuck all religions, but historically, polytheistic societies were more tolerant and usually pretty progressive. Much less (if any) dogma.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_monotheism#Violence_in_monotheism
Idk, I think that’s a pretty hard claim to make. One that’s mainly dependent on the fact that the majority of written history happened after the advent of monotheism, especially in the west.
If we examine the body of evidence of polytheistic cultures outside western influence, things get a bit more complicated. Especially considering that terms like progressive and tolerant are subjective concepts entrenched in the eurocentric cross-examination of cultures.
In ancient Mesopotamia, people were more able to accept the concept of dualism and polytheism, however they were also much more likely to participate in the destruction of entire cultures to capture the idol of a rival god. How do you weigh that with the modern understanding of concepts like progressiveness or tolerance?
You’re literally making my point for me.
“RIVAL” god.
That’s the proto-version of dogmatic monotheism. That’s the origin of the first commandment. That’s THE reason monotheism is so unaccepting and violent.
I’m not going to write a several page essay detailing why this is so. Do you know why Jesus was accepted as a deity to the Roman and Greek pantheons at the time, instead of being seen as a rival god? How the same thing happened later in the North of Europe as well with norse polytheism?
Polytheism by its very nature has more explanatory power, as not every explanation is “God works in mysterious ways” as one god is considered omnipotent and infallible, whereasin polytheism gods are often more humane, fickle, and fallible, despite being very powerful.
Not really. Do you kill everything different from you? Then you’re not too tolerant. “Progressive” is also not too subjective. Before the Christianisation of the Nordics, for instance, “Viking” rape laws were far more progressive than their so-called “civilized” European counterparts. On the continent, women were considered property and so rape was a property crime – there was no “victim,” but the father or husband, whose property had been damaged.
That’s not really subjective of a take, is it? To think that an attitude of “women are people” is more progressive than “women are things”?
Or do you consider that a subjective thing…?
I beg to differ. I think you’re making some assumptions about the innate qualities of polytheistic societies.
Just because deities within certain polytheistic religions were rivals, doesn’t imply the advent of monotheism. Most polytheistic religions had sects or cults that conflicted with other sects within the same pantheon.
Okay, then explain the Mongol empire? They were polytheistic, and more liberal with religious freedoms than nearly any other empire in history… Does their use of violence negate their tolerance?
We can look at branches of the Mongolian empire 200 years later that would transition from polytheism to monotheistic islamist. Did they become more violent after the transition? Nope, they assimilated into the culture and became the local government for generations.
We have no written record of any laws of the Viking. We have second hand information from the perspective of Christian priest, but I’d hardly claim that gives us any information about the actual practice and context of “Viking rape laws”.
For all we know these laws could have been based on the same proprietary motivation of monotheistic societies who recorded it. And if you are interpreting secondary sources as your primary sources, then we must assume their other observations of the same culture to be true. That the Viking culture was based on the rape and pillage of Christianity, not exactly a progressive perspective…
First of all, that argument is entirely dependent on assuming that Viking in Viking culture women were thought of as equals…which is doubtful. Just because they aren’t labeled as property, doesn’t mean they weren’t second class citizens. More than likely Viking cultures just didn’t have the same cultural understanding of property as their monotheistic counterparts.
Secondly, yes with added context that statement is entirely subjective. If a society treats their own women as people, but is perfectly fine with raping and enslaving women in other cultures, are they truly progressive? Or do they just understand that what’s good for the cow is good for the farmer?
I do find it funny that one of my primary complaints with this historical interpretation is that it is too dependent on a eurocentric representation of history, and your rebuttals have only been composed of European examples.
Whenever there is a belief in something supernatural, it will be abused, it will end badly, because we’re already talking about people believing things without any proof. Sooner or later, a leader will pop up and it’s it’s rather easy to make these people do your bidding by inventing new wonders or dogma or whatever works for said leader(s)
People need to grow up. Yeah, maybe there is a mighty system operator that manages our simulation, or maybe I’m a Boltzmann brain or whatever. Thinking about it, these two ideas are more plausible than any religion out there, yet we don’t have the great Boltzmann church.
Science is finding out reality, maybe we should focus more on that
Fuck blind faith.
Agreed. I have faith in science, I have faith in people, I have faith in real things.
Religious philosophy is fine. Not everything needs to be crammed into the framework of hard sciences. And the social aspects of religious organizing are no more good or bad than the individuals who take part in it.
You can just as easily find religiously motivated abolitionists as slavers. You can just as easily find religiously motivated homeless shelters as pedophile priests. The spiritualist language used to describe our social bonds is no less legitimate than some Evo-Devo prattle about brain chemicals, at least from the perspective of setting useful policy.
You can just as easily find abusive and detrimental habits in business economics and the hard sciences. Rationalization of a perverse or destructive behavior often follows the decision to embark on it. And you don’t need religious beliefs to rationalize bad behaviors.
So just keep the philosophy and ignore any supernatural stories.
You’ll never sell any comic books with that attitude
apt comment for a being dubbed UnderpantsWeevil
Yeah, no. How many wars were fought over atheism? None. How many over religions? Too many to count.
The average Catholic is a fine person, I’m sure, but the Catholic church is a horror show. How many people have suffered because of that organization? More than I could count. How many wars has it started? More than I’d like to know.
Want to try a different religion? Any religion? Any cult? Scientology, maybe? No? How about Jim Jones temple of what was it called again?
Individual spiritualism then? In on itself harmless, maybe, but it’s still pure nonsense in the level of believing in unicorns and Santa Claus, and it still will end in either groups starting to form, that makes cults that either die out or become organised religion. And in its entire trajectory, it WILL cause suffering and abuse.
Yes, abuse is possible in any organization, but no organization will allow and tolerate abuse as religious organizations do. Give us your money, old grandpa with cancer, god will cure your cancer and return you your money double, I swear! Climate change isn’t real, god would not allow it! All our thousands, millions of followers should just continue to pollute the hell out of this world because God will fix it, people! Hurricanes are caused by gay wickedness and women won’t get pregnant from rape, god will stop that unless they like it.
I see no positive point in any religion or spirituality that could not be made without it.
So yes, fuck all religions, they’re a detriment to the growth of humanity.
But what about the charities then? Charities don’t require religion, you can do one perfectly fine without the other, and that ignores that charities only exist due to governments not fixing issues.
The entire Cold War was a protracted struggle between hard right Christian fascists and Communist Rationalists.
Look up the history of the John Birch Society. The entire movement is based on the Chinese Maoist treatment of Western Evangelicals.
Goes even beyond that. Christianity - specifically, the New Testament verses that extolled the virtue of earthly toil on behalf of a secular lord in exchange for heavenly reward - was leveraged to convince the slaves themselves that their lot in life was justified. And for a great long period of time, it was successful. Even after the Confederacy’s back was broken, mobilizing a population that had been wiped into submission for centuries was legitimately difficult. The Freedman’s Bureau had a herculean effort put at its feet - to engage, re-educate, and empower millions of newly emancipated black men and women after a lifetime of debasement and degradation.
When you get into why Reconstruction failed, a big part of it was like looking at a spouse in an abusive relationship trying to get out from under a hyper-domineering partner and scaling that sociological problem up to the scale of whole cities and states.
I mean that, but also Andrew Johnson was a horrible person and even a worse president
deleted by creator
Did you mean to say ham?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
Yep. God cursed Noah’s son Ham and his descendent to eternal slavery. All for the devastating crime of Ham witnessing Noah sleep in the nude.
Cure of Ham
It’s simple. They’re the wrong kind of Christian, and she’s the right kind.
They’re not real Christians.
No True Christian would fail to hate the exact same groups of people I hate.
Not just theater but musical theater the absolute stronghold of the LGBTQIA+… Yeah let’s just talk openly about how I believe the vast majority of my coworkers and peers (who probably have backgrounds of religious trauma) are morally defunct and how their ability to feel loved and supported shouldn’t be considered protected by society!
I want to grab her by the shoulders and say : For fuck sake honey. No one in your field wanting to touch you with a 9 ft pole isn’t their fault. Having someone openly homophobic in a role where getting the gold star of casting has been for the past several years meant actually choosing someone who has actual experience in a similar identity to what they are potraying… It would be suicide for a production. People are going to look to a queer character to project themselves in those situations. Knowing you’re just a bigot doing it for self agrandizement, accolades and cash is going to cause fucking boycotts from the very target audience of the show!
Spilling your theocratic dirty laundry on twatter because you can’t hold it in can be a “career limiting move” and that’s just normal in a pluralistic society.
Concrete proof that these people simply don’t live in reality.
She thinks this is oppression.
Religion should have been your first clue.
Oh they live in reality. When reality bites them they feel it. For the most part I respect belief. These people legitimately believe that there is a power which will inevitably maliciously destroy us and that to save other people they must be discouraged in any earthly way possible. They believe that to be a noble thing because the foundation comes from a rock solid belief in the divine and honestly there’s not much you can do to shake that belief so what they are doing makes sense from that perspective.
The issue with that being around people with that belief who act on it as though it’s their job to dissuade people from what they perceive as that particular danger is miserable. Like okay, you believe that we’re gunna burn do so quietly because LGBTQIA folk aren’t going to change because even if you believe in God with those tenants it’s really hard to believe he is actually benevolent. Most of the LGBTQIA Christians who believe that God hates the only terms under which they can be happy end up killing themselves. That’s part of why conversion therapy is considered a human rights issue.
The ones based in bullshit (like religions), I don’t.
Alright, so what? What good does treating them petulantly do? If you cannot treat them in a way where they feel understood and cared for they don’t change. If you treat someone poorly or like you are superior they are more likely to double down on their belief and spit in your face. Unless your aim is to bash their faces in and straight up use force you have to see the human in them to get started reversing the programing because a lot of religions preach that unbelievers are evil and the first step in any questioning of the whole is to show that no… You aren’t evil. You are moral and kind actually.
What’s the end goal of disrespect? To be rude to them for fun?
They’re prone to do that anyway.
Why do you say “I have to”, like is my obligation and my work to deprogram religious nuts?
You don’t have to. Only if you want to try and stop them from being religious nuts that’s where you start.
It’s not your job to interact with them so don’t. If they are actively causing you pain where you are you have a right to defend yourself to get them to stop but like any violence there is a line where you cross from self defence to just taking out your anger and trauma on someone else to make yourself feel better. People who do that make the job harder for those of us who want to stop religious trauma from perpetuating.
Respecting religious belief is part of the healing process of religious trauma. It doesn’t mean subscribing to belief in religion. It means seeing the actual human beings inside the system that hurt you.
Not if I’m moderating an atheist site and they come to provoke me and to flaunt their ignorance. Whey they come to my place, they will eat shit if they don’t behave.
If “the actual human beings” are indoctrinated beyond any chance of redemption, who says I need to keep trying?
I’m not sure that I agree that a queer character can only be played by a queer actor. That is called acting, the entire idea is to be someone you’re not. If wr put that rule, then you can also say that straight characters cannot be played by queer or gay actors, not something we want, I’d say.
I think its more a push toward making space for people who have marginalized identites to act. For a long time being openly queer was career suicide. So now that those stories are finally being told, people also want actors writers and producers of those identities involved in the process.
I think its less that straight actors cant play queer characters and more so that there are already plenty of roles for them. Maybe in a more equal future that pressure wont be there but right now it is.
I also think it depends on the role. A side character that happens to be gay? Yeah a straight actor can definetly play that. A lead role in a comming of age tale about discovering your gender identity? Probably best played by someone who has lived experience.
Imo it’s the same idea as having black people play black characters instead of white people with black makeup. If everyone was treated as equal then it wouldn’t be an issue. However, that’s not reality. People are treated differently based on gender, sex, race, age and so forth. Wanting queer characters to be played by queer actors is a way of making sure they have a space to demonstrate their skill, talent, and potentially make a living off it. Same thing with black people playing black characters, or women playing female characters.
There’s another element, however, in which good acting can’t fully replace personal experience. A queer actor playing a queer character will likely be able to identify with said character much better than a straight actor could, and as such, they would be able to harness their personal experiences and channel them through the character they’re playing.
While my latter point doesn’t refute your point about straight characters being played by queer actors, the former hopefully explains why it isn’t universally applied. I do believe though, that in a just and equal world, things like sex, race, gender and so forth shouldn’t be (dis)qualifiers for any given character, it’s just that we don’t live in that kind of world.
Maybe not, but having it played by a queer-hating religious zealot won’t do.
True
To be fair I never said “can only be played by” just that the gold standard has become preferred casting of actors who can apply their personal experiences to the role be it people who come from a specific place or culture (like a queer culture) , have a specific racial background or a disability those roles particularly are earmarked with a growing cultural preference for people because there’s some wider cultural issues of stereotyping, typecasting or framing out people who can tell you is something the playwright put in is full of shit. More people are becoming wise to media literacy and can spot things off with an uninformed take on a performance.
There is a silver and bronze standard that are still acceptable. Sometimes you cast someone outside the gold standard for a bunch of reasons. Availability, overwhelming directorial notions that it was an audition above and beyond… but in leftist spaces particularly - like audio drama podcasts as an example the gold standard of preferred applicants is explicitly listed on audition sides.
<citation required>
No, the entire thing about acting is that people can play people other than themselves. If you can’t play outside your own experiences, you’re not the “gold standard”, as you randomly claim, you’re a bad actor.
Well you can cast your creative projects as you like.
You do seem to be missing the point and leaving most of my point untouched however. It isn’t that a person without the experience can’t play the part. It’s that when you are not accostomed to seeing people like yourself lifted up it is far more thrilling to see it happen. It’s not about the actor. It’s about the audience.
That’s what I have trouble understanding - not even reading the script. Apparently she counted on her agents to “filter” things for her. Sounds highly unprofessional.
Definitely failed at basic adulting: “read carefully before signing”.
I’m not supporting this dumb bigot at all but isn’t that kind of an agent’s job?
In the case of a good, reputable agent who makes you their top priority, it can be. In other cases, if the agent sees a role for a black woman in her 30s(?) who can sing, that’s good enough. Unusual, specific demands/requirements could slip through the cracks. They pass the script along, expecting her to at least skim the damn thing, and leave the final decision up to her.
I laughed so loudly as this comment, my kids came to check in on me.
The Daily Caller is always hiring.
More curious how she got hired on those terms. It seems like a simple line reading might have clued everyone involved in on what this story was about.
I’ve gotten too used to people intentionally misspelling a certain person’s name. ‘Omooba’ threw me for a loop.
It would be beneficial for her to realise long and deep self-reflection is a virtue.
So you cant cancel people for their christian believe. But apparently you can cancel people for well everything else? Woman is mad.
TBF, the supreme Court has mostly agreed with her in multiple cases.