Geralt is a handsome bastard
Well, here’s Cavill as Geralt…
fyi, Cavill is actually big on video games. One story about him was that he actually missed the phone call from Zack Snyder awarding him the role of Superman for MAN OF STEEL because he was too busy playing WORLD OF WARCRAFT at the time.
He was apparently in the middle of a battle or quest line or something and decided he’d finish that first then call Snyder back.
The guy spends his earnings on stuff like this:
Sean I didn’t know you knew some german
Du bist ein Arschloch (jk)
It is going to be hard because I’m weak in english but I will try…
Political Corretness is a method using by people who have power to tells others what is rigth and what is wrong using media and humiliate/ being aggressive to people who are disagree with their concept of world
Nowadays Political Coretness looks diffrent than 60 years ago and I’m pretty sure will be looking diffrent after another 50 or 70 years
example: year 1935, Political Corretness looked very diffrent in 3 countries: Germany ,ZSRR , USA
another example: You were born in 1902 in Germany, now You have 33 years old, still hating nationalism? everybody around loves it, You are still so smart to judge that Hitler is piece of shit, everybody around loves him, why? because media tells so (and he was MASSIVE piece of shit I hate hitler and nasism too so Don’t worry it is only example), My point is: media have great power to control masses
You’ve adequately explained an older, out of date definition of “political correctness” - But not what it means in this day and age.
the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
“women like him for his civil rights stand and political correctness”
Copy pasted from the defenition from a google search
I have always thought political correctness was to criticise without insulting the one you criticise, if you don’t like what one country leader is saying or doing, policical correctness would be to say what you feel in a good behaviour, but not personally attact the country leader, that’s what polictical correcness is for me at least , maybe i’m confusing diplomacy with political correctness?
Ok, so if the Dictionary definition provided there is indeed what political correctness is, then my question to you is this - Why is that bad? Why is it bad to avoid causing unnecessary offence or harm to people? Spoiler - it isn’t, and most people who complain about “political correctness” in 2018 just want to be able to say bigoted and prejudiced things without facing any social consequences for it.
Besides, we all do this every day. We moderate our language based on who we are talking to because we understand our audience and their sensibilities. Most of you probably intentionally exclude the word “Cunt” from your vocabulary when talking to your grandparents, and you don’t yell loud racial slurs in public because you know it is not socially acceptable.
Not quite sure if you are trying to misreprisent, or misunderstood what I meant with that comment.
I had no real(intenional) political meaning to it, I wrote the comment to have something to show the definition of political correctness. And I really don’t have any interest in this discussion on political correctness.
So why are you even trying to make a accusasion (yes this is part is just a accusasion on you, I know that), when I didn’t even express my opinion on the subject.
Oh and that last part of you talking about talking nicely and moderating or language to eachother is a common curtesy, not political correctness
Yep, I know that i’ve become a part of this discussion on political correctness, so I just did when I said I would’nt discuss this topic
It hurts art. Look up Hays Code.
How would you feel if instead of Merry “Christmas” we said Merry Allah-mas? In the US we have something called freedom of religion so forcing the term “Christmas” down people’s throats at work can be offensive. Is it petty, maybe, but so was everyone getting into an uproar when black NFL players didn’t want to stand for the flag. I bet these were the same people that are partial to the term Christmas.
Yes I totally agree. However, this is the exact point I’m trying to make that nobody seems to be understanding; no matter what side you’re on, you will always have someone that will be offended. That’s all I’m trying to say.
I mean yes, it’s good to want and try to please everyone and not offend them, but it is virtually impossible. Everyone has their own beliefs and opinions (and while for some, they don’t let it “get to them”) some do get offended for some reason when you don’t see things their way that’s just the world we live.
Sure we do. And PC is not a bad concept in itself. And we shouldn’t stop trying because someone will always be offended at something in their individual romanticist reality.
Stil I don’t like the concept. I believe learning to be corteous and kind is not the goal of PC but rather to censor vocabulary and/or substitute vocabulary that may be harmfuk towards what in most conditions is too small of a minority.
I think mankind should strive to appreciate diversity and individual identity. And I think that the only way to do this is to get accustomed to feel offended at certain situations. This does not at all mean to say that we should get accustomed to be offended… but then again, what is the differencd between feeling and being? Just the definition of what is. And that’s the debate. And it is one that PC is trying to steer towards their agenda too rapidly. And I find that the PC agenda is not that of individual diversity but rather than of collective identity.
Edit: just in case I am not making myself clear I’ll give a melodramatic example of what putting collective identity over individual diversity means: person A joyfully greets person B. As it so happens, their salutation given common cultural background includes racial and/or homophobical slurs. Person C listens in to that and once A and B part ways, C approaches B and questions A’s intentions as well as B’s for “taking it”. Both A and B know of the possible interpretation of their greeting as something offensive towards others or even one another of themselves. However the words themselves have been used so frequently that the inherent hate-speech definition lost meaning in the day-to-day lexical of these two people. So the meaning of the word, to them and in between them at least, is another completelly different meaning of appreciation rather than discrimination. Yet C remains perplexed, even after hearing this explaination, that this is allowed to happen. So he then attempts to sabotage every time A and B meet to make them realize what he believes is the reality. To put it more bluntly, C who advocates for political correctness, even knowing A and B would not use this vocabulary with most audiences as they know it’s primary interpretation, demands that A and B do not “mask” the “true meaning” behind something that looks gentle. Essentially, C does not want to offend less people. C wants more people to feel offended. This is my problem with collective identity. “You are a black man first, and yourself second. So you can’t allow yourself to be called any slur on no matter by who or on what context.” Why? Because your collective identity as a black man is superior to your individual freedom of speech with your trusted one. So you need to enforce respect for your collective identity even if you do not agree with it on that scenario.
ACAB. Using thuggish violence to break up counter protests while defending Fascists. Fuck em.
I mean, is it any surprise the police are coming to rescue the white nationalists?
Whataboutism: the practice of idiotically referencing character X’s misdeeds in the futile hope that it will make character Y’s misdeeds not matter; a tactic that should be all too familiar to people who follow what Donald Trump and his cultist followers say.
Whether its Cable Street in 1936 or Portland in 2018, the Police will always protect Fascists while attacking counter protesters.