GiuliettaMasina
-
Posts
105 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by GiuliettaMasina
-
-
On 12/16/2022 at 3:02 PM, EarlGreyTea said:
None of the royals have a leg to stand on when it comes to condemning showing off. These are the same people who parade around in (stolen) crowns and jewels from a bygone era.
Exactly! The whole false modesty thing is one of my biggest beefs with the royals. "Oh, I would never be extravagant, that would simply be too gauche," they say as someone inches blindly out of the room because they're not allowed to turn their back to royals. "How terrible it is to draw attention to yourself, I could never," they say to someone who had to have a protocol briefing before meeting them. 🙄
And the kicker is, they have plenty of wealth and properties that are their's outright and not owned by the public. If they really hated "showing off" publicly, they could simply return the titles, fuck off, and live like other rich Europeans. So they can miss me with the lectures about "showing off."-
4
-
1
-
-
On 5/4/2022 at 7:55 PM, libgirl2 said:
I think how young she looked really drove home the point that she is a child herself. Plus, we are so used to teenagers being played my people in their late 20s or older, we forget, kids really do look like kids.
That was my feeling as well--I taught at an all girls high school for years, and she's how most 15-16 year olds look in my experience. I think some of it is also that we're used to seeing movie teens dressed really well and with impeccable make-up and hair and not the more unpracticed looks of most teens. So even actors who are young look older/more mature on screen.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Zella said:
I'm glad someone mentioned the anniversary post. I have no clue who either of these people are, but after seeing that, I felt compelled to know more about this shitshow.
The post in question.
C'mon now, TJ...
-
3
-
1
-
7
-
-
- Popular Post
I am only passingly familiar with one of the participants, but the Twitter response to the GMA scandal is absolutely sending me.
-
28
-
2 hours ago, GaT said:
I think the reason people aren't letting it go is one, we all saw it. Even people who didn't watch the show (like me) have seen a billion clips of it, so a lot more people are aware of it. Two, people are pissed that he basically high jacked the entire show. Questlove won his first Oscar right after the slap, but nobody was paying attention to that, in fact, nobody is paying attention to any of the winners, Will Smith is the only thing this Oscar ceremony will ever be known for, he managed to steal the limelight from everyone.
Three. The academy mishandled the whole thing. He should have been yanked from the room, & not been allowed to accept his Oscar in person. The fact that they let him stay after attacking a presenter & then get up on stage to thunderous applause from the assholes in the audience is what people are remembering, & that's what they'll always remember. Also, they just left Chris Rock standing there on stage after being attacked and left him to handle it. They didn't even send anyone over to him to see if he was hurt.
As for Chris Rock, was the joke bad? Yeah, it was a bad joke, why he would choose to make a reference to a mediocre movie from years ago is beyond me, but that's what he did. Everyone acts like he attacked Jada, but I think they're assuming he knew she had alopecia & was making fun of it. Why would he know about a medical condition she has? I had no idea she had it until this happened. I thought she just shaved her head as a fashion statement, as some women do. Is he supposed to know every sensitive thing about everyone? It's ridiculous.
Will Smith did a really stupid thing. Other people have done much, much worse, but he did this in full view of the world, & the world isn't going to forget.
He may not have known about her medical condition, but he sure as heck knew what he was doing making fun of a Black woman's lack of hair. He made a whole documentary ostensibly about the topic (but which actually just further shamed Black women), and then accepted a whole bunch of public awards and praise for being the person to bring attention to the issue and for being a "supporter" of Black women.
Edit: I'm just going to add in the trailer of the documentary Chris Rock himself produced about Black women and hair, and then bow out of this convo for my own mental health.
-
7
-
-
14 minutes ago, AstridM said:
Women don’t need men to “defend” them.
Agreed--which is why I didn't say they did. I was speaking very specifically about the 3 individuals involved and myself (I am a woman). I would defend any of my friends of any gender from those kinds of jokes, though only the Black
womenfemmes and women would need defending from misogynoir, hence my specificity there.Edit: Black femmes of any gender can be the object of misogynoir--that's my mistake.
-
1
-
1
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Avabelle said:
This is my issue with it. Not only was he not removed but he got a standing ovation as though he was the victim. It was only once the sheep that make up Hollywood realised hey it’s not popular to support will here that was a backlash. Will himself did that weird acceptance speech but then partied the night away until the media and public made it clear that nobody was into the violence. I don’t buy his apology as it wouldn’t be happening had the public not turned on him.
I think this is understandable, but if I had one quibble it would be that "nobody was into the violence." Many people weren't, that's clear, but I was not bothered by it and I know there are plenty of others who weren't. Personally, I don't have the type of muscle to engage in physical fights, but making fun of someone's disability and/or mocking a Black woman for being "bald-headed" (especially in front of a mostly white audience) are well-known as "fighting words" and I absolutely would be having an equally public (shoulda made the joke in private if you wanted it to stay private) confrontation with someone who did either of those things to someone I loved.
-
2
-
2
-
-
38 minutes ago, Evie said:
I do think Will Smith just lost it in that moment. He was wrong. He's apologized. I don't think the slap should define him, but it will. He'll be apologizing for it for the rest of his life because Hollywood will never let him forget it. Meanwhile, Brad Pitt won an Oscar after the plane incident and has another Oscar bait movie coming out. I get Will Smith slapped Chris Rock on national television, but the reaction to it by Hollywood, where there is still support for all manners of vile men, was a bit much.
Just last week we had numerous celebrities putting on their capes to defend Chris Brown's right to a second chance (when he hasn't even stopped being a violent piece of shit!) and Helena Bonham Carter calling #MeToo a "trend." The hypocrisy is galling and makes me think they were most traumatized by seeing someone stand up to a bully for once instead of protecting and covering for the bully like the rest of the pack.
-
2
-
18
-
-
5 hours ago, Anduin said:
He made a bad decision in the heat of the moment. He's not the first, he's not the last. But he is very relatable. Though frankly, Chris Rock should be the one apologising for being a fucking asshole and making offensive 'jokes'.
That's where I'm at. I'm honestly most mad at Will because his actions allowed for attention to be deflected from that disgusting "joke." Not even a funny one, using decades old references. I'm kinda of waiting on Chris to start making jokes about it--as someone who's enjoyed many a first half of a Rock set and then turned it off in the second half when he becomes just another misogynist misogynizing under the guise of "humor," I suspect he'll tell on himself enough that the coverage will start to balance out.
-
12
-
-
On 5/10/2021 at 7:30 PM, jpgr said:
I did like the storyline with Phyllis and Doctor Turner, even if it was maybe a bit anachronistic. There had to be some medical professionals and parents who didn't condemn homosexuality and stood by their sons. I love the way they rescued him from the clinic. Don't mess with Phyllis when she's on a mission!
That's where I am. Their behavior may have been out of step with the majority at that time, but there were many outliers, and given that we've seen plenty of storylines about homophobic parents on film/tv, I'm quite happy to see something different. There's plenty of dramatic possibilities to explore as they no doubt existed on a spectrum from "ok with it being an open secret" to "complete and total acceptance."
On 10/25/2021 at 2:14 PM, Tiggertoo said:I think the problem with Cyril and Lucille is that they’re so bland and pure. I feel like we haven’t seen any shades of grey with them. We haven’t seen them screw up, get angry or be miserable. Well, except for the radiogram purchase. Gasp!
Ohhhh, yes! You've put your finger on what it is about these two that I just can't get into.
On 10/25/2021 at 7:17 PM, Clanstarling said:In any time period, there are a multitude of opinions, many of which do not fall within the "norm" of societal thought. So I expect there were plenty of people in the 60's who had nothing against it at all, and who actively embraced friends who were homosexual or gender fluid. The terms might not have been there, but the thoughts would have been.
Yup. And no doubt plenty of willful blindness about the gay people they loved, like not thinking too deeply about their "roommates" on purpose.
On 10/26/2021 at 1:49 AM, movingtargetgal said:Yes! I would love to see a young Sister Monica Joan and Sister Evangelina. These two women came from such different backgrounds and grew to respect and love each other. It would be wonderful to watch the beginning of their relationship. Imagine young Sister Julianne entering Nonnatus House for the first time. She would be mentored by two Sisters/Midwives that were such wonderful teachers, each with their own strengths. Sister Monica Joan, wearing her heart on her sleeve and Sister Evangelina with her no nonsense practicality. They were a big part of making Sister Julianne into such a compassionate and competent leader of Nonnatus House.
I would watch the hell out of this show.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 10/18/2021 at 12:28 AM, LittleIggy said:
Lucille and Cyril are so freaking boring.😴
On 10/18/2021 at 12:54 AM, susannah said:I don't think she was a bitch at all. He was being extremely patronizing to her, talking sooo slowly and enunciating every syllable like she was brainless and deaf, and I was glad she let him have it. Lucille and Cyril passed boring a while back. I think they should market them as sleep aids.
Laughing at both of these posts. I try so hard to be interested in Lucille b/c she's the only main character of color, but gosh if she isn't the drippiest of drips.
-
1
-
-
On 10/11/2021 at 1:54 PM, JudyObscure said:
At one time I felt like CTM was skirting around the abortion issue. I remember an unmarried teacher who got pregnant and had an abortion and one of the nuns got a lecture from Sister Julienne for having a slightly judgmental attitude. Now all this shock at the very idea.
I'm just not totally on board with Trixie's (the show's) assumption that rich women only had to say the word and their doctor would perform an abortion while poor women's doctors would not. Once when I was about 30, I had what could be called a "rich white woman's doctor" who refused to even prescribe birth control pills much less perform an abortion.
On the other hand, I would have thought doctors who served in poor areas like Dr. Turner, would be more likely to understand the hardships surrounding unwanted pregnancy and be more likely to do the surgery for their patients. Doctors were so paternalistic back then I can picture them telling a rich woman that she can afford the child so she should be ashamed to even mention termination. I got shamed like that just for asking for the pill when I was 20 years old.
I've been looking for stats on this and only found that black women are five times more likely than white women to have an abortion and that fifty percent of people who get abortions are poor. That doesn't sound to me like poor people are going without wanted abortions because of their income.
That's for the present. I can't find past statistics, but I'm just not going to take Trixie's word for it that it was a piece of cake for rich women to get abortions in the 1960's. If nothing else, word of mouth about who would or wouldn't perform the procedure probably would have been easier to get wind of in Poplar than some fancy London suburb.
No need to take her word for it, history supports her.
On 10/11/2021 at 11:46 PM, Rootbeer said:As stated on the show, it's access to safe abortion that is the difference. Current statistics on abortion don't really apply to Britain in the mid 60's when the procedure was illegal but physicians in private practice were willing to perform them for paying patients and falsify their medical records.
One thing that wasn't very clear on the show is that there are two options for health care in Great Britain. Everyone is eligible for the NHS or National Health Service which is government sponsored health care and what we see the midwives at Nonnatus House providing to the people of Poplar. They are essentially government employees. However, the other, fancy hospital with the private physicians was part of the private health care system which is essentially limited to those who can pay out of pocket for their health care. That is why Sister Julienne was considering allowing their midwives to work at that hospital. With private patients, paying cash for services, there would be a lucrative income stream available to help Nonnatus provide services to the poor that NHS payments couldn't cover. So, the doctor at the private hospital was providing abortions to women who could afford to pay him and the hospital out of pocket for it under the guise of calling it a D&C. The women of Poplar, not having that kind of money, paid Val's grandmother for the same services on the kitchen table above the pub. That is the difference. Women who could pay in cash had access to the safety provided by a real doctor and a real hospital as well as the cover story that that situation provided.
I presume your statistics are based on the US today which isn't really comparable to Britain prior to legalized abortion in the mid 60's. While I agree that black women generally have abortions at a higher rate than white women, I don't think it is 5 times higher from what I've read. Access to safe and effective contraception in middle class vs poor women is part of the answer though. Abortion overall costs a lot less than raising a child and. sadly, sometimes that is a big factor in the choice to end a pregnancy.
Exactly. Access to safe and effective contraception and the stability to use it as directed continue to be issues facing poor women.
On 10/12/2021 at 3:21 AM, JudyObscure said:Yes, as I said when I posted them, those statistics were the only ones I could find and I was hoping someone else had stats from Britain in the 60's. They were just an example of poor women being able to find abortion providers today -- some people were saying that it was still much harder for them today and it didn't seem that way from the stats.
I don't agree that it's really very hard to access birth control. If you can find a drug store you can get some sort of birth control. Barrier methods plus chemical provide excellent protection. Just as an abortion is cheaper than raising a child, birth control is cheaper than an abortion.
I was just a little miffed at the show for trying to play to both sides at once. There's something a little inconsistent about nuns outraged to discover abortions are going on (because it's a grave sin for which you'll burn in Hell for all eternity), and literally in the next breath, outraged that poor women can't get them.
In the US, birth control requires a prescription, which requires access to health care (or the ability to access an overburdened free or low cost clinic), which requires a job that provides health insurance. It also needs to be taken at the exact same time every day or its efficacy is affected negatively. This can be hard to do if you are juggling shift work or "odd jobs" as many poor people are. It really is not as simple as finding a drug store.
There is nothing inconsistent with believing that abortion is a grave sin and also being upset that only poor people have to die for it. Also, they are Anglican not RC or American fundamentalist--not every religious denomination believes the same thing about abortion. American Protestants largely did not care about abortion until the 70s and even the Catholic history is not as solid as one might think. Also, people can believe in some parts of their religion's doctrine but not others. I'm not sure why we need these characters to act like fundamentalists to understand that they oppose abortion--they've literally shown their opposition in every abortion storyline on the show.
-
2
-
2
-
-
On 4/3/2020 at 2:08 PM, JudyObscure said:
The teacher could have been said to "hold herself out as living an upstanding life," yet they understood that people can slip below their own standards.
The woman in this case, left a baby to die in the cold. She too committed her sin in secret while presenting herself publicly as a moral housekeeper.
The priest wasn't responsible for what other priests have done and it's not as though he was a pedophile. I'm not sure he was "preying on" this woman or emotionally abusive to her. He said he had truly loved her and she might have actually healed a little from the husband who beat her if the priest had been gentle with her.
I think it's a double standard in the show, with the women being given forgiveness and the benefit of the doubt regarding future behavior, while the men are held accountable for the relationship as though they were the only one with any agency.
I understand that as her employer and as a man in a position of authority he is more to blame than the woman, but I still think he is a human, subject to temptation and worthy of forgiveness if he falls.
One has to admit to doing something wrong in order to atone. Being worthy of forgiveness and being owed forgiveness are not synonymous.
On 4/3/2020 at 5:28 PM, MissLucas said:I would have felt more sympathy for him had he not done his damnest to pressure her into giving up the child - including to threaten her with social services, casting doubts over her mental state and trying to blackmail her with her job. He also tried to throw his paternal rights into the mix which of course backfired in the end.
Also: they had a sexual relationship so chances are that he had seen her scars and was aware of her emotional vulnerability.
He was clearly fearing the scandal more than he cared for her - otherwise he would have respected her decision and set arrangements for her in motion. Like organizing a job where she could keep her child. As a man of a cloth this would have been an option under the pretense of being charitable towards his 'fallen' housekeeper. Or he could have asked Mother Mildred to do that instead of trying to pull rank (so to speak). This is what other priests in his situation have done - accepting raised eyebrows and whispers within the congregation as the price - at least the more decent ones.
Yup. Or even better, done the right thing and quit his job to marry her and uphold the religion he supposedly is a representative of. Zero sympathy for this piece of trash.
-
1
-
-
On 5/20/2019 at 7:18 AM, JudyObscure said:
They managed to cover the abortion story over this whole season without one single word from the sisters about their side of the issue. The writer's message, "Women will always seek abortions, so it should be made legal," was demonstrated and repeated throughout, while the other side, "Abortion is the murder of an innocent baby, so should never be legal," wasn't so much as whispered by any of the nuns.
I know they aren't Catholic, but it was, and still is, the position of many religious people, that abortion is murder and even if some people will always commit murder and sometimes get themselves killed in the process, we still don't make murder legal.
Even though I'm Pro-choice and agree with the side that was shown, I thought the issue was one-sided, preachy, overly political, and very heavy handed.
I love British television and all their shows that PBS buys and brings to us, but its patronizing tendency to try to teach us things is their biggest fault, left over from the days when the BBC was an arm of the government.
I came away thinking it leaned to heavy on the pro-life side, so mileage clearly varies. The nuns literally recruited people to testify against the abortionist, their positions were pretty clear, and it seems obvious this storyline will continue, they'll likely say more. The spent the majority of the episode having the characters deemed moral direct vitriol at the abortionist, and only had the abortionist (redeemed only by her own submission to a punishment even her accusers deemed harsh) talking about the bigger structures driving women to obtain abortions. I don't see that as preaching a "pro-choice" message.
-
Just to be clear--I don't think youth absolves one from responsibility, or more precisely, accountability. When children do wrong, they should absolutely be made to take account for the harm they've caused (even inadvertently), but we should also view their mishaps in the context of their age and life-experience. Diana behaved poorly plenty, I just don't think pretending to share her crush's interests and believing in idealized love as a teenager indicate that she was a manipulator (plenty of other evidence she was to use actually) nor do I view them in the same light as the mature people who looked at her clear lack of experience and thought "Yes, exactly, the perfect candidate to throw into a pressure cooker (while telling them it's a kiddy pool because otherwise they'd run away"). Puh-lenty of women would have been willing to have a marriage of convenience with the PoW and they could have found one if they'd taken their heads out of their asses. That doesn't mean society should step in and save Diana from those decisions she made as a young adult, nor did they. I don't think we can deny she suffered consequences for her poor decision-making.
-
3
-
9
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, truthful said:
I'm not talking about physiology, I'm talking about personal responsibility. You can't absolve her of sin just because of her youth, because to do so would be incredibly insulting to her. You're basically taking away her agency.
We'll have to agree to disagree that making a poor decision about who to marry is "a sin." I'm not taking away her personal agency--she made choices as a 19 year-old that were hers to make, and she, in fact, did live with the consequences. She also did not have a fully formed brain when she made those choices. Those two things can both be true. No absolution of "sin" necessary.
-
5
-
9
-
6
-
-
15 hours ago, sistermagpie said:
It seems like this gets put out there as if it's almost an ancient geis they fear to break, but it's hard to believe that in 1981 Charles couldn't have married an adult who just didn't have any previous marriages or actually lived with someone or had too bad of a reputation and everyone just agrees to a polite fiction. We've seen they can move with the times when it's too hard to play Victorian Times.
Exactly! They brought this mess on their own heads, only to have to change all the rules anyway.
8 hours ago, truthful said:A nineteen year old is, for all intents and purposes, an adult. Diana, no matter how much people want to view her as a child, was old enough to make her own choices in life. She shouldn't be overlooked about her responsibility in this mess.
The law is not the arbiter of physiology. A 17-year-old does not magically gain maturity on their 18th birthday, they've just reached the stage in life where we've decided that they need to start making their own choices and living with the consequences because that's how you learn to make good choices and learn to cope with the consequences of your inevitable bad decisions. When I was 19 I was "old enough" to make my own choices, I was also still very much a child.
In other news, I thought it was interesting how many times this season I wanted to give characters the "Walter Sobchak Award;" that is to say "You're not wrong...you're just an asshole." Diana, Charles, the Queen all had moments where they were "technically right" but butchered the execution. I felt this particularly with Charles, who is definitely had the right idea about modernizing the Firm, but couldn't get past his own peevish self-righteousness to be a good advocate for his ideas.
-
7
-
-
On 11/12/2022 at 5:51 PM, Spartan Girl said:
She was 19. 19.
Perhaps a slightly older woman with a more functional family that wasn’t so enthusiastic to get in with the royals might have thought it through more, but that wasn’t the case here. Plus, he was the freaking prince of Wales, and that would be enough to turn anyone’s head. It’s not like she was the only person that rushed into marriage because she was in love (or thought she was).
This is the crux of why, despite all her subsequent bad behavior (and there was plenty), I still side more with Diana. Plenty of teenagers pretend to be more interested in their crushes' interests than they actually are. That's not manipulation, that's being immature, and it comes along with the territory when you are an actual child. And, yes, I absolutely consider a 19-year-old a child; the law's got to draw a line somewhere, but that doesn't change brain chemistry and physiological development. If the royal family was looking for someone with a mature understanding of how marriage can be a partnership in ways other than romantic, they should've found an adult.
-
5
-
9
-
10
-
-
On 11/19/2022 at 4:30 PM, LadyIrony said:
I think it was also because it was so obvious he was trying to ingratiate himself to the Royals. No one likes a brown noser. The media etc will play on his race but I don't think the local white merchant would have had any more success or would be seen any differently.
As we see Diana's apparent interest for Eastern men seems to be what worked for him via his son Dodi.
Sure, but it's pretty rich (quite literally) to look down on "brown nosers" when you require people to call you by titles and bow in your presence and represent a system which is the symbolic representation of a social hierarchy with leadership chosen not by skill but birth. It kind of invites ingratiating behavior. Expecting people to pretend you don't have power when you literally won't appear in public without its protection and pagantry is entitled snobbery.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the idea that a white person wouldn't have been seen differently by either the press or the royal family. People can disdain racial slurs/outward displays of racism and still be racist. People can even love individuals of a certain race while maintaining an overall racist opinion of the group as a whole (see: this episode). QEII sat at the head of a colonial empire and was in partnership with a well-documented racist, I don't think it's a stretch to think she had some regressive ideas about race, so I'm not going to cape for her on this.
-
1
-
4
-
2
-
3
-
-
On 11/7/2022 at 1:00 PM, Notabug said:
Lowe, if anything, confirmed that she was not treated with respect on set. Lowe admits they were laughing, ogling and behaving like frat boys on set while she was filming a scene where her shirt was removed. Definitely a**holes.
As a survivor who went back to the man who beat her multiple times before getting out; I don't think Rihanna's opinion of Depp is necessarily based on the truth. Quite the opposite.
Rihanna has said she has forgiven Chris Brown for beating her and they are friends. Since their breakup, multiple other women have charged him with assault. He keeps on beating women and Rihanna says she's his friend. Rihanna is not a very good judge of people, IMO.
Her child's father included. And, I like Rihanna. Ugh, so disappointing, but, I agree, not surprising.
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 11/2/2022 at 2:09 PM, SunnyBeBe said:
I normally don’t like shows where the entire premise is based on a stupid mistake or wrong assumption. Is that going to get in the way of the rest of the story?
I had to start fast forwarding midway through the 3rd episode for this reason. For me it starts with: the files just automatically popped up when she put the thumb drive in? I guess I can kind of buy that they're image files so maybe he just didn't have them in a folder, so she saw the thumbnails? But then I get stuck on--this is a man so (rightly) tormented by his actions that he attempted suicide, couldn't name them at out loud, and on top of that was being hounded by his mother, but he didn't (at the very least) put the files in an innocuously named folder? It doesn't track.
And, if the lesson was meant to be that times of stress reveal our "true" nature, or whatever that "man behind your eyelids" speech was supposed to be:
1) Going with the premise that there was nothing the vicar could do to convince Janice the CSA materials weren't Ben's, then isn't this more a case of "desperate people will at out of character and compound lie after lie to the point it collapses on them"? In which case, isn't this something we all learn as toddlers when we try to lie our way out of something? Not sure why this needed to be a fable for adults. And in this case, the vicar didn't do even anything wrong to incite the story. There is no way he could know there was anything out of the ordinary on the drive. Although why he didn't put the material that he clearly regarded as personal anywhere besides the effing ENTRY WAY COMMON PILE O'STUFF, I simply can't understand. And...
2) Doesn't the same apply to our oh-so-clever heroine? Like if she had calmed down for five seconds she might have realized his explanation might make some sense--he's a vicar with religious, if not legal, codes of privilege; "secretive" does not necessarily mean suspicious. Even if she said, "I don't believe you, but let's go the station and I'll let you explain--all I did was open a drive, I can't prove where you got it" that gives everyone an out. Or, later, when she was confronted with a terrified child who pretty clearly was completely befuddled, maybe she backtracks for and minute and reconsiders.
This is why I hate stories that rely on people acting nonsensically--it makes me hate EVERYONE.9 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:I appreciate that and I thought so, but it still doesn’t work for me. Because, once the bookkeeper put the funds into the Senator aka/ Rapist, which was ACTUALLY the Therapist’s account, that would end it. The therapist would never have gotten paid. Unlikely, he would have kept treating senator’s wife without payment. And when she showed up the next week, ask where payment was. Then wife would call the senator’s bookkeeper and demand an explanation. So, the purported scenario falls apart for me. Maybe, I’m missing something. This was a small part of the series, but if they put it out there, it should hold its own to me.
I also found the timing of the journalist on the train in London, then in the states in prison unrealistic.
I think the idea was there were two payments? One to the "the therapist" and one to "the rapist." But, it still didn't make sense to me.
10 hours ago, oompa said:PSA: There is an extra scene pretty soon after the credits roll on the last episode.
Thanks for this info! Now the story makes even less sense to me, lol.
-
4
-
3
-
-
19 hours ago, ouinason said:
Just to clarify. Dax and Kristen were talking about not wanting to turn their daughter into a spoiled little... whatever, they didn't say she was one. Is this correct? HUGE difference. Yes, I do think that they are oversharers, but nothing that has been discussed is weirder than stuff my parents have said publicly about me, just nobody really cared. And my parents are dorks, but they love me (despite their faults). I feel about them the way I feel about Ashton Kutcher and his wife. "Weirdos, stop talking in public.".
I always say that the best form of birth control is listening to parents talk about their children. I'm not enamored of what they're saying, but I agree that they're not outliers in complaining about their kids.
-
4
-
9
-
-
15 minutes ago, aradia22 said:
This is a weird point to keep arguing. I'm saying if Jacqueline Keeler found the records the first time, it should be easy to verify. If not, that puts her claims into doubt. And overall, I'm just tired of "journalism" being summarizing information obtained by someone else but that's a conversation unrelated to celebrity news.
This is fair, but if she's offering marriage and baptismal records as proof of anything other than a marriage or baptism happening on a given date (and she is), she's not starting from a place of rigor or ethics, and that should absolutely be apart of evaluating her content and whether or not it meets journalistic standards. It's not just her past history--her main argument here is that Sacheen's father is Mexican and therefore they are not native; that's ludicrous on its own merits.
-
2
-
1
-
8
-
-
28 minutes ago, aradia22 said:
Is anyone even trying? Fair point if the records are incomplete but if they're not digitized, that's just laziness. You can obtain paper records.
I am skeptical of the woman who published the opinion article and Sacheen's sisters. But I didn't know anything of her self-described history before this and some of it comes across as... embellished.
I'm not outraged if she chose to lie. She's passed on and there are no claims of harm except from her family. I am disheartened that no one wants to put in an ounce of research into Sacheen's claims to defend her beyond dragging up receipts against her sisters or the journalist but that's why I mostly stay off twitter.
The problem with this is that systemic racism provides a large incentive for those who can "pass" to do so. Lots of people will call themselves white when the alternative is "face systemic barriers to accessing even your most basic of needs." And similar pressures exist on the other side of the color line as well--especially when the main way to sell your area as a safe/desirable location has historically been "Look at the lack of POC!" Others have already mentioned that it was common for census takers to decide on the races of those they were counting.
As to paper, paper records are extremely easy to destroy/lose (not to mention extremely flammable) and many archives of the past were aggressive in culling out records that they perceived to be unimportant. There is no guarantee the paper records still exist. Also, "very few people of x ethnicity lived here" is not the same thing as "no people of x lived here," and being outside of community only increases the pressures to assimilate/pass, so that factoid is not doing the work for me that Keeler wants it to.
Regardless, as an outsider, if the people whose story she's purported to have stolen (and it could be that she did invent this story, I don't know) are saying, "either way, we claim her as ours," who are the rest of us to say differently? She certainly walked the walk which is more than I can say of the current crop of culture vulture celebrities this country loves elevating.
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
14
-
S01.E05: Episode 5
in Harry & Meghan
If nothing else, this has proven how spectacularly inept the Firm is at its so-called job of generating good publicity for a dying empire. I don't think the Black British people in this documentary are assuming that everyone in the Commonwealth would relate to her or that there would be a universal reaction of any sort from millions of diverse people. They are simply describing what actually happened, which was, that yes, many people of color did in fact take pause and think "Huh, I never would have expected that of them" when (it appeared) that they were welcoming a Black woman into their family and that a savvier institution would have capitalized heavily on that pause.