Jump to content

Someday you may be forced to do film work you don't want to do.


Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dennis Toeppen said:

I think this would be a good thread for finally deciding which is better, film or digital.

Good plan. Film is better if you can afford it. But I can’t afford film, so digital is better for me.

(And even if you’re rich, digital can offer some low-light advantages.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Dennis Toeppen said:

I think this would be a good thread for finally deciding which is better, film or digital.

I, for one, welcome our new digital overlords.

6 hours ago, Chance Shirley said:

But agree or not, justice in the U.S. is definitely not distributed evenly among all races, religions, genders, and sexualities. There have been several examples of such targeted injustice in this thread already.

That is not a fact. Not in the film industry (or any industry I know of), not in politics, and not in society.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

That is not a fact. Not in the film industry (or any industry I know of), not in politics, and not in society.

To point out a huge and obvious example, did you ever hear about slavery in the United States? Black people during those days didn’t have any legal protections or any kind.

Women couldn’t vote in the U.S. until 1920.

Apartheid in South Africa marginalized Black people until the 1990s.

Trans people (and gay people, obviously) in America have less legal protections than other groups of people today.

Women can’t be priests in the Catholic Church. (Assuming you agree Catholicism is a big enough religion to be considered part of society.)

If any of these few examples are not facts, please let me know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
7 hours ago, Chance Shirley said:

To just pick a random example... I guess drunk driving is fine because all of those mothers who were campaigning against it were too emotionally invested?

Drunk driving has a negative impact for society regardless of emotional motivation. In addition to injuries and potential loss of life,  drunk driving also causes property damage ($$$), instability on the roadways, and accidents cause gridlock which has a windfall effect on the community as a whole. It is the opposite of a "public good".

7 hours ago, Chance Shirley said:

Or women shouldn’t be able to vote because the women who fought for that right were too emotionally invested?

Once again, the issue is more of a pragmatic one that an emotional one. Having approximately half of the adult population not able to influence the direction of the country isn't just "discriminatory"; it is stupid. When one studies management theory, you learn that diversity of opinion and perspective is a powerful thing. This is what is not talked about enough by proponents of "social justice". Businesses that embrace diversity of viewpoint, perspective, culture, etc tend to benefit because they have a larger well of creativity and ideas to draw from. This is never the selling point though as people like you promote the "beat you over the head" approach and tell you to embrace diversity because it is the "right thing to do" and that if you disagree, you are a bigot. Catching flies with honey is always better than using vinegar. But when you make people out to be terrible people from the get go, don't expect them to consider anything you have to say.

8 hours ago, Chance Shirley said:

Pretty sure the reason a lot of people get involved in social causes is emotional investment.

Sure, emotions are stronger than logic for most people. This is because people are inherently reactive. Emotions happen to you whereas logic takes a conscious effort to think though a problem and formulate a solution; it also takes the confidence and will to take a first step in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
8 hours ago, Chance Shirley said:

And for the tenth time, I am not concerned about your religion.

I am concerned about the people who are bullying marginalized people and using their “religion” to justify that.

But if you read the rest of my quote, I said that I am completely fine with service people denying me service for any reason they see fit. Therefore, I do not see it as "marginalizing" anyone to deny them service. I am literally saying that I am fine with going through the same so-called "oppression" that those groups are dealing with. If I don't care about it directed at me, why would I care if it is directed at someone else? I realize that no one in this world owes me anything. I am fine with it. If they wont do something for me, I guess I find someone else or do it myself if it is important enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Chance Shirley said:

Dude. There are literally a bunch of new anti-trans laws on the books as of last year.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/politics/anti-transgender-legislation-2021/index.html

And of course, this thread was started because people are trying to use a legal “religion” loophole to deny service to gay people.

These aren’t generalizations.

Calling laws "anti-trans" is an over simplification. Many of those have to do with the trans-female in female sports debate which is far more nuanced that people like you want to admit. Regardless of what feels good to you, there is a biological difference between born males and born females. Even with hormone replacement therapy, there are differences in muscle mass, bone density, etc that give a biological male an edge over a biological female. That isn't bigotry, that is science. Many of those sorts of arguments have more to do with the fairness of the competition and not as a way to prevent trans students from competing in sports.

My question to you on that grounds is this: At what point do the rights of some infringe on the rights of others? On one hand, you discuss women's rights in this thread (right to vote) but now you are fine with women's sports essentially being destroyed by allowing biological men to compete with them? Look at the results of some of these competitions that have been "inclusive" and you will quickly see that the results aren't even close. Biological women have de facto been stripped of the ability to truly compete in their own sports. At this point, we might as well not separate sports by gender lines anymore.

Edit: As for the "trans-bathroom" debate, I admit that this is a stupid thing to fight over. The easy solution to satisfy everyone is to just have businesses invest in single-unit unisex bathrooms. Now everyone gets privacy and no one is disenfranchised. This issue seems more like a non-issue to me.

Edited by Matthew W. Phillips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

I am literally saying that I am fine with going through the same so-called "oppression" that those groups are dealing with.

And there is literally nobody who is going to use a “religious” legal loophole to deny any goods or services to a straight white dude.

It’s all well and good to say “I don’t fear being mistreated like a member of a marginalized group” when you are not a member of a marginalized group.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Edit: As for the "trans-bathroom" debate, I admit that this is a stupid thing to fight over. The easy solution to satisfy everyone is to just have businesses invest in single-unit unisex bathrooms. Now everyone gets privacy and no one is disenfranchised. This issue seems more like a non-issue to me.

Fine. We won’t discuss anti-trans sports laws because, sure, that is a complicated issue, and I think there are good faith arguments on both sides of that one.

But your comments on the bathroom debate illustrate exactly what I’m talking about. You and I both agree this should be a non-issue. That’s great! However, I am not concerned about my opinion or your opinion here. I am concerned about the less enlightened people who are passing laws in an attempt to make trans people’s lives more difficult by denying them access to public restrooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Just now, Chance Shirley said:

But your comments on the bathroom debate illustrate exactly what I’m talking about. You and I both agree this should be a non-issue. That’s great! However, I am not concerned about my opinion or your opinion here. I am concerned about the less enlightened people who are passing laws in an attempt to make trans people’s lives more difficult by denying them access to public restrooms.

I agree with a lot of your takes, Chance, but where we differ is because I take the more pragmatic approach of recognizing that not everyone is going to agree with me. I prefer to think in terms of "compromise" as opposed to alienating people further by calling them bigots, etc. Even if you believe that is what some of these people are, do you really think telling them that is going to change their mind or perspective?

It seems to me that the most effective solution is to try to find common sense solutions to these problems that are acceptable (not optimal) to everyone. For example, the trans-bathroom debate. That one comes down to three options:

Privacy

Equality

Convenience

(Pick Two of above)

To keep the peace, giving up convenience seems like the easiest one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Drunk driving has a negative impact for society regardless of emotional motivation. In addition to injuries and potential loss of life,  drunk driving also causes property damage ($$$), instability on the roadways, and accidents cause gridlock which has a windfall effect on the community as a whole. It is the opposite of a "public good".

OK. So let’s see. Advocating against drunk driving = necessary and good. Advocating for women’s right to vote = necessary and good. Advocating that gay people not be bullied by people using specious “religious freedom” laws = hysterical nonsense.

That about sum it up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

It seems to me that the most effective solution is to try to find common sense solutions to these problems that are acceptable (not optimal) to everyone. For example, the trans-bathroom debate. That one comes down to three options:

You seem to keep missing the point. My pragmatic solutions and your pragmatic solutions don’t matter when elected officials are actively passing laws designed to make trans people’s lives a little more miserable, just because the elected officials are looking for a marginalized group of people to bully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
8 minutes ago, Chance Shirley said:

And there is literally nobody who is going to use a “religious” legal loophole to deny any goods or services to a straight white dude.

That is the thing...the situation shouldn't even be framed like this. It should be a case of "does the photographer (or other service person) want to do this job?" If the answer is no, I don't believe they should have to do it (or face punishment). To deny the ability to turn down labor is, as Karim said, slavery.

10 minutes ago, Chance Shirley said:

It’s all well and good to say “I don’t fear being mistreated like a member of a marginalized group” when you are not a member of a marginalized group.

I know you don't believe it but much of this has far more to do with a person's economic status and the circles they run in as opposed to being a member of a "marginalized group." Like any group, there is always going to be a benefit to being wealthy and well-connected. Conversely, there is always going to be a struggle when you are poor and do not have a strong network.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phil Rhodes said:

I repeat - she lost. It's exactly the opposite.

And yet the baker won the case so he doesn’t have to bake cakes for gay weddings. And that’s a SCOTUS case, so I expect the photographer can win her case if she wants to appeal it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
9 minutes ago, Chance Shirley said:

OK. So let’s see. Advocating against drunk driving = necessary and good. Advocating for women’s right to vote = necessary and good. Advocating that gay people not be bullied by people using specious “religious freedom” laws = hysterical nonsense.

That about sum it up?

Nope, not at all. Another issue I am having with your arguments is because you try to take complex issues and reduce them to sound bytes. You are also adding spin on your arguments.

Instead of saying something like "Advocating that gay people not be bullied by people using specious “religious freedom” laws...", why not break down the details of what you disagree with and argue the point from an intellectual position.

It is like when someone calls the police over a dispute. A police officer (or DA, or judge) is not interested in your opinions of the facts. They only care about the facts and then they make up their own mind. Using a term like "bullied" is a term that is open to interpretation. That is not a strict retelling of the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

I know you don't believe it but much of this has far more to do with a person's economic status and the circles they run in as opposed to being a member of a "marginalized group." Like any group, there is always going to be a benefit to being wealthy and well-connected. Conversely, there is always going to be a struggle when you are poor and do not have a strong network.

I don't believe this because nobody is trying to take public bathrooms away from poor non-trans people, but they are trying to take public bathrooms away from rich trans people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
10 minutes ago, Chance Shirley said:

You seem to keep missing the point. My pragmatic solutions and your pragmatic solutions don’t matter when elected officials are actively passing laws designed to make trans people’s lives a little more miserable, just because the elected officials are looking for a marginalized group of people to bully.

Well yeah, this is true. But bad politics are something people have been complaining about since the beginning of government, I imagine.

The best thing to do is what people have always done here. Vote. If that isn't working then it means that your views are in the minority. From where I see things, this country is largely divided among ideological lines. The more bitterly they fight, the worse it gets. I am having a particularly tough time from both sides because I am an independent who is a centrist. I have noticed that both sides of the isle are becoming more hostile to each other and to people like me. People don't want to compromise or find common sense solutions anymore. They want "my way or the highway".

As much as I try not to think about it, I cannot see any path to the future that will not include some kind of civil war 2.0 eventually. Maybe not a physical war like before but more like a cold war of segregation between different states. It is a sad state of affairs but it is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
4 minutes ago, Chance Shirley said:

I don't believe this because nobody is trying to take public bathrooms away from poor non-trans people, but they are trying to take public bathrooms away from rich trans people.

What do you mean "take bathrooms away from?" I wasn't aware that trans people were not permitted to use the restroom. I thought the argument was that they use the restroom of the biological sex they were assigned by the Dr. at birth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

What do you mean "take bathrooms away from?" I wasn't aware that trans people were not permitted to use the restroom. I thought the argument was that they use the restroom of the biological sex they were assigned by the Dr. at birth?

So now we’re at “the trans women should just shut up and use the men’s room when they’re at Walmart”?

All I can say about this plan is maybe you should ask a few trans women what they think about this suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Just now, Chance Shirley said:

So now we’re at “the trans women should just shut up and use the men’s room when they’re at Walmart”?

All I can say about this plan is maybe you should ask a few trans women what they think about this suggestion.

Once again, we come back to the "how to balance the rights of some with the rights of others." Do you care to ask the biological women what they think of biological men using their restroom? As I said, I am a centrist so I am going to always consider an opposing argument; no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

The best thing to do is what people have always done here. Vote.

You understand that one of the big drawbacks about being in a marginalized group is that, by definition, marginalized groups don’t have a lot of political power, right?

Like, it was easy to tell Black people in the segregationist south to solve their problems at the ballot box. But systematic oppression is famously resistant to the ballot box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Just now, Chance Shirley said:

You understand that one of the big drawbacks about being in a marginalized group is that, by definition, marginalized groups don’t have a lot of political power, right?

Like, it was easy to tell Black people in the segregationist south to solve their problems at the ballot box. But systematic oppression is famously resistant to the ballot box.

True. That is why we have Constitutional courts. You know, those same courts that subverted the bigoted will of that terrible state that twice voted to ban gay marriage? What state was that again? Georgia? Alabama? Texas? Nope...it was California. Yes, the liberal paradise twice voted to ban gay marriage. But despite that, the courts overturned that. So there is still checks and balances. It may not move as fast as you want but it does work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chance Shirley said:

To point out a huge and obvious example, did you ever hear about slavery in the United States? Black people during those days didn’t have any legal protections or any kind.

Women couldn’t vote in the U.S. until 1920.

Apartheid in South Africa marginalized Black people until the 1990s.

Trans people (and gay people, obviously) in America have less legal protections than other groups of people today.

Women can’t be priests in the Catholic Church. (Assuming you agree Catholicism is a big enough religion to be considered part of society.)

If any of these few examples are not facts, please let me know.

I have misunderstood. I thought you meant today, not the past.

But, regarding slavery, I celebrate its demise in the West, and I also anticipate is eradication worldwide. It seems, though, that some people still wallow in grievance and regret. Thankfully, they are the minority.

As for women voting, there was a good reason why they couldn't vote: the draft. So much so that women were afraid that if they got voting rights, they would be eligible for selective service. Thankfully that did not happen. My knowledge on that subject is limited and the laws in some American states may have been different.

In any case, there were female politicians, AFAIK. Maybe I'm wrong about that?

Where did you get the idea that trans people have fewer legal protections than others? If that is true, please bring this to the attention of the Supreme Court immediately.

As for the priesthood, so what? I don't care and I suspect that most RCs don't care either. You are aware that there are women's and men's only private clubs, I assume. Same difference.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

Gay people in America (at least, in New York) can already get married

It was literally passed nationwide in 2015 that anyone could marry anyone, this is the most 90's debate I have ever seen on this forum.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I have misunderstood. I thought you meant today, not the past.

Oh that’s what it is. There were problems with social injustice in the past, but that was all cleared up after they started letting gay people get married half a decade ago. Or was it cleared up when the president who pals around with white supremacists lost the 2020 election?

Either way, that’s all in the past and I am sure everything in the U.S. is 100% fair and equitable now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...