Quantcast
Update: Latest rumor shows casting for a white Ciri | Original: Netflix looking for non-white actress to play Ciri in the Witcher tv series

Forums - Movies Discussion - Update: Latest rumor shows casting for a white Ciri | Original: Netflix looking for non-white actress to play Ciri in the Witcher tv series

Immersiveunreality said:
Alara317 said:

You are so wrong. A character should be played by whoever is best for the role. If their race is not relevant to the plot or they're not portraying a real person, then there's no reason James Bond can't be black, Ciri can't be an ethnic minority, or Heimdall can't be played by Idriss Elba.  Changing Ciri's ethnicity doesn't change the story AT ALL, nor does it compromise the plot or bastardize the character. Literally all it does is give a spotlight to a minority that might not have gotten it otherwise. 

That, and offend racists who hate the idea of being a slightly smaller majority than they already are. 

True but in this case they excluded white skincolor from the start without even giving those actors a chance, thats not looking for whoever is best fit for the role oh no this is discriminating in order to put in diversity. (and that is whatever the whole social justice scene should be against)

Also Ciri her lineage and skincolor are important in the books,and most people just want bookadaptations or at least the characters to resemble their bookcounterparts. Everything does not have to be about racism.

Oh, would you look at that, you were wrong. A white actress was hired and thus the hyperbole is made apparent. The plan wasn't to 'exclude white people' from the role, it was to encourage non-white people to apply because they weren't planning on exclusively hiring a white actress for the role. 

It's almost as if certain folks who hate the concept of diversity and progression treat every scrap given to a minority as theft or perceive ANY concessions as losses in some fight that only they are participating. It's almost as if some people only want the world to be more inclusive and others only want to maintain the status quo and will aggressively do anything to do so. 

Yes I know this post is old. I got banned ages ago and said 'fuck it' and left because this place is pretty toxic. I got bored, thought I'd check in and saw this foolish post - which looks even dumber in retrospect. 

So yes, I was right, you were wrong, certain groups who irrationally hate 'SJWs' were blowing something out of proportion as an excuse to be enraged about conceding a sliver of representation to a minority, and the world continues to turn. That is all for now. No I am not reading the 190 responses in between yours and this one. 

 

 

User moderated - Bristow9091

Last edited by Bristow9091 - on 03 November 2018

Around the Network
Alara317 said:
Immersiveunreality said:

True but in this case they excluded white skincolor from the start without even giving those actors a chance, thats not looking for whoever is best fit for the role oh no this is discriminating in order to put in diversity. (and that is whatever the whole social justice scene should be against)

Also Ciri her lineage and skincolor are important in the books,and most people just want bookadaptations or at least the characters to resemble their bookcounterparts. Everything does not have to be about racism.

Oh, would you look at that, you were wrong. A white actress was hired and thus the hyperbole is made apparent. The plan wasn't to 'exclude white people' from the role, it was to encourage non-white people to apply because they weren't planning on exclusively hiring a white actress for the role. 

It's almost as if certain folks who hate the concept of diversity and progression treat every scrap given to a minority as theft or perceive ANY concessions as losses in some fight that only they are participating. It's almost as if some people only want the world to be more inclusive and others only want to maintain the status quo and will aggressively do anything to do so. 

Yes I know this post is old. I got banned ages ago and said 'fuck it' and left because this place is pretty toxic. I got bored, thought I'd check in and saw this foolish post - which looks even dumber in retrospect. 

So yes, I was right, you were wrong, certain groups who irrationally hate 'SJWs' were blowing something out of proportion as an excuse to be enraged about conceding a sliver of representation to a minority, and the world continues to turn. That is all for now. No I am not reading the 190 responses in between yours and this one. 

 

 

User moderated - Bristow9091

Sorry for the late reply here did just see it.

Hey i find it great i was wrong on this but can you inform yourself on what an" SJW "means as it was never meant to be something positive and you should not be proud to bear that tag. I am also sure you are not so open for conversation yourself when those in disagreement with you are so easily named Toxic and put into the group of big baddies and all that while you yourself complain about others doing it so yeah that might be a bit contradictory.

Its also funny in a way that you have such a bad mental image of me while i belong to the diverse group you claim to protect and diverse people can also fend for themselves without "hyperbole" from you.

If you can ever overcome your rage about me and overcome that sad bad mental image of me in your head i am always open to talk with so i will send you a friend request and leave you up to the choice.

Last edited by Immersiveunreality - on 18 November 2018

Immersiveunreality said:
Alara317 said:

Oh, would you look at that, you were wrong. A white actress was hired and thus the hyperbole is made apparent. The plan wasn't to 'exclude white people' from the role, it was to encourage non-white people to apply because they weren't planning on exclusively hiring a white actress for the role. 

It's almost as if certain folks who hate the concept of diversity and progression treat every scrap given to a minority as theft or perceive ANY concessions as losses in some fight that only they are participating. It's almost as if some people only want the world to be more inclusive and others only want to maintain the status quo and will aggressively do anything to do so. 

Yes I know this post is old. I got banned ages ago and said 'fuck it' and left because this place is pretty toxic. I got bored, thought I'd check in and saw this foolish post - which looks even dumber in retrospect. 

So yes, I was right, you were wrong, certain groups who irrationally hate 'SJWs' were blowing something out of proportion as an excuse to be enraged about conceding a sliver of representation to a minority, and the world continues to turn. That is all for now. No I am not reading the 190 responses in between yours and this one. 

 

 

User moderated - Bristow9091

Sorry for the late reply here did just see it.

Hey i find it great i was wrong on this but can you inform yourself on what an" SJW "means as it was never meant to be something positive and you should not be proud to bear that tag. I am also sure you are not so open for conversation yourself when those in disagreement with you are so easily named Toxic and put into the group of big baddies and all that while you yourself complain about others doing it so yeah that might be a bit contradictory.

Its also funny in a way that you have such a bad mental image of me while i belong to the diverse group you claim to protect and diverse people can also fend for themselves without "hyperbole" from you.

If you can ever overcome your rage about me and overcome that sad bad mental image of me in your head i am always open to talk with so i will send you a friend request and leave you up to the choice.

Social Justice Warrior was a positive term. Just like Feminist was a positive term. However both were hijacked by fringe wackjobs and now both terms carry a negative connotation. Social Justice Warriors are the reason I'm not picking cotton or tobacco, the reason I'm actually considered a person not property, and the reason I'm allowed to vote.



Darc Requiem said:
Immersiveunreality said:

Sorry for the late reply here did just see it.

Hey i find it great i was wrong on this but can you inform yourself on what an" SJW "means as it was never meant to be something positive and you should not be proud to bear that tag. I am also sure you are not so open for conversation yourself when those in disagreement with you are so easily named Toxic and put into the group of big baddies and all that while you yourself complain about others doing it so yeah that might be a bit contradictory.

Its also funny in a way that you have such a bad mental image of me while i belong to the diverse group you claim to protect and diverse people can also fend for themselves without "hyperbole" from you.

If you can ever overcome your rage about me and overcome that sad bad mental image of me in your head i am always open to talk with so i will send you a friend request and leave you up to the choice.

Social Justice Warrior was a positive term. Just like Feminist was a positive term. However both were hijacked by fringe wackjobs and now both terms carry a negative connotation. Social Justice Warriors are the reason I'm not picking cotton or tobacco, the reason I'm actually considered a person not property, and the reason I'm allowed to vote.

You could be right although the warrior aspect causes a lot of confusion because today it is used as an extreme and the ones called SJW by today's standard are far away from those back then, most of the examples i have seen use extremes to fight others while claiming to fight against extremes if that makes any sense ;).

Feminism has mostly been a good term for myself and i do not consider most modern activist's using it as a label actual feminists.

But thanks for letting me notice as i was only aware of social justice itself being used as a positive before.