The 90s was kinda woke, fr fr no cap.

These are the people we get when we HAVE pol. Just imagine how much worse it would be if they didn't have their containment board anymore. Misc is terrible but it's a necessary evil.

Cuz gays know when to quit and shut the frick up. They're used to being shut up and put down. They know that's where they belong. Misc is too full of themselves and are too full of a zealotry that makes Muslims look level headed. The gays will just go back to Tumblr or something but where the frick will the polocks go? Here and all the other boards, that's where.

no it didn't those gays just shit up every board now

It doesn't seem much different to me

>People with opinions I don't like shouldn't be here

I knew you'd nitpick the "perfectly good term" part. Obviously it's not if people are arguing about it. But you shouldn't assume people using the term believe in all the other things you're talking about, or won't understand racial profiling and other issues.

Alright, I see what you're saying now and agree with you. I just don't like the assumption that anybody using the term is using it to mask racism. The dog whistle concept bothers me in general, can easily be taken too far.

>argument gets broken down multiple ways
>"r-rent free"
You lost this one, bud.

That it’s largely a social construct? How is that the logical conclusion.

What reasons would a man have for not identifying as a man? Is it purely body dysphoria, or does discomfort with how society views men play a role?

>Notice how most people don't identify as cis

Cis is just a word to delineate that you identify and correspond with your birth sex.

Originally, not corresponding to your birth sex meant you wanted to be trans. Now people can be non-binary and trans which has lost a lot of the meaning of not corresponding to your birth sex. What does it mean? Why would one identify as non-binary? And what patterns derive from those identifying as non-binary that you could create a consistent definition of it for future labels?

This is why I think non-binary is more harmful to gender politics than helpful. By normalizing non-binary, you are also normalizing binary, which in turn DOES reinstate old mentalities that "men are like this by default" and "women are like this by default", because in order to identify as non-binary, it means you are going AGAINST the binary, IE: The default. And the majority of people who identify as non-binary tend to have very similar characteristics. Look at people like Sabrina Cotugno who call haircuts "Visibly Queer", when there was a point in time people were shamed for saying that a haircut is butch because it suggests that a woman having short hair means they're a lesbian.

If you don't think people don't force inappropriate labels where they don't belong because of stereotyping, then (in order to make this Cinemaphile related) look at how Spongebob is STILL considered a gay icon despite being confirmed as asexual repeatedly for years. And he's considered a gay icon because he has a feminine voice and loves his male best friend. They follow the stereotype of "he must be gay" more than the reality of, "he's been confirmed as being asexual".

Betty is reimagined as a lesbian because she's masculine. Ms. Bellum is considered sexist because she has big breasts and an hourglass figure. Velma is constantly reimagined as a lesbian because she is not very feminine, therefore she MUST be gay. You can't deny there are many patterns where stereotypes are only getting reinforced in people's minds.

Oh so you're upset about people identifying themselves as non-binary. Why didn't you say that sooner? It just means that they themselves as thems or he/shes.

You shouldn't chime in if you can't even follow the basic point of debate.

>By normalizing non-binary, you are also normalizing binary

But binary is already the default in society. Non-binary people simply don’t identify as either. If you are so hung up on words, maybe the term will evolve and change if/once binary mindset in society deteriorates.

Well no. A lot of people still identify entirely as woman/man.

>But binary is already the default in society
In what way? For this conversation, let's refer mostly to American culture. Men and women are allowed to get the same jobs. Women don't need to have kids in order to have value. Men are allowed to be stay-at-home days and not be the paycheck earner without being considered weak. Women can enjoy sports without being seen as outliers now, and men can enjoy musicals. Women can have short hair without being called a guy and men can have long hair without being called a woman. People don't bat an eye at a woman truck driver and also don't bat an eye at a male ballet dancer. So what is the binary in American culture?

And if you're going to say, "In some places in America, you WILL be called a homosexual if you're a male ballet dancer", then how are you supposed to push for a country-wide movement about gender identity when the culture in America can change wildly just between States alone, and that gender roles in New York are insanely different to gender roles in Alabama?

>By normalizing non-binary, you are also normalizing binary, which in turn DOES reinstate old mentalities that "men are like this by default" and "women are like this by default",
They're traits that we call masculine and feminine. Non-binary isn't against them, it's saying the person doesn't identify as either.

>it's saying the person doesn't identify as either.
Which doesn't make sense because if they believe in non-binary as a concept, then EVERYTHING they do is either masculine or feminine because nothing in their own perceived world is completely androgynous. If you believe in non-binary, then you believe in binary which means you believe things like loving fashion is feminine, therefore if you love fashion, you must be feminine. So to say they identify as neither while also believing in the binary is contradicting.

The better path would be changing perception into making things as androgynous as possible. There are no girl or boy toys, simply toys that all share the same aisle. It means the removal of labels, not adding more labels such as binary and non-binary ON TOP OF existing labels such as feminine and masculine.

I mean, even the people who believe in non-binary still say shit like "Pink Legos means it's girly Legos".

But we're talking about modern American gender roles here where capitalism plays a big part because a lot of these trans ideologies are rooted in forms of capitalism and consumerism. A man feeling like a woman because he wants to wear a dress, wear make-up, and look pretty like a model you see in a magazine is all about consumerism. You think that man feels like a woman because he's following Muslim beliefs where he wants to wear a hajib and be part of a harem where his career choices are highly limited? You think that man feels like a woman because he's following old 50's gender roles where he wants to stay home and take care of the kids and then spend every Friday playing cards with his friends while being denied lots of managerial job positions?

Most of the people who identify as non-binary are doing so with gender roles that are often backed by consumerism. I hate make-up, I enjoy sports, I like first-person shooters, I enjoy sewing my own tank-tops, I must be a non-binary woman!

>It's as simple as recognizing traits and identifying outside the binary.
But that means you BELIEVE in a binary. You believe things are inherently masculine or feminine, and it means you believe that if you have both traits, you identify as non-binary. Which, to me, is a worse state for progression because it reinforces masculine and feminine rather than diminishes it. You believe sports are masculine, you believe fashion is feminine, so if you like both, you are non-binary. But that means the default state of fashion is "feminine" which, to me, is stupid because there are many famous male fashion designers and men enjoying fashion and sports should not mean they are seen as non-binary.

And no, you can't believe in non-binary self-labels while also believing that people are free to not identify themselves as non-binary. If two people have the exact same personalities and interests and one identifies as non-binary and the other doesn't, then the term is meaningless unless we agree it's more like a religious belief where it's all based on feeling and faith rather than something rooted in pattern and classification.

Using your own example, if someone says they identify as straight but then willingly has sex with men and women because they find them both attractive, they are bisexual whether they identify it or not. They can't just say, "Oh, I always identify as the opposite gender when I'm having sex, so I'm always straight".

If you just blindly believe terms can be changed at will because of "identity", then there's no way to convince you otherwise.

Although, I doubt despite you believe in all this gender identity you would ever agree that a white person identifies as "black" because they grew up in a black neighborhood and "feel black".

>If it's gender, things we give to aliens, robots, and vehicles based on how we feel what's masculine and feminine

You're mistaking personification for gender identity. More often than not, the non-gendered object that has human sentience adopts the sex of the person playing them.

Data is male because he's played by Brent Spiner, a man.
ZIM is male because he's voiced by Richard Horvitz, a man.
All the Gems are female because they're voiced by women.
Lightning McQueen is male, voiced by a male.

Woody isn't male because cowboys are masculine (Otherwise, Jessie wouldn't exist), he's male because he's played by Tom Hanks.

You're right. Also, just putting it out there - I see a lot of posts like this that connect their realization of being non-binary with being girly or liking girly things.

That's not what's happening with non-binary people though. You're relying on a series of assumptions with nothing to back it up. It's as simple as recognizing traits and identifying outside the binary. It's not so much what you do "I'm wearing pants I'm a guy now, tonight I'll wear a dress and be a woman". By your logic, no one is bisexual, they're either gay or straight based on who they fricked last. It's identity and it doesn't lead to people being forced into being non-binary by others.

So would you say non-binary is more of a personality label you give yourself, rather than it having anything to do with being a man or a woman?

In that case, you can probably understand why some women don't like having the state of being a woman or not defined by a personality label.

You should see the issue here. The state of being a man or a woman (non-binary claiming to be neither) is being conflated with whether you identify with masculine or feminine.

Oh so you're upset about people identifying themselves as non-binary. Why didn't you say that sooner? It just means that they themselves as thems or he/shes.

You know how straight non-troony men and women can be masculine and/or feminine? That didn't go away just so you think you can make up a talking point. I have no idea where you homosexuals get this idea that someone who identifies as cis gets forced into some other gender box because they do something not typical of their gender. You'd be able to see tons of "um no sweetie you're non-binary" on twitter. Oh holy shit, do you think this because people interpret fictional characters as LGBTQBRAAAAP make fanart with them and ridiculous pride flags?

>that's going to affect how everybody perceives men and women

That happens all the time anyway. People’s idea of women and men change with history.

We didn’t used to think there was such a thing as a teen. You were either a child or a man/woman. Not having balls used to mean you were less than a man. Same thing if you couldn’t give birth with women. People used to ridicule men as being women if they had too long hairs. Now we don’t define things with such metrics unless you’re being an butthole.

But you could mistake someone for being woman just for having long hair. David Bowie had an entire androgynous phase questioning what’s a man or a woman.

>If that is reduced to just an identity with roles and expectations and traits that go with that
>an identity with roles and expectations and traits that go with that
>roles and expectations and traits that go with that
How wouldn't that lead to people calling those with atypical roles and traits less than fully man or woman? Because now people want to define it as how your relate to an identity, rather than just a state of your body. Makes it harder on feminine men and masculine women to accept themselves.

>you can't find examples of what you're talking about
I can if I find the time.

I can't and I haven't seen it and I'm on troony woke twitter. There are bigger, more real, issues than reverse transphobic misgendering of cis people. Trying to make this about "the logical conclusion" virtually no one comes to is extra pointless theoretical slippery slope bullshit. It's what people do when they have nothing to say but they still want to justify their worldview.

>reverse transphobic misgendering of cis people
That's a funny way to describe promoting adherence to gender stereotypes as something inherent to being a man or a woman.

>Commies hates guys
Most dictators do. Even the ones who frick guys.

You're posting as if you're talking to someone who is. You're deflecting from better points to talk about hypotheticals.

>Yeah but you don't need to see race so much that you can't talk to a black man like he's a normal person.
No one is saying you have. I'm glad you at least see why being "colorblind" doesn't work.

>Because "colorblind" doesn't fricking work. There are mountains of statistical evidence to prove the disparities in outcomes for white people and black people in every aspect of life.

>If you don't see race, how can you see racism?

You already agreed with this. Bringing up strawmen is just more deflection. The person "going crazy with it" is more of a strawman.

If we had to define eveything by their most moronic exemplars we wouldn't use any terminology at all

>The thread is about how 90s diversity would get called woke today and it's true.
Well, that's not a very profound conclusion. They would also get called racist by some nutcase who calls everything racist.

It would be narcissistic because many narcissists can accept any major negatives for their side and major positives or opposition. It's like mental gymnastics as explained by South Park on a tribal scale. Those examples were called woke because they put minorities front and center for ESG points. It's also important to note that Twitter isn't everyone, only like 8% of Americans use twitter and most of them aren't even active.

Because they fricking are. Blacks can't act or do anything but rape and steal. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that it's all propaganda. But of course your kind wouod ignore the clear facts so it suits your agenda. Frick you troon lover.

Go 40% yourself troon. YWNBAW.

>Blacks can't act or do anything but rape and steal.
>There's over 40 million black in the US of A
That sure is a lot of "rapes or lootings", sorry if you had your ass beaten by them or felt inferior.

I mean that's fair, but then Asians would have to stop operating under this ideal of being the model minority and thinking black people are going to automatically hurt them or something

>That sure is a lot of "rapes or lootings",

You don't even know the half of it. They're animals. No lower than that. At least animals deserve respect and don't destroy everything they touch.

You're trying too hard. Chances are you're actively using something/benefiting off of something a Black Person made or help contribute to.

You should go revisit history if you think this is something that's the extent of it. This is a chicken and hen situation anon

Blacks are literally %50 of all violent crime, it's not contested any more. Its actually an even worse reflection on them as a whole because they're only %13 of the population yet commit so much crime per Capita.

Production companies with years of relationships with banks and loads of their own personal assets and directors with their business relations with everyone involved makes getting loans based on ESG scores a non-issue. You're ready to say that it's just for brownie points too. You're making every excuse to not accept that some people just want characters to be black women. It's really fricking weird how focused on not accepting black women as real choices made by creatives.

>“That’s not going to get on the air anymore because that’s not what our audience wants. That’s not a reflection of our audience, and I feel good about the direction we’re moving.”
Yeah it's just marketing. They're looking to more often try shows not focused on white families. They have plenty of those and even whites can get bored of those.

What about stuff like this?
https://www.wmagazine.com/story/bbc-diversity-initiative
>Starting April 2021, 20 percent of talent on new BBC shows must be of “a Black, Asian, or minority ethnic background,” in compliance with their new 20 percent diversity mandate. This applies to all new shows on BCC for three years—and hopefully extends further than that.

It's just an example of how diversity is being pushed nowadays in a way that's different than the 90s.

I think it's stupid to require that even for shows where it doesn't fit. Seems like this is the definition of tokenizing, since they're literally put there to fulfill a quota.

Yeah, I read it. They shouldn't apply to those in front of the camera at all. Even if it applies to both together (all can come from behind), it's still dumb having a quota like that. Not every group is naturally going to have number like that, forcing it isn't the right approach and it will harm productions that don't have it.

Maybe, but the policies should be better thought out than this.

>I don't find it particularly different from the 90s

It's certainly better now. In the 90s you had the token black/gay friend who was superfluous most of the story and appeared as a wall to bounce dialogue with. Now these characters actually get focus and development.

No one said that black women can't exist homie. It's just that bullshit ideology and funding behind their inclusion so much these days. Narcissists are the most likely to have those biases anyway. You lack self awareness and use words you don't know.

>can't answer a simple question

>a bunch of douchebags on an anonymous internet board is equal to radical prejudice
Holy shit, if anyone needs to get off the internet it's you bromigo.

No.

>blacks are the only ones that are subject to prejudice
>what about this group
>hey don't point out my hypocrisy!

>hypocrisy
Lmao dont use words you dont understand, kid. You asked a question, got an answer, then decided to deflect. Take the L and think about your opinions real hard next time.

Kys

>Asks "what problems do minorities face in the current world?"
>Gets told examples
>NO WELL WHAT ABOUT THE WHAT ABOUT WHAT ABOUT

Every time.

That didn't even fricking happen. It was a false flag and made up shit to push an agenda. Of course the "shooter" was all about the great replacement plan. Anything to diminish and make it look bad because they knew were catching on.

the same way Cinemaphile post about fricking black men to break them. it's all ironic shitposting. the entirety of Cinemaphile has a blanket "everything posted here is a work of fiction and you'd be a fool to think otherwise" warning

This. Real /misc/ homosexuals try to push their memes like it's normal while looking to see what you allow. They think they're dropping sneaky redpills when really they're just exposing what informs their bias. And then they pretend they don't have bias and they're just innocent and everyone is so mean to them for not wanting to put up with their bullshit.

That's not what they're saying, but it's unironically hilarious that you did exactly what they said you would.
It's almost like you're an NPC.

>conservative opinion
There's a difference between "gun control is bad" and "gas the israelites, race war now" opinions.

>left homosexuals judging what is "Blatant racism and bigotry"
you and conservatives are the same coin, thinking you aren't racist, but actually are

>Le both sides but paints with a broad brush

I love it when leftists pretend they're a centrist when they're getting their shit packed in

This was specifically about recognizing /misc/ memes and "redpills". It's one thing to say, when appropriate that you don't think gun control is good, that you think lower taxes and less regulations are good, and you believe in sanitizing that mythologizing the national narrative so kids aren't critical of their country, it's another to say that israelites are genociding whites, gays are rape victims who reproduce through rape, and blacks are subhuman.

Conservatives generally hate them too

Why can't right-wingers ever admit that they have some loonies on their side like everybody else? Every attack made by some far-right extremist is either a false flag or just didn't happen.

We can, and the person you're replying to is one of those loonies.

>hamfisted everyone gets along narratives
While that's true about a lot of 90s cartoons, I think stuff made today actually feels more toothless.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It's not only about race, but the way everything corporate operates now.

What worse is they'll try to post their shit everywhere to try to "redpill" people. Like posting Holocaust denial memes everywhere. There's nothing really funny about the number 6 million unless you doubt the Holocaust. They'll try to play off stuff about "baking 6 million cookies is impossible lol" as just jokes, when it's obvious they're trying to spread their BS.

>catching on
It's fricking obvious that the white majority is temporary and people aren't reproducing at a rate to keep up the workforce. When you deflect away from white nationalist terrorism like this you're just supporting the narratives that made him kill people. You benefit from that.

because this is Cinemaphile, a safe space for right wingers

>the most liberal board is also the most pedo one
Really makes you think...

Cinemaphile has literal CP getting posted on it every second. It's a miracle that board is still standing.

I'm talking about crime stats informing who is seen as a safe bet. I didn't mention police brutality or who is getting shot but you went there to sidestep the post.

Are police inherently sexist for "targetting" men?

Because your post is shit

Crime is a declining trend and represents a small fraction of humans. Why do you think it's okay to judge a race base on the less than 1%? Do you know how small is 398/100000?

How is it bad faith? Studies show that people who are equally qualified are judged based on their names. These judgements don't happen in vacuums and consideration with who you're going to trust with valuable products or information don't happen without the knowledge of statistical risk and who statistically is more productive. By that same token, an Asian may be considered more than a white guy for those reasons. Diversity boxes to check came about because in a vacuum white people would be more commonly trusted than black people.

There are multiple factors considered when hiring and every employer is different. You can't remove your bias and pretend you don't know about crime stats when looking at resumes or even meeting people in public and at random. You make judgment on appearances and in relation to what you know and feel.

>Police choose to target blacks more.

No, black neighborhoods are more likely to call for the police is why

>Because they're poor
Wealthy blacks commit more crime than poor whites

>Most convictions are donw through plea bargains

Typically because the accused knows they're guilty and would rather have a chance at lighter sentence than spend years in jail waiting on a slim chance of a moronic jury finding them not guilty

>Good lawyers
Court appointed attorneys have a higher success rate than private ones. Mostly because they're used more often

>Heavier sentences than whites for the same offense

Because the black person typically has more priors whereas the white offender is a first timer

>The court system is stacked against blacks

Ever considered just not breaking the law?

>No argument

Poor blacks aren't directly comparable to poor whites as a group, because they generally have weaker support networks. Blacks in general have fewer relatives with wealth or good educations, so their issues are compounded. Even wealthy blacks are affected by this, having more relatives with issues and less support.

Didn't say it's not their fault, if you commit a crime it's still you're fault even if you had issues predisposing you to it. But you're underestimating how important support like that is.
>Other minorities have experienced the same setbacks as blacks
Not exactly. Blacks in America effectively started from zero in a way Asians didn't.

this is also the same in africa, they just don't have strong support networks. the crab in a barrel analogy is exemplary shown in the black community

Probably based on this
https://eji.org/news/study-rich-black-kids-more-likely-incarcerated-than-poor-white-kids/
Of course incarcerated more doesn't necessarily mean committing more crimes.

13/50 is one of the most successful brainwashing campaigns ever waged on the American people. They will make you focus on this number to make you forget about the fact that corporations steal more from workers than workers lose to thieves, how white people are more likely to commit sex crimes against children, and that the majority of financial crimes are again, commit by non black people, all of which are also crimes, and arguably worse than anything a racist can draw up against black people. Just like how racists had once convinced the world that theft was worse than murder, the American people have yet again been a victim of the propaganda machine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Come:_Deliverance#Criticism_from_video_game_journalists

>came from the dev saying there were no black knights

Do you think he said that unprovoked? https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/reddit-tumblr-medieval-video-game-poc/

They aired on TV when I was a kid. Different series than power Rangers that aired at the same Era Rangers did. It was on an Asian channel and not dubbed or subbed. But it's not like I watched these shows for the plot, I watched it to see fights and explosions and robots and monsters. Not everyone is some basement dwelling homosexual who never sees the sun like you.

The frick? What jingoism? Your brainworms are showing again.

All the twittershit i see here is posted by /misc/tards
Funny huh? Maybe you should go back.

Yes, they have "flaws", but it's not like with Silco, Jayce or VI where they seriously frick up or have very clear mistakes.
I still think that Arcane was the best show of the year, but i'm not that moronic.