Greatoneshere

If the project was about diversity, probably. I'm a first generation Pakistani-American though, so . . . I wouldn't need to leave but I would say that if I were white.

It does happen though. I do agree it's not the norm, but this isn't a normal situation either. As I said, I don't think ScarJo has to do anything, but it's preferred. At least a failed attempt. Publicize the issue. I don't know - something. We always live in this "me first" culture. Maybe ScarJo should pass on the job, there are plenty of others someone like her could get. Like I said, she shouldn't have to, but it'd be nice.

I mean, I did say major role, not the zoo keeper at the beginning of Rampage (I haven't seen Rampage but it sounded like it's a minor role? lol). But if it is indeed the story of one person, and it can only be funded with a major star in the major role (both are assumptions giving the studio a lot of rope), then okay, cast Johansson. But we all see how only hiring already bankable stars does indeed just perpetuate the same bankable stars preventing anyone new from making inroads. It's a tough situation to be fair.

Agreed, that's even better. Even more "fair" in some ways by avoiding the criticisms of typecasting, possibly.

If that were true, Johansson should push to put a trans actor in the role and take another major role in the movie, if that's what it is about, no? I'm not saying they have to, but they theoretically could.

How is it based on a lie? He personally knows and is friends with the actress. Why would he perpetuate a lie about his friend and co-worker?

He just showed up in the second to last episode of this season for the first time. So, for now, he's not in it much but he's clearly gonna be a major recurring character I think.

While I agree, that's not how it works in reality, so saying it should be this is like saying: "everyone should always be honest". Well yeah, sure they should, but people aren't, that's why we have laws that force/compel people into being honest as best as possible (and even then, the system is highly unsuccessful). Institutionalized lack of representation is a real thing. "Best person for the job" is the biggest lie we tell everyone because that's not how hiring practices have almost ever worked. Especially thanks to subconscious biases and instituionalized biases. Similarly, representation matters since the system doesn't work like it should. So it needs to be forced, similarly, as it does in my "everyone should be honest" example. While I'm not upset ScarJo is playing a trans person at all, I think they should have tried to hire a trans person.

8 episodes is perfect. It's already renewed for a season 3. The first season was surprisingly good (technically was meant to be a movie that was simply split into 4 parts instead). I look forward to this! Warren Ellis is a great writer.

The Cold War wasn't that long ago. Have these Americans forgotten?

Absolutely. For some people it's a base: "fuck you, I'm so counter-culture" when they are the ones in fucking power. And they know it and they still don't care. It's a lot of hate all wrapped up into one stupid fucking hat. I hate that goddamn unsightly thing.

I am fully on board them being the "I feel bad and I've changed" bandwagon. It's best case scenario. If they mean it, then I say accept them with open arms and continue to educate them out of their hatred, etc.

Same. Season 2 has also been excellent so far, if spinning its wheels too much. Everyone should be watching this show.

Never suggest such a despicable thing to me again! Disgusting. (My family owns a house down there and it is very beautiful in Florida).

When the country created laws that tried benefiting people to one degree or another. Laws that Trump is repealing or eradicating, which shows we were better of before than we are now. Did we reach the ideal I described? As I said, no, but it was bending in that general direction, and that's enough.

Link? Just out of curiosity, I'd like to see who is and isn't hitting the 2% target and how much less than the 2% target each are actually contributing. If all true, then I do agree that everyone should pay, but Trump is trying to get NATO allies to do that in the worst ways possible. Bigliest negotiator eh?

From my understanding though NATO allies pay proportionally respective to their GDP's, correct? Are any actually in debt to us over that? Are some not contributing proportionally to us but relative to their GDP?

You're so cute. I mean that in the most genuine, nicest way possible. No condescension. This story fucking should be. If only . . .

DING DING DING

Yep.

#notmydesktop

But that's not how it works with desktop PC's!

I heard there are good people, nice people, on both sides.

Sorry, I didn't fully understand that. What do you mean? This is the loophole I'm sure would be used when and if possible. But you can't pin like-for-like crimes in every instance, or even similar ones to force a re-litigation. It's something though.

Eh, I don't think so. We already have appellate review, I don't think it's hard to imagine allowing a state court to re-open a case using an appellate review process to re-litigate a case where something extreme happened that can't be re-litigated at the federal level (for whatever reason). I think it's dangerous to make the argument you're making because the need for re-litigation at different judicial levels has happened before and I like at least a window to remain open for that possibility. I doubt it could be abused, if legislated correctly. Highly suspect judicial cases do exist.