What's with all the Black washing?

I understand. I do see his point htough. The Matt Damon movie wasn't marketed as some revolutionary breakthrough in cinematic history. The Black Panther blatantly marketed their movie around it. It was the primary focal point.
But I suppose what I'm saying is how much that effects "you" is down to you, I went to watch it because it was a Marvel film with a character I'm familiar with.......... I watch all of Marvel's films, Aggie is basically saying I fell for racial marketing, which is false.

However some of their marketing was relatively factual, it was the first big production Marvel film with a predominantly black cast and all black leads ........... did that effect me? not in the slightest.

African Americans were happy about it, good for them, why should they not enjoy it? Army vets like the Punisher and Cap America, Feminist types like Jessica Jones.

Why should it bother me that there is niche marketing for each character because Marvel is diverse? they'll be making the same type of marketing for the up and coming Captain Marvel as the first woman lead.

Now if the film is one big virtue signalling propaganda tool for feminism then yes it'll bother me, I want to be entertained not bashed over the head with politics..........but it won't be, marketing is marketing, but I'm only interested in what the film delivers.
 
Last edited:
Aggienation isn't triggered, he's annoyed by those duped by corporate marketing hacks into thinking Black Panther represented something more than just another Marvel movie.

As for thinking you one upped me for knowing it was Disney and not Fox. You sure you want to feel superior over that? Especially since Fox was also making Marvel movies (X-Men was theirs, rest was Disney), and that Fox is about to get bought out by Disney? :p
Smh.

This is where you always fall flat on your face when debating me, I'm not in this for superiority, I don't have that complex.

I "one upped you" on facts, not opinion, when that's the case its best for you to just acknowledge a mistake and move on.

As for your last reaching statement don't get me started, that is a poor attempt to gain back some credibility on something you were wrong about and if you want to really use that poor excuse of a defence I'll do it to you all over again ........... personally I'd rather not and we should just move on.

To summarise .......... yes I'm sure.
 
Jan 2019
130
USA
But I supposed what I'm saying is how much that effects "you" is down to you, I went to watch it because it was a Marvel film with a character I'm familiar with.......... I watch all of Marvel's films, Aggie is basically saying I fell for racial marketing, which is false.

However some of their marketing was relatively factual, it was the first big production Marvel film with a predominantly black cast and all black leads ........... did that effect me? not in the slightest.

African Americans were happy about it, good for them, why should they not enjoy it? Army vets like the Punisher and Cap America, Feminist types like Jessica Jones.

Why should it bother me that there is niche marketing for each character because Marvel is diverse? they'll be making the same type of marketing for the up and coming Captain Marvel as the first woman lead.

Now if the film is one big virtue signalling propaganda tool for feminism then yes it'll bother me, I want to be entertained not bashed over the head with politics..........but it won't be, marketing is marketing, but I'm only interested in what the film delivers.
Fair enough. I'm glad that you enjoyed the film. I suppose what I'm trying to say is when they utilize that form of marketing and reiterate it while accepting their award, it sort of has the opposite effect.

I'm not saying you went and saw it due to the marketing. I'm simply saying a lot of people probably did. That film critics are largely based in progressive areas of the country. They're not going to give it a poor review. The marketing team took advantage of people's emotions, which is exactly what marketing hopes to do. The sad reality is that it probably worked. They aren't letting this issue die out. They're constantly giving it more energy. Yet, on the other hand, continue to ask why they see a racial divide in the United States. They keep bringing it up! It is driving a political agenda.

Me? I don't see it. I live in one of the most conservative areas in Maryland. Which is pretty much anywhere that isn't Baltimore or Montgomery country. I don't see any racial injustices. I see a bunch of people getting up and going to work every morning to try and provide for their family. Color has no barring on how we treat one another. I just feel like those issues are over with and we keep trying to pump new life into them.
 

Iraq Bruin

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
4,973
DC
The most insane argument I've ever heard is that its impossible for non-whites to be racist, because they need to have the privilege and power to be the oppressor in order for that to be true.

When crazy people make that claim, I ask them when two "People of Color", say a Mexican and Black person, call each other the worst racial slurs, which one of them is the oppressor? Or is that not racist? That usually gets the crazy person to shift the discussion and call me a racist for not understanding the complexities. lol
I know the feeling.

I try to have a discussion with people about misogyny and homophobia and why is it accepted/ignored when the expression is done by one of the designated groups.

You should see the gymnastics in the media about the circus that is happening in VA, a governor discovered to have had a blackface in his yearbook, the calls for him to resign were immediate and swift, and why not, virtue-signalling that can be further strengthened by ascending an African American lieutenant governor. Then he got accused of sexual assault then the Attorney General admitted to wearing a black face while in college.

Translation: the virtue signalling having no political damage attached to it has suddenly meant that sticking to "advertised" principle leads to:
1-Condemning an African American lieutenant governor and demanding he resigns and not assume the governorship (After the governor resigns).
2-The inconvenience of admitting a member of oppressed group (an African American) could have potentially assaulted a member of another oppressed group (women)
3-and of course, a the fourth in line to assume a governorship is a republican. (which is politics)
---
all of the sudden the "metoo" and "believe the women" went quiet.
and the publicity of ridding the party of the racist governor is damaging.

moral of the story, it is only good to apply principles at the expense of others.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,369
Portugal
I saw Black Panther partially on the internet and found it an awful movie, but this is me, I rarely like Marvel and DC movies. Never went to a theatre see one. I think I never saw one completely. And I confess that the racial excitement that existed about the movie among some US black Americans bothered me. Anyway, I agree with aggienation (and that is rare) when he says that it was a good marketing campaign. Again, a marketing racial campaign bothers me.
 
Jul 2016
8,951
USA
I know the feeling.

I try to have a discussion with people about misogyny and homophobia and why is it accepted/ignored when the expression is done by one of the designated groups.

You should see the gymnastics in the media about the circus that is happening in VA, a governor discovered to have had a blackface in his yearbook, the calls for him to resign were immediate and swift, and why not, virtue-signalling that can be further strengthened by ascending an African American lieutenant governor. Then he got accused of sexual assault then the Attorney General admitted to wearing a black face while in college.

Translation: the virtue signalling having no political damage attached to it has suddenly meant that sticking to "advertised" principle leads to:
1-Condemning an African American lieutenant governor and demanding he resigns and not assume the governorship (After the governor resigns).
2-The inconvenience of admitting a member of oppressed group (an African American) could have potentially assaulted a member of another oppressed group (women)
3-and of course, a the fourth in line to assume a governorship is a republican. (which is politics)
---
all of the sudden the "metoo" and "believe the women" went quiet.
and the publicity of ridding the party of the racist governor is damaging.

moral of the story, it is only good to apply principles at the expense of others.
Metoo movement was silent about a lot of nasty stuff. It was like when Harvey Weinstein went down. Dude was a giant power player in the left, huge political donor, and EVERYONE knew his reputation going back decades. They even joked about it at the Oscars.
 

Similar History Discussions