April fools thread

April is over. Let's move on to a new thread thing.

NebulaJack wrote:

theIllustriousDrGonzo wrote:

rkwsuperstar wrote:

theIllustriousDrGonzo wrote:

NebulaJack wrote:

James.k.Polk wrote:

Patch wrote:Stupid people. I give lots of seconds chances to employees. I've went round and round with HR because I'll hire someone with a record. But I make it clear to the guy I hire. This is his chance to turn it around. If he screws up I'll be the one that fired him and there will not be a third chance. It works out more times than not but occasionally one will screw it up.

I want to be clear that while I find it disappointing that so many of my young staffers are casual drug users, I emphatically do not care what they do in their own time and away from the store.

Bringing it in to the store, or being high while on the clock. Those are deal breakers.

I'm puzzled by the rationalizations. A few weeks ago on NPR there was a story about young people who use marijuana, and it specifically talked about it being a problem because so many of them would eventually move on to heroin, ecstasy and other, more powerful drugs. This is famously liberal NPR making this assertion.

But hey, we all know weed is natural and non addictive, right?

I think the late great George Carlin put it best when he said "Marijuana is a drug that engenders it's own disuse." After a certain point, the affect of getting stoned stops being as potent or enjoyable (that was the case for me anyway) and that's a signal that it's time to put it aside. The ones who don't move on often switch to other substance, or turn into the stereotype of the negligent stoner. I get irritated by the myth that it's not addictive. It's far less addictive than alcohol or tobacco, but for a certain number of people it does become a bad habit.

I have smoked marijuana off and on for the past 18 years of my life and at no point have I ever felt the need to try heroin or ecstasy or any thing of that nature. I have been around friends who have smoked it non stop (smoke at least once everyday) for those same 18 years and none of them have become junkies or criminals. In fact, they are all normal people (some with families now) going about their lives. I don't believe the hype. At the end of the day I think it comes down to what kind of person you are.

I agree.  Just like alcohol, it becomes an addiction to the person who is susceptible to an addiction.  I once "knew" a guy who smoked pot.  Whatever.  My issue was that he'd wake up in the middle of the night, multiple times, to take a few hits.  If you can't sleep for a few hours without getting high, then you have a problem.

True. occasionally if I can't sleep, I will use my dugout (single hitter) and it will knock me out. But if you have to wake up in the middle of the night and constantly have it, you have a problem. Unless you have cancer or a legit illness.

To be clear, I'm not saying that I believe the Gateway Theory of Marijuana to be 100% true. For one thing, I think it's more a matter of correlation than causality. People who end up using heroin or meth are likely to have smoked weed first, but that doesn't mean that the weed led them there. Also, I might have over emphasized the thing I mentioned about the affect of marijuana not being as enjoyable over time. I know that's true for me, and other people, but it's not necessarily a universal thing, or even something that happens to the majority of tokers.

I believe it is true... from a certain point of view. We know some people are pre-disposed to addiction. we also know that many of those people start at a young age and that alcohol and marijuana are among the first things they will abuse. When I know young people who admit to having used alcohol or weed at 14, for example, I automatically think they probably have addiction issues.

While the marijuana doesn't cause the problem, it certainly exacerbates it in many cases. (Note I do not mean *all* cases)

And when a person cannot control her impulses on a level of Not Bringing Weed to Work, I am inclined to validate my biases.

theIllustriousDrGonzo wrote:

rkwsuperstar wrote:

theIllustriousDrGonzo wrote:

NebulaJack wrote:

James.k.Polk wrote:

Patch wrote:Stupid people. I give lots of seconds chances to employees. I've went round and round with HR because I'll hire someone with a record. But I make it clear to the guy I hire. This is his chance to turn it around. If he screws up I'll be the one that fired him and there will not be a third chance. It works out more times than not but occasionally one will screw it up.

I want to be clear that while I find it disappointing that so many of my young staffers are casual drug users, I emphatically do not care what they do in their own time and away from the store.

Bringing it in to the store, or being high while on the clock. Those are deal breakers.

I'm puzzled by the rationalizations. A few weeks ago on NPR there was a story about young people who use marijuana, and it specifically talked about it being a problem because so many of them would eventually move on to heroin, ecstasy and other, more powerful drugs. This is famously liberal NPR making this assertion.

But hey, we all know weed is natural and non addictive, right?

I think the late great George Carlin put it best when he said "Marijuana is a drug that engenders it's own disuse." After a certain point, the affect of getting stoned stops being as potent or enjoyable (that was the case for me anyway) and that's a signal that it's time to put it aside. The ones who don't move on often switch to other substance, or turn into the stereotype of the negligent stoner. I get irritated by the myth that it's not addictive. It's far less addictive than alcohol or tobacco, but for a certain number of people it does become a bad habit.

I have smoked marijuana off and on for the past 18 years of my life and at no point have I ever felt the need to try heroin or ecstasy or any thing of that nature. I have been around friends who have smoked it non stop (smoke at least once everyday) for those same 18 years and none of them have become junkies or criminals. In fact, they are all normal people (some with families now) going about their lives. I don't believe the hype. At the end of the day I think it comes down to what kind of person you are.

I agree.  Just like alcohol, it becomes an addiction to the person who is susceptible to an addiction.  I once "knew" a guy who smoked pot.  Whatever.  My issue was that he'd wake up in the middle of the night, multiple times, to take a few hits.  If you can't sleep for a few hours without getting high, then you have a problem.

True. occasionally if I can't sleep, I will use my dugout (single hitter) and it will knock me out. But if you have to wake up in the middle of the night and constantly have it, you have a problem. Unless you have cancer or a legit illness.

To be clear, I'm not saying that I believe the Gateway Theory of Marijuana to be 100% true. For one thing, I think it's more a matter of correlation than causality. People who end up using heroin or meth are likely to have smoked weed first, but that doesn't mean that the weed led them there. Also, I might have over emphasized the thing I mentioned about the affect of marijuana not being as enjoyable over time. I know that's true for me, and other people, but it's not necessarily a universal thing, or even something that happens to the majority of tokers.

rkwsuperstar wrote:

theIllustriousDrGonzo wrote:

NebulaJack wrote:

James.k.Polk wrote:

Patch wrote:Stupid people. I give lots of seconds chances to employees. I've went round and round with HR because I'll hire someone with a record. But I make it clear to the guy I hire. This is his chance to turn it around. If he screws up I'll be the one that fired him and there will not be a third chance. It works out more times than not but occasionally one will screw it up.

I want to be clear that while I find it disappointing that so many of my young staffers are casual drug users, I emphatically do not care what they do in their own time and away from the store.

Bringing it in to the store, or being high while on the clock. Those are deal breakers.

I'm puzzled by the rationalizations. A few weeks ago on NPR there was a story about young people who use marijuana, and it specifically talked about it being a problem because so many of them would eventually move on to heroin, ecstasy and other, more powerful drugs. This is famously liberal NPR making this assertion.

But hey, we all know weed is natural and non addictive, right?

I think the late great George Carlin put it best when he said "Marijuana is a drug that engenders it's own disuse." After a certain point, the affect of getting stoned stops being as potent or enjoyable (that was the case for me anyway) and that's a signal that it's time to put it aside. The ones who don't move on often switch to other substance, or turn into the stereotype of the negligent stoner. I get irritated by the myth that it's not addictive. It's far less addictive than alcohol or tobacco, but for a certain number of people it does become a bad habit.

I have smoked marijuana off and on for the past 18 years of my life and at no point have I ever felt the need to try heroin or ecstasy or any thing of that nature. I have been around friends who have smoked it non stop (smoke at least once everyday) for those same 18 years and none of them have become junkies or criminals. In fact, they are all normal people (some with families now) going about their lives. I don't believe the hype. At the end of the day I think it comes down to what kind of person you are.

I agree.  Just like alcohol, it becomes an addiction to the person who is susceptible to an addiction.  I once "knew" a guy who smoked pot.  Whatever.  My issue was that he'd wake up in the middle of the night, multiple times, to take a few hits.  If you can't sleep for a few hours without getting high, then you have a problem.

True. occasionally if I can't sleep, I will use my dugout (single hitter) and it will knock me out. But if you have to wake up in the middle of the night and constantly have it, you have a problem. Unless you have cancer or a legit illness.

theIllustriousDrGonzo wrote:

NebulaJack wrote:

James.k.Polk wrote:

Patch wrote:Stupid people. I give lots of seconds chances to employees. I've went round and round with HR because I'll hire someone with a record. But I make it clear to the guy I hire. This is his chance to turn it around. If he screws up I'll be the one that fired him and there will not be a third chance. It works out more times than not but occasionally one will screw it up.

I want to be clear that while I find it disappointing that so many of my young staffers are casual drug users, I emphatically do not care what they do in their own time and away from the store.

Bringing it in to the store, or being high while on the clock. Those are deal breakers.

I'm puzzled by the rationalizations. A few weeks ago on NPR there was a story about young people who use marijuana, and it specifically talked about it being a problem because so many of them would eventually move on to heroin, ecstasy and other, more powerful drugs. This is famously liberal NPR making this assertion.

But hey, we all know weed is natural and non addictive, right?

I think the late great George Carlin put it best when he said "Marijuana is a drug that engenders it's own disuse." After a certain point, the affect of getting stoned stops being as potent or enjoyable (that was the case for me anyway) and that's a signal that it's time to put it aside. The ones who don't move on often switch to other substance, or turn into the stereotype of the negligent stoner. I get irritated by the myth that it's not addictive. It's far less addictive than alcohol or tobacco, but for a certain number of people it does become a bad habit.

I have smoked marijuana off and on for the past 18 years of my life and at no point have I ever felt the need to try heroin or ecstasy or any thing of that nature. I have been around friends who have smoked it non stop (smoke at least once everyday) for those same 18 years and none of them have become junkies or criminals. In fact, they are all normal people (some with families now) going about their lives. I don't believe the hype. At the end of the day I think it comes down to what kind of person you are.

I agree. Just like alcohol, it becomes an addiction to the person who is susceptible to an addiction. I once "knew" a guy who smoked pot. Whatever. My issue was that he'd wake up in the middle of the night, multiple times, to take a few hits. If you can't sleep for a few hours without getting high, then you have a problem.

James.k.Polk wrote:

Patch wrote:Stupid people. I give lots of seconds chances to employees. I've went round and round with HR because I'll hire someone with a record. But I make it clear to the guy I hire. This is his chance to turn it around. If he screws up I'll be the one that fired him and there will not be a third chance. It works out more times than not but occasionally one will screw it up.

I want to be clear that while I find it disappointing that so many of my young staffers are casual drug users, I emphatically do not care what they do in their own time and away from the store.

Bringing it in to the store, or being high while on the clock. Those are deal breakers.

I'm puzzled by the rationalizations. A few weeks ago on NPR there was a story about young people who use marijuana, and it specifically talked about it being a problem because so many of them would eventually move on to heroin, ecstasy and other, more powerful drugs. This is famously liberal NPR making this assertion.

But hey, we all know weed is natural and non addictive, right?

I agree. Do what you want to do on your own time. But if your job has a no WHATEVER policy, then you need to follow that policy or accept the consequences.
My coworker doesn't like the fact that she has to cover her tattoos and take out her tongue ring at work. Oh, well-you took the job knowing the rules. If you don't like it, quit. If you don't like that you can't smoke on the grounds of your job, then quit (we don't have it yet, but the state hospital in Supesville is a non-smoking campus and you have to leave the grounds before you can light up. You can't even smoke while sitting in your car waiting for traffic so you can pull out of the campus or you are in violation.) You don't have to like the policies, but you either follow them or you leave.

[quote="theIllustriousDrGonzo"]

NebulaJack wrote:

James.k.Polk wrote:

Patch wrote:Stupid people. I give lots of seconds chances to employees. I've went round and round with HR because I'll hire someone with a record. But I make it clear to the guy I hire. This is his chance to turn it around. If he screws up I'll be the one that fired him and there will not be a third chance. It works out more times than not but occasionally one will screw it up.

I want to be clear that while I find it disappointing that so many of my young staffers are casual drug users, I emphatically do not care what they do in their own time and away from the store.

Bringing it in to the store, or being high while on the clock. Those are deal breakers.

I'm puzzled by the rationalizations. A few weeks ago on NPR there was a story about young people who use marijuana, and it specifically talked about it being a problem because so many of them would eventually move on to heroin, ecstasy and other, more powerful drugs. This is famously liberal NPR making this assertion.

But hey, we all know weed is natural and non addictive, right?

I think the late great George Carlin put it best when he said "Marijuana is a drug that engenders it's own disuse." After a certain point, the affect of getting stoned stops being as potent or enjoyable (that was the case for me anyway) and that's a signal that it's time to put it aside. The ones who don't move on often switch to other substance, or turn into the stereotype of the negligent stoner. I get irritated by the myth that it's not addictive. It's far less addictive than alcohol or tobacco, but for a certain number of people it does become a bad habit.

I have no problem with that statement. However, this is the second time this girl has brought marijuana into my store. The first time she played innocent and let another girl get blamed And fired over it. This clearly indicates that she either has a dependence on the stuff or a profound lack of grown up judgment.

As I said earlier, I don't give a flip what people do at home and in their own time. But this has affected her at work, and that's one of the big flashing red "danger" signs indicating a dependence or addiction.

NebulaJack wrote:

James.k.Polk wrote:

Patch wrote:Stupid people. I give lots of seconds chances to employees. I've went round and round with HR because I'll hire someone with a record. But I make it clear to the guy I hire. This is his chance to turn it around. If he screws up I'll be the one that fired him and there will not be a third chance. It works out more times than not but occasionally one will screw it up.

I want to be clear that while I find it disappointing that so many of my young staffers are casual drug users, I emphatically do not care what they do in their own time and away from the store.

Bringing it in to the store, or being high while on the clock. Those are deal breakers.

I'm puzzled by the rationalizations. A few weeks ago on NPR there was a story about young people who use marijuana, and it specifically talked about it being a problem because so many of them would eventually move on to heroin, ecstasy and other, more powerful drugs. This is famously liberal NPR making this assertion.

But hey, we all know weed is natural and non addictive, right?

I think the late great George Carlin put it best when he said "Marijuana is a drug that engenders it's own disuse." After a certain point, the affect of getting stoned stops being as potent or enjoyable (that was the case for me anyway) and that's a signal that it's time to put it aside. The ones who don't move on often switch to other substance, or turn into the stereotype of the negligent stoner. I get irritated by the myth that it's not addictive. It's far less addictive than alcohol or tobacco, but for a certain number of people it does become a bad habit.

I have smoked marijuana off and on for the past 18 years of my life and at no point have I ever felt the need to try heroin or ecstasy or any thing of that nature. I have been around friends who have smoked it non stop (smoke at least once everyday) for those same 18 years and none of them have become junkies or criminals. In fact, they are all normal people (some with families now) going about their lives. I don't believe the hype. At the end of the day I think it comes down to what kind of person you are.

James.k.Polk wrote:

Patch wrote:Stupid people. I give lots of seconds chances to employees. I've went round and round with HR because I'll hire someone with a record. But I make it clear to the guy I hire. This is his chance to turn it around. If he screws up I'll be the one that fired him and there will not be a third chance. It works out more times than not but occasionally one will screw it up.

I want to be clear that while I find it disappointing that so many of my young staffers are casual drug users, I emphatically do not care what they do in their own time and away from the store.

Bringing it in to the store, or being high while on the clock. Those are deal breakers.

I'm puzzled by the rationalizations. A few weeks ago on NPR there was a story about young people who use marijuana, and it specifically talked about it being a problem because so many of them would eventually move on to heroin, ecstasy and other, more powerful drugs. This is famously liberal NPR making this assertion.

But hey, we all know weed is natural and non addictive, right?

I think the late great George Carlin put it best when he said "Marijuana is a drug that engenders it's own disuse." After a certain point, the affect of getting stoned stops being as potent or enjoyable (that was the case for me anyway) and that's a signal that it's time to put it aside. The ones who don't move on often switch to other substance, or turn into the stereotype of the negligent stoner. I get irritated by the myth that it's not addictive. It's far less addictive than alcohol or tobacco, but for a certain number of people it does become a bad habit.

Patch wrote:Stupid people. I give lots of seconds chances to employees. I've went round and round with HR because I'll hire someone with a record. But I make it clear to the guy I hire. This is his chance to turn it around. If he screws up I'll be the one that fired him and there will not be a third chance. It works out more times than not but occasionally one will screw it up.

I want to be clear that while I find it disappointing that so many of my young staffers are casual drug users, I emphatically do not care what they do in their own time and away from the store.

Bringing it in to the store, or being high while on the clock. Those are deal breakers.

I'm puzzled by the rationalizations. A few weeks ago on NPR there was a story about young people who use marijuana, and it specifically talked about it being a problem because so many of them would eventually move on to heroin, ecstasy and other, more powerful drugs. This is famously liberal NPR making this assertion.

But hey, we all know weed is natural and non addictive, right?

Stupid people. I give lots of seconds chances to employees. I've went round and round with HR because I'll hire someone with a record. But I make it clear to the guy I hire. This is his chance to turn it around. If he screws up I'll be the one that fired him and there will not be a third chance. It works out more times than not but occasionally one will screw it up.

Now I'm just sick...

Today I pop into my store at about 9:10. I sign in, perform an inventory count, listen to a couple of TMBG songs on YouTube, and proceed to get the store ready to open.

About 9:30 my opener walks in. As she walks by I notice a smell that means she's either carrying weed or she hasn't taken a shower today. After she leaves her purse in the back room I walk back there and sniff the air near the purse. Yep that smell is... Unmistakable. I mean, it isn't overpowering, but still.

This is the girl who brought weed in her purse before and I naively believed the smell was from a different employee. The first time she did it, the smell was eventually strong enough that even customers were complaining about it.

I confronted her. Of course she denied. Claimed the smell came from the trash. The same trash that *didnt* smell like weed before she arrived. I told her that I absolutely have a zero tolerance policy for this. That she needs to start making grown-up decisions. She's still denying, but by her responses I know she's carrying. Fuck that. The trash doesn't smell like skunk weed unless someone three spunky weed in the trash.

I made her take her purse and put it in her car.

Now she's going out for a company-sponsored drug test.

I'm sick abou it. She was kind of doing better at the job. Now this happens.

rkwsuperstar wrote:

James.k.Polk wrote:

Patch wrote:

NebulaJack wrote:

As for the topic itself, I didn't give a fuck when Michael B. Jordan was cast as Johnny Storm, or when Idris Elba was cast as Heimdall. So I'm not gonna get pissed that Swinton got the role of The Ancient One. Besides, if Marvel had cast Ken Watanabe (who was apparently considered for the role along with Morgan Freeman among others), people would just complain that the character is an asian stereotype.

I agree. How about the best person for the job, gets the job. I doubt that they didn't audition all types for the roll. In the end they looked at the performances and added the star factor to give them the best draw for the movie.

It's stupid that people don't get that, just like the Academy Awards bullshit. Will Smith made a crappy movie that no one saw. Just because he did an accent in it doesn't mean he should get an award.

I'm of the opinion that quotas solve nothing.

Look. I run a store. I have two black employees, four Hispanic employees, two women, and one white guy other than myself. None of them were hired because they fit a racial or gender profile.

I know there are plenty of work places that either don't hire certain people, or who hire *only* people who meet certain ehnic or gender targets. That just means those places are stupid and missing out on having a real well rounded workplace.

Most of my people are as good, or better than any rep in my company.

I get the point.  Minorities have a history of being white washed (and a long time ago, played by white actors in bronze face paint).  We should be doing our best to keep the original race of the character and casting "the best" in roles where it doesn't matter.  However, I understand in some cases-the Chinese market is huge and they didn't want to piss them off.  And white people being angrier than Asians about it means we are back to white people thinking they know better.

As awesome as Tilda Swinton looks in the trailer, a part of me wishes Marvel had gone with Morgan Freeman. Aside from how cool it'd be to have his voice narrating all mystical stuff in the trailer, I'd love to see the reactions of the moral high horse cavalry to an asian character being portrayed by a black actor!

James.k.Polk wrote:

Patch wrote:

NebulaJack wrote:

As for the topic itself, I didn't give a fuck when Michael B. Jordan was cast as Johnny Storm, or when Idris Elba was cast as Heimdall. So I'm not gonna get pissed that Swinton got the role of The Ancient One. Besides, if Marvel had cast Ken Watanabe (who was apparently considered for the role along with Morgan Freeman among others), people would just complain that the character is an asian stereotype.

I agree. How about the best person for the job, gets the job. I doubt that they didn't audition all types for the roll. In the end they looked at the performances and added the star factor to give them the best draw for the movie.

It's stupid that people don't get that, just like the Academy Awards bullshit. Will Smith made a crappy movie that no one saw. Just because he did an accent in it doesn't mean he should get an award.

I'm of the opinion that quotas solve nothing.

Look. I run a store. I have two black employees, four Hispanic employees, two women, and one white guy other than myself. None of them were hired because they fit a racial or gender profile.

I know there are plenty of work places that either don't hire certain people, or who hire *only* people who meet certain ehnic or gender targets. That just means those places are stupid and missing out on having a real well rounded workplace.

Most of my people are as good, or better than any rep in my company.

I get the point. Minorities have a history of being white washed (and a long time ago, played by white actors in bronze face paint). We should be doing our best to keep the original race of the character and casting "the best" in roles where it doesn't matter. However, I understand in some cases-the Chinese market is huge and they didn't want to piss them off. And white people being angrier than Asians about it means we are back to white people thinking they know better.

Patch wrote:

NebulaJack wrote:

As for the topic itself, I didn't give a fuck when Michael B. Jordan was cast as Johnny Storm, or when Idris Elba was cast as Heimdall. So I'm not gonna get pissed that Swinton got the role of The Ancient One. Besides, if Marvel had cast Ken Watanabe (who was apparently considered for the role along with Morgan Freeman among others), people would just complain that the character is an asian stereotype.

I agree. How about the best person for the job, gets the job. I doubt that they didn't audition all types for the roll. In the end they looked at the performances and added the star factor to give them the best draw for the movie.

It's stupid that people don't get that, just like the Academy Awards bullshit. Will Smith made a crappy movie that no one saw. Just because he did an accent in it doesn't mean he should get an award.

I'm of the opinion that quotas solve nothing.

Look. I run a store. I have two black employees, four Hispanic employees, two women, and one white guy other than myself. None of them were hired because they fit a racial or gender profile.

I know there are plenty of work places that either don't hire certain people, or who hire *only* people who meet certain ehnic or gender targets. That just means those places are stupid and missing out on having a real well rounded workplace.

Most of my people are as good, or better than any rep in my company.

rkwsuperstar wrote:

NebulaJack wrote:

Patch wrote:

theIllustriousDrGonzo wrote:

This is exactly why you should pile on.

I searched for it just so I could, but couldn't find it. FB hates me so I think it hides stuff I want and shows me crap I don't, on purpose.

I'm wondering if Gallen posted it on his own wall, instead of in TRV Haunt and then deleted it when things got heated. I couldn't find it in either place, but if he'd posted it in TRV Haunt, I'd have seen it even if he'd deleted it, because I get emails whenever people post stuff in there.

As for the topic itself, I didn't give a fuck when Michael B. Jordan was cast as Johnny Storm, or when Idris Elba was cast as Heimdall. So I'm not gonna get pissed that Swinton got the role of The Ancient One. Besides, if Marvel had cast Ken Watanabe (who was apparently considered for the role along with Morgan Freeman among others), people would just complain that the character is an asian stereotype.

Wait, where is his post re: ScarJo and Ghost in the Shell?  
I've seen plenty of posts that a white person was cast in Dr. Strange because they wanted to keep the Chinese markets happy.  

No. He literally linked to the same io9 article by Rob Bricken which was just a clickbaity thing saying Marvel "dropped the ball" by not picking an Asian actor to play the Ancient One. Some poor guy answered that he didn't really care because as a white guy it isn't for him to be offended about it.

He posted it a day after Rob wrote it just to try to stir up an argument.

And of course The Irregulars or The Zilluminerdy obliged him. My point was that trolling us trolling and whatnot, but I was also told to be ashamed because Gallens point is valid somehow.

I just stopped reading the thread.

NebulaJack wrote:

Patch wrote:

theIllustriousDrGonzo wrote:

This is exactly why you should pile on.

I searched for it just so I could, but couldn't find it. FB hates me so I think it hides stuff I want and shows me crap I don't, on purpose.

I'm wondering if Gallen posted it on his own wall, instead of in TRV Haunt and then deleted it when things got heated. I couldn't find it in either place, but if he'd posted it in TRV Haunt, I'd have seen it even if he'd deleted it, because I get emails whenever people post stuff in there.

As for the topic itself, I didn't give a fuck when Michael B. Jordan was cast as Johnny Storm, or when Idris Elba was cast as Heimdall. So I'm not gonna get pissed that Swinton got the role of The Ancient One. Besides, if Marvel had cast Ken Watanabe (who was apparently considered for the role along with Morgan Freeman among others), people would just complain that the character is an asian stereotype.

Wait, where is his post re: ScarJo and Ghost in the Shell?
I've seen plenty of posts that a white person was cast in Dr. Strange because they wanted to keep the Chinese markets happy.

NebulaJack wrote:

As for the topic itself, I didn't give a fuck when Michael B. Jordan was cast as Johnny Storm, or when Idris Elba was cast as Heimdall. So I'm not gonna get pissed that Swinton got the role of The Ancient One. Besides, if Marvel had cast Ken Watanabe (who was apparently considered for the role along with Morgan Freeman among others), people would just complain that the character is an asian stereotype.

I agree. How about the best person for the job, gets the job. I doubt that they didn't audition all types for the roll. In the end they looked at the performances and added the star factor to give them the best draw for the movie.

It's stupid that people don't get that, just like the Academy Awards bullshit. Will Smith made a crappy movie that no one saw. Just because he did an accent in it doesn't mean he should get an award.

NebulaJack wrote:

Patch wrote:

theIllustriousDrGonzo wrote:

This is exactly why you should pile on.

I searched for it just so I could, but couldn't find it. FB hates me so I think it hides stuff I want and shows me crap I don't, on purpose.

I'm wondering if Gallen posted it on his own wall, instead of in TRV Haunt and then deleted it when things got heated. I couldn't find it in either place, but if he'd posted it in TRV Haunt, I'd have seen it even if he'd deleted it, because I get emails whenever people post stuff in there.

As for the topic itself, I didn't give a fuck when Michael B. Jordan was cast as Johnny Storm, or when Idris Elba was cast as Heimdall. So I'm not gonna get pissed that Swinton got the role of The Ancient One. Besides, if Marvel had cast Ken Watanabe (who was apparently considered for the role along with Morgan Freeman among others), people would just complain that the character is an asian stereotype.

I didn't see it either, but I've trained my brain to actively ignore certain data my eyes send it, so i could have scrolled right past it and not even noticed.

Patch wrote:

theIllustriousDrGonzo wrote:

This is exactly why you should pile on.

I searched for it just so I could, but couldn't find it. FB hates me so I think it hides stuff I want and shows me crap I don't, on purpose.

I'm wondering if Gallen posted it on his own wall, instead of in TRV Haunt and then deleted it when things got heated. I couldn't find it in either place, but if he'd posted it in TRV Haunt, I'd have seen it even if he'd deleted it, because I get emails whenever people post stuff in there.

As for the topic itself, I didn't give a fuck when Michael B. Jordan was cast as Johnny Storm, or when Idris Elba was cast as Heimdall. So I'm not gonna get pissed that Swinton got the role of The Ancient One. Besides, if Marvel had cast Ken Watanabe (who was apparently considered for the role along with Morgan Freeman among others), people would just complain that the character is an asian stereotype.

Patch wrote:

theIllustriousDrGonzo wrote:

Fuck that place. They called me a stupid asshole for disagreeing with them over some bullshit irrelevant topic. AND MY ARGUMENT WAS SOUND.

Gonzo=Gallen over there?

Lol. No. I was trolling them about some asinine thing they were discussing over there. I was making it apparently clear that I was doing it as a joke and not serious about my argument even though I was backing it up with legit points, but the general consensus was that I a stupid asshole for disagreeing with them and I needed to shut my mouth. So I left and haven't been back.

theIllustriousDrGonzo wrote:

Fuck that place. They called me a stupid asshole for disagreeing with them over some bullshit irrelevant topic. AND MY ARGUMENT WAS SOUND.

Gonzo=Gallen over there?

theIllustriousDrGonzo wrote:

This is exactly why you should pile on.

I searched for it just so I could, but couldn't find it. FB hates me so I think it hides stuff I want and shows me crap I don't, on purpose.

James.k.Polk wrote:

Ban Gallen and I will send you Arkay's cookies.  I'll get her recipe.

In other news someone gave me admin authority in Fortress of Nerditutde and I just admitted my first new member.  Welcome, PA Atchinson

Thanks for the add. I forgot I was on there before FB banned my fakebook account. Also Gallen bashing and eye rolling is fun, so don't encourage the ban. I like his random stuff from time to time, just to keep him confused. Like one thing, make a snide comment on another.

Patch wrote:

James.k.Polk wrote:

I did.  And people jumped to Gallen's defense.  Because no way Gallen isn't motivated by the righteous white guilt that we're all supposed to feel.  I mean it's not even possible that he posted that io9 article specifically to get any comment so he could instantly jump to the other side of the argument.

I said to a guy "sorry you fed the troll, dude,"  and someone else chimed in chiding me for not feeling enough self loathing for being a white guy m

Personally I give zero fucks as to what ethnicity a pretend comic book person is portrayed as.

Good for you. I'd have called him out. Though anyone who gets worked up over MLP plot points, has enough problems, so maybe I shouldn't pile on.

This is exactly why you should pile on.