Lurker > KhanJohnny

Blue_Inigo posted...

What a fine Christian name he has. Surely he is not another corrupt corporate fat cat.

That's racist

We made out later that night

deupd_u posted...

Usually a power play, and she's unsure of you.

Dang

She bought me dinner last night, even though I expected to pay

What a first post lol

Free money

Error1355 posted...

TES_Nut posted...

Yup good wholesome Shakespearean values like regicide patricide invest, adult cross dressing murder lying and fairy worship.

Sounds more Catholic than the majority of CE!

Theres no conclusive evidence he was Catholic, so no reason to solely accuse them

DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

ledbowman posted...

There are lots and lots and lots of liberal Christians.

The most liberal churches are the ones that are dying the fastest which is not surprising because they have no discipline in their beliefs.

The church I grew up going to saw its under-40 attendance drop by three-quarters when they pulled out of the ELCA and joined NALC because ELCA was going to allow gay pastors as long as they were in monogamous relationships and NALC doesn't. Almost all the active members now are in their late 50's or older.

Lots of people in my generation and younger are tired of the shit constantly spewed about how gays or muslims (or anything "the church" doesn't approve of, basically) are evil or from the devil. I've known gay people and Muslim people, and none of them have tried to turn me gay or murder me while screaming "Allahu Akbar!"

The truth stings
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/04/liberal-churches-are-dying-but-conservative-churches-are-thriving/

We've reached peak uncreativity. Surely, we'll revolf against this one day, right?

Antifar posted...

You're subsidizing their ability to do this: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/world/americas/mexico-coca-cola-diabetes.html

So Mexicans should drink neither water nor coke then?

Conflict posted...

He's also transphobic and outright says he supports them getting less rights so him trying to act moral on any subject is pure comedy

When did I say they deserve less rights

NibeIungsnarf posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Do you ever watch movies based on books since theres no such thing as a movie that doesnt change the original text?

In general, movies based on books change and adapt the plot by necessity to fit the media form, not to make political statements.

ThePieReborn posted...

Your umbrage stems from the notion that deviation from tradition=bad. Thus the hungover posting on my part.

I have never held that deviation from all tradition is bad.

ThePieReborn posted...

Error1355 posted...

back in the old days the united states didn't exist

the constutition is an attack on british culture and trying to change and erase history

The Magna Carta is an attack on the monarchical culture! D=<

It's weird that you both think these statements are ironic or somehow untrue.

ThePieReborn posted...

And yet this apparently soulshattering alteration of 'men' to 'all people' affects... jack-all squat.

Just like having a female priest.

Since it affects "jack-all squat" I wonder why people change these things in the first place. Evidently, they feel that it does have an effect. I agree with them.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

But you didnt refute me that its okay for interpretative works of the DoI to change its wording.

It isn't okay. It would be a disgrace because that isn't what Jefferson wrote and it sullies the literary quality of the text.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Error1355 posted...

back in the old days there was no life on earth

us being alive is trying to erase no life culture on earth and is trying to change history

As strong an argument as the first time. TC keeps shitting his pants trying to debunk it lmao.

Why would I debunk it or even try? It doesn't make any sense.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

Garioshi posted...

Why are you ok with women acting in his plays at all?

There is a large distinction between cast diversity and actually changing the text of the play.

There literally isnt.

Next time there's a public reading of the Declaration of Independence, demand that they change it to "All people". We must be consistent.

It is obviously irrelevant what the author put on the page.

Do you take issue with the changing of the constitution via amendmends or the interpretative work of the supreme court that grants rights not explicitly mentioned therein?

If someone wants to do an interpretative piece on the declaration of independence, what would be the issue with changing the wording?

Never heard of interpretative works of the DoI, though, so youre being a dishonest, conniving little dwimmerlaik, though.

No I don't have a problem with amending the Constitution, a legal text.

The Declaration is different, as it is not a document with any legal meaning. It's a historical statement whose language has literary value.

Okay so you agree with me and are shitposting on purpose.

No I don't particularly agree with your unnecesary inflammatory language. It's the sign of a weak mind.

Error1355 posted...

back in the old days there was no life on earth

us being alive is trying to erase no life culture on earth and is trying to change history

Fourth times the charm, they always say

ThePieReborn posted...

It was in the post you quoted. Notice that "so long as the themes of the piece remain intact?"

That was the qualifier.

You can maintain the themes of his pieces which are fairly simple and change the text entirely beyond recognition.

You might as well say the Lion King literally is Hamlet because it kept the themes intact.

Error1355 posted...

back in the day there were no land walkers

us humans walking on the land is erasing culture and changing history

Even funnier the third time

ThePieReborn posted...

Literally did, given that there was a qualifier attached there that you deliberately chose to ignore.

You just edited that in dude lmao

slimfizzle2 posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

What a dumb topic. Also, Christians must have loved all of those men kissing men scenes in Shakespeare's plays.

You do know Shakespeare and his entire audience were Christians, right?

But you just said he was secretly Catholic.

Catholics are Christians, silly.

ThePieReborn posted...

Literally misconstrued my statement.

Literally didn't.

Smashingpmkns posted...

What a dumb topic. Also, Christians must have loved all of those men kissing men scenes in Shakespeare's plays.

You do know Shakespeare and his entire audience were Christians, right?

ThePieReborn posted...

I don't really care about "muh oppression" arguments.

The text is unimportant so long as the themes of the piece remain intact.

Literally just said the text of a Shakespeare play is unimportant.

ThePieReborn posted...

...Wasn't 'men' generally used in such a manner? What material difference in theme would changing it to 'all people' create?

Unless if you're opting to go the direction of "the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the express terms of the Nineteenth Amendment are wrong."

But who would want to do that?

By continuing to use men we are supporting male supremacy, so says the liberal.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

Garioshi posted...

Why are you ok with women acting in his plays at all?

There is a large distinction between cast diversity and actually changing the text of the play.

There literally isnt.

Next time there's a public reading of the Declaration of Independence, demand that they change it to "All people". We must be consistent.

It is obviously irrelevant what the author put on the page.

Do you take issue with the changing of the constitution via amendmends or the interpretative work of the supreme court that grants rights not explicitly mentioned therein?

If someone wants to do an interpretative piece on the declaration of independence, what would be the issue with changing the wording?

Never heard of interpretative works of the DoI, though, so youre being a dishonest, conniving little dwimmerlaik, though.

No I don't have a problem with amending the Constitution, a legal text.

The Declaration is different, as it is not a document with any legal meaning. It's a historical statement whose language has literary value.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

Garioshi posted...

Why are you ok with women acting in his plays at all?

There is a large distinction between cast diversity and actually changing the text of the play.

There literally isnt.

Next time there's a public reading of the Declaration of Independence, demand that they change it to "All people". We must be consistent.

It is obviously irrelevant what the author put on the page.

Garioshi posted...

Why are you ok with women acting in his plays at all?

There is a large distinction between cast diversity and actually changing the text of the play.

Error1355 posted...

back in the day the internet didn't exist and we only talked via written letters

this topic is trying to erase culture and erase the past

Thats still a garbage analogy and you know it

SageHarpuia posted...

TC isn't wrong

Why are people pretending he's wrong?

Thanks!

CyricZ posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

You think changing the gender of the priest at a time when this is a contentious issue in Christian churches isnt a political statement?

Honestly it very well could be, and frankly, I could not care less with regards to your reaction.

Moreso, while I still doubt this scenario of yours is real, I realize I don't care if it's real or not. I honestly hope it is real, because the idea of a thin mind such as your own spending his Saturday in outrage over this is a perfect picture of modern traditionalism.

Why wouldn't it be real?

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Female priests are not a contentuous issue in Shakespeare church. Youre literally jumping through hoops (and probably penises) to make the argument that it is.

Actually it is. Anglicans are a loose confederation, and they do not all accept female priests.

Error1355 posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

The concept of female priests was an extremely marginal view in the late 1500s and it's quite uncontroversial to think Shakespeare, as a member of the establishment religion with possible Catholic sympathies would have held it unthinkable.

Who the fuck cares dude. It's a play. Watch it and enjoy yourself without thinking everything is an overarching political statement because it probably fucking wasn't. Take off the tin foil hat.

You think changing the gender of the priest at a time when this is a contentious issue in Christian churches isnt a political statement? Maybe I'm wearing a tin hat, but you certainly must have a blindfold on.

Also, it was the left who promoted the idea that everything, especially art, is political.

Error1355 posted...

back in the day we didn't have these motor vehicles.

by us driving we're shitting on tradition and trying to erase history.

Terrible analogy.

Driving a vehicle isn't analogous to changing a text.

We just as well should change the Declaration of Independence to state "all people".

CyricZ posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

CyricZ posted...

Are there any lines in the play where the priest's gender is thematically important or commented on?

The priest's gender is extremely important because he can't perform the duties of a priest if he isn't male. That is what Shakespeare would have believed and he would view the people who changed the gender if his priest characters as heretics, as do many orthodox Christians today--hundreds of millions of them actually.

How arrogant are you to assume "this is what Shakespeare believed"? Hell, the world doesn't even truly know Shakespeare or his identity, or if indeed he is a "him". There's some massive assumption making in your posts all across the board.

Have you even done any research at all into the concept of Shakespeare?

The concept of female priests was an extremely marginal view in the late 1500s and it's quite uncontroversial to think Shakespeare, as a member of the establishment religion with possible Catholic sympathies would have held it unthinkable.

Garioshi posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

frozenshock posted...

Well then make a Shakespeare play yourself and hire an all-male cast instead of complaining about female actors.

There were already plenty of female characters, as is the norm in Shakespeare's comedies.

Changing the priest was gratuitous and necessarily marginalizes any orthodox Christians in the audience who may share Shakespeare's religious beliefs, as it erases their cultural heritage.

do you want some cheese with that whine

Sure

Funkydog posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

CyricZ posted...

Are there any lines in the play where the priest's gender is thematically important or commented on?

The priest's gender is extremely important because he can't perform the duties of a priest if he isn't male. That is what Shakespeare would have believed and he would view the people who changed the gender if his priest characters as heretics, as do many orthodox Christians today--hundreds of millions of them actually.

You realise the Church of England now has female bishops, yes?

And many Anglicans and former Anglicans view that as a massive heresy.

Shakespeare himself would have shared that view, and he incidentally may have been a secret Catholic himself, who do not have male priests.

COVxy posted...

If you're culture must be to the exclusion of others, it probably wasn't a very good culture to begin with.

So then I guess liberal culture isn't very good since it excludes traditional religions?

See how that works?

CyricZ posted...

Are there any lines in the play where the priest's gender is thematically important or commented on?

The priest's gender is extremely important because he can't perform the duties of a priest if he isn't male. That is what Shakespeare would have believed and he would view the people who changed the gender if his priest characters as heretics, as do many orthodox Christians today--hundreds of millions of them actually.

ThePieReborn posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

And rigorous adherence to prior casting considerations is required because...?

How is it a "casting consideration"?

The priest is literally a male and referred to by the customary title of "Father"?

The showrunners had to consciously alter the text, changing the title to Mother, in complete disregard of anything Shakespeare would have ever contemplated, and in complete infidelity to both the text and its historical context.

And...? I fail to see how that's of any consequence. The showrunners can do what they will since it's their production. I would also think that the themes in a play are of greater importance than adherence to details that do nothing for said themes.

No one is disputing that the showrunners can run a shitty show if they so desire.

The point is that liberals assume that by being "inclusive" they are making room for everyone. However, this belief will always be insincere. They are merely making room for the right kind of people.

They make this clear time and again when they constantly denigrate orthodox Christians and their cultural heritage, which they do so many ways. Calls for inclusion are thus just a convenient cover for their divisive practices.

Doom_Art posted...

TC are you the guy who once said the "post war liberal democratic order is my enemy"?

I don't recall ever saying that

shockthemonkey posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Traditionally only males could act in Shakespeares plays so if the part of a woman is being played by a woman theyre shitting all over tradition and trying to erase history.

Its entirely different to have females play female characters vs changing a character's gender and role to satisfy modern political preferences.

You might as well rewrite Julius Caesar as a young Arab woman.

Oh so its fucking fine when you do it but when anyone else breaks tradition its a problem? Youre a hypocrite

Way to escalate beyond reasoned debate at the first opportunity.

I'm done with you.

frozenshock posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

frozenshock posted...

Well then make a Shakespeare play yourself and hire an all-male cast instead of complaining about female actors.

There were already plenty of female characters, as is the norm in Shakespeare's comedies.

Changing the priest was gratuitous and necessarily marginalizes any orthodox Christians in the audience who may share Shakespeare's religious beliefs, as it erases their cultural heritage.

I don't think christian cultural heritage is so fragile as to be "erased" by a woman playing the role of a priest in a stage play.

That's why I said this is merely one anecdote.

If you are an orthodox Christian with an interest in culture, you see a million subtle slights of this variety every week.

shockthemonkey posted...

Traditionally only males could act in Shakespeares plays so if the part of a woman is being played by a woman theyre shitting all over tradition and trying to erase history.

Its entirely different to have females play female characters vs changing a character's gender and role to satisfy modern political preferences.

You might as well rewrite Julius Caesar as a young Arab woman.

ThePieReborn posted...

And rigorous adherence to prior casting considerations is required because...?

How is it a "casting consideration"?

The priest is literally a male and referred to by the customary title of "Father"?

The showrunners had to consciously alter the text, changing the title to Mother, in complete disregard of anything Shakespeare would have ever contemplated, and in complete infidelity to both the text and its historical context.

frozenshock posted...

Well then make a Shakespeare play yourself and hire an all-male cast instead of complaining about female actors.

There were already plenty of female characters, as is the norm in Shakespeare's comedies.

Changing the priest was gratuitous and necessarily marginalizes any orthodox Christians in the audience who may share Shakespeare's religious beliefs, as it erases their cultural heritage.

ledbowman posted...

There are lots and lots and lots of liberal Christians.

The most liberal churches are the ones that are dying the fastest which is not surprising because they have no discipline in their beliefs.

GallisOTK posted...

Tradition is never a good reason to do something over another option that makes more sense and is more relevant to the world today. If anything, the "that's the way we've always done it for hundreds of years" argument is a bad thing because it shows that the belief is most likely outdated and not relevant to our society today.

Tell us a good reason to not allow a woman to play that role besides "it's how we've always done it" and maybe your argument will be considered.

The reason is that Shakespeare wrote the character as a male, Shakespeare was a Christian with orthodox beliefs, Anglican/Catholic priests are males, the play is set in the past when all priests were males, etc etc etc.

There is no reason nor need to "update" Shakespeare whatsoever. Only a cultural idiot can't appreciate a play merely because it was written hundreds of years ago, without having to modernize it.

But, true, most Americans qualify as such.