Emma Watson

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheLiberator
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheLiberator said:
If He for She starts promoting abortion or abortive forms of “birth control”, then Watson will have played a large role in empowering them. Simply disgusting.

I’m holding out hope that she wasn’t talking about abortion, and I sincerely hope that that wasn’t the message she was trying to convey.

As for playing a witch for eight movies: the Harry Potter books and movies don’t promote witchcraft or anti-Christian themes. They’re entertaining novels. Fantasy. Not The Catcher in the Rye by any means, but enjoyable works of fiction regardless.

You know who was a great cinematic artist? Stanley Kubrick. Stayed out of the public limelight and stuck to doing what he did best: telling stories

“You are an idealist…and I pity you as I would the village idiot.” -Paths of Glory (Kubrick, 1957)
Click to expand...
Chill out 😉
I only posted the page so people would be able to listen to her speech. I don’t know exactly what she meant by controlling our own bodies, but it may have meant about not having to be forced to marry and have children, as children have forced upon them. And the comment about girls in sport etc. 👍
 
She’s had a busy week:
This week’s climate-change marches have brought out some colorful characters with pretty far-out views, among those being actress Emma Thompson, who likened the fight against fossil fuels to the fight against apartheid.

Thompson took the stage at London’s march on Sunday, urging the crowd to boycott events with ties to fossil-fuel companies, including sporting events and media.

“Just as we argued in the 1980s that those who conducted business with apartheid South Africa were aiding and abetting an immoral system, we can say that nobody should profit from raising temperatures, seas, flooding, human suffering, poverty caused by the burning of fossil fuels,” Thompson said.

Among her reforms, she pushed for “car-free days” and forcing energy companies to air health warnings regarding fossil fuels.

“If the future is not green, there is no future,” she concluded. “If the future is not you, there is no future.”

This isn’t Thompson’s first foray into staging a boycott: In 2012, she joined a group of thespians calling on London’s Globe Theatre to withdraw its invitation to an Israeli company for their “shameful record of involvement with illegal Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory.” Habima, the theatre company, went on to perform “The Merchant of Venice.”

For scenes from the marches, make sure to check out National Review Online’s slideshow here.
 
estesbob said:
She’s had a busy week:
This week’s climate-change marches have brought out some colorful characters with pretty far-out views, among those being actress Emma Thompson, who likened the fight against fossil fuels to the fight against apartheid.

Thompson took the stage at London’s march on Sunday, urging the crowd to boycott events with ties to fossil-fuel companies, including sporting events and media.

“Just as we argued in the 1980s that those who conducted business with apartheid South Africa were aiding and abetting an immoral system, we can say that nobody should profit from raising temperatures, seas, flooding, human suffering, poverty caused by the burning of fossil fuels,” Thompson said.

Among her reforms, she pushed for “car-free days” and forcing energy companies to air health warnings regarding fossil fuels.

“If the future is not green, there is no future,” she concluded. “If the future is not you, there is no future.”

This isn’t Thompson’s first foray into staging a boycott: In 2012, she joined a group of thespians calling on London’s Globe Theatre to withdraw its invitation to an Israeli company for their “shameful record of involvement with illegal Israeli settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory.” Habima, the theatre company, went on to perform “The Merchant of Venice.”

For scenes from the marches, make sure to check out National Review Online’s slideshow here.
Click to expand...
??? Did you intend to bring Thompson into this or are you confusing the two because they share the same first name? Or am I missing something?
 
oldcelt said:
Agreed, and in all directions. They are “faces.” That being said, I think Ms. Watson did did a fine job delivering her speech and her interpretation of control was likely contraception. Few wealthy women have abortions.
Click to expand...
Actually upper class white women have more abortions than any other group in America.

I didn’t hear the speech, but it isn’t hard to guess the gist of it. Instead of focusing on real human rights issues, like what happens in many countries around the world, they focus on trivial issues about which only rich white people would ever complain. The constant arguing that women are being oppressed and that they aren’t treated equally is blown way out of proportion. People are easy to control if you can convince them that a large group are being oppressed, even if it isn’t the case. Even those who aren’t members of the ‘oppressed’ class will jump in to scream about the oppression just to prove how ‘tolerant’ and ‘progressive’ they are. And many men will decry the ‘evil’ of men if they can impress women on how ‘pro-woman’ they are.
 
styrgwillidar said:
It’s ok-- I used to confuse Emma Stone with Emma Watson…
Click to expand...
There is Emily Watson (she is in the book thief and many other movies) too, which I have been confused by in the past thinking that it was hermione granger who was in a movie.
 
TheLiberator said:
If He for She starts promoting abortion or abortive forms of “birth control”, then Watson will have played a large role in empowering them. Simply disgusting.

I’m holding out hope that she wasn’t talking about abortion, and I sincerely hope that that wasn’t the message she was trying to convey.

As for playing a witch for eight movies: the Harry Potter books and movies don’t promote witchcraft or anti-Christian themes. They’re entertaining novels. Fantasy. Not The Catcher in the Rye by any means, but enjoyable works of fiction regardless.

You know who was a great cinematic artist? Stanley Kubrick. Stayed out of the public limelight and stuck to doing what he did best: telling stories

“You are an idealist…and I pity you as I would the village idiot.” -Paths of Glory (Kubrick, 1957)
Click to expand...
I agree with you about how great artists. They should stick to what they do well, their art. I respect the actors who may have opinions, but generally keep them to themselves. Instead they become political figures who push an elitist agenda.

I like Harry potter. It is a good story, that is all.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Who should they have chosen instead? Or perhaps they should just let men speak for women?
Click to expand...
Straw man when you pull the “men speak for women” card. That’s been used far too often, so try again please. As for the “who should they have chosen” – I’ll ask “Why Watson?”
Bruised_Reed said:
It’s sort of funny that you minimize that accomplishment. Not many actresses have that many films racked up at that age. After that she acted in other films and graduated from Brown University. She didn’t have to pursue an education. Most of her co-stars haven’t.
Click to expand...
It’s not really funny if you know the reality of the HP contracts. When you’re contracted for seven movies (or was it eight?) it’s rather inevitable to rack up that many movies. I mean, it’s basic employment 101. That type of franchise for any actor, especially if you’re one of the main kids will open doors – future roles and entrance to almost any university. Yes, good for Emma for wanting a college education at an Ivy school and for graduating, but let’s be realistic: If there was no HP franchise and if admins didn’t know her as Hermione then her likeliness of being accepted would have been slim.
She’s 24. She’s only getting started.
Click to expand...
So if she decides to make her own lemonade brand (see my first post on this thread) you’d buy it and say she’s a “business woman”? It’s interesting that “the world is your oyster” mentality is usually thrown around young female entertainers by their admirers; how about the rest of the female population who isn’t named Emma Watson, would you say the same for them? You fanboys (especially for young actresses) sound so much alike. It’s nauseating.
 
Being an artist does not lessen your rights. I seem to remember Charleton Heston being quite vocal. There are many others, right and left.
 
jimmy said:
Actually upper class white women have more abortions than any other group in America.

I didn’t hear the speech, but it isn’t hard to guess the gist of it. Instead of focusing on real human rights issues, like what happens in many countries around the world, they focus on trivial issues about which only rich white people would ever complain. The constant arguing that women are being oppressed and that they aren’t treated equally is blown way out of proportion. People are easy to control if you can convince them that a large group are being oppressed, even if it isn’t the case. Even those who aren’t members of the ‘oppressed’ class will jump in to scream about the oppression just to prove how ‘tolerant’ and ‘progressive’ they are. And many men will decry the ‘evil’ of men if they can impress women on how ‘pro-woman’ they are.
Click to expand...
Perhaps on a per-population basis. If otherwise I would sure like to see that research.
 
simpleas said:
Chill out 😉
I only posted the page so people would be able to listen to her speech. I don’t know exactly what she meant by controlling our own bodies, but it may have meant about not having to be forced to marry and have children, as children have forced upon them. And the comment about girls in sport etc. 👍
Click to expand...
Oh, I didn’t mean to offend you. My message wasn’t directed at you. I just always reply to the last post I see. 🙂
 
oldcelt said:
Being an artist does not lessen your rights. I seem to remember Charleton Heston being quite vocal. There are many others, right and left.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t lessen your rights, but I hate it when left-wing actors act as if they understand the plight of the underclasses.
 
jimmy said:
Actually upper class white women have more abortions than any other group in America.

I didn’t hear the speech, but it isn’t hard to guess the gist of it. Instead of focusing on real human rights issues, like what happens in many countries around the world, they focus on trivial issues about which only rich white people would ever complain. The constant arguing that women are being oppressed and that they aren’t treated equally is blown way out of proportion. People are easy to control if you can convince them that a large group are being oppressed, even if it isn’t the case. Even those who aren’t members of the ‘oppressed’ class will jump in to scream about the oppression just to prove how ‘tolerant’ and ‘progressive’ they are. And many men will decry the ‘evil’ of men if they can impress women on how ‘pro-woman’ they are.
Click to expand...
Actually, she didn’t make men out to be oppressors at all. In fact, not a lot of the media has focused on this, but she even emphasized the important role men and fathers play.

“To date, I’ve seen my father’s role being valued less by society despite my needing his presence as a child as much as my mother’s,”

I liked that. Most feminists I’ve heard don’t like to say that a father’s presence is vital. Usually they say exactly the opposite. But Watson does recognize that.

From my impression, she really sounded like she was trying to defend the equal dignity of both sexes. Which is what feminism was supposed to be about originally.
 
commenter said:
The corporations that own the media are controlled by fewer people today. Those corporations greatly influence many national governments, and the UN. Ms. Watson expresses the views of the media, so she is allowed the big microphone. People who have different views don’t get the big microphone. Each year, diversity is decreased, as the range of permitted views gets narrower.
Click to expand...
Yes, we get globalism and diversity of ethnicity but no diversity of ideas or open minded creativity like we once had.

The dark trifecta is multiculturalism, climate change and free trade.
 
RGCheek said:
Yes, we get globalism and diversity of ethnicity but no diversity of ideas or open minded creativity like we once had.

The dark trifecta is multiculturalism, climate change and free trade.
Click to expand...
I’ll replace free trade with sexual “liberation”/indifference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top