Discussion:
Mark Gatiss protests PC loony casting
Add Reply
Tim Bruening
2017-06-13 16:40:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Does Mark agree with Aggie that most of the audience is turned off by the featuring of homosexual relationships?
The Last Doctor
2017-06-13 16:49:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Does Mark agree with Aggie that most of the audience is turned off by the
featuring of homosexual relationships?
I think I can confidently say "no" to that one
--
"I am a Muslim and there is nothing Islamic about killing innocent people
in Paris, San Bernardino, or anywhere else in the world. True Muslims know
that the ruthless violence of so called Islamic jihadists goes against the
very tenets of our religion. We as Muslims have to stand up to those who
use Islam to advance their own personal agenda. They have alienated many
from learning about Islam. True Muslims know or should know that it goes
against our religion to try and force Islam on anybody. Speaking as
someone who has never been accused of political correctness, I believe that
our political leaders should use their position to bring understanding
about the religion of Islam and clarify that these misguided murderers have
perverted people's views on what Islam really is." - Muhammad Ali
Agamemnon
2017-06-13 18:57:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Does Mark agree with Aggie that most of the audience is turned off by the
featuring of homosexual relationships?
I think I can confidently say "no" to that one
How do you know?

Not all gays are PC loonies.
The Last Doctor
2017-06-13 20:59:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Does Mark agree with Aggie that most of the audience is turned off by the
featuring of homosexual relationships?
I think I can confidently say "no" to that one
How do you know?
Not all gays are PC loonies.
There may be such a thing as a "PC Loony" but it doesn't mean what you
think it means.

The only loonies around this newsgroup are the anti-PC ones.

Why do you imagine that the average gay person, any more than the average
straight person, would share your delusion that "most of the audience is
turned off by the featuring of homosexual relationships?"

That's just YOU. And just YOU is only "most of the audience" for your own
obsessions.
--
"I am a Muslim and there is nothing Islamic about killing innocent people
in Paris, San Bernardino, or anywhere else in the world. True Muslims know
that the ruthless violence of so called Islamic jihadists goes against the
very tenets of our religion. We as Muslims have to stand up to those who
use Islam to advance their own personal agenda. They have alienated many
from learning about Islam. True Muslims know or should know that it goes
against our religion to try and force Islam on anybody. Speaking as
someone who has never been accused of political correctness, I believe that
our political leaders should use their position to bring understanding
about the religion of Islam and clarify that these misguided murderers have
perverted people's views on what Islam really is." - Muhammad Ali
Agamemnon
2017-06-13 21:09:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Agamemnon
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Does Mark agree with Aggie that most of the audience is turned off by the
featuring of homosexual relationships?
I think I can confidently say "no" to that one
How do you know?
Not all gays are PC loonies.
There may be such a thing as a "PC Loony" but it doesn't mean what you
think it means.
The only loonies around this newsgroup are the anti-PC ones.
Wrong.
Post by The Last Doctor
Why do you imagine that the average gay person, any more than the average
straight person, would share your delusion that "most of the audience is
turned off by the featuring of homosexual relationships?"
That's just YOU. And just YOU is only "most of the audience" for your own
obsessions.
It is a scientific, psychological, and biological fact that
heterosexuals are turned off and repulsed by homosexual relationships.

It's intrusive to watch other people kissing or having sex unless it's
pornography and that is why people demand that it be shown after the
watershed. It's repulsive if you are heterosexual and the people doing
it are gay men, or unattractive lesbians.

Gays can have programmes of their own featuring gay relationships.
Unless they're camp I don't want to watch them, therefore I and the
majority of people do not want homosexual relationships portrayed on
Doctor Who or any other family TV show. The writers can't even get
heterosexual relationships right.
The Other Doctor
2017-06-13 21:39:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Agamemnon
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Does Mark agree with Aggie that most of the audience is turned off by the
featuring of homosexual relationships?
I think I can confidently say "no" to that one
How do you know?
Not all gays are PC loonies.
There may be such a thing as a "PC Loony" but it doesn't mean what you
think it means.
The only loonies around this newsgroup are the anti-PC ones.
Wrong.
Post by The Last Doctor
Why do you imagine that the average gay person, any more than the average
straight person, would share your delusion that "most of the audience is
turned off by the featuring of homosexual relationships?"
That's just YOU. And just YOU is only "most of the audience" for your own
obsessions.
It is a scientific, psychological, and biological fact that
heterosexuals are turned off and repulsed by homosexual relationships.
It's intrusive to watch other people kissing or having sex unless it's
pornography and that is why people demand that it be shown after the
watershed. It's repulsive if you are heterosexual and the people doing
it are gay men, or unattractive lesbians.
Gays can have programmes of their own featuring gay relationships.
Unless they're camp I don't want to watch them, therefore I and the
majority of people do not want homosexual relationships portrayed on
Doctor Who or any other family TV show. The writers can't even get
heterosexual relationships right.
You're wrong, Aggy. If a character is well developed, viewers will care
for them whatever their sexuality.

You may not realise this, but the majority of people are already in
healthy relationships. Have you ever kissed anyone? From the way you're
talking, I would guess not. I have. I don't dream about kissing actors
and actors. I don't dream about kissing the characters they are playing.
I don't need to.

Perhaps you don't understand this, but 2 people will kiss each other -
either because they care about each other or because they love each
other. This happens in real life to most people, if not to you.
Therefore it should also happen to fictional characters. If you can't
deal with it - well that's your problem, no one else's.
Agamemnon
2017-06-13 23:12:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Agamemnon
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Agamemnon
Post by The Last Doctor
Post by Tim Bruening
Does Mark agree with Aggie that most of the audience is turned off by the
featuring of homosexual relationships?
I think I can confidently say "no" to that one
How do you know?
Not all gays are PC loonies.
There may be such a thing as a "PC Loony" but it doesn't mean what you
think it means.
The only loonies around this newsgroup are the anti-PC ones.
Wrong.
Post by The Last Doctor
Why do you imagine that the average gay person, any more than the average
straight person, would share your delusion that "most of the audience is
turned off by the featuring of homosexual relationships?"
That's just YOU. And just YOU is only "most of the audience" for your own
obsessions.
It is a scientific, psychological, and biological fact that
heterosexuals are turned off and repulsed by homosexual relationships.
It's intrusive to watch other people kissing or having sex unless it's
pornography and that is why people demand that it be shown after the
watershed. It's repulsive if you are heterosexual and the people doing
it are gay men, or unattractive lesbians.
Gays can have programmes of their own featuring gay relationships.
Unless they're camp I don't want to watch them, therefore I and the
majority of people do not want homosexual relationships portrayed on
Doctor Who or any other family TV show. The writers can't even get
heterosexual relationships right.
You're wrong, Aggy. If a character is well developed, viewers will care
for them whatever their sexuality.
Wrong. It was disgusting having to watch Captain Jack in bed with a man.
Post by The Other Doctor
You may not realise this, but the majority of people are already in
healthy relationships. Have you ever kissed anyone? From the way you're
Yes.
Post by The Other Doctor
talking, I would guess not. I have. I don't dream about kissing actors
and actors. I don't dream about kissing the characters they are playing.
I don't need to.
I do not want to watch two men kissing period let alone dream about it.
Post by The Other Doctor
Perhaps you don't understand this, but 2 people will kiss each other -
either because they care about each other or because they love each
other. This happens in real life to most people, if not to you.
Therefore it should also happen to fictional characters. If you can't
deal with it - well that's your problem, no one else's.
The only fictional characters I want to see it happen to are
heterosexual ones that I find attractive. Showing two ugly women kissing
is like showing two dogs having sex. Both are offensive except in a
nature show and I don't want to watch either. It's an invasion of my and
the majority of people's privacy and sexuality.

Get the stupid PC loony brainwashing out of your head. It is not natural
for a heterosexual to enjoy gay romance.

How many gay romantic novels have you read or do you want to read? Do
you make a habit of reading them? No one does except gays.
solar penguin
2017-06-14 11:32:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
It is a scientific, psychological, and biological fact that
heterosexuals are turned off and repulsed by homosexual relationships.
If it's a scientific fact, please provide scientific, peer-reviewed research,
published in a scientific journal, confirming it.
The Doctor
2017-06-14 13:47:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
It is a scientific, psychological, and biological fact that
heterosexuals are turned off and repulsed by homosexual relationships.
If it's a scientific fact, please provide scientific, peer-reviewed research,
published in a scientific journal, confirming it.
It is not safe to come out of the nuclear bunker.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Talk Sense to a fool and he calls you foolish - Euripides
The Other Doctor
2017-06-14 16:38:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
It is a scientific, psychological, and biological fact that
heterosexuals are turned off and repulsed by homosexual relationships.
If it's a scientific fact, please provide scientific, peer-reviewed research,
published in a scientific journal, confirming it.
Similarly with his assertion that there were no black soldiers in the
British Army in 1881. Don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't around
at the time. Perhaps Aggy has exclusive access to photos that
demonstrate the entire army was exclusively white, bar a single black
soldier. And is it just me, or does it not seem likely that if there was
1 soldier we know about, there are bound to be many more we don't?
Agamemnon
2017-06-14 17:55:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
It is a scientific, psychological, and biological fact that
heterosexuals are turned off and repulsed by homosexual relationships.
If it's a scientific fact, please provide scientific, peer-reviewed research,
published in a scientific journal, confirming it.
Similarly with his assertion that there were no black soldiers in the
British Army in 1881. Don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't around
at the time. Perhaps Aggy has exclusive access to photos that
demonstrate the entire army was exclusively white, bar a single black
soldier. And is it just me, or does it not seem likely that if there was
1 soldier we know about, there are bound to be many more we don't?
Ask your question to Mark Gatiss.

"Mark Gatiss said he was uneasy about a “brilliant young black actor”
being cast as one of the soldiers, because “there weren’t any black
soldiers in Victoria’s army”."
The Other Doctor
2017-06-14 18:18:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
It is a scientific, psychological, and biological fact that
heterosexuals are turned off and repulsed by homosexual relationships.
If it's a scientific fact, please provide scientific, peer-reviewed research,
published in a scientific journal, confirming it.
Similarly with his assertion that there were no black soldiers in the
British Army in 1881. Don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't
around at the time. Perhaps Aggy has exclusive access to photos that
demonstrate the entire army was exclusively white, bar a single black
soldier. And is it just me, or does it not seem likely that if there
was 1 soldier we know about, there are bound to be many more we don't?
Ask your question to Mark Gatiss.
"Mark Gatiss said he was uneasy about a “brilliant young black actor”
being cast as one of the soldiers, because “there weren’t any black
soldiers in Victoria’s army”."
Have you bothered to read the rest of what Gatiss said? He was initially
uneasy. He acknowledges that we now try to be more representational and
to make everything less homogeneously white. RTD was similarly keen to
make sure the show had "colourblind" casting. And in doing further
research, Gatiss learned about Jimmy Durham who was a black soldier.
Adam H. Kerman
2017-06-14 18:34:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Agamemnon
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
It is a scientific, psychological, and biological fact that
heterosexuals are turned off and repulsed by homosexual relationships.
If it's a scientific fact, please provide scientific, peer-reviewed research,
published in a scientific journal, confirming it.
Similarly with his assertion that there were no black soldiers in the
British Army in 1881. Don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't
around at the time. Perhaps Aggy has exclusive access to photos that
demonstrate the entire army was exclusively white, bar a single black
soldier. And is it just me, or does it not seem likely that if there
was 1 soldier we know about, there are bound to be many more we don't?
Ask your question to Mark Gatiss.
Mark Gatiss said he was uneasy about a "brilliant young black actor"
being cast as one of the soldiers, because "there weren't any black
soldiers in Victoria's army".
Have you bothered to read the rest of what Gatiss said? He was initially
uneasy. He acknowledges that we now try to be more representational and
to make everything less homogeneously white. RTD was similarly keen to
make sure the show had "colourblind" casting. And in doing further
research, Gatiss learned about Jimmy Durham who was a black soldier.
I'm going to agree in part with Aggie here. I can accept the black actor
as colorblind casting, but I refuse to accept that he's playing a black
soldier. Sorry, but unless it's a Jimmy Durham biography, the soldier
wouldn't have been black.

I certainly sympathize with Gatiss's complaint. The producers got a note
demanding that they make one of the soldiers black for the sake of
diversity for its own sake, historical considerations be damned.
Agamemnon
2017-06-14 18:47:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Agamemnon
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
It is a scientific, psychological, and biological fact that
heterosexuals are turned off and repulsed by homosexual relationships.
If it's a scientific fact, please provide scientific, peer-reviewed research,
published in a scientific journal, confirming it.
Similarly with his assertion that there were no black soldiers in the
British Army in 1881. Don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't
around at the time. Perhaps Aggy has exclusive access to photos that
demonstrate the entire army was exclusively white, bar a single black
soldier. And is it just me, or does it not seem likely that if there
was 1 soldier we know about, there are bound to be many more we don't?
Ask your question to Mark Gatiss.
Mark Gatiss said he was uneasy about a "brilliant young black actor"
being cast as one of the soldiers, because "there weren't any black
soldiers in Victoria's army".
Have you bothered to read the rest of what Gatiss said? He was initially
uneasy. He acknowledges that we now try to be more representational and
to make everything less homogeneously white. RTD was similarly keen to
make sure the show had "colourblind" casting. And in doing further
research, Gatiss learned about Jimmy Durham who was a black soldier.
I'm going to agree in part with Aggie here. I can accept the black actor
as colorblind casting, but I refuse to accept that he's playing a black
soldier. Sorry, but unless it's a Jimmy Durham biography, the soldier
wouldn't have been black.
Jimmy Durham wasn't even born at the time the episode was set and there
was already black representation in this episode in the form of Pearl
Mackie.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/roots/2003/10/jimmydurham.shtml
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I certainly sympathize with Gatiss's complaint. The producers got a note
demanding that they make one of the soldiers black for the sake of
diversity for its own sake, historical considerations be damned.
Exactly.
Agamemnon
2017-06-14 18:44:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Agamemnon
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
It is a scientific, psychological, and biological fact that
heterosexuals are turned off and repulsed by homosexual relationships.
If it's a scientific fact, please provide scientific, peer-reviewed research,
published in a scientific journal, confirming it.
Similarly with his assertion that there were no black soldiers in the
British Army in 1881. Don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't
around at the time. Perhaps Aggy has exclusive access to photos that
demonstrate the entire army was exclusively white, bar a single black
soldier. And is it just me, or does it not seem likely that if there
was 1 soldier we know about, there are bound to be many more we don't?
Ask your question to Mark Gatiss.
"Mark Gatiss said he was uneasy about a “brilliant young black actor”
being cast as one of the soldiers, because “there weren’t any black
soldiers in Victoria’s army”."
Have you bothered to read the rest of what Gatiss said? He was initially
uneasy. He acknowledges that we now try to be more representational and
to make everything less homogeneously white. RTD was similarly keen to
make sure the show had "colourblind" casting. And in doing further
research, Gatiss learned about Jimmy Durham who was a black soldier.
What the interview shows is that Gatiss was systematically bullied and
blackmailed into accepting this racist casting decision by the producers
which could only be justified on the feeble evidence of just one black
solider serving in an army of around 2 million soldiers and not until
1899, 18 years after this episode was set, when he was just 14 years of
age. Thus by the time he was 16 and allowed into active service, Queen
Victoria was already dead. Therefore Mark Gatiss' claim that “there
weren’t any black soldiers in Victoria’s army” is 100% correct.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/roots/2003/10/jimmydurham.shtml

This blatant, sick, and disgusting racism by the BBC comes on top of
turning down candidates for jobs because they are white.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3621658/BBC-turn-trainees-WHITE-Job-applicants-stunned-told-corporation-wants-people-ethnic-minority-backgrounds.html
The Other Doctor
2017-06-14 18:57:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by Agamemnon
Post by The Other Doctor
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
It is a scientific, psychological, and biological fact that
heterosexuals are turned off and repulsed by homosexual
relationships.
If it's a scientific fact, please provide scientific, peer-reviewed research,
published in a scientific journal, confirming it.
Similarly with his assertion that there were no black soldiers in
the British Army in 1881. Don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't
around at the time. Perhaps Aggy has exclusive access to photos that
demonstrate the entire army was exclusively white, bar a single
black soldier. And is it just me, or does it not seem likely that if
there was 1 soldier we know about, there are bound to be many more
we don't?
Ask your question to Mark Gatiss.
"Mark Gatiss said he was uneasy about a “brilliant young black actor”
being cast as one of the soldiers, because “there weren’t any black
soldiers in Victoria’s army”."
Have you bothered to read the rest of what Gatiss said? He was
initially uneasy. He acknowledges that we now try to be more
representational and to make everything less homogeneously white. RTD
was similarly keen to make sure the show had "colourblind" casting.
And in doing further research, Gatiss learned about Jimmy Durham who
was a black soldier.
What the interview shows is that Gatiss was systematically bullied and
blackmailed into accepting this racist casting decision by the producers
which could only be justified on the feeble evidence of just one black
solider serving in an army of around 2 million soldiers and not until
1899, 18 years after this episode was set, when he was just 14 years of
age. Thus by the time he was 16 and allowed into active service, Queen
Victoria was already dead. Therefore Mark Gatiss' claim that “there
weren’t any black soldiers in Victoria’s army” is 100% correct.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/roots/2003/10/jimmydurham.shtml
This blatant, sick, and disgusting racism by the BBC comes on top of
turning down candidates for jobs because they are white.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3621658/BBC-turn-trainees-WHITE-Job-applicants-stunned-told-corporation-wants-people-ethnic-minority-backgrounds.html
Ah. That explains it. You're one of them. A "Daily Mail" reader.
Everyone else knows that the Daily Mail is just a comic for those who
believe themselves (mistakenly) to be members of the middle classes.
It's also one of the best-selling brands of toilet paper. In order to
read it, you need to wear a pair of rose-tinted spectacles. Then you can
read articles that describe how great everything was in the 1950s before
the Islamic Conquest and the introduction of drugs, fat women, asylum
seekers, paedophiles, Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand, the homeless,
brown people, and the invention of sex.

Agamemnon
2017-06-14 18:12:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
It is a scientific, psychological, and biological fact that
heterosexuals are turned off and repulsed by homosexual relationships.
If it's a scientific fact, please provide scientific, peer-reviewed research,
published in a scientific journal, confirming it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness

"A 2003 study in the area concluded that heterosexual women are about
equally aroused when viewing men or women. Heterosexual men were only
aroused by women. This study verified arousal in the test subjects by
connecting them to brain imaging devices. Notably, the same study
reported arousal for women upon viewing animals mating."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Possible_gender_differences_for_preferences

The above proves everything I have ever said. Now shut up and stop
making a fool of yourself.
The Other Doctor
2017-06-14 18:23:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Agamemnon
Post by solar penguin
Post by Agamemnon
It is a scientific, psychological, and biological fact that
heterosexuals are turned off and repulsed by homosexual relationships.
If it's a scientific fact, please provide scientific, peer-reviewed research,
published in a scientific journal, confirming it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness
"A 2003 study in the area concluded that heterosexual women are about
equally aroused when viewing men or women. Heterosexual men were only
aroused by women. This study verified arousal in the test subjects by
connecting them to brain imaging devices. Notably, the same study
reported arousal for women upon viewing animals mating."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Possible_gender_differences_for_preferences
The above proves everything I have ever said. Now shut up and stop
making a fool of yourself.
Only one person making a fool of themself here, Aggy. You claimed that
"heterosexuals are turned off and repulsed by homosexual relationships".
That's not what your wikipedia links say. They're talking about people
getting sexually aroused.

Is this the only reason you watch a TV show - to find scenes of pretty
young women you can lust and fantasise over?

I'm a heterosexual man. I've got no problem at all with Bill being
played by Pearl Mackie, and the fact that the character is a lesbian
does not worry me in the slightest. Other than yourself, I don't know of
anyone else who has a problem with this either.
Adam H. Kerman
2017-06-14 18:38:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Doctor
I'm a heterosexual man. I've got no problem at all with Bill being
played by Pearl Mackie, and the fact that the character is a lesbian
does not worry me in the slightest. Other than yourself, I don't know of
anyone else who has a problem with this either.
It doesn't bother me that she's a lesbian, although the lesbian relationship
in that first story was terrible because of the writing.

You know what bothers the hell out of me? That the writers decided to make
"Bill" a unisex name. That I will not accept.

If anyone has the temerity to make "Adam" or "Eve" unisex names, I'll sue.
The Doctor
2017-06-13 18:42:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Bruening
Does Mark agree with Aggie that most of the audience is turned off by
the featuring of homosexual relationships?
Please avoid flames.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
Yahweh, Queen & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Talk Sense to a fool and he calls you foolish - Euripides
Loading...