American newspapers just seizing the opportunity to have a little fun with slavery. Totally accidental and/or harmless.
In other news: microaggressions are common verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile or negative slights to marginalized groups. (via Donovon X Ramsey)
What do you think? Catchy headlines or microaggressions?
this is some Grade A racist bullshit
microgressions for sure, some clearly deliberate racism.
could easily have been shortened to “12 years” or even “12” so yeah this is pretty thoughtless, ESPECIALLY those first two headlines, holy hell. Just… like you’re a news headline, not a stand up comedian. Just report the fucking news
oh please, get off your high horses, at this momentum you should all be upset with EVERY single ‘slave’ film ever made with their use and reuse of such subject matter. ‘but wait, those are films, its different.’ bullshit. what your interpreting is not what they’re inferring and you all clearly make a point of being able to understand that fact. with all these assumptions you could just as easily redirect those to any film covering said subject.
”American newspapers just seizing the opportunity to have a little fun with 12 Years of Slave’s title.”
I’m not saying its racist deliberately but you read that shit and tell me it was the wisest way to phrase a headline about a movie about slavery.
"Slave becomes master" OMG SO CLEVER, no its not, its fucking stupid and its gonna make people pissed off for no damn reason
“‘Slave’ actress Lupita” Yo Mike should we run the headline like this, it looks kinda insulting? Nah you’re right we could use the bad press
"Slave escapes with top oscar" How the fuck does a film escape? Even in a metaphorical sense, nobody knows how close these films come when they get voted on so if the reality of it being a win by one vote eludes readers. AND AGAIN great phrasing, I’m sure slavery and racism is never hot button in this shit ass country so run the headline as is. Brilliant.
I’m not talking about the film’s content or any film about slavery in the united states, I’m referring solely to these article’s shitty phrasing. apparently i wasn’t being clear on that?
You were very clear and that’s why i responded, why arn’t you? Is the films content held to a different accountability when it comes to what it has to say/show about slavery (or any other film for that matter)? And that’s exactly my point. You’re cherry picking what to be vocal about. Of course slavery is a hot button issue in the states, it’d be stupid to say otherwise, but then to assume these writers intentionally, hell, unintentionally headlined these stories for (I’m sorry you exact reason alludes me beyond your rage. microaggression? deliberate racism? hostile slights?) would be just as stupid. Its a play on it’s title. You’re looking to deep into it, and that’s precisely why i asked, with all this deep nosing around into what they may or may-not have meant what exactly is the difference between one writers words about the subject versus anothers?
Hahaha, Christ, I’d be a bit more understanding if you just said it was a shitty play on its title, but you among others are insistent on there being a deeper meaning.
Seriously where’s your line in the dirt with being able to fool around with a subject?