@aholejones said:

This 'beautiful' exchange suddenly just pops up in this new Liam Neeson action movie 'The Ice Road' where you have a native american ruff-n-tuff female trucker riding a truck with some white insurance guy and the insurance guy offers her a sandwitch: "You want a sandwitch? You haven't eaten since we left." "You'll know when I'm hungry. It's very unatractive." "You get cranky?" "Worse. I act white."

Even though it adds absolutely nothing to the story and seems very much out of place it is very important that the scene was included so modern audiences can properly enjoy this action/thriller.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I think it added plenty to the story and is very much in place - you just have to understand the overarching issues of racism in a province/region like Manitoba which, I think, the movie did a fair job of depicting as concisely as possible, for those who were paying attention.

It starts when she's getting out of jail, and she tells the cop she'll keep protesting till they got off Indigenous land. He says the parking lot is owned by the municipality, and she says "I'm talking about North America." So, in one scene, it is established that she's active in rebelling against "settlers" (which is the derogatory term Indigenous people use to describe European colonialists), and willing to sacrifice for a greater good for her people.

Later, the main antagonist uses the "you people" disparaging term against her.

So, when she talks about what happens when she gets "hangry", she compares how she behaves to how she sees settlers, which is, through the eyes of centuries of oppression. If you think having to listen to this line is annoying, try to put yourself in the shoes of an Indigenous person whose culture, heritage, and people have been ravaged cruelly and inhumanely.

Oh well, at least they managed to also include a scene where Neeson has and uses a pistol even though it is about truckers driving icy roads. You have to keep those ice roads in their place and what better way than with a gat.

It wasn't his gun. Did you actually watch the movie before coming here to talk about it? And, hey, I've commented on movies I haven't seen, but I own it and concede it up front.

@mechajutaro said:

@aholejones said:

This 'beautiful' exchange suddenly just pops up in this new Liam Neeson action movie 'The Ice Road' where you have a native american ruff-n-tuff female trucker riding a truck with some white insurance guy and the insurance guy offers her a sandwitch: "You want a sandwitch? You haven't eaten since we left." "You'll know when I'm hungry. It's very unatractive." "You get cranky?" "Worse. I act white."

Even though it adds absolutely nothing to the story and seems very much out of place it is very important that the scene was included so modern audiences can properly enjoy this action/thriller.

Oh well, at least they managed to also include a scene where Neeson has and uses a pistol even though it is about truckers driving icy roads. You have to keep those ice roads in their place and what better way than with a gat.

In the interest of promoting racial equality, the next couple of Liam Neeson movies out to include the following scenes:

Two sanitation workers set out to climb down into a manhole for a hard days work. One is a potbellied white guy who spends his off hours playing video games, and reads almost nothing but comic books. The other is a black guy with dreads who identifies as pansexual, and a Congressional Medal Of Honor recipient who's also studying to be an astrophysicist in night school. Before they head down into the subterranean depths of their city, the black guy offers the white guy a swig of malt liquor. The white guy turns it down, with the following explanation: "I don't think you'll like me when I start chugging that s-it. I start to act black."

Two lawyers head into court on the first day of a high-profile murder case. One is a nebbish blonde white guy in horn rimmed classes and Brooks Brothers. The other lawyer is a transexual East Asian who recently converted to islam. The East Asian transexual who recently converted to Islam encourages the white guy to grab a burger, rather than walking into court on an empty stomach. Sheher's rationale for encouraging the white guy to do as much? "The last time you gave an opening statement on an empty stomach, you began involuntarily singing Suki Yaki Hot Saki Sue, right there in the middle of court"

This is not racial equity at all. Give this false equivalence claptrap a rest. In North America, neither Black people nor Asian people have been in positions of centuries-entrenched political, socio-economic and institutionalized power, and used that power to oppress white people over the course of generations. FFS.

And, trust that you'll be wasting your time replying to foist any attempt to justify this BS.

@mechajutaro said:

This is not racial equity at all. Give this false equivalence claptrap a rest. In North America, neither Black people nor Asian people have been in positions of centuries-entrenched political, socio-economic and institutionalized power, and used that power to oppress white people over the course of generations. FFS.

True.

If only you'd stopped right there. You were doing so well...until you kept going.

Racial prejudice and ethnic chauvinism is A-OK, provided that one has ancestors he or she can point to, who were disenfranchised in some way.

I never said that. I merely pointed out that it is understandable that an Indigenous person would have a negative view of a white person. That said, her character only ever gave that attitude to bad people; she got along just fine with Neeson's character and his brother. She wasn't lashing out blindly at any and all white people, just the assholes.

I'm not a white guy

Good for you.

and I can tell you

...your opinion. Please do, but recognize it's only that. Nothing more.

beyond a shadow of a doubt, this Woke drivel is furthering liberty and access to opportunity for all Americans-regardless of skin color or heritage-in ways that could never have been imagined during the heyday of The Civil Rights Movement.

They did things their way in their time. In this time, people do things in the way they're doing them now. Criticizing how people fight oppression is a distraction the oppressor loves to see us engage.

Tinseltown's incessant parroting of Critical Race Theory's key tenets

After a century of Tinseltown's incessant white saviours, white heroes, little white lies, and the bad guys dressed in black, critical race theory tenets are welcome balance to the equation. Boo hoo for you.

isn't driving more and more whites(who still comprise the majority of the population here in The US) into the arms of Richard Spencer and his many imitators.

As if white supremacists need a reason, or a push, to be more militant, outspoken, and violent. When folks in Wilmington or Tulsa were minding their own business, taking care of their business and themselves, who do you blame for the white uprisings? I'll tell you where I lay the blame - squarely on the white supremacists.

There's no backlash against all of us darker skinned people on the way

Whenever there is social progress, white supremacists backlash. One need look no further than to the graphs that clearly illustrate the relationship between documented progress and the installation of Confederate monuments. Beyond that one metric, countless other examples abound. No way in hell I'll lay blame for backlash on the oppressed. The oppressor loves that BS.

Nice chatting with you.

@mechajutaro said:

It starts when she's getting out of jail, and she tells the cop she'll keep protesting till they got off Indigenous land. He says the parking lot is owned by the municipality, and she says "I'm talking about North America." So, in one scene, it is established that she's active in rebelling against "settlers" (which is the derogatory term Indigenous people use to describe European colonialists), and willing to sacrifice for a greater good for her people

She could help her people a lot more by first getting a grasp of very basic history. There were no humans of any color or creed in North America for quite a long time, until several waves of East Asian and later on folks from the Eurasian steppe all set up shop here, mingled, and created what we today call American Indians. First Nations no more or less settlers than anyone else in America is

They built residential schools and broken treaties with themselves before Europeans showed up? They lived out of balance on this land and drove the largest herd of land mammals on earth to the brink of extinction? They polluted the rivers, cut down all the trees, created dust bowls that destroyed their own entire way of life beneath them?

@mechajutaro said:

They built residential schools and broken treaties with themselves before Europeans showed up?

Nah,

Fair enough.

but they did carry out campaigns of ethnic cleansing against one another, long before anyone of them had run into a William or a Jose from Britain or Spain. Read up on the various wars between The Plains Tribes, it you doubt me

War is not novel to any group or culture. Human beings have been warring as long as there has been human beings. Again, that's not what we're talking about here. False equivalence.

They lived out of balance on this land and drove the largest herd of land mammals on earth to the brink of extinction?

If you call this "living in balance with the land"(this itself is a racist stereotype about American Indians invented by European intellectuals, who dreamed up the idea of "The Noble Savage")and not hunting entire species to extinction, then yeah....

"Over a period of 1,000 years, it took so long they didn't realize they were doing it." That's a smidge different than shooting bison from a train for sport, and piling skulls into small mountains to pose for pictures. At least, to me anyway. And they did it all the while still being able to drink the water right out of the river.

There's nothing progressive about viewing indigenous people as somehow more pure than the rest of us, Mus. That's condescending and simplistic at best, and a denial of their humanity at worst

I actually appreciate this sentiment here. FWIW.

@mechajutaro said:

If only you'd stopped right there. You were doing so well...until you kept going

If only you'd quoted me in context in your second to last reply, Mus. It's this sort of chicanery which reveals those who've gotten up on The Woke bandwagon for the desperate sophists that they are

Chicanery! Your flair for words made me laugh there, Mech - thanks for that!

@mechajutaro said:

War is not novel to any group or culture. Human beings have been warring as long as there has been human beings. Again, that's not what we're talking about here. False equivalence.

The character in this movie is regurgitating Woke talking points, which have fooled lots of folk into believing that American Indians have been on the North American continent since Pangea(again, they're descendants of colonialists in their own right. Waves of East Asian and Eurasian settlers, namely), and that they were more or less homogenous and living in peace with each other, until those horrible white Europeans came along and sh-t the bed. This is ahistorical at best, and outright sham scholarship at worst. North America was rife with genocidal warfare and atrocities, centuries before the Spaniards and the Brits arrived. The conflict between American Indians and Europeans was little more than a case of another player joining the game

"Over a period of 1,000 years, it took so long they didn't realize they were doing it." That's a smidge different than shooting bison from a train for sport, and piling skulls into small mountains to pose for pictures.

Agreed. Whites were shooting bison from trains for a much shorter period than the indigenous people were hunting the giant mammals of North America to extinction. This isn't something to be condemned either. Humans are part of nature, and we've done this since times immemorial, on every continent that we exist on. Let's preserve those mountain gorillas and whooping cranes, and let's also get past the idea that we're doing this for anything other than sentimental reasons

And they did it all the while still being able to drink the water right out of the river.

That depends entirely on where one went in pre-Columbian America. Peoples in The Northeast and The Pueblo people were heavily landed, and used their rivers as latrines, just as urbanized Europeans were doing around the same time. Today, the reservations are among the last places in the nation without indoor plumbing, and many tribal leaders are actually opposing the abolishment of these hovels

Jane, you ignorant slut.

@mechajutaro said:

...your opinion. Please do, but recognize it's only that. Nothing more

This brings us back around to the subject of this thread more directly:

Go talk to impoverished non-whites living in our ghettoes, barrios, and Indian reservations. Ask them how much relief these Woke shout outs in movies and on TV are bringing to the material deprivation suffered by folks who live in these circumstances. None whatsoever. This isn't an opinion but a documented fact

There was a time when white men could kill a black man, and be acquitted. Shucks, they'd take pictures and sell as postcards to promote tourism to the region. Those were times when Confederate statues were being installed. It's happening a lot less nowadays. Times are changing. Back then, movies depicted certain stereotypes of the day and those ideas permeated society. Today's movies reflect a time in which not only are Confederate statues being taken down, but the good ol' boys who killed Ahmaud Abery were convicted, and cop who killed George Floyd was convicted (with more to come). Those are "documented facts" too, mate. I'm of the firm opinion that changes in life are being reflected in art, and I think these are good changes to be applauded. You want to rain on the progress we have achieved, well, I guess everyone is entitled to see it how they see it. But, as determined as you are to share your opinion, others will do the same right back atcha.

Nice chatting with you.

@mechajutaro said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@mechajutaro said:

War is not novel to any group or culture. Human beings have been warring as long as there has been human beings. Again, that's not what we're talking about here. False equivalence.

The character in this movie is regurgitating Woke talking points, which have fooled lots of folk into believing that American Indians have been on the North American continent since Pangea(again, they're descendants of colonialists in their own right. Waves of East Asian and Eurasian settlers, namely), and that they were more or less homogenous and living in peace with each other, until those horrible white Europeans came along and sh-t the bed. This is ahistorical at best, and outright sham scholarship at worst. North America was rife with genocidal warfare and atrocities, centuries before the Spaniards and the Brits arrived. The conflict between American Indians and Europeans was little more than a case of another player joining the game

"Over a period of 1,000 years, it took so long they didn't realize they were doing it." That's a smidge different than shooting bison from a train for sport, and piling skulls into small mountains to pose for pictures.

Agreed. Whites were shooting bison from trains for a much shorter period than the indigenous people were hunting the giant mammals of North America to extinction. This isn't something to be condemned either. Humans are part of nature, and we've done this since times immemorial, on every continent that we exist on. Let's preserve those mountain gorillas and whooping cranes, and let's also get past the idea that we're doing this for anything other than sentimental reasons

And they did it all the while still being able to drink the water right out of the river.

That depends entirely on where one went in pre-Columbian America. Peoples in The Northeast and The Pueblo people were heavily landed, and used their rivers as latrines, just as urbanized Europeans were doing around the same time. Today, the reservations are among the last places in the nation without indoor plumbing, and many tribal leaders are actually opposing the abolishment of these hovels

Jane, you ignorant slut.

I'm continually astounded. The same folks who voice sentiments like the following ["My opinion is, I think it's unfortunate that people still want to believe that words on the internet are just words; and I think that's a lame excuse to not only be callous to others, but then to also put it on them for failing to accommodate one's callousness. Or, worse yet, to use "it's just words on the internet" to normalize ideas that others translate into actions that can be hurtful or even dangerous.

](https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/550988-free-guy/discuss/615042e172d85500633da1a9?page=2) are the same folk who will quickly resort to gendered("s-ut", in this case)or/and racial epithets, when they can longer rely on solid logic and mountains of empirical evidence to back up their assertions. Going to extraneous lengths to prove just how progressive one is inevitably serves as a mask

Dude, that was a joke. It's a classic line from Saturday Night Live with Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin. You were supposed to interpret it as your having made a point that I couldn't contend with rationally, so I resorted to misogynistic ad hominem. I thought that this was obvious - I mean, your name is not Jane, you're not a woman, this is a movie and TV blog and that particular skit became a part of satire lore.

I didn't know you're such a snowflake, but, if you can't take it, you shouldn't be so quick to dish it.

Sheesh.

Is this the same Liam Neeson who said he wandered the streets indiscriminately looking for any passing "black barsteward" to kill?

You'd imagine if the film industry was as anti-white European as some delicate souls claim repeatedly on a daily basis, that a man like that might struggle to get work.

@mechajutaro said:

didn't know you're such a snowflake, but, if you can't take it, you shouldn't be so quick to dish it.

Sheesh

It was my turn to be a little emo, Mus, given that this has previously been your department In my own right, I'm bringing diversity to this thread, in the same way The Ice Road is(apparently)bringing diversity to the modern action movie

So, when others are "a little emo" you dismiss them; but when you are, well, that's when we must listen to what's "in your own right"?

I see how you work. Here's an idea - instead of being so quick to defend your emotions while making sports of the emotions of others, you could give others the same defense you're so keen to lavish on yourself. This is a learning moment, if you choose to accept it.

And, yes, bring diversity (if that's what you want to call what you were doing) - just be as accommodating of others when they do same.

@Fergoose said:

Is this the same Liam Neeson who said he wandered the streets indiscriminately looking for any passing "black barsteward" to kill?

You'd imagine if the film industry was as anti-white European as some delicate souls claim repeatedly on a daily basis, that a man like that might struggle to get work.

Right? FFS.

@Fergoose said:

Is this the same Liam Neeson who said he wandered the streets indiscriminately looking for any passing "black barsteward" to kill?

You'd imagine if the film industry was as anti-white European as some delicate souls claim repeatedly on a daily basis, that a man like that might struggle to get work.

It just shows the recurring hypocrisy and double standards we see in mainstream movies like this. It's the same Liam Neeson who has been very vocal about his anti-gun sentiment despite most of post Schindler's List movie career having been built on movies that more or less glorify gun violence. This is the same Ryan Reynolds producing a movie preaching us about patriarchy, white privilege and toxic masculinity whose entire career has been pretty built on said "vices". This is the same Mark Ruffalo preaching to us about the woes of capitalism when his entire luxurious lifestyle is built on said capitalism. etc. etc. etc.

"Thanks for sharing your opinion. I think it added plenty to the story and is very much in place - you just have to understand the overarching issues of racism in a province/region like Manitoba which, I think, the movie did a fair job of depicting as concisely as possible, for those who were paying attention.

It starts when she's getting out of jail, and she tells the cop she'll keep protesting till they got off Indigenous land. He says the parking lot is owned by the municipality, and she says "I'm talking about North America." So, in one scene, it is established that she's active in rebelling against "settlers" (which is the derogatory term Indigenous people use to describe European colonialists), and willing to sacrifice for a greater good for her people.

Later, the main antagonist uses the "you people" disparaging term against her.

So, when she talks about what happens when she gets "hangry", she compares how she behaves to how she sees settlers, which is, through the eyes of centuries of oppression. If you think having to listen to this line is annoying, try to put yourself in the shoes of an Indigenous person whose culture, heritage, and people have been ravaged cruelly and inhumanely."

Honestly that scene felt forced, lazy and shoed in just to appease a certain mindset of today. Let's be real, and it's been a while since I watched this movie, but they suddenly just cut to the driver's cabin to show the company hitman having his lunch and offering his sandwitch to his co-driver so they could include her message. The whole scene lasted probably less than a minute. If you think it added plenty to the story I'm not going to argue with you.

"It wasn't his gun. Did you actually watch the movie before coming here to talk about it? And, hey, I've commented on movies I haven't seen, but I own it and concede it up front."

That comment was making light of the fact that they felt it necessary to include the mandatory Liam Neeson pistol scene in a movie about ice road trucking. Not sure what relevance you think it has that the gun wasn't originally his. It would feel out of place and silly even if Scotty beamed it to his hand.

@aholejones said:

@Fergoose said:

Is this the same Liam Neeson who said he wandered the streets indiscriminately looking for any passing "black barsteward" to kill?

You'd imagine if the film industry was as anti-white European as some delicate souls claim repeatedly on a daily basis, that a man like that might struggle to get work.

It just shows the recurring hypocrisy and double standards we see in mainstream movies like this. It's the same Liam Neeson who has been very vocal about his anti-gun sentiment despite most of post Schindler's List movie career having been built on movies that more or less glorify gun violence. This is the same Ryan Reynolds producing a movie preaching us about patriarchy, white privilege and toxic masculinity whose entire career has been pretty built on said "vices". This is the same Mark Ruffalo preaching to us about the woes of capitalism when his entire luxurious lifestyle is built on said capitalism. etc. etc. etc.

"Thanks for sharing your opinion. I think it added plenty to the story and is very much in place - you just have to understand the overarching issues of racism in a province/region like Manitoba which, I think, the movie did a fair job of depicting as concisely as possible, for those who were paying attention.

It starts when she's getting out of jail, and she tells the cop she'll keep protesting till they got off Indigenous land. He says the parking lot is owned by the municipality, and she says "I'm talking about North America." So, in one scene, it is established that she's active in rebelling against "settlers" (which is the derogatory term Indigenous people use to describe European colonialists), and willing to sacrifice for a greater good for her people.

Later, the main antagonist uses the "you people" disparaging term against her.

So, when she talks about what happens when she gets "hangry", she compares how she behaves to how she sees settlers, which is, through the eyes of centuries of oppression. If you think having to listen to this line is annoying, try to put yourself in the shoes of an Indigenous person whose culture, heritage, and people have been ravaged cruelly and inhumanely."

Honestly that scene felt forced, lazy and shoed in just to appease a certain mindset of today. Let's be real, and it's been a while since I watched this movie, but they suddenly just cut to the driver's cabin to show the company hitman having his lunch and offering his sandwitch to his co-driver so they could include her message. The whole scene lasted probably less than a minute. If you think it added plenty to the story I'm not going to argue with you.

"It wasn't his gun. Did you actually watch the movie before coming here to talk about it? And, hey, I've commented on movies I haven't seen, but I own it and concede it up front."

That comment was making light of the fact that they felt it necessary to include the mandatory Liam Neeson pistol scene in a movie about ice road trucking. Not sure what relevance you think it has that the gun wasn't originally his. It would feel out of place and silly even if Scotty beamed it to his hand.

"Mandatory Neeson pistol scene"? C'mon, Neeson was playing a character without those "unique set of skills" we saw in Taken franchise and other of his action movies.

The relevance of it bit being his gun is, this character was NOT an action hero. I was kinda wishing he would have been a better fighter and kill that asshole sooner... but he struggled to dispatch him because Neeson was not playing to typical Neeson type. I think the movie did a great job here of not invoking typical Neeson bad ass, and I give Neeson credit for making his I abilities believable.

@mechajutaro said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@mechajutaro said:

didn't know you're such a snowflake, but, if you can't take it, you shouldn't be so quick to dish it.

Sheesh

It was my turn to be a little emo, Mus, given that this has previously been your department In my own right, I'm bringing diversity to this thread, in the same way The Ice Road is(apparently)bringing diversity to the modern action movie

So, when others are "a little emo" you dismiss them; but when you are, well, that's when we must listen to what's "in your own right"?

I see how you work. Here's an idea - instead of being so quick to defend your emotions while making sports of the emotions of others, you could give others the same defense you're so keen to lavish on yourself. This is a learning moment, if you choose to accept it.

And, yes, bring diversity (if that's what you want to call what you were doing) - just be as accommodating of others when they do same.

You're back to being the snowflake, Mus. All is well in the world

And, that being your take, you are you, and will only as get as much empathy as you give. Which is not much, so, bollucks to "in your own right".