Apparently The Little Mermaid flopped because the world is racist against black people yet here we have a black Spider-Man film performing very well.
In the end this Spider-Man film will outgross TLM worldwide by potentially $200+ million, with a budget of only $100 million compared to TLM's $250 million.
Here lies racism
The beginning of mankind - 02nd June 2023
R.I.P.
These New SpiderMan Movies including the Miles Morales character have been well received by Critics and Fans. If it's a good movie it will find an audience but the Little Mermaid has not had good reviews at all.
shareIt is important to remember that when libs say shit like, "The Little Mermaid flopped cause racism", that they are just talking shit.
THis country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since the mid 60s. Anyone that says otherwise is full of shit.
So then when conservatives say a movie flopped because it is woke is also them talking trash on their end correct? We have plenty of woke films which did well financially you can reference. Such as the Batman, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Everything Everywhere All at Once, Into the Spider-verse etc. So go woke go broke is them trash talking correct?
So because of that, that blacks have had the same opportunities whites have had? Care to double down on that?
I made one point. YOu made two counter points. PICK ONE, and I will address it seriously and honestly.
Otherwise, fuck off.
Meanwhile, let's not forget that mlk himself talked about how the majority of whites agreed with him on equality for blacks. Which makes sense. All of his tactics were designed to get publicity to appeal to those whites, to mobilize their ALREADY EXISTING SUPPORT.
You are being deceptive and you know it. I responded to two points you made numbskull. So is go woke go broke the right talking trash since I just proved it wasn't true?
shareWhich is it? Are you asking me a question or are you making an assertion? Or are you just being a prick?
shareI am asking you a question. You are avoiding it because you know your position is weak. Answer the question.
shareA questoin where you claimed you proved something?
fuck off and come back when you learn english.
See you will not answer it or address it. You will not because you know I am right lol.
shareI know that I am not interested in a question that is mostly an assertion. So fuck off.
shareSo this counts as another concession. I love shutting down boot lickers. Get off this site you scumbag.
shareMake me tough guy. Meanwhile, the fact remains.
This country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since hte mid 60s.
Anyone that says otherwise, is a shit talker.
And also go woke go broke is nothing but a lying buzzword from the right. I like how they want to cherry pick that point.
shareNot one presidential election since the mid 60s, did we have a major candidate who was not pro-"civil rights".
All that talk about who is racist, or not, (against blacks) is mostly fags talking shit.
Go woke go broke is a lie. The point stands.
shareThat is another thread. Why you tryihng to change the subject?
Answer. Cause you're losing.
Hey, remember when Jimmy Carter won the South? Utterly disproved the Southern Strategy Conspiracy Theory.
Why did you refuse to answer my question? The answer because you know I have you dead to rights on a point.
Remember when Obama provided his birth certificate> And your camp still continued on with that stupid conspiracy?
Because I can see that you want to derail the thread because you lost.
Jimmy carter was well known as a pro-civil rights guy and the southern whites had zero problem voting for him. He crushed Ford in the south.
The claim of the south being this seething pit of racism, was proven false that day. 1975
Nope I have beaten you several times. Your own words destroy your point.
Obama proved his birth certificate. Yet idiots like you continued on with the conspiracy.
Oh the south still has plenty of racism. That one action does not disprove the racism in Texas. You know a state where they do not want kids learning about MLK. That is the state you are referring to correct?
The only thing you have ever beaten is your own meat.
Texas? No. I spoke of THE SOUTH AS A WHOLE, that Jimmy Carter won in 1976.
That not enough for you?
bILL Clinton did it too. Decades later. Loser.
Nah beating you is a regular thing. I bet you are a peach to your wife.
Lol just because of that does it mean there is no racism in the south you idiot.
Nope you do not get to jump to another point. Racism still exists and people like yourself want to gaslight.
LOL. i point out historical evidence that the south is not racist, and you start talking shit about "no racism",
a bar that means that you set the bar to ONE OLD GUY.
What a coward you are.
Imperical evidence simply because a guy got voted for who happened to be for civil rights? Lol you realize this does not prove that there is no racism right? He could have just been a popular choice at the time.
shareSo you admit that southern whites had no problem finding Carter and Clinton to be attractive candidates DESPITE both fo them being strong supporters of equality for blacks?
That strongly supports my position, that this nation as a whole, INCLUDING THE SOUTH, has had a bi-partisan consensus in favor of equality for blacks, since hte mid 60s.
Dumbass.
Wait I thought right wingers always said Clinton was a corrupt politician? You are now attempting to say he is some great person who has no shady history with blacks? Seems to me you are cherry picking and propping him up whenever it is convenient for it to support your position.
So since the 60's that means it has been totally equal for black people? I am just making sure I am hearing you right? Is that the claim you are making?
My point was about how he was popular with southern white voters despite being well know as a strong supporter of civil rights.
Thus demonstrating that the myth of the southern white voters as a pit of seething racists, is false.
Personally, yes, I have a negative opinion of him. Based on other issues of his.
Irrelevant to this discussion.
You are an asshole.
Just because someone is popular does not mean that racism is gone. Politicans get support all the time even though they stand for things that group might not be particularly fond of. Plenty of right wingers are anti vaxxers and still supported Trump Who encourages people to get the vaccine. Not a strong point on your end.
That is like saying that becase Trump got support by lots of people that it proved there are no anti-vaxxers.
Oh just making sure you stay consistent. Good to know you think he is bad. Remember democrat bad.
Totally relevant.
"Racism is gone"?
My general statement about the South, was a general statement about the south, not every single individiual person in the south.
Are you really confused about what that means?
I find that hard to believe. I mean, i know you are stupid, but I find it hard to believe you are that stupid.
Again your generalization does not hold up that great. So people do not ever support a candidate that goes against something they largely dislike? I just proved my point with Trump here. Many people support a candidate because of what team they play for or who they are as opposed to looking at it with true depth. That does not mean the south is not generally racist simply because they voted for a guy who was about civil rights.
I honestly could think of way better way to generalize than that. That is dumb logic.
NOT EVER?
Again, you have to exaggerate to an absolute in order to argue against my point.
Are you incapable of actually addressing my actual point instead of inventing a strawman every single time?
What a dick you are.
My point stands. This country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since the mid 60s.
You said it as if people never support a candidate who goes against things they largely dislike. This is not ironclad.
And that does not mean this country has been completely equal to blacks because of that.
i said it, as though the fact that candidates that were strongly pro-civil rights were popular with southern white voters, is strong evidence that the voters in question are NOT racist.
It is worth noting that this fact does NOT exist in a vacuum. We have generations of national policy and practice to also lend support to my postion.
Not necessarily true when we know from history that like I said people can vote for something even if it goes against their general dislike.
You have a much stronger case with the national policy than you do about who people voted for.
Even with that said though just because of that does it mean it has been totally equal to black people simply because of those things.
I've made the point about outr national consensus on black equality and supported it with generations of national voting.
What do you have to counter my assertion/argument/evidence?
Voting does not prove that. So no you did not bud. Try again.
shareWHAT DO YOU HAVE TO COUNTER IT, YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT?
shareYou made a claim that is not even true. Once you make a true statement I will gladly give you a retort. Until then kick rocks.
shareI JUST READ YOU LITTLE BACK AND FORTH WITH THAT OTHER GUY...YOU COME OFF PRETTY BAD...DOWNRIGHT EMBARRASSING HONESTLY.
sharePeople say movies flop for being woke because the product is poor, the "writers" are activists and not writers. They push the story aside to get their flavour of the week message across, and the final product suffers. They don't care about the product they are writing for as it's only a job, and they hate the in built fan base that criticises them.
They go out of their way to change the source material for the worst, not better, and mess with legacy characters, changing who they are and what they stand for. It's the messing with the source material that is the key here, and the quality of the final product.
Everything Everywhere All at Once, how is this "woke"? Because there is a woman in the lead and she is Chinese? Movie goers are used to being in other people's shoes, sampling anothers slice of life. Black Panther the same, Black Panther is black, they didn't mess with the source material, the movie was good, simple as that.
It's the activists that can't enjoy something or relate to characters without having the character look like them.
Like with that Rings of Power dreck, the cast can finally only now relate to Lord of the Rings because the characters look like them now. Strange they couldn't relate to a story as good as Lord of the Rings, because the characters didn't look like them, very strange.
I've never once sat through a Kurosawa film being unable to relate to the characters because they didn't look like me.
Black Panther gets trashed on all the time. You know how many times I have heard that the movie is woke because it uses oppression as a metaphor in the story? How many times I have heard it only got good reviews because it has an all black cast? The product being good or bad does not change if the movie is woke or not. A movie such as Moonlight has a gay black man. That is a woke film. It did quite well financially. Notice how they ignore this? They immediately jump onto a film such as Ghostbusters 2016 which is a bad film and they see that it did not do well financially. Then they jump to see go woke go broke.
That is not the case. If the product is poor then people do not see it. Then take live action Little Mermaid. Everyone is screaming about how the movie is bad because they changed Aerial to being black. This is the reason the movie is bad! See woke! While conveniently ignoring the fact that lots of these live action Disney films have been garbage. Beauty and the Beast was not good and they had a white Belle. The live action little Mermaid would have suddenly been better had you made the character white? No how about these live action remakes are trash because they change little to nothing and it is just blatant nostalgia baiting. A remake needs to justify it's existence. Either you tell the story from a different angle or expand on ideas they original did not. Telling the exact same story is tedious.
Then you see people only get mad one way. As I pointed out what about the race change for Tiger Lily in Pan? Rooney Mara is white Tiger Lily is not depicted as white in the story of Peter Pan. Where is the uproar about that? Scarjo in Ghost in the Shell. If it is not cool one way it should be unacceptable period.
But you didn't answer my question. How is Everything Everywhere All at Once considered woke?
I've noticed a trend. If the studio has no confidence in their product, i.e. they know it's bad. They trot out the diverse cast, A la Rings of Dour, and rely on fabricated "racist backlash" as their main marketing tool, trash on the source material, and insult the fans.
They should be telling everybody how amazing the story is, not telling us it's amazing because it has the first female Dwarf (which wasn't true anyway). When Rings of Power was actually released, the reviews and consensus wasn't that it was bad because it had a diverse cast or a black dwarf. It was bad because of the awful writing.
Notice how Top Gun had a very diverse cast of pilots. They had confidence in their product and didn't need to proclaim to the world how great they were for doing it. It just is. None of the fans mentioned it. And it made a crap ton of money.
>Black Panther gets trashed on all the time.
It kept to the source material. Black Panther is black. If they made him white, there'd be more backlash than ever. If they made Blade a white guy there would be an uproar.
You have to understand the distinction between naturally diverse, like Top Gun, Fast & Furious.
And "woke" activist writing, like Rings of Power. Choosing the message over writing a good characters/story because the activists can't relate to characters who do not look like them, shoving it down peoples throats, and if their show is criticised, calling everybody racist.
This is how activists think: Jennifer Lawrence:
“I remember when I was doing Hunger Games, nobody had ever put a woman in the lead of an action movie, because it wouldn’t work, we were told.
“Girls and boys can both identify with a male lead, but boys cannot identify with a female lead.”
While Viola Davis' nods enthusiastically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05EhMqgUpME
Same with the cast of Rings of Power, who couldn't relate to the Lord of the Rings until somebody who looked like them was in it (and a pay check).
The left is obsessed with race, always pointing out the difference in skin colour and unable to relate to people who do not look like them:
Todd Bowles coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers found out:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hN-9mXh9Fqc
In Everything Everywhere all at once they have a gay daughter. She struggles to tell this to the grandfather and the mom openly tells the grandfather as to make him okay with this fact. That is not something the right likes and you know it. Now is it to the forefront of the story? No but it is what they would consider a woke element. You never answered my question. How did Moonlight do well financially? That is a woke film through and through.
I can agree lots of times they will make a bad film and then make excuses as to why it fails. However like I said before the live action remakes of Disney films are bad. It has nothing to do with race swapping Aerial. Beauty and the Beast sucked also and no race swapping occurred. I do not make excuses. If a film is bad it is bad. However woke films can be considered good also.
Does not matter Black Panther still gets trashed on. It is considered woke because it uses oppression as it's story metaphor. Also the fact that they call the white guy in the film a colonizer. Not to mention how in the beginning how the white woman gets ridiculed by Killmonger in the museum. This angers the right wingers. There would be an uproar if they swapped his race the same way there is an uproar about them swapping Aerial. People lost their mind about Kravitz portraying Catwoman also. If it ain't white it ain't right. The Batman also was a successful film. So go woke go broke did not apply? Before you ask how is that woke. I am going off their points. White privileged assholes. Remember that line? That made them absolutely go into a gigantic tantrum Also Gordon being black they did not like either. Even though race is not essential they do not like any change. Do not play dumb and act like it is not true.
As for the activists I am not making excuses. However seems you are making excuses the other way.
>In Everything Everywhere all at once
ha ha and nobody criticised it for that, and it was a massive success.
The studio didn't shove it down your throat before release, and didn't use it as a shield for all criticism and call people sexist, racist, misogynist etc for not paying money to see it.
>People lost their mind about Kravitz portraying Catwoman also.
Who, where? There's been a black catwoman before.
Oh, and before you post a clickbait blog claiming a massive Twitter backlash storm, just make sure the Tweets they link to have more than 20 likes and 2 reposts before we consider there was actually a "storm" of racism on Twitter with people literally "losing their minds".
Box office says the "storm" wasn't enough to fill a tiny teacup made for ants to drink from.
Someone not criticizing it doesn't change that woke element. You asked how it was woke and I provided the reason.
Go look on plenty of sites bud. Don't play dumb.
Nope I'm not doing the work for you.
>Go look on plenty of sites bud. Don't play dumb.
What sites? Where was the racist backlash for The Batman?
A couple of clickbait blogs digging around on Twitter to find a handful of racist posts (probably fake) with 20 likes between them. Real "investigative" journalism right there.
And Warner Bros. ignored it because they knew The Batman would be a success.
If they thought it was going to bomb, they would be using the "racism" angle as a huge marketing campaign to drum up interest. Or use it as a shield from criticism.
The studios use non-white actors as tokens, as human shields to take flack for their failed projects.
You should be protesting that.
>Where is the uproar about that? Scarjo in Ghost in the Shell.
Yeh, people criticised the white washing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell_(2017_film)
"Casting criticism".
Countries have been remaking other countries movies with their own stars for decades, Hollywood mostly. This is not a new occurrence.
If Blade was a white dude, people would reject it. If Lando Calrissian was white, they'd reject it. If Action Jackson was white, they'd reject it. If a new Beverly Hills Cop came out and Axel Foley was white, they'd reject it.
You know it, I know it. It works both ways.
Same with actors. They tried to replace Harrison Ford in Solo. That was rejected.
While Donald Glover's Lando Calrissian was pretty much accepted. If the fit is right, it works.
See but that's just it nothing about Catwoman's race is essential. Therefore getting outraged over that is just dumb. I don't care if you change a race so long as the race isn't essential.
shareNobody was outraged by a black catwoman.
Unless you count a couple of people with 10 Twitter followers between them as "outrage".
Look, you're an intelligent person. But you seem highly susceptible to left/right wing click bait blog posts and studio publicity stunts.
Like I said, it's funny how the films/shows the studio have no faith in, or films/shows that are flopping succumb to a racist backlash to shield from criticism. These studios are using diversity as a shield from criticism, and using the actors as human shields to take flack they create.
Yet others seem to pass by. Look at the cast of Fast and Furious. Diverse as hell and it's great to see. How many are white, how many of the white cast are or were bad guys?
Nobody cares. No backlash.
The only backlash is the quality of the films are going down, due to lazyness in the writing, not because of activists in the writing chairs.
They have to cry "racism" because in 50 years of equality, blacks in the main still have not been able to attain the same standards as whites. If they don't blame it on "racism", then they have to wrestle with some very uncomfortable alternate explanations.
shareWhat about China.
shareNo - apparently the little mermaid bombed because everyone is a racist
The beauty of 'diversity' is that you can blame racism, whenever your 'diverse' crap bombs.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/box-office-the-little-mermaid-gets-doused-in-china-south-korea-after-racist-backlash-1235505682/
Yeah, that happens a lot.
shareIt's funny how only the bad rubbish use the racism card as a deflection or to drum up controversy for publicity.
These idiots heads will spin when they see how popular Fast & Furious is.
Spiderverse has a black/Hispanic family, and a Spidergirl. Shock horror!
Rush Hour has a black guy and a Chinese guy as leads! OHMG!
Star Wars had Sam Jackson as a Jedi! And the Mandalorian has Giancarlo Esposito as a leader in the broken Empire. But suddenly the fans are racist because they don't like the awful characters they created in their badly written tripe.
Strange how the racism card only crops up when the writing is bad or the character is crap.
Yet Disney are fine with shrinking John Boyega's head for the Last Jedi Chinese Star Wars poster. Hypocrites.
https://moviechat.org/tt9362722/Spider-Man-Across-the-Spider-Verse/63a71e0fa743f33239e44fcb/Pairing-a-black-male-with-a-white-female-this-time-the-propaganda-is-for-children?reply=647fe3fa6afd695daa9553c1
So the right is totally cool as long as the movie is good? Lol no apparently not. Here you see that they do not like the idea of a mixed race couple. Yet you want to deny that bigotry and racism does not exist still? Don't play dumb.
Ha ha your proof of widespread racism within the movie going public is one post in a tiny website full of Yankee alt right trolls, and a post where very few actually agree. Box office disagrees, widespread reviews disagree, word of mouth disagrees, the people in the real world never mention it. Maybe you're delving into the mire, searching around in the mud of Twitter hoping to find racist comments, so you can get all flabbergasted. Get real mate.
Dude, the point is you really need to learn the distinction between "it just is" naturally diverse films, like Fast and Furious, Top Gun, old Star Trek, Rogue One, Rush Hour, Speed, Annihilation, Cobra Kai etc etc (the list is endless of diverse casting that didn't receive flack)
And woke, activists (not writers) who write trash for properties they don't even like or know little about, insulting the fans, trashing on the source material....Rings of Power, Star Wars, The Witcher, She Hulk, Ghostbusters, new Star Trek etc etc. Ham-fistedly shoving a "message" down people's throats, rather than concentrate on writing something good with that same message woven in (Everything, Everywhere, All at Once), call people racists before the thing is even released because they know it's going to flop, and the studios use the racism card as a tool to drum up publicity to get people to actually watch their garbage then call the fans racist again.
Rather than admit, they wrote a piece of crap.
That's what woke is.
Nope you don't understand the meaning of woke. Do you know the dictionary definition? Aware and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues. Especially issues of racial and social justice. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/woke. People in the real world never mention it? No genius people on this site are part of the real world regardless if they are in the minority or not. The quality of a film doesn't suddenly make something not woke that is a lie from you. Moonlight is a woke film period! Regardless of the quality.
Naturally diverse yes but that doesn't mean something naturally diverse can't be woke.
We are not discussing dumb woke activists. We were discussing if something being woke means automatic box office bomb. You helped prove my point thanks.
No woke is the definition not what you want it to mean.
It's funny how the racism backlash only happens when the studios have no confidence in the product, and they think it's going to flop or is flopping.
It's a strange occurrence that keeps cropping up.
Yet there are scores of naturally diverse films and TV shows that manage to slip past the racists.
What is even funnier is how you pivoted away from talking about the original point you made. You attributed wokeness to bad quality. Woke is woke regardless of quality. The definition doesn't change when you want it to.
shareYou responded to me in this string. My point is quite clear. It hasn't wavered.
Look above.
Maybe concentrate on watching movies rather than listening to click bait left/right wing blog posts and studios trying to tell you about racist backlashes to drum up publicity, so you can pretend you're on the right side of history and all the Trump supporters are really bad people because they're all racist.
I'm not even from the USA, don't have an affiliation with a political party in the USA, don't care about Trump, and lean left from the middle.
I'm all for diverse casting and stories, as are the vast majority of movie goers.
Additionally, words change connotation and meaning over time. Woke is a slang term. Slang terms can change connotation and meaning within years or even weeks. Just because you pulled a dictionary on a slang term means absolutely nothing.
https://public.oed.com/history/rewriting-the-oed/
Why revise?
The Dictionary has been updated before, but has never received such a thorough overhaul as that currently in hand. Previous updates have added new terms, but the text of the original volumes has not changed since they were published in 1928. In the intervening century more and better resources have become available to language scholars. New historical dictionaries cover different varieties of English, specific periods of the language’s development, and particular subject areas. A multitude of scholarly articles and books have been published that give a clearer understanding of the etymology of English, especially the history of words that have been borrowed from other languages. Countless other resources from both the distant and recent past are now helping scholars to refine and expand the Dictionary’s coverage of the formal, colloquial, slang, and dialect vocabulary of English since the twelfth century.
Through this productive but painstaking process today’s editors are creating a document that gives a more accurate representation of each word’s history and development, as well as a fuller chronological and geographical coverage of the English language. Work on the revision programme has already resulted in over one in every four definitions revised being augmented significantly with data on earlier usage.
And as of now, the original meaning is slowly fading and instead, is used more often to term someone as hypocritical and think they are the 'enlightened' despite the fact that they are extremely close-minded and are unable to accept other people's criticism or different perspective. Especially considering the existence of echo chamber(media) that helped them to find other like-minded individuals, thus, further solidifying their 'progressive' opinion.share
It's the patriarchy!
Or something.
Well, I guess the movie could be better. But that's just crazy talk.
The OP is confusing African-American with Afro-Latino. Typical racist.
American hatred has specifically targeted African-Americans.
Oh no! Did he get the race of a cartoon character wrong? Shame!! 😳
You get his damn point. Don’t be a dick.
And stop trying to misdirect the conversation to distract from the fact that he’s right.
American hatred has specifically targeted African-Americans.
His "point" is wrong since the main character isn't African-American. Furthermore, the majority of racism has been directed specifically against African-American women like Mermaid, Woman King and Cleopatra. Misogyny is also a factor.
shareoh so where both misogynistic and racist for deciding not to watch that bad taste travesty Woman King?
I suppose African Americans are racist on themselves for deciding not to watch a film that glorifies slavers and mass murderers of their own people?
"their own people"
That's an extremely ignorant and racist thing to write. You just lumped all black people together by assuming no differences between nationalities, ethnic groups, religions, regions, etc. exist. The Agojie never enslaved nor killed their own people! They attacked other groups of people who were their enemy.
>"their own people"
>That's an extremely ignorant and racist thing to write.
Erm................The Dahomey enslaved fellow Africans?
..............Fellow people in the own region
The Kingdom of Dahomey used women to fight, because there were no men left! They killed and ensalved all the men.
> no differences between nationalities, ethnic groups, religions, regions, etc. exist.
Oh so it's ok to enslave and kill others based on slight differences? Differences the human eye can barely recognise if at all?
Haa haaa you're just looking for something to be outraged about.
That travesty of a movie bombed thankfully.
I bet you paid good money and gleefully sat down to watch the glorification of slavers and mass murders?
Disgusting.
No. Blacks and other races will always be racist against whites — and each other.
But you made a great point.
What nonsense since white males control ALL institutions - private and government.
shareWhat does that have to do with what I said?
shareYou clearly don't know the definition of racism.
shareThe definition of racism has nothing to do with who is in control. You’re confusing it with classism, which affects everybody regardless of race.
shareYou don't understand the difference between racism, bigotry and prejudice.
And you don't know American history! Indentured white servants and black slaves were both treated poorly by wealthy whites which lead them to unite and rebel and runoff together. After Bacon's Rebellion in 1676, rich whites created a divide and conquer strategy in which laws were changed. Indentured white servants were given rights and privileges based on being white while black slaves had all rights removed based on being black.
Indentured white servants and poor whites chose to unite with rich whites! They chose race over class!
"After Bacon’s Rebellion, Virginia’s lawmakers began to make legal distinctions between “white” and “black” inhabitants. By permanently enslaving Virginians of African descent and giving poor white indentured servants and farmers some new rights and status, they hoped to separate the two groups and make it less likely that they would unite again in rebellion."
https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/inventing-black-white
Rich whites use racism to divide poor whites and poor blacks! And it still works and is used today:
"DYING OF WHITENESS: HOW THE POLITICS OF RACIAL RESENTMENT IS KILLING AMERICA'S HEARTLAND"
BY JONATHAN M. METZL
"Physician and sociologist Jonathan M. Metzl travels across America’s heartland seeking to better understand the politics of racial resentment and its impact on public health. Interviewing a range of Americans, he uncovers how racial anxieties led to the repeal of gun control laws in Missouri, stymied the Affordable Care Act in Tennessee, and fueled massive cuts to schools and social services in Kansas. Although such measures promised to restore greatness to white America, Metzl’s systematic analysis of health data dramatically reveals they did just the opposite: these policies made life sicker, harder, and shorter in the very populations they purported to aid. Thus, white gun suicides soared, life expectancies fell, and school dropout rates rose."
Not knowing history means you can easily be manipulated. That's why they ban history books!
🙄😒
I’m not reading all that.
You do know that the USA is not the centre of the universe, right?
shareYou do know that you're on an American website, right?
shareEver heard of the term WORLD WIDE WEB?
MOVIECHAT.ORG not MOVIECHAT.USA not USA POLITICSCHAT.USA
There are no region blocks.
There are no rules in the sign-up saying I must be a USA citizen.
Now you're being a bigot!!!
do not watch this racist movie.
share