The Case of the Mysterious Disapearing Thread, Part Deux — Page 3

Rainah please read before you speak.

GeorgeandDot and I are saying that we should not think only in race, but we are all human.

No I'm saying that race and heritage should not have to be sacrificed in order for one to see me as human. We NEED to talk about race and establish boundaries and learn to understand each other in a way that is respectful.

Updated On: 9/12/17 at 01:16 PM

"Honestly, does BWW not ban or warn people? I cannot imagine that Dave28282's continuous comments about race are the kind of community they want to cultivate. There is a line, there is good taste, and both have been tossed out the window"

Unless someone writes something that's clearly incitement to violence against a particular group, I don't see any reason to call for a ban - in this case, we're talking about a difference in opinion. You may not agree with the opinion, but saying that it shouldn't be allowed is a tactic used by the reactionary right. Adults should be able to deal with differing opinions, even if they find them repugnant - ignore them, disagree with them, but deal with them. Sweeping them under the carpet isn't a solution.

Rainah said: "Honestly, does BWW not ban or warn people? I cannot imagine thatDave28282's continuous comments about race are the kind of community they want to cultivate. There is a line, there is good taste, and both have been tossed out the window"

You'd think if Alan could come into the thread earlier and comment, he could come back at any time. You would think.

I don't know how I'm stunned, but I am.

There is a person in this thread asking that others don't deny the fullness of her humanity (which, does, in fact, include racial heritage) and others just simply asserting that she's wrong in this request.

Jesus F-ing Christ, please take a step back and realize how terrible that is!

Has asking someone to realize how terrible their words or actions are ever worked in real life?

I mean, if you really want to change their minds, wouldn't you be better off with a more effective approach?

Of course, if you merely want to harangue, it's a different matter. That method is a textbook harangue.

newintown said: "Has asking someone to realize how terrible their words or actions are ever worked in real life?

I mean, if youreallywant to change their minds, wouldn't you be better off with a more effective approach?

Of course, if you merely want to harangue, it's a different matter. That method is a textbook harangue."

OK, who had "tone policing" on their bingo card for this thread?

I reject the categorization of what's happened in this thread as 'standing in the shining light of righteousness.' I did that yesterday when I was at jury duty and was asked if I thought it should be legal to carry an 1/8th of an ounce of cocaine. My answer of 'yes' was in no way going to change the law. But it also probably kept me from being sat on the jury where I might have actually affected some real change.

Someone actually asked to be viewed holistically and someone else rejected the request. That's...well...that's something. And I find it difficult to look at that sequence of events and think 'well...there's a lot of gray area here.'

I respect your attitude to grappling with the limitations of communication (particularly on such an absurd forum as a message board). And I may even believe in much of what you do. But when we look at the specifics of this...at the person who has consistently harangues everyone else for their obsessions with race, I think very few of us here believe we can ever change his mind. But when I see Broadway Concierge (no matter for whom he voted) co-signing on this train of thought, I think, 'How many other people can be caught up in this train of thought.' I think recent history tells us a lot. But I also think that recent history tells us that people are affected when they're forced to confront the ugliness and choose to turn away from it.

Serious question (and isn't it bizarre that we feel the need to type that...just to make sure people know we're 'not coming for them'??)

Do you think that there are ideas that simply are repellent? I find the refusal of one person to acknowledge another person's request to honor their full humanity repellent. Not because I believe it is repellent, but because it is repellent. Does that make sense? For you, can something like that be factual? Rather than an opinion?

"Do you think that there are ideas that simply are repellent?"

Do you mean "are there universal definitions of right and wrong?" If I could answer that definitively, I'd be the greatest philosopher in history.

Of course there are many acts that are repellent to me; slavery, murder, robbery, rape, etc. These all involve unquestionable physical harm. I loathe white supremacists and fascists, and the idea that money and material gain are the primary goals to strive for in life. But now we're getting into a foggy place. When do my individual values become universal?

I'm happy to wander in the fog. Because that's right where I am at this point. I don't like reassessing my absolute belief in free speech, but it's happening. When history (at least the history of the last century plus) shows us that white supremacy and fascism leads to unspeakable violence, what are we to do? This hasn't been something I've had to deal with in my lifetime. It's always been theoretical.

newintown said: "I understand; I personally still value the notion of a difference between "hate speech" and "incitement," with the latter clearly being out of bounds. Yet I can understand those who believe that words that don't explicitly call for violence can do so implicitly. I just don't entirely agree with that idea (at this point in time, at least)."

You last line is the crux of my issue. And it's the thing that terrifies me. Generally, I am of the same belief. Hate speech doesn't bother me till it crosses into incitement. But when a group of hundreds carrying torches shouting 'Jew will not replace us,' and the next day someone is murdered, I have to ask does one lead to the other? And what do about it? And just how long do we hold off???

Part of me is starting to believe that it might already be too late.

Alan Henry said: "Hi all - just to sum up and clarify:

We absolutely encourage thoughtful, interesting, and creative discussions on the boards. I myself have enjoyed reading and learning on here over the years.

With that said - we're here to celebrate Broadway as much as we are to critically discuss it. We're all for threads for dreamcasting performers - but we need to do that in a respectful way. We're not saying you can't disagree or have opinions - just that when we disagree or want to write about someone we do so respectfully.

The thread that is originally being discussed here did cross a line in describing a performer. Considering it was the first/starting post of a thread - that is why the thread was removed. (By all means - let's start another.)

We delete when necessarybecause we don't want to be modifying what you guys post and misrepresenting your comments.

We hope you understand - and as usual, we are always open to feedback and improving how we moderate the board.

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with us.

Alan."

Come on, Alan. I actually thought that the thread had been deleted because the third poster had called me an asshole. And I took the attack gracefully, merely pointing out that I was 15 years older than Kristin so not likely to be an "agist." Apparently "asshole" is not abusive, but referring to the possibility that age might affect the roles she is eligible to play is abusive. I can't understand this at all, but maybe that's because I'm not a theater person and I'm not knowledgable of what special issues are important to them.

But, in my defense, the "casting of Eliza" thread has gone on for months, with the age of the actress always considered. When casting of a role is discussed, how often does age come into it. How was one following The Eliza thread to know that bringing up an actress' age was, well, you didn't really say what it was but clearly was not good.

When back in February Kelli O'Hara was interviewed by Jim Zirin and asked point blank if she wanted to play Eliza and Kelli said that she loved the show and the score and the role and was very happy to have sung the role once with the New York Philharmonic but she believed that "that ship had sailed." Was Kelly being abusive to herself or to other actresses with that remark.

I'm a big fan of Kristin. I saw 20th Century four times. If Kristin had read this, do you think that she would have been offended? She herself admitted that you can't get away from aging. A long time ago she had been told that with age her upper range would become difficult, but she hadn't believed it. Now it was happening, but she really wasn't upset about it. Her singing would just have to adjust and she could sing certain parts better now. As I said in my brief thread in response to the one who had called me an "asshole," you can't run away from aging. It happens and you adjust as Kristin and Kelli have and they will have continued success.

I don't want to be overly dramatic, but when you start penalizing someone for speaking the truth because it's a truth you don't want to hear, then you're starting to act like that other side that is much more widely known for clamping down on freedom of expression.

I started that thread by saying that I didn't start many threads, and I'll return to that behavior. This is a tough board to post on if you don't know your stuff, and it has an awful lot of nervous lurkers, but I'll stick it out because I love the musical theater and most people are nice and everyone knows so much than me. It's a terrific learning experience.