It's a pretty sad world we live in now. Twitter is attacking John Wayne

[Skyclad1uhm1]

John Wayne was always a terrible actor.

...wait, what is this about?

Apparently someone pointing out bad stuff about John Wayne years ago still makes the simpleminded, rightwing, gun-nut snowflakes cry as he is their hero.
His acting sucked, his movies sucked, and he sucked as a person in real life too.

 

[Jon-T]

I guess they ran out of alive celebs to attack. Someone dug up an old playboy article from 1971 and all hell is breaking loose in the twiiterverse.

Last time I checked he was born over a hundred years ago and might just been brought up differently then this current generation. smh

It's payback.

Jussie Smollett was a hero actor to millions in the twitterverse.

Then he got a little smack down https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...racist-attack-‘this-is-maga-country’.2560641/

The Twit Heads are now pissed off and so they are going after John Wayne another hero actor.

 

[pmv]

The Anti-PC movement is rightfully there for a reason.

Mostly it's there to defend historic privileges.

John Wayne was always pretty reactionary. Very gung-ho about Vietnam, as I recall.

I don't think his being a "bad actor" matters, as I've never quite understood what 'good acting' is anyway. All the big stars seem to just have their particular schtick - which appears to be pretty much the same in everything they do - and either people like a star's persona or they don't. He had his style - it didn't appeal to me, but clearly it did to many.

Movies are just overrated in general.

 

[shortylickens]

Damned education. What next, Pilgrims really weren't nice to the Native Americans??

 

[kage69]

Never understood the obsession with John Wayne.
He had his moments, but I found him wooden and entirely one noted.

My respect for John Wayne lies less with his acting, and more for him personally being involved in dealing with the assassins Stalin had sent to kill him. More badass than any Western showdown. They actually flipped those assassins too, turned them into FBI assets IIRC.

Which makes perfect sense really - who would want to report back to Stalin that they failed? That's "cue the ice pick" time folks. There was a second attempt and Wayne foiled that one too.

 

[Oyeve]

Here's the interview:

https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Wild_Wild_Cold_War/files/2011/11/John_Wayne_Playboy_Int2.pdf

 

[child of wonder]

Sounds like an old racist Grandpa. Why is anyone wasting time on this?

 

[Oyeve]

Sounds like an old racist Grandpa. Why is anyone wasting time on this?

Apparently today's SJWs need to bitch about something. I mean, the guys been dead 40 years.

 

[pmv]

My respect for John Wayne lies less with his acting, and more for him personally being involved in dealing with the assassins Stalin had sent to kill him. More badass than any Western showdown. They actually flipped those assassins too, turned them into FBI assets IIRC.

Which makes perfect sense really - who would want to report back to Stalin that they failed? That's "cue the ice pick" time folks.

Seriously? I never heard of that one. Hmmm, Googling suggests it's a claim from one source and may well be embellished or untrue. It does sound a bit far-fetched, but who knows? Personally I find it hard to credit that Stalin's Russia would expend valuable 'assets' on such an eccentric choice of target. But I suppose Uncle Joe was generally paranoid (and perhaps technically a psychopath?) so one could imagine him ordering practically anything by the end.

 

[pmv]

Apparently today's SJWs need to bitch about something. I mean, the guys been dead 40 years.

Still a significant cultural figure, though. People still talk about any number of long-dead people. It's called 'history'.

Besides there isn't some absolute concept of 'a long time ago'. It depends how old you are and whether it was within your life-time.

 

[kage69]

Seriously? I never heard of that one. Hmmm, Googling suggests it's a claim from one source and may well be embellished or untrue. It does sound a bit far-fetched, but who knows? Personally I find it hard to credit that Stalin's Russia would expend valuable 'assets' on such an eccentric choice of target. But I suppose Uncle Joe was generally paranoid (and perhaps technically a psychopath?) so one could imagine him ordering practically anything by the end.

Seriously.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3618310/Why-Stalin-loved-Tarzan-and-wanted-John-Wayne-shot.html

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016...-wayne-because-of-his-anti-communist-beliefs/

https://allthatsinteresting.com/john-wayne-assassination

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/01/film.russia

https://purpleclover.littlethings.c...-about-john-wayne/item/stalin-tried-kill-him/


A pair of goons on a snuff job aren't considered assets of high value, not by a super power anyway. It's not far fetched if you take into account Wayne's fervent and very outspoken views on communism, and how they might unsettle a crazy dictator with a reputation for killing those who don't agree with him.

 

[Texashiker]

Last time I checked he was born over a hundred years ago and might just been brought up differently then this current generation. smh

You do not have to be 100 years old to see a changing of the generations. I am 51 years old and have seen a LOT of change since the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and today.

There was once a time when we said, "We do not do business with communist", and now China is our largest trading partner.

The change in womens ideology has probably the most profound. Rather than being the foundation of a family, morals, values... women put themselves and their careers first.

There was a time when families stayed together through thick and thin. Now, something like 80% of divorces are filed by women.

There was once a time when young men wanted a family and children, Now I see young men afraid to get married, and have children because of the divorce, alimony, and child support laws.

 

[Aikouka]

There was a time when families stayed together through thick and thin. Now, something like 80% of divorces are filed by women.
There was once a time when young men wanted a family and children, Now I see young men afraid to get married, and have children because of the divorce, alimony, and child support laws.

Isn't this largely due to the oppressive nature that families had on their female members? I'm reading Aziz Ansari's Modern Romance, and he interviewed a large swath of people -- including the elderly. The earlier chapters talk about dating in ye olden days, and one large takeaway from the elderly women was that they married as a means to get out of the house and often took the first hand that "looked good" (good job, etc.). I've heard second-hand accounts of this from my mom as well (she's 66). Her dad was very restrictive on her choices to leave in regard to things like going to school and such. While I've never asked directly, I wouldn't be surprised if she was with my dad due to it getting her away from her own family.

When you discuss people not staying through "thick and thin", what you're really describing are times when people that weren't really compatible stayed together because they had to. Divorce rates shot up because women were given far more liberty to make their own choices rather than be under the oppressive yokes of their family.

While I'm perverting your wording a bit with this next remark, I'm going to go with it anyway. Essentially, I think men (and women) should be afraid to get married. Getting married isn't some simple concept that you just toss into your daily planner. "Let's see... today we have groceries, lunch with parents, get hitched, and then an 8PM showing of the latest Marvel movie!" No. No. No! There are times where people don't take enough time to get to know each other or even consider living together for a bit.

 

[zinfamous]

It's payback.

Jussie Smollett was a hero actor to millions in the twitterverse.

Then he got a little smack down https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...racist-attack-‘this-is-maga-country’.2560641/

The Twit Heads are now pissed off and so they are going after John Wayne another hero actor.

ah yes. this makes perfect sense.

 

[Oyeve]

Whos next?

 

[Texashiker]

When you discuss people not staying through "thick and thin", what you're really describing are times when people that weren't really compatible stayed together because they had to. Divorce rates shot up because women were given far more liberty to make their own choices rather than be under the oppressive yokes of their family.

What I meant was sickness, cancer, hard financial times.... etc.

"Divorce rates shot up because women were given far more liberty to make their own choices rather than be under the oppressive yokes of their family."

Please explain exactly what an "opprseive yoke" is, and why women feel the need to break apart families. There is more at stake than a woman or husband feeling opposed.

Women have an instinct to move up the social ladder, a lot of them do that by leaving one husband and marrying another.

Here is an example - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...e-I-thought-I-better-Now-Im-childless-42.html

She thought she could do better, divorced her husband, now she is alone.

I think it was Vice who did a documentary about there being a surplus of middle aged women in China. They were successful business women who refused to marry down. Which means they would not marry a man who makes less money than she did. While on the flip side, men are more willing than women to marry down.

It has been shown women are short term emotional thinkers. They think they can do better, divorce thei9r husbands, then realize they screwed up.

 

[Texashiker]

Whos next?

It will not be long before Mel Brookes is on the news. Leftist will probably crucify him for Blazing Saddles.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

When you discuss people not staying through "thick and thin", what you're really describing are times when people that weren't really compatible stayed together because they had to. Divorce rates shot up because women were given far more liberty to make their own choices rather than be under the oppressive yokes of their family.

I think you're kinda stretching it there - you're basically hinting that our high divorce rate (What is it, 60%?) would be the exact same 60+ years ago if only women had "The means" to do so.

 

[highland145]

What I meant was sickness, cancer, hard financial times.... etc.

"Divorce rates shot up because women were given far more liberty to make their own choices rather than be under the oppressive yokes of their family."

Please explain exactly what an "opprseive toke" is, and why women feel the need to break apart families. There is more at stake than a woman or husband feeling opposed.

Women have an instinct to move up the social ladder, a lot of them do that by leaving one husband and marrying another.

Here is an example - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...e-I-thought-I-better-Now-Im-childless-42.html

She thought she could do better, divorced her husband, now she is alone.

I think it was Vice who did a documentary about there being a surplus of middle aged women in China. They were successful business women who refused to marry down. Which means they would not marry a man who makes less money than she did. While on the flip side, men are more willing than women to marry down.

It has been shown women are short term emotional thinkers. They think they can do better, divorce thei9r husbands, then realize they screwed up.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I think it was Vice who did a documentary about there being a surplus of middle aged women in China. They were successful business women who refused to marry down. Which means they would not marry a man who makes less money than she did. While on the flip side, men are more willing than women to marry down.

It has been shown women are short term emotional thinkers. They think they can do better, divorce thei9r husbands, then realize they screwed up.

They also have WAAAAAAAAAAY higher expectations than men now apparently. Not sure what this equivalent would be 50+ years ago.


Mens graph of how they typically rate an attraction of a girl..... It's pretty much a perfect curve... Not attractive gets the smallest, building up to the middle point of "3" for attractive, before getting small again for the most attractive.

Female graph is obviously an entirely different trend. It's like they consider 5's to be walking on water equivalent.

 

[Aikouka]

I think you're kinda stretching it there - you're basically hinting that our high divorce rate (What is it, 60%?) would be the exact same 60+ years ago if only women had "The means" to do so.

I'm talking about the emergence of no-fault divorce allowing women to finally exit a marriage at a time when the women's movement was strong. This meant that they not only were able to leave what was sometimes a "marriage of convenience", but also meant they were afforded more opportunity to choose their own path.

As for the divorce rate, at least according to this article, the divorce rates are actually going down for 45-and-younger individuals, but are going up for people above 45. Coinciding with that, I wouldn't be surprised if that's partly due to the average age of matrimony going up as people remain single for longer.

Please explain exactly what an "opprseive yoke" is, and why women feel the need to break apart families. There is more at stake than a woman or husband feeling opposed.

I'm talking about the control/pressure that the father and/or mother would place on their daughter to find someone and get married, or even if it wasn't that direct, the heavy-handed control over the daughter while she still lived at home (because she couldn't possibly live by herself). So, to be clear, I'm not really talking about oppression from within the marriage. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if some women did feel that way given maybe they wanted their own life (i.e. out of the house), but not the life they ended up with.

It's hard to say. I'm not them, nor will I pretend to know what everyone thought. However, I don't think the rise in divorce was necessarily a bad thing, nor do I think it is a bad thing now. On the other hand, I do hope that people really put thought into marrying in the first place to hopefully not have to go through a divorce.

 

[Fritzo]

Here's the deal- That Playboy interview was from 1972, and Wayne was in his 60's by then. He was from a completely different era. You can not judge someone from the past with today's social norms because they'll always be incompatible. In 100 years we might all be seen as barbaric assholes because we herded cows for meat. We need to stop finding things from the past to be outraged about and realized we've grown and evolved since then.

 

[pmv]

Seriously.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3618310/Why-Stalin-loved-Tarzan-and-wanted-John-Wayne-shot.html

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016...-wayne-because-of-his-anti-communist-beliefs/

https://allthatsinteresting.com/john-wayne-assassination

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/01/film.russia

https://purpleclover.littlethings.c...-about-john-wayne/item/stalin-tried-kill-him/


A pair of goons on a snuff job aren't considered assets of high value, not by a super power anyway. It's not far fetched if you take into account Wayne's fervent and very outspoken views on communism, and how they might unsettle a crazy dictator with a reputation for killing those who don't agree with him.

Yes, but all of those appear to be reporting that one book by that one guy. I'm not saying it's definitely untrue, but I'd be more convinced if they spoke to first-hand sources. It seems to be a Russian (not even specifically Soviet, given that very Putin is very clearly still at it) tradition to go after your own expatriots and former associates abroad, but it seems slightly unusual to target a really prominant Western citizen.

 

[Texashiker]

I'm talking about the control/pressure that the father and/or mother would place on their daughter to find someone and get married, or even if it wasn't that direct, the heavy-handed control over the daughter while she still lived at home (because she couldn't possibly live by herself).

There is good reason for that control, and it is unplanned pregnancies.

It is critical to the future of the nation for women (of all races) to pick good stable, productive men to be fathers to her children. Rather than doing that, young girls will favor the strong, tall, violent.... men. Then, the women gets upset when a man who likes to fight beats the crap out of her. From there the woman and children enter the welfare system where they will probably spend the rest of their lives.

Young women today are being taught, "My body my choice", but not when the rest of society pays for her mistakes. Why do you think so many of todays young children en up living with the grandparents? Or even middle aged children living with their parents? There is an epidemic of three generations living in the same home.

Why do you think so many minortiies kill each other? What do we expect to happen when children are raised in fatherless homes, or rasied by violent fathers?

TLDR

Fathers try to teach young ladys about picking a husband.
Young lady bolts from parents and gets knocked up
From there, they either move back in with mom and dad, or enter the welfare system.

 

[pmv]

Here's the deal- That Playboy interview was from 1972, and Wayne was in his 60's by then. He was from a completely different era. You can not judge someone from the past with today's social norms because they'll always be incompatible. In 100 years we might all be seen as barbaric assholes because we herded cows for meat. We need to stop finding things from the past to be outraged about and realized we've grown and evolved since then.

But I remember disliking John Wayne's politics in the '70s. I now have to stop feeling that way just because time has gone past? His views in 1972 were at odds with those of many people alive in 1972, it's not as if everyone thought the same as him back then.

On the other hand, I've always known I disagreed with his politics, so I'm not sure why any of this is news. And I think one has no choice but to separate art from the artist, because _every_ artist or cultural figure is flawed if you look closely enough. People who tell you you have to shun all art and activities that are associated with politically-imperfect people are probably trying to isolate you, all the better to control you. But you can still get something out of a work while not agreeing or even liking the creator.