Jump to content


Boycott Amazon
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


richardmurray last won the day on May 25

richardmurray had the most liked content!


Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    All things

Recent Profile Visitors

88,447 profile views

richardmurray's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare

Recent Badges



Single Status Update

See all updates by richardmurray

  1. now0.jpg

    The tweet in question mentioned 6 things: Keke palmer's career/Zendaya's career/Colorism/Hollywood/Comparing two thespians careers/former child stars careers... The suggestion made in the tweet is that the two child stars have different careers at the moment with zendaya being more and Palmer less, and that contrast is an example of colorism in hollywood. And lastly, that said point warrants a deep inspection to their careers. ... I will start with the point. No two thespians ever have the same careers. Hollywood has never provided two thespians with the same careers. Boris karloff didn't have the same career as bela legosi. Billie D Williams didn't have the same career as James Earl Jones. No two thespians ever have the same career in the film industry anywhere. Jackie Chan didn't have the same Career as samo hung, and that is hong kong cinema. Alec Baldwin doesn't have the same career as Harrison Ford. What is my point? Suggesting that two thespians careers can be defined as different based on a negative bias is a simplicity of how the film industry works. Sharon stone didn't have the same career as Meryl Streep who didn't have the same career as Michelle Pfeiffer. The film industry never is the same for any two thespians. Now, is colorism real. I will define colorism as biases based on skin tone. To the issue in question. The skin tone closer to the average of white europeans is given a positive bias while the skin tone closer to the average of black africans is given a negative bias. Based on my definition of colorism, it is real. But, are the careers of Palmer side Zendaya an issue of said bias or hollywood reality? Based on that logic, Angela Bassett overcame colorism and Vanessa Williams didn't gain enough from it. But is that true? If you look into any two thespians careers the reality is simple. A thespian is lucky if they are involved in fiscally profitable work at a higher rate. Why did Val Kilmer's career, before his illness, not be greater than Tom Cruise? Colorism is real. All biases are real. But are biases the key to success or perceived success in a given space? Not always. The main point of the original tweet, which is a reply, is an assumption, absent any way to be proven. As Palmer correctly stated, Keke palmer's career is keke palmer's. I add, Zendaya's career is Zendaya's. Comparing artist careers based on negative biases in any industry isn't acceptable unless it is an industry normal. For example, Judy Garland was born the same year as Dorothy Dandridge. Both are well known singers. Both played in well-known roles. Was dorothy dandridge blockaded from roles as a black person in hollywood that Judy Garland wasn't as a white person in hollywood? yes. But that was an industry standard at that time, in all areas. Black characters were intentionally not written. Black writers were intentionally not hired. Black producers only existed in the independent system, not hollywood. Colorism like all biases is real and still exists, throughout all aspects of humanity. But, a bias must be universally applied in an arena to claim its potency, not existence but potency, absent strict proof. Lastly... the tweet that is the source of the article's debate is a reply. In the original tweet, linked below, Keke PAlmer is praised. Zendaya isn't mentioned. And, the viewpoint that Keke Palmer is a recent star is challenged as historically inaccurate using the posters life. 

    Why do I say this? I argue the BET article is dysfunctional. If you simply go to the original post. You will see the source post. They are not even connected in theme. And, I argue that Keke Palmer in replying to the colorism point has either bad media management, cause many stars do not make their own tweets, or enough people she cars about mentioned this that she felt she needed to speak. I will also add, in modern times, sometimes making negative issues loud is a way to become more popular. 





    the tweet in question, THE REPLY



    the original tweet, THE SOURCE



    1. richardmurray


      My common out prose for this entry 


      The tweet that is referenced in the article is a reply to a source tweet. The source tweet doesn't mention Zendaya, supports Keke palmer's long acquired superstardom, and is confused as to the people who didn't know of palmer already. ... What is my point? The tweet in question refutes the original post absent any explanation. And I know I am about to go away from the issues. But, one of the problems with media through electronic devices is that many of the websites designed generate dysfunctional multilog. If I say< tweet> the following: "the sky is red, always was and always will be, my parents told me." If someone reshare my tweet , adding the following text: "The sky is really blue, where do the red sky people come from. Volvanoes are red". It is simply a refute. But then if the sky tweet:" I think I am the sky, and the sky has been around for a long time however I like" Then an article from NET<nature elements television> states: "sky responds to colorism about Volcano" and refers to the tweet replied from mine . What I see is a dysfunction in the structure of media. And I will say what I said many times before. I think website design needs to be changed. but I will not make that pulpit speech again 


  • Create New...