>Clarke and Thomas are pandering for "white" political
>acceptance which resides in 'slave mentality/dependence' and
>turn their backs on overtly accepted black belief systems.
>They aren't just 'doing them'. They are actively trying to be
>'house negroes'.

look at what you typed

- they are pandering for acceptance
- turning their backs on overtly accepted Black (capitalize that mayne)
- actively trying

okay....

that's straight up judgement that could easily be flipped on ANYBODY

literally anyone

its an assertion with no back-up

you don't like 'em or their ways, fine

but we are defending Haddish who made a movie where she pees while on a zipline and gives instructions on how to give BJs using fruit

other than stay paid, what is *she* trying to do that makes her LESS pandering and destructive to "overtly accepted belief systems"?

(note: that's a crazy thing to read on a board where folks take pride in THEIR rejection of everything from the concepts of manhood, to femininity, to child discipline, to God, to.... you name it. US - as a generation - rejecting "old ways" and "being progressive" is fine, but its "respectability politics" if you imply that there is such a thing a personal culpability even in the face of systematic racism. but I completely digress....)

i keep saying this - it isn't about Haddish, or "uncle thomas" or any of them other folks per se

(except Larry Elder...F%^& him and every oxygen molecule that doesn't choke him to death when he breathes)

it IS about these ill sliding scales we have for who is cool/genuine and not

>Haddish has been her since day one.

this keeps getting repeated, so it has become the a narrative we've accepted.

but who here has known her since "Day One" (or truly knows her at all)? IS she not simply a comedienne we are wrapping a story around, followed by emotional attachment?

We don't *know* this whole deal isn't her character she is committed to.

We relate because, hell, who doesn't like a good Groupon? who doesn't empathize with the stories of her being homeless and in abusive relationships? WE (I included) want her to succeed cuz SHE IS US on a few levels.

But past that, lets assume someone here DOES know her or HAS followed her entire career. Note: I actually DO know a filmmaker dude out here in LA who has known her for years. he mentioned knowing her around the time right before girls trip, but we didn't get into anything about her. Observance doesn't mean she didn't simply find the character/voice she's rolling with pre-blow-up, and is committed to it.

Hell, even if it's 100% authentic that begs the point of whether authenticity inherently gets you a pass.

Back to Clarke, Thomas et. al, if - somewhere along the line - something in them shaped them to be all-in relative to THEIR thing, why is it cool to reject them out the "Black Club" even thought THEY might be being just as 100% authentic to "their truth"

>She's not doing it for them or their acceptance.

She was on the oscars

THAT is Black now?

it's cool though, you seem to be saying (if I may summarize)
- stay the way you were before you blew up
- don't hate congratulate - she's just doing what she gotta do

to me, there are holes in that. again: should there NOT be some awareness, or sense of responsibility to "us", that plays into HOW you represent in "mixed company"

if you say no, then be mindful it may not always be someone you LIKE "doing them" and its hypocritical to get salty when that goes down

>Let Tiff do Tiff...it's working.

No doubt. But if we are gonna do "end justifies the means" its still not clear why don't we say: "Let Clarence Thomas be Clarence Thomas...it got him on the supreme court" or "let Rice be Rice, it got her to Secretary of State"