justforthebs:the-penultimate-superbeans:justforthebs:the-penultimate-superbeans:justforthebs:the-pen
justforthebs:the-penultimate-superbeans:justforthebs:the-penultimate-superbeans:justforthebs:the-penultimate-superbeans:justforthebs:the-penultimate-superbeans:justforthebs:the-penultimate-superbeans:justforthebs:the-penultimate-superbeans:such-justice-wow:antelopian:such-justice-wow:antelopian:such-justice-wow:nunyabizni:Not a fan of that word there, but honestly that’s about the least of the issues with this happening.I thought Ruby Rose identified as nonbinary?I thought acting was all about pretending to be something you’re not, what’s with this new fuckin “if they don’t match the character in every way in their real life they can’t act as that character” likehaven’t you seen what extreme method acting does? why would you want to apply that to sexuality and race?Oh no I meant the article used female pronouns not “they” so i thought she’d stopped is all. Sorry if that wasn’t clear nah I wasn’t talking about your addition I’m talking about the social shit that’s been going on in general lmaoOhhh right! In that case I agree. I can’t remember who but someone made a post discussing it where they explained that for minorities and the like you have a smaller population to draw from anyway and from those you will likely have less people who want to act and then from THAT group you have significantly less who are actually any good. It used people with dwarfism as an example and explained why Warrick Davis is in everything if you need someone with dwarfism.I can understand to a point, like if the character is of a certain demographic, then trying to get an actor of a similar/the same demographic would be ideal. But at the end of the day, it’s acting. If they’re good enough, they can act out whatever they want convincingly.Also, notice how people only complain about this when it’s a minority that gets ‘erased’?1. You cannot act an ethnicity just like you cant act a race. Either you are or you aren’t so her acting skills or lack thereof dont have any part in this conversation.2. Do you really not understand the problem with erasing minority identities vs majority identities or are you just playing stupid?Either way I’ll explain. Hollywood [and all forms of entertainment for that matter] has historically erased and or degraded minority identities. The lack of representation or bad representation is a harmful practice that has been going on for centuries in various ways.The same can not be said for majority identities such as being straight, white, able bodied, cisgender etc. The reason it matters when its minority vs majority is because the minority has been historically and continuously harmed by these behaviors and they need be corrected. Racebending a white character isnt harming representation that white people have because they have so much. They’ve had so much. They are going to continue to have much so it doesn’t hurt them to lose some. If you’re okay with one demographic being erased, but not another, you’re not really fighting for equality are you?Tipping the balance the other way only fuels the stigma. It doesn’t matter whether the demographic is a minority or not. Yes, ideally, someone of a fitting demographic should play that demographic in a film. But that doesn’t mean it must be a hard and fast rule.Yeah okay I’m leaving this conversation. It’s pretty clear you don’t have a grasp on why its important to prioritize accurate minority representation over majority and I am just not the one to go down that rabbit hole with you. So if by ‘don’t understand’ you mean ‘disagrees with you’ then sure. Prioritising minority anything isn’t equality. It’s just pushing things the other way.Nope I mean don’t understand. Or maybe it’s just me giving you the benefit of the doubt here. Like we know representation is important for real people. We know that whitewashing and poor representation is tied to systematic oppression and various phobias and isms. And we know that victims of systematic oppression should be prioritized over the benefactors/enablers of said oppression. So me assuming you don’t understand vs you just disagreeing with prioritizing victims of systematic oppression via media is me believing you aren’t a bad person you’re just misinformed. And maybe you don’t deserve that. Yes, representation is important. But when you prioritise representing (insert demographic A here) over representing (insert demographic B here), it kinda throws the importance to the side and just brags about how ‘progressive’ it is. You don’t get equality by tipping the scales the other way. Yes, cultural/racial/sexuality etc erasure is a thing, but erasing a majority demographic is just as bad as erasing a minority one, because not only does it come across as ignorant due to people lauding something they’d otherwise complain about, but it’s a hypocritical double standard.So yes, you’re assuming. And you’re assuming wrong. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand.So currently we exist in a state of inequality when it comes to media representation. White/cis/able bodied/ straight etc have like hundreds of thousands of good representation while the rest of us are in the hundreds. Let’s give it a concrete number. 500000 vs 500. Add those two up its 500500. If I redistribute things so that the numbers are now 250250 on both sides that’s equality. People removing some representation and giving it to those that actually need it because they have so little on top of creating original good diverse content is balancing the scales so things are equal. It’s not about progressive points. Its about balancing the scales so we are equal. If you go with “oh I’ll put one on each side” we aren’t going to be equal because one side has such a huge start. Erasing a minority is not just as bad as erasing a majority simple by virtue of one being a minority and another being a majority. Real world example. Let’s say I have 100 donuts and 10 cookies. If I remove 1 cookie and 1 donut yeah I’ve removed 1 from each but it’s not just as bad because they are different values. I just removed 10% of the cookies vs 1% of the donuts.It’s only hypocritical and a double standard if you think context doesn’t matter. The reality is context changes stuff. For example:Mary shot John. Adam shot Susie. Without context they are both the same thing. With context Mary shot John because John was trying to shoot her vs Adam shooting Susie because she broke his favorite video game. Yes they both shot people but there is a difference and you know it. The context is racebending/gender/sexuality etc is done to correct centuries of historic and ongoing systematic oppression through media. White washing/poor representation is done to reinforce that stuff. There is a difference. Yeah I was assuming you were misinformed vs not caring about prioritizing victims of systematic oppression. That’s not a good thing by the way. Except that racebending or whatever isn’t ‘correcting’ anything. It’s just changing. Yes, erasure happened. Yes, it still does happen.The entire goal is to stop it from happening. On both sides. It doesn’t matter that one side had a head start. Context or no, if you look at it that way, the minority side will literally never catch up unless like everything forcibly has nothing but minorities in it for many many years. And I’d rather watch a film or whatever because it was good rather than because it has minorities in it.Yes, it would be nice to be able to correct the mistakes of the past. But tipping the scales isn’t correcting them. It’s painting over them.You do realize that correcting something and changing something can be synonymous right? If I change my answer to a question to the correct answer I am in fact correcting my mistake. And the entire goal is equality. It’s about making equal representation through multiple means. Equality means equal representation/opportunities and no whitewashing and once we get there we won’t have to racebend any more so that ends that as well. For a long ass time everything was nothing but/majority white but I doubt you were complaining. “I’d rather watch a film or whatever because it was good rather than because it has minorities in it” good thing you can have both then. Problem solved. Good movies filled with minorities. “But tipping scales isn’t correcting them. Its painting over them” you sound like those people that argue removing Confederate statues is erasing history despite the fact that books/ the internet exists. If Idris Elba becomes the next James Bond that doesn’t change/paint over/erase the fact that the previous ones were white. Your argument makes no sense when you remember that there are a lot of forms of documentation that can make sure people remember the past iteration of these characters. You honestly don’t have a leg to stand on in this conversation besides not caring about the victims of systematic oppression which I will reiterate is pretty shitty.Correcting and changing can be synonyms, yes. But that doesn’t mean they are. Let’s say you change a well known character, say Spider-Man, to be black. That is a change, but not a correction, because it’s shitting on Stan Lee’s original efforts.You’re saying that equality means no whitewashing, equal opportunities etc, and I’m all for equal opportunities. But you shouldn’t prioritise who gets those opportunities. Because then they aren’t equal. Someone applying to work in a corner store shouldn’t get shunted because of their race, sexuality, gender or anything. Doesn’t matter what race, sexuality or gender. Those wanting only minority demographics are just pushing equality farther away.What about in ~25 years when white people are the minority in the USA? Will it then be acceptable for them to be in films again?What about in southern states today where white people are minorities? Will it only be okay to show white majority films in those states? Oh wait, that would be racist wouldn’t it?Oppression sucks, yes, but we can’t keep hanging onto it and using it as a get out of jail free card for representation. I’ve never seen an asexual in any film ever, yet I wouldn’t want one because there’s an asexual in it. That would just feel shoehorned in and token. I’d want an asexual character who just is one, without all the stigma attached.You say I don’t have a leg to stand on in this argument, yet you haven’t stopped clearing out the same point since it started. Representation is good, but representation for representation’s sake is not equality.So any adaptation to anything ever is shitting on the original creators efforts? So all of the Lion King movies are shitting on various plays by Shakespeare? I mean Shakespeare wrote Hamlet with a bunch of humans in the middle ages. Changing his story to lions is shitting on the original creators efforts right? If changing a creators original work is shitting on it I truly hope that you’re calling out all the adaptations of original works then that change stuff. All of them. Which I know your not and it’s blatantly obvious that you only care because people are trying to correct historic and ongoing systematic oppression. Sometimes you have to prioritize different people to get them on an even playing field and that’s just a fact. There is a bias when it comes to hiring practices towards the majority and in order to get on them equal footing you’ve got to focus on the minority. This isn’t a hard concept. The literally definition of equality that I provided you literally uses says “an organization aiming to promote racial equality” the definition and example of the word is on my side. When you promote something you are prioritizing it over something else. So first off let’s be real here. There is no damn way that people are gonna stop making movies with white people and like those numbers were just a way to give you something concrete to look at. Realistically what needs to happen is however many years it takes for white people and PoC etc to get equal representation within those years AND eliminating the systematic biases that stop people from hiring PoC etc is when we can say “cool everyone has been on equal footing for a while and now we don’t need to racebend and we have eliminated whitewashing as well.” I didn’t realize that Hollywood and other forms of [TV shows, video games, books, etc] were state specific. And here I thought those things were country wide. Also like…systematic oppression doesn’t affect white people on the basis of their race so even if they start being the minority unless there is a system of oppression that affects them based on their race it’s not the same situation.WHAT. Oppression is LITERALLY the reason representation is so poor and lacking. Pointing that out and trying to change it is a good thing and you treating it like its bad is beyond ridiculous. You sound like you want systematic oppression to stay. “That would just feel shoehorned and token. I would just want one without all the stigma attached”You do realize that the stigma is there because of systematic oppression that has kept people that aren’t the “default factory settings” of a person out of entertainment and the way to combat that is to normalize asexual people in media through well written and non tokenized characters. I agree that we shouldn’t have token characters, but adding diversity doesn’t automatically make characters tokens. Your use of the word shoehorn makes it sound like people need a reason to be asexual in shows outside of people in real life are asexual simply because they are asexual. Characters don’t need a reason to not be the “default factory setting” I haven’t watched the show extensively but from what I hear there is an asexual character on Bojack Horsemen that is a well written non token character. Creating representation in order to even the playing field is working towards equality. Combatting poor and non existant representation which is not only a side effect of systematic oppression but also feeds back into systematic oppression is a good thing. I haven’t changed my point because I don’t need to. Combatting systematic oppression where you see it is a good thing because a) once its removed people can start getting on equal footing and b) systematic oppression is bad and that’s a fact. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Creating representation to even the playing field is a complete farce though, because of how big the difference is. You could have fifty years of solely minority characters in films and media and not catch up. So forcing the hand and obliging minority characters in things, then parading about how there are minority characters in the thing, does nothing for the eventual goal. Preferential treatment is not equality. Not to help one side catch up, not to push another side down.If you believe that a white person replacing a black person in a film is different to a black person replacing a white person, then you have no footing in this argument. I’ve nothing against ‘adaptations’ of films. The Lion King lived and died with Mufasa, but it was a good way of bringing Hamlet to a younger audience. What I have an issue with, is people blatantly changing well established characters, and deciding that these ones are infinitely superior to the original. Take the headcanon Indian Harry Potter for example. You see him in more fan art than you do the original, and people are insisting that this is canon.And before you say it, yes, I’d have just as much issue as a black person getting ’whitewashed’, to use the colloquial term. Fan art? Sure! Go nuts! Just be respectful. But keep it out of canon please.Systematic oppression is a thing, yes. But swinging it entirely the other way will not fix anything.I’m just gonna call an impasse here. We clearly have different opinions, though I do respect that you’ve kept things dignified and not resorted to name calling or anything, like these sorts of debates usually boil down to. Thanks there. -- source link