site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   33194 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

23
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I forget what it is called, but what does this community think about when a movie takes a character that was white or a male and makes it a different gender or race for the sake of it?

To the point of advocates, I was cajoled into seeing the recent spiderman movie and I remember there was a cameo of some black superhero, and all of the black kids in the audience went nuts over it. And it was clear in that moment that there's a compelling need, to some extent, for more representation of x demographic, because, for instance, it can't be positive to grow up watching superhero movies and none of them look like you.

At the same time, I think it's often done in an absurd and borderline incompetent manner. I think there are three basic situations with respect to a character's race and gender. 1. Where there isn't really any implied gender or race, so the character's demographic profile can reasonably be whatever the producers want it to be 2. Where there may be an implied demographic profile, but it isn't unambiguously clear, there is a degree of ambiguity, and it isn't crucial to the structural integrity of the film (for instance, the bond films. The characters have historically been white, but 007 is really just Britain's top spy job and it's totally plausible that a black guy could land that job) and 3. Where there is clearly an implied demographic profile and absent the character fitting that demographic profile it's just confusing and nonsensical.

I don't mind the first 2 all that much, but the third is increasingly common. For instance, in House of Dragons, the princess is married to a black guy. However, he's gay and they have an arrangement where they can each sleep with whoever they want, and as a result all of her kids are white. There's a challenge to the succession claims of her kids, but all of the arguments against their succession are like 'I just have a sense for these things. I just know they aren't her kids' or there will be a quiet and vague reference to the fact that her kids don't look like her husband. But no one is ever just like 'she has 5 kids and they are all white. She has blonde hair and her kids all have curly black hair. Obviously they are not her kids'. Or in the recent lord of the rings show, in the hobbit community they are all white except for two people who are not married to each other, and one of those characters had a kid with a white hobbit, and their kid is white. And the producers/writers never thought to or saw the need to address that. I mean the hobbits are a genetically distinct and notoriously insular group and have been for thousands of years. Even ignoring that a white woman and a black man had a paper-white kid, how is it that in a community that has been self-enclosed for thousands of years only two people are black? Or you can even take Bridgerton (which I confess I have not watched), where one of the lords is a black guy. I mean this is in England several hundred years ago. One show might be a period piece for that same time period and cast characters that are black so they can write scenes that highlight how they were treated unfairly, and then another will go the opposite direction and cast a black character that would obviously have been white and you're supposed to ignore their skin color. Like it just doesn't make sense. Another example that really bugged me was in the Foundation show. I read all of those books. And one of the main characters was named Salvore Harden. His whole thing was that he was super masculine in a conventional sense. And they made his character a black woman. It's just not even the same character. I mean that's a character that they perhaps could have made black (so probably in the second category of characters), but making him a woman was just absurd and desperate.

They don't even try and explain this stuff. They just put it out there. I see the general need to increase diversity in film, but it's being done in such a stupid way and I think highlights the sometimes superficial and low quality thinking that comes with DEI lenses. Like if you google these instances I'm talking about the articles all have this tone of 'to all the racists out there:' like you didn't just make a king of england a black trans woman (not necessarily that I've seen that, but just as an extreme). By all means, write more demographically diverse characters into the first or second categories I mentioned earlier, but at some point there has to be some sort of recognition that there are parameters you have to work within in some cases, most prominently a historical drama.

I consistently feel like the current influence progressives have is little more than the dog that caught the car. I think they have been given a 'lets see what you've got' moment in culture and society, and once the current environment, which is more politicized and emotionally charged and thus does not apply a normal degree of critical thinking to ideas, passes, I think people are going to look back and observe that they really fucked it away and lacked serious recommendations when they were given the reigns. There is a way of doing this shit that makes sense, but that is not the way things are being done.

The responses to this are a little out there IMO. They tend to be 'not seeing diversity in film has no impact' or 'it's not weird for two white parents to give birth to a black child'

It's kind of funny to watch this conversation play out here as I'm taking a break to watch House of Dragons. The guy who would inherit the throne if the princess hadn't ostensibly had kids with his brother, meaning they are the true heir to the throne, is currently laying his case down in court and making the formal allegation that they are not his brother's true kids and when he talks about how he knows they aren't his kids he's just like "vibes are how I know! I just have an instinct for this sort of thing!" Like even within the premise of the show, that a black guy is married to a white woman, they are just so afraid of stating the basic fact.

I am generally in favour of race-blind casting. I'd prefer characters that are genetically related to look related, as following the plot can get a little confusing when for example, three full-blooded sisters are portrayed by one white, one black and one asian actress, but it's no big deal. I dislike racial hyper-awareness around casting, eg the backlash against Gal Gadot playing Cleopatra.

Regarding Foundation, I accepted all the characters being turned into women - it's Current Year, whatever. But what I strongly disliked was pacifists being turned into violent killers.

Salvor "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Hardin, skilled diplomat, is turned into a gun-toting warrior woman who shoots first and asks questions never. Her father recites the famous line instead, and is belittled for his pacifism.

Eto Demerzel, wyrmtounge-esque political manipulator, is now a neck-snapping killer fembot. Not all the robots in Foundation series are bound by "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm" - but Eto Demerzel sure was! (Yes yes, zeroth law, but that doesn't get a mention).

I realise the series as a whole was an almost entirely unrelated to Foundation aside from some character and place names, but taking the names of two devout pacifists and sticking them on a warmonger and an assassin droid was frankly offensive. It seems part of a wider trend of advocating violence for solving problems, and pooh-poohing diplomatic solutions.

I wish I had more than one upvote to give. I went from "trying to avoid spoilers for the new plot padding before I watch" to "refusing to watch after hearing spoilers about Raych and not caring to learn more" so abruptly that I never even got the chance to find out they'd screwed with Demerzel and Hardin's principles so badly. Personally I'm not a pacifist, I think the obvious "competent people employ violence sooner" retort is obvious, but that doesn't mean I want characters I disagree with to be remolded in my image.

(random aside: I can't seem to find who actually came up with that retort. It's usually attributed to Jerry Pournelle, in various wordings, but he only vaguely remembered swiping it hmiself, possibly from H. Beam Piper, in the quite different form of "Yes, it is, because by then it's too late.")

I think this is done because real diversity would require trying to get into the mindset of people who think differently than we do, which is something our increasingly insular and status insecure elite is profoundly uncomfortable doing. A truly diverse story about Afghanistan, for example, would be a story about hardscrabble clansman surviving by will, strength, and guile, with the US a background actor. I think there probably would be an audience for such a story, but I don't think those who control the media means of production have the vision or daring to try something like that, for various structural reasons. Much easier to cast some conspicuously nonwhite actors and call it a day.

I forget what it is called, but what does this community think about when a movie takes a character that was white or a male and makes it a different gender or race for the sake of it?

The key point there is "for the sake of it". Unlike others here, I see no problem with swapping done for a reason. Want to tell a story where women are our soldiers and men stay at home, adapting something like the biography of MacArthur? Go for it.

There's nothing wrong with heavily borrowing from existing work, changing some characters, and trying to tell your story. There are more measures by which a film is successful than simply if its world-building is rational when it comes to race or the accuracy of its depiction compared to the original work.

I object to works that are only done in a shallow manner, where the race-swapping isn't the point, but just gets done regardless.

Not every piece of media has to be for everyone. Let the traditionalists have The Northman, let the progressives have black Ariel. Ultimately, they must be judged for more than their ability to pander to the beliefs of their audience.

Not every piece of media has to be for everyone. Let the traditionalists have The Northman, let the progressives have black Ariel.

In principle I'm ok with this, but there are a couple of issues when the rubber meets the road.

  1. A lot of these things are zero sum. The Amazon Wheel of Time show is the only adaptation we're ever going to get. It'd be nice if we could have "one really faithful adaptation for the book fans, and another full of progressive politics for the woke crowd". But that isn't possible due to the cost, so we get only one and anyone who cares is going to fight over their irreconcilable differences in how the show should be made.

  2. An all white cast simply is not allowed in modern day entertainment. So in theory we should be able to have some shows (or movies) be full of forced diversity, while others are all black, and still others are all white. But in practice, anyone who tries to make the all white show is going to be immediately shouted down as a racist. So we aren't allowed to have peaceful coexistence, much as that might be desirable.

A lot of these things are zero sum.

That's an issue of copyright in this case, yes? There's a legally enforced scarcity regarding who can use Tolkein's IP. If there wasn't, the only thing stopping that show is a lack of care from the people who want it. I'm sure there has to be at least one or more fans wealthy enough to sponsor even a less-than-polished show.

And yeah, I get that it's easier to try and shift the culture to be more appreciative of maintaining the original work's details than it is to fight the economic power of IP holders, but you have to at least be willing to do something on your own.

An all white cast simply is not allowed in modern day entertainment.

The Avengers pre-Falcon? You had Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, Thor, Black Widow, and Hawkeye. Fury was and is largely a secondary character who just gives people plot hooks.

And even after that, characters like Falcon, Black Panther, and other non-whites played a fairly minimal role in what was going on. They had their moments, but they were not the main stars of phases 1-3, and arguably even after that.

For that matter, Person of Interest ran until 2016 and had its main cast as all white. Or is your argument that there can't be a show where everyone, even the extras, is white? I won't try to argue that. But that position is even more extreme than the type of shows people are complaining about where there's just more black people, not a dearth of white people in any shot. Hell, even Black Panther had white people in it (and not just as villains either!)

For that matter, Person of Interest ran until 2016 and had its main cast as all white.

Taraji P. Henson was one of the main characters in the first half of the show.

You're right, I forgot about that one, or just relegated her to a side character. My mistake.

The Avengers pre-Falcon?

That's not modern. The political climate has significantly changed since then.

For that matter, Person of Interest ran until 2016 and had its main cast as all white.

Most TV shows can't suddenly change their cast when the political climate changes, so you have to count such things from when the series started, not when it ended. Supernatural lasted to 2020 and its main characters are all white. But it didn't start in 2020.

2012 is recent enough that the idea of having more non-white people on staff wasn't some fringe idea. Like, even in the mid-2000s as a kid, I earnestly believed that we needed to include non-white people in more media, and that was an idea given by my public education. Person of Interest started in 2011.

Sure, if you want to argue that there are now people very conscious about the race of the casts in the media they make, I won't argue that with you. But even Avengers: Endgame was written in 2015-2016, released in 2019, and still predominantly features a white cast with no backlash.

Like, people got more on their case for relegating an LGBT character to audio-only than they did the lack of racial diversity in the Avengers, and I don't see people turning on it more publicly or the MCU in general at this point.

It's not an all or nothing thing. The push for social justice casting is stronger now than it was ten years ago, even though it still existed to some extent ten years ago.

And Avengers: Endgame had a white cast for similar reasons to a TV show--the white actors were cast many years ago when there was much less social justice casting, and they're being played by the same actors now that they were played by back when they were cast.

In regards to point two, I think you're looking at diversity in a vacuum. Diversity isn't just about what shows are released right now in this moment, it accounts for the past as well. We have plenty of all white shows historically. We also have plenty of shows where the cast is like 90% white as well. In this context, it isn't surprising that today an all-white show would be frowned upon for diversity reasons while an all black show would be appreciated for the same reasons.

I forget what it is called, but what does this community think about when a movie takes a character that was white or a male and makes it a different gender or race for the sake of it?

The term you are looking for is "fan-baiting".

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1568182048564875265.html

“Fan-baiting” is a form of marketing used by producers, film studios, and actors, with the intent of exciting artificial controversy, garnering publicity, and explaining away the negative reviews of a new and often highly anticipated production.

Fan-baiting emerged as a marketing strategy in 2016/17, after fans of beloved franchises such as Ghostbusters and Star Wars objected to what they saw as poor writing choices, sloppy scripts, and cheap alterations to plot lines and characters for the sake of shock value.

Along side these critics, there was a small group of bigoted but vociferous commentators who objected to the inclusion of black and female actors in roles traditionally held by white male actors. Some of these individuals began publicly harassing actors.

Bigots have always attacked diversity on screen, but in a highly polarized political climate, instances of harassment on garnered disproportionately massive media coverage, which provided production studios with both free publicity and a new defence against actual critics.

Studios seized the opportunity to discredit criticism of poor writing & acting, insinuating that these, too, were motivated by bigotry. What used to be accepted as standard critiques were increasingly dismissed as part of the ignorant commentary of a “toxic fandom.”

Soon, it became standard practice before release to issue announcements specifying diverse casting choices, coupled with pre-emptive declarations of solidarity with the cast whom they now counted on to receive disparaging and harassing comments.

Actors who are women and/or BIPOC became props & shields for craven corporate laziness and opportunism. The studios save money both by avoiding expensive veteran writers as well as by offloading publicity to news outlets and social media covering the artificial controversy.

“Fan-baiting” works. It brings in a new sympathetic audience whose endorsement is more about taking a public stance against prejudice than any real interest in the art. “Fan-baiting” also permits studios to cultivate public skepticism over the legitimacy of poor reviews.

“Fan-baiting” also compels reviewers to temper their criticism, for fear of becoming associated with the “toxic fandom” and losing their professional credibly, resulting in telling discrepancies between critic and audience review scores.

The true nature of “fan-baiting” is never so clear as when a script is well-crafted and audience reviews are accordingly positive, exposing the announcements, declarations of solidarity, & grooming of skepticism for what they really are: cynical corporate marketing tactics.

The OP was probably looking for the term "race lift", although fan baiting is a more specific thing that can use it.

If you don't like fan baiting I don't think you should make this argument. It provides a justification for the behaviour, and by presenting capitalism as the cause (because that's what it boils down to) you remove agency from the people actually responsible. You excuse them to say stuff like "Oh yeah sorry about the ridiculous casting choices and plot hole riddled stories, but increased profits demand we do stupid shit to annoy people! Aargh, we wish we could write a good story with well crafted characters, but we can't, because capitalism! Oh evil capitalism, puppeting us into writing lazy shit! If only we could abandon it we would be living in a land of milk and honey, but we can't, so we have to use this first draft we sharted and languish in banality."

Once something seems too big to fix (fixing it would require a full restructure of society) a lot of people just give up. I wish I could still consider it ironic that this is the exact reason progressives put so much effort into forcing representation.

The thing is, the people responsible are ultimately cogs in the machine. To use gaming as an example, people got mad at John Riccitello when he was CEO of EA (Riccitello oversaw that time period where EA became memed for killing studios and generally being dicks), and now that hatred is projected onto Andrew Wilson, the current CEO (who oversaw the more recent time period where EA went so full-steam-ahead on lootboxes that it invited government reaction).

You can criticize the King all you can, but eventually, the King will die and his successor being any improvement is far from guaranteed. It would indeed be more attractive to say "to hell with the Throne and all who bow down to it" at some point.

The thing is, the people responsible are ultimately cogs in the machine.

This is begging the question. It's also coherent to imagine a situation in which they are not machine cogs, but rather masters of their own fate.

The "fan-baiting" definition above does indeed point the finger at Muh Capitalism, but that's not the only possible explanation. Also possible is that the showrunners really do have agency, they really are self-motivated anti-whites, and they enjoy reverse-colonizing white people stories with black actors out of racial animus. That their actions have a side-effect of immunizing the products from criticism of their lazy writing is just a happy coincidence.

I'm not so much asserting that this is the case as I am asserting that it is a possibility which fits the evidence.

This frustrates me a lot, as someone who has watched Wheel of Time (absolute shit) and Rings of Power (kinda meh, but visually impressive).

I don't mind black elf -- he's in the army, army draws from all over the place, and he's kinda elven (vs most of the other elves, who look like roman senators in a cheap community drama, but with pointy ears). Black dwarf lady is potentially okay -- we can imagine different kingdoms, although that's not what they said, and we haven't seen the kids. The storyline for the dwarves is more engaging, which helps.

But the black hobbits (Harfeet) just doesn't make sense. Do genetics not hold any more? Do children not look like their parents? Do no men worry about cuckolding then? This changes a huge dynamic in the whole species! If genetics don't hold, can Harfeet have elves for kids? Dwarves, humans, sheep? I would say, even if we don't know genetics deeply, we have an intuitive sense (likely at least somewhat honed by the whole cuckolding thing) about kids looking like parents. "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" "Oh, you're the spitting image of your grandfather at that age". Apparently it's true across almost all cultures for there to be more comments made about how a kid looks like the dad than the mom (presumably to soothe fears). We've been breeding animals for longer. We know something is up if a kid doesn't look like either parent.

Or if genetics still hold (doesn't really work in RoP, where the mother with very broad black features has a very fair Irish child), does that mean that in isolated communities (like in Wheel of Time) the Maori family has been inbreeding for hundreds of generations? (As have the Chinese, Nigerian, Spanish and Celtic families?)

It just requires throwing out a whole lot, and you can't just say, "oh, you accept dragons, but not X" because it means the world doesn't make any sense. A big part of fantasy and science fictions, is asking "what if?" and following where it takes you. If you don't do that (or it immediately makes no sense), it's not a convincing story, it's just a stream of words or scenes (which kinda describes Rings of Power).

It's a bit like modern stories where a single phone call with a cell phone would solve the problem (often they are problems normal people have encountered). The story needs to address why that phone call wasn't made, or it won't be an engaging story. You're not a 'techno-fetishist' or something if you ask why a character didn't use their cell phone, you just want a somewhat consistent world!

i share your view on rings of power tbh. wanted to like it, was excited for it, but it's pretty underwhelming.

concerning the black elf, if there is a rational justification for it I'm fine with it. but each of these species of humans, e.g. the elves, is very genetically distinct and appears to mostly stick to themselves with respect to mating. i think there could plausibly be a rational explanation for it but given that all the other elves are white they've gotta give some sort of explanation

definitely agree with your third paragraph. doing this sort of thing sort of implies that all logic be suspended if it's to achieve a DEI end. I don't know why people think this way of doing it is the only way to achieve diversity in film. it almost strikes me as a power move: this doesn't make sense but this idea is so supreme that we can make you accept it either way, even though there's a more reasonable way for us to do this.

the rest of your comment, also disagree with. we are often expected to suspend disbelief in movies but there's always an explanation for it; absent that we are left to say 'i think i was probably supposed to suspend disbelief there but I'm not sure. so this other thing that's happening doesn't seem sensible; are they going to explain that or am i just supposed to know I'm supposed to suspend disbelief there, or did i miss something?'

This truly strikes me as something we are going to look back on in 10 years as an indication of the degree to which absurd thought was allowed into the mainstream.

I think the audience is often savvy enough to know when the diversity works (it does not draw attention to itself) and when it's being shoehorned in.

it can't be positive to grow up watching superhero movies and none of them look like you.

This is assuming Arnold Schwarzenegger "looks like me" because his skin has a hue close to mine (if you really squint) and thus I can imagine myself being him, despite having nothing else at all in common, but if my skin were a couple of hues different, now I can't. That doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean for a racist, where everything you need to know about a person is their race and it defines everything - sure does, but for someone who didn't grow up in a race-obsessed culture, it just sounds extremely bizarre.

Also, billions and billions of people grew up without watching any "superhero movies" at all, and they came up just fine - or at least not worse that those that did see the magic pictures.

As someone on PCM put it...

Well Arnold Schwarzenegger is not the only star in a film. Typically in Schwarzenegger films there are plenty of white men (speaking to my own demographic) speaking English and making cultural references I understand that more than outweigh how alien Schwarzenegger's body is, even if white.

Racial representation is not everything but it might be the single largest factor going into why I will gravitate towards something. Like maybe it's 30%, and various other factors represent 20% and so on. (If ethnicity is a combination of race and culture then I suppose that is really what I'm getting at.)

Slice of life-style dramas do need to be culturally familiar, again with race acting as a rough proxy. I recently watched the Polish series High Water, about the floods of the '90s. The main star was a heroin junkie. Now, I watched that series because the flood was interesting. I couldn't hang with just a Polish drama about a heroin junkie. But I know I could do that for its American counterpart.

Basically some other culture's/race's noir or rom-com is nowhere near as interesting as my own. There needs to be some wild external factor that would be interesting anywhere, e.g. in Squid Game.

Racial representation is not everything but it might be the single largest factor going into why I will gravitate towards something

I can imagine your enjoyment of a cultural even is predicated on the participant's skin hue being as closely matched as possible to your own. I mean, everybody has their kinks. I don't have to understand yours. I just think it's very weird for this particular kink to become a culture-wide rule.

Slice of life-style dramas do need to be culturally familiar, again with race acting as a rough proxy.

That sucks for me, because now I have to stop watching everything from Agatha Cristies' detectives to American romcoms to Hong-Kong martial arts movies to Korean historic epics - nothing matches my cultural background as an Eastern European Jew. I could probably still enjoy Sholom Aleichem maybe... but he talks too much about living in the shtetl, and I grew up in an urban culture in 20th century, so no luck for me again. But wait, there's a respite - their skin tones still roughly match mine (even the Hong-Kong guys maybe close enough? please?), and that means that it's all the same culture, since there's only one culture per skin tone, so yay, I am saved.

Basically some other culture's/race's noir or rom-com is nowhere near as interesting as my own

I think you are voluntarily robbing yourself of a wealth of cultural experiences. I'd suggest to try to expand your horizons and you may discover people that are different from you may be also interesting. You don't have to, of course - it's just a choice that is available to you.

My understanding is that korean and spanish soap-operas have a significant white audience. Would this be contrary evidence?

[EDIT] - Kung Fu films. Manga and Anime. At the high end, foreign film of all kinds. I just straight-up don't think this argument engages with the available evidence.

When the Brazilian soap operas were introduced into Soviet market in the late 80s - previously unfamiliar with them - the whole cities shut down when the regular installments were broadcast. You could walk into a store and not find anybody to serve you because everybody was watching (but anyway, what business did you have walking around when you're supposed to be watching too?). It was hugely popular, and Brazilian soap operas remain very popular among some categories of people to this day. It also introduced the Brazilian word fazenda into Russian - where it became to mean the same as dacha.

It was the same in Hungary. All the grandmas watched the Mexican and Brazilian soap operas throughout the 90s. The first classic was Escrava Isaura back in the 80s. Then in the 90s it was Esmeralda, La usurpadora, and so on. Today many watch Turkish soaps. In the 90s the series Dallas was also hugely popular. Surely my Eastern European peasant grandparents watched Dallas because they shared the culture of Texan oil magnates. And also Latin American culture, sure. Oh wait, no, it was because of skin tone (grandpa got quite tanned on the sun, working outdoors, so he surely identified with the Brazilians).

I think Americans don't quite get how absolutely normal it is in rest of the world that TV doesn't depict your own culture, cities, stories etc. People who travel to the US are often surprised that "wait, this is really like that, and it's not only the movies?", like yellow school buses, college football, high school lockers, doorknobs, whatever. It's all foreign but we are used to TV being a different world. When my grandma saw the skyscrapers in the Dallas opening sequence it was as foreign as watching some sci-fi. But she still liked the series because the human stories aren't all that different. Sure, you miss many cultural references but it's rarely crucial for the entertainment.

Let's not get carried away. Almost(?) the entire cast of Dallas was White. Most characters in Latin American soaps are White, and Black/Indigenous characters are there as essentially exotic tokens.

So it's not culture then. Back to skin color. Okay, then why was every little girl playing with black baby dolls ("négerbaba") during socialism? "That one was available" is not sufficient because as far as I heard first hand, kids and parents had no problem with it and liked it.

That's not my point. My point is that the characters in those series were still relatable to Eastern European viewers, racially speaking. Had, say, J.R. Ewing suddenly appeared in the business district of any local capital in his Mercedes-Benz and usual attire, he wouldn't have stood out, unless his cowboy hat was on. Everyone'd have assumed he's just another local big shot. With respect to negro dolls, I don't think their popularity, which I assume was real, somehow contradicts my point. Again, we're talking about stagnating socialist economies of shortage here. Seldom was any available product unwanted. People were also happy to watch trafficked Western movies on VHS, which were mostly crap even if one discounts the awful fandub, because at least it was different from anything on the two TV channels that were available etc.

I m highly recommend Mr. Sunshine.

How much of that is confounded by evidence of white folk having low to negative ingroup preference?

No clue. How popular are marvel movies or action flicks in Africa and south america and china? I'm pretty sure they're super popular, aren't they?

Comparing US production popularity abroad to foreign production popularity in the US is not a like for like comparison.

Or in the recent lord of the rings show, in the hobbit community they are all white except for two people who are not married to each other, and one of those characters had a kid with a white hobbit, and their kid is white.

On that one, it seems that the black woman is the step-mother so at least they were aware of that much. There are a couple other black Harfoots as well, but yeah - all the stuff about "finally black Hobbits!" and the two main Hobbit characters are both white girls. "We have black Elves!" You have one black Elf, and no sign of where he comes from or why he's the One Black Elf in amongst mostly white Elves. Ditto with Dísa - I think there were a couple of other black Dwarves, but they were in crowd scenes so don't really count. So these really stick out as Token Diverse Inclusive Characters.

alright fair point. i didn't get past the first episode.

IIRC though it was the dad that was black. I don't know if it was a main character that I'm referring to. It was just in the first episode when they introduced the hobbits.

But that's sort of my point. In some cases we are supposed to suspend this disbelief and in others we are not, and there is no particular indicator to determine when this belief is supposed to be suspended. Like we're supposed to know that the black mom is the stepmother but not know why there's one black elf in a community of white elves?

To the point of advocates, I was cajoled into seeing the recent spiderman movie and I remember there was a cameo of some black superhero, and all of the black kids in the audience went nuts over it.

Are you referring to Spiderman No Way Home? I'm not sure what superhero cameo you're referring to. The only black super-powered person in the movie is one of the main villains, Electro, played by Jamie Foxx.

No, I suspect it's Into the Multiverse

I honestly don't know. Maybe it was.

I think Electro commented in that film that there must be a black Spiderman somewhere out there in the multiverse, in a shout out to Miles Morales. Though that's obviously not a direct cameo.

And it was clear in that moment that there's a compelling need, to some extent, for more representation of x demographic, because, for instance, it can't be positive to grow up watching superhero movies and none of them look like you.

FWIW, as an asian guy born in the West this does not even appear on my radar as things that influenced by upbringing. Then again, I did have Jackie Chan and Hong Kong kungfu cinema in general to look up to.

FWIW, as an asian guy born in the West this does not even appear on my radar as things that influenced by upbringing. Then again, I did have Jackie Chan and Hong Kong kungfu cinema in general to look up to.

Since you mention Chan: I've always related to him moreso than to white (like me) movie heroes, because Chan plays characters who are often foolish and who get beat up badly a lot. He's not treated like an idealized superhero. The idea of anyone relating to a superhero of any color seems weird to me because they're not real.

There's a challenge to the succession claims of her kids, but all of the arguments against their succession are like 'I just have a sense for these things. I just know they aren't her kids' or there will be a quiet and vague reference to the fact that her kids don't look like her husband. But no one is ever just like 'she has 5 kids and they are all white. She has blonde hair and her kids all have curly black hair. Obviously they are not her kids'.

In the most recent episode, one character points this out to the gathered court in no uncertain terms and is promptly beheaded for Noticing. His actor even straight up ignores the show pretensions and straight up says that "they're white". I'm amazed that was released via an official channel.

I thought you meant that in the scene he does say he knows because they aren't white. For the record, he did not make that claim. He just said they were bastards and was beheaded.

I think the actor saying that in the link you shared demonstrates that, to some extent, ignoring the race of characters is pretty absurd. Because the actor, as you linked to, said it was obvious because they are white. But because of the belief suspension that we are supposed to have with respect to race, and as many have lauded on this thread, you don't know if that belief is supposed to be suspended or not. I am certain that this practice is going to recede or at least done in less absurd ways.

To be fair, if you can have your head lopped off for expressing suspicions about the paternity of the royal children, then it would be very vital for your continuing good health to try your utmost not to notice anything that might point out the reality. A combination of the Emperor's New Clothes and See Deer, Say Horse. "Lovely children, take after their mother" is as much as you'll venture, if even that.

if you can have your head lopped off for expressing suspicions about the paternity of the royal children, then it would be very vital for your continuing good health to try your utmost not to notice anything that might point out the reality

This just strikes as a very strange way to frame things. There are at least two or three unstated assumptions here and I'm not following. Even if we take everything at face value are you genuinely incapable of noticing something without saying something?

I agree, but when it was suggested that they were not her kids, they never said it was because they were white. at that point, the seal had already been broken when he called them bastards. The guy's head would've been chopped off whether he said it was because they were white or not. There would have been no additional downside to bringing up their race as the reason, unless Westeros is more woke than I thought.

I was cajoled into seeing the recent spiderman movie and I remember there was a cameo of some black superhero, and all of the black kids in the audience went nuts over it. And it was clear in that moment that there's a compelling need, to some extent, for more representation of x demographic, because, for instance, it can't be positive to grow up watching superhero movies and none of them look like you.

With respect, I disagree that this is the only correct response to that moment. An equally-valid response would be: "how tragic, these kids have been stunted and boxed-in so much that they're incapable of having heroes who don't look like them."

I forget what it is called, but what does this community think about when a movie takes a character that was white or a male and makes it a different gender or race for the sake of it?

I accept the product is trash and pay it no further mind.

Amusingly there were some critical articles released around the last season claiming that the show was ‘whitewashing’ the British Empire. I suppose it kind of does, in that if you were a random western teenager with little knowledge of history the Empire portrayed and suggested at on the show seems like a much more modern, tolerant and DEI-affirming multicultural polity (at least from the perspective of the metropole) than it actually was.

I mean how can they simultaneously diversity-cast historically-set media whilst not whitewashing the lack of diversity?

Yeah, Bridgerton is not meant to be anything more than fantasy Regency romance, not even approaching historical. It's dressing up and playing at Jane Austen, nothing more. I have a lot more objections to 'serious' historical drama that cast Anne Boleyn as black because that was a pure gimmick; they cast a black actor as her brother, so okay, consistent - except for when she has baby Elizabeth, who is of course a red-headed white child.

Hey honestly if they explained it in a way that makes some degree of sense, as it seems they did, I'm fine with it.

And it was clear in that moment that there's a compelling need, to some extent, for more representation of x demographic, because, for instance, it can't be positive to grow up watching superhero movies and none of them look like you.

I actually think the opposite. It's profoundly unhealthy to care if people look like you, and we should be teaching our kids to not worry about such things. When I was growing up, I consumed media featuring all manner of people - black, white, male, female, you name it. I never cared if they looked like me, I cared if they were part of an interesting story. I think that's the attitude we need to cultivate in kids, not feeding the attitude that "yes it really does matter what people's superficial characteristics are".

Taken at face value, this seems like a strong argument for race blind casting. You* can't simultaneously say appearances don't matter and make a big deal out of casting a non-white actor (or otherwise portraying) for a customarily white character. Maybe you don't need Black Panther, but if you're going to argue for that you ought to be open to black Captain America or Hispanic Iron Man or female Thor. Or, say, black Ariel.

*rhetorical you, not you specifically

It's an argument for race blind casting in some cases, sure. But not all. While I don't care about the race of characters per se, I care a great deal about adaptations being faithful to the original. So, no race swapping established characters, but yeah original characters can be whatever and it doesn't bother me.

While I don't care about the race of characters per se, I care a great deal about adaptations being faithful to the original.

What does that mean, though? There are certainly stories where changing the race of certain characters at the very least demands some justification, but there are plenty where it does not. Does it really make any sense to insist that Hamlet only be played by Danish actors? Was it a problem that Tom Cruise played the role of a Japanese man in Edge of Tomorrow? (Or, if you want something more recent, basically everyone in Bullet Train).

I don't think that it's particularly complicated. If the character is described a certain way in a book (or other source material), then they should stay that way in an adaptation. And yes, that goes for making characters white as well as making them black. The sword cuts both ways. I was annoyed that the Wheel of Time show felt the need to take white characters and make them black, but I would've been equally annoyed if they had taken the black characters and made them white.

I think you're overthinking this. It really is quite simple.

So there's no legitimacy to complaints about black elf OCs in Rings of Power or black Ariel?

I think you're overthinking this. It really is quite simple.

In principle it's not that complicated. In practice it doesn't seem quite so straightforward. I see this argument advanced when it comes to changing a character's appearance, but it tends to get applied in very selective and arbitrary (and one sided) ways. No one complains when adapters change, e.g. a character's hair or eye color, height/physique. Recasting a customarily white character tends to provoke a far stronger reaction than vice versa (nobody complained about Neeson or Hardy in the Nolan Batman films, for example), but also concerns about authenticity/fidelity go out the window if the casting choice is sufficiently cool (approximately no one complained about SLJ as Nick Fury or Jason Momoa as Aquaman, despite them bearing virtually no resemblance to their character's original appearance).

I do recall people complaining about Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher in the movie, since the character is supposed to be a behemoth and Tom Cruise is more... petite. There was much celebration when the character in the TV show was played by a big guy.

Yep, I definitely remember those complaints. I hadn't read the books and I thought (and still think) Cruise did a really good job in the movie, but having seen the series now I definitely see their point. Cruise did as well as he could for a guy his size, but only for a guy his size.

More comments

Oh, no, we're keeping Black Panther. But he's going to be played by Robert Pattinson.

Agreed. I come from South America; Latin American countries don't have their own animation industries, so I grew up watching imported American cartoons and Japanese anime. I never had any problems identifying with Goku just because he was Japanese.

To this day, I feel a thousand times more represented by Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres (a white Briton written by an American Jew) than I do by a character who shares my race like Jaime Reyes. HJPEV thinks like me; Jaime merely looks like me.

I never had any problems identifying with Goku just because he was Japanese.

This is an interesting case, since Goku is actually an alien, and the Earth of Dragon Ball is far removed from the real Earth, with none of the same countries as real Earth or even countries that are equivalent to real countries on real Earth. Goku's backstory was based partly off of Journey to the West, which is an old Chinese story, while his character design was by a Japanese artist following Japanese manga standards, giving him a highly stylized appearance that evokes a Japanese person to the audience. Goku's backstory was also based partly off of Superman, who's another alien who takes the appearance of a human from a particular country (USA in this case).

There's a similar thing with Mobile Suit Gundam; with over 20 different shows and movies across 40+ years, all the different protagonists, many of whom are drawn in the mukokuseki style common to anime, should be assumed to be at least part-Japanese unless stated otherwise.

This might vary depending on how much you generally identify with characters in movies/shows. I get really immersed when watching something, and that immersion gets stronger for characters who I feel similarity to. For example, if I'm watching a show where a woman is fighting, I feel it in my body. Watching a show where men are fighting, I'm just an observer.

The experience is just fundamentally different for me, aside from any political/societal concerns.

if I'm watching a show where a woman is fighting, I feel it in my body. Watching a show where men are fighting, I'm just an observer.

Are you sure this is because you are female? I feel the same way, as a male, because watching a woman fight subverts expectations. If a woman is typically more vulnerable and less aggressive, then it means more to see her fight and risk more than a stronger man would risk in the same situation. Even for a superhero like Buffy, there is power in the idea of what is supposed to be "the weakest" element -- not only a girl, but a pretty girl, and not only a pretty girl but a child -- standing up as the only line between monsters and men. This is (or was, until it got beaten into the ground recently) powerful to a wide range of viewers regardless of their sex. For a more extreme example, the little girl in Kick Ass, who is not even superpowered -- it's extremely emotional to see her mix it up because she is a supposedly weak female child, not because the viewer is a weak female child.

That is interesting. I always identified with the male characters as a kid. I hated being relegated to the pink power ranger role in preschool. Raven in Teen Titans was the first female character I felt a strong connection with.

Most of the books and shows I was exposed to as a kid featured boys being the main character/hero and girls being poorly written plot devices or hyper-feminine. I always identified (roleplayed in make-believe) as the hero, regardless of gender/race. I wanted to be Aladdin for Halloween and ran into an issue there with the shirtless vest look. But for the most part no one made much of it.

That is indeed a possibility. I would say I identify with characters in the sense that I empathize with their situation, but not in the sense that I see them as a reflection of myself in some way. For example, in video games the whole concept of self insertion is completely foreign to me. When people talk about it I can intellectually understand what they mean, but in terms of understanding what that is like they may as well be talking about drinking gasoline for nourishment.

So, given that I just don't self insert at all, that could explain why I have no trouble identifying with characters regardless of demographics, and why others do have trouble.

how is it that in a community that has been self-enclosed for thousands of years only two people are black?

Wheel of Time did this as well. Two Rivers is an isolated farming village surrounded by mountains, several days away from even a moderately sized trading down. But some of the main characters are white (Rand, Mat), some are mixed (unsure, but Perrin is from the UK so I'm guessing white and black) and others indigenous Australian/New Zealander (Egwene and I believe Nynaeve). They also made Lan Asian, which works well IMO except he's supposed to be 6'5" but is shorter than literally everyone else.

For some characters it probably doesn't matter, but throughout the books characters' appearance indicates where they're from (the main region where most of the book series takes place, nicknamed "Randland" by readers, is roughly the size of the US and has everything from lily-white to extremely dark-skinned character, but each country has very distinct appearances and accents). In addition, Rand's appearance is totally central to the entire plot and if the Aiel don't have a consistent appearance, then lots of things don't make sense. But they've already changed the story by quite a lot, so I maybe it won't end up mattering.

To the point of advocates, I was cajoled into seeing the recent spiderman movie and I remember there was a cameo of some black superhero, and all of the black kids in the audience went nuts over it. And it was clear in that moment that there's a compelling need, to some extent, for more representation of x demographic, because, for instance, it can't be positive to grow up watching superhero movies and none of them look like you.

(Emphasis added). I've seen this line of thinking used to justify race/gender-swapping a lot, and I'm skeptical that it is the case in general. Certainly, for some people some of the time, it's true (much like pretty much anything), but I've yet to see anyone do the hard work of checking this through scientific research. My suspicion is that this line of thinking is supported by means of projection by people who do feel like other human beings of different skin color/gender/etc. are less empathetic, but ultimately sans empirical evidence, I'm agnostic. It also seems to me that, to whatever extent people suffer due to, say, superheroes not being of the same skin color/gender/etc. as themselves, it's likely to be socially modulated, akin to how white Americans in the 1920s might have suffered from sharing a school with black people, but white people in the 2020s don't.

You can kind of make sense of it if you just suspend disbelief and pretend that in this fictional world skin color and other phenotypic racial characteristics are just a matter of complexion, and no more important to identity than is hair color among white Americans. So it is not any more unusual for a black mom to give birth to a white child than it is for a white brunette to give birth to a ginger child. (Although even this isn't great film making, because a film-maker shouldn't require any more suspension of belief than necessary, so better to just cast families that intuitively look like families).

But what grinds my gears is when the producers advertise the casting as "adding diversity and racial dynamics to the show which will make it more interesting", then halfway into the show when watching it you realize that they did not actually add racial diversity to the in-story universe, they simply added complexion. The fictional society is actually a post-racial one where the different racial phenotype does not actually matter. I end up very confused because I am coming in expecting race to be an issue, expecting it to be a difference that matters in story, waiting for the shoe to drop, but it never happens.

So it is not any more unusual for a black mom to give birth to a white child than it is for a white brunette to give birth to a ginger child.

Gingerness is caused by a single recessive gene which (in double dose) causes the production of pheomelanin instead of eumelanin, so it is as genetically significant as skin colour. The gene is associated with specific white ethnicities (Scots, Irish, Udmurts) and seeing it in someone not from those ethnicities is unusual. So it is not normal for a white brunette to give birth to a ginger child unless both her and her male partner have ancestry from one of those ethnicities.

When my wife gave birth to a ginger IVF baby (I have Irish ancestry, she thought she didn't) we had a DNA test done. The testing company was most confused as to why we were asking for a maternity test and mostly unconcerned about paternity. After discovering that the clinic hadn't made a mix-up, one of my wife's relatives admitted that an Irishman might have been involved somewhere in her family tree.

I forget what it is called, but what does this community think about when a movie takes a character that was white or a male and makes it a different gender or race for the sake of it?

It's vandalism at best, and more likely outright colonisation. Planting a flag in something and saying "this isn't yours anymore".

And it was clear in that moment that there's a compelling need, to some extent, for more representation of x demographic, because, for instance, it can't be positive to grow up watching superhero movies and none of them look like you.

So make some new properties. What kind of lesson do you think you're teaching young white boys when the whole world seems geared around taking things away from them and telling them "actually no, this is good, shitlord, and if you object you're basically a white supremacist/domestic terrorist"?

(for instance, the bond films. The characters have historically been white, but 007 is really just Britain's top spy job and it's totally plausible that a black guy could land that job)

I don't remember this ever being stated anywhere. This sounds like something people just made up out of whole cloth in order to justify taking more icons away from white men.

Planting a flag in something and saying "this isn't yours anymore".

Did their original race make the character more or less 'yours' ? If the answer to that is yes, then it would make sense to add more representation in media so others could experience that connection to a character. If the answer is no (as I presume), then changing their race shouldn't affect your relationship with said character.

taking more icons away from white men.

Why is James Bond an icon to you?

I don't remember this ever being stated anywhere. This sounds like something people just made up out of whole cloth in order to justify taking more icons away from white men.

I'm pretty sure this is stated in the books somewhere, but at the very least it's in the movies in Casino Royale. It makes it very clear that 007 is Bond's job title, one which he hasn't always had (he attains it in that movie). So yes, there's no reason we couldn't have a black 007. What they couldn't have (without throwing logical consistency to the wind) is a black Bond.

I'm pretty sure this is stated in the books somewhere

It is, and FWIW Craig's Casino Royale is perhaps the most faithful adaptation of the source material. Where most of the other Bond movies had loose relationship with Fleming's books at best. Much of Casino Royale is word for word and I feel like it's shows. How was your lamb?

007 isn't some hereditary title that passes on. It's his agent number. They have numbers so that they aren't referred to by name in intelligence agency documents, so they can't be betrayed. Post-WWII (and pre-WWII) Britain's secret service was full of communist traitors who could and did give away operations to the enemy.

Still by virtue of it being a very small number, you'd imagine it'd have changed hands a bunch unless he's literally only the 7th person to hold the post since the secret service debuted.

As a Bond geek, let me insert here that the double-oh status is simply (if that's the right word) a "license to kill" and the films/books regularly refer to, say double-oh-nine, or even a double-oh-twelve.

007 is just the number of Bond himself, and in the first film of Craig's it's stated outright：

Dreyfuss： "The benefits of being section chief; I'd know if anyone had been promoted to 00 status. Your file shows no kills. And it takes--"

Bond： "Two."

(Bond proceeds after a moment of banter to kill Dreyfuss, solidifyng these requirements, which we see in the opening credits.)

Thus ends my contribution here.

Indeed, that's what I was referencing. What I took from that scene is that Bond doesn't have a number at all until then. That is, he didn't go from "7" to "007" by killing those two men. But I admit this is my interpretation and not directly stated by the movie.

In Ian Fleming's novel You Only Live Twice, Bond was transferred into another branch and given the number 7777. All of the British spies have numbers. The 00 prefix is just used for those few special agents who are assassins.

In the very first 007 novel, Casino Royale, Bond telephones to HQ to report that Vesper Lynd was spying for the Soviets and is now deceased. He refers to her only by her number, 3030.

how is it that in a community that has been self-enclosed for thousands of years only two people are black

Some of them have different hair colours as well. That would've mischling-ed to a uniform mouse-brown over thousands of years too. So why does the skin irk you, but not the hair?

Audiences who are hypersensitive that "the race doesn't make any sense" while not blinking at LITERAL MAGIC DRAGONS... this is a suspension of disbelief with such non-euclidean contours that I think the showrunners can be forgiven it. If you need the in-universe racial demographic logic explained before you need the in-universe flight dynamics of pyroclastic lizards explained, I think that's a "YOU" problem.

...Unfortunately, I also believe that the Hollywood types who showrun these productions really are Yuri Bezmenov's Frankfurt School communist sleeper cells out to willfully commit historical vandalism as a means of waging fifth generation warfare, so I am in the sad position of believing both sides of the debate to be guilty of what their opponents accuse them of. FML.

The balls-to-the-wall total raceblind casting trend would be fine it it weren't motivated by malice, but I think it is motivated by malice, so it's not fine.

The audience has to know which things to suspend disbelief on.

If I am watching Star Trek and they visit some new planet and the people are all of made up of different Earth-like races but with pointy noses, that is perfectly okay because they have not told me any reason to think otherwise. But if a dragon just shows up in the climax if the episode, the show has broken its contract with me, and no "lol but you believe in spaceships" gets around that.

Appearances have been established as extremely important in the GoT universe. People get beheaded for them.

Some of them have different hair colours as well. That would've mischling-ed to a uniform mouse-brown over thousands of years too. So why does the skin irk you, but not the hair?

It's not that the hair is not a point of inconsistency it's that the hair is not part of the broader problem i brought up here. if this was a discussion of rings of power, i probably would've brought it up.

Dragons are part of the premise. The premise of the show is that this is a world in which dragons exist. It's something that I know I'm supposed to suspend disbelief for in every case because dragons don't exist and everyone knows that. but it's not like there are dragons and no one acknowledges it. i mean the true counterpart to them treating the dragons like they do race was if dragons were just flying overhead and no one in the movie acknowledged it. The whole plot revolves around that. I know that I am supposed to say 'alright dragons are not real, they have them here, so this is obviously a world where dragons exist' but it isn't clear that race never matters, which is evidenced by the clip i posted where the character in house of dragons clearly stated that his character knew they weren't her kids because they were white (in a youtube commentary). It's a basic reality of human existence that kids look like their parents. I mean if one of the characters married a lizard they would explain why that occurred; they wouldn't just be like 'if you think it needs to be explained why a woman would marry a lizard, YOU are the problem'

Frankfurt School communist sleeper cells out to willfully commit historical vandalism as a means of waging fifth generation warfare, so I am in the sad position of believing both sides of the debate to be guilty of what their opponents accuse them of. FML.

Yeah I don't know man given the previous comment I'm not sure how you can frame yourself as a neutral observer that sees issue on both sides, as you clearly agree with the logic of one side.

it can't be positive to grow up watching superhero movies and none of them look like you

"Look like you" as in has two arms, one head, and so on? Equating same shade of skin with "looks like you" needs more examination. By the way I had no problem identifying with animals like Simba in the Lion King, even though I never got to see his skin color under all the fur.

Acting is pretend play. Generally there's no problem with acting out the role of someone different from you. Obligatory reference to the ancient Greek men playing female roles all the way back at the inception of theater.

The demand for movies to be visually realistic is quite new too. Obviously theaters couldn't turn the stage into several realistic places within one show, nor could they use hyperrealostic props, so things were anyway much more symbolic and required suspension of disbelief. In such a context, race swapping is perhaps less of a sore thumb. Now that everything is supposed to look hyperrealistic, it's harder to argue for suspending disbelief specifically only regarding DEI attributes.

The problem isn't diverse people popping up in media but the ugly mindset behind it all, specifically that is seen as some revolutionary act, the dehumanizing bucketing of people based on a handful of attributes and patting each other on the back and huffing one's own farts over it.

Film is norm-setting. That's how norms are established and reinforced. I think people really underestimate how much of an impact that has on culture, and by extension how much of an impact it has on the way we perceive the world.

I think the goal of film has always been to be as realistic as possible. That just wasn't possible given the state of tech, and the ability of everything to visually look very realistic is going to have some self perpetuating properties in that if things can look realistic visually they should also be realistic in other ways. If film did not appear to resemble or have a basis in real life, people would have no interest in it. A joke, a plot, is only considered good if it can relate to some extent to the actual experience of existence, even in superhero movies.

Diversity in media is great. But in some cases the demographic profile of a character is relevant to the story. portraying, for instance, a black kid as being the natural offspring of two white parents just doesn't make sense, nor does the expectation that someone suspend disbelief for that to make sense. let's say that's portrayed in the beginning of the movie. If we are supposed to suspend belief we are going to say 'i guess that's just something we have to suspend belief and accept' but then later in the movie it's revealed that the kid is actually adopted and they are on a quest to find their birth parents. You have to see how that's confusing and nonsensical and how skin color actually does matter in some cases. Diversity can be added in ways that actually make sense. I mean, fuck, in the example I just provided, why don't you just make one of the parents black? I refuse to accept that the only way for diversity to added is for it to be forced in almost specifically in ways that objectively defy logic and require that we regard skin color or gender to be the same as someone having superpowers with respect to the expectation that we suspend disbelief.

This also ignores how we cognitively process film. In a given scene we are trying to make sense of the premise so we can then understand the nuances, words, and body language of the scene. We have to clearly know what we are expected to suspend disbelief for and what we are not expected to suspend disbelief for. So there are very clear and sensible places where we are supposed to suspend belief. Like if a character has the ability to fly, yeah we are going to suspend belief in that case, but even that always comes with an explanation of why they can fly. We can't just say 'you were cool with that guy who was able to fly, but for some reason the fact that we made the king of england a black trans woman requires an explanation??'.

It's not that the only form of belief suspension that's absurd is when it pertains to DEI. It's that that's the only area in which belief suspension is applied in such an absurd way. If you are portraying a historical event, or something that occured in that timeframe, it has to adhere to some extent to the realities of that timeframe.

It seems like a pretty far reach to claim that observing that an English noblemen, or a character that was literally a man in the book and whose character revolves around that, should probably be white is somehow dehumanizing. You can't simultaneously claim that we should interpret history with respect to the valid observation that x group of people were not treated as equals during a given time period, and then just seamlessly shift to conveying that group of people in an unrealistic position in a historical piece. You can't seamlessly go from the color of the character's skin being the entire point to belief concerning their skin color needing to be suspended.

In regards to the house of dragons example I mentioned, check out this video clip. Obviously, we are not supposed to entirely suspend disbelief. The race of the character undeniably matters in some cases. Even the guy playing the character was like 'we know they aren't her kids because they aren't white'.

To the point of advocates, I was cajoled into seeing the recent spiderman movie and I remember there was a cameo of some black superhero, and all of the black kids in the audience went nuts over it. And it was clear in that moment that there's a compelling need, to some extent, for more representation of x demographic, because, for instance, it can't be positive to grow up watching superhero movies and none of them look like you.

I reject this sentiment entirely, there is no reason that people can't identify with people who have other skin colors than themselves. Representation as an end is in fact not important. Now, there are stories worth telling form the black community and I'm more than happy for people to tell those stories. I also have no problem with a black actor playing a character like 007 that has no connect to race. But the idea that we need certain genres of characters to have racial diversity is divisive and ridiculous.

I think that's idealistic and ignores human nature. We gravitate to people that are like us. Also, kids are dumb. They are going to internalize and notice when no characters look like them. That can convey the notion that positions of authority, or being the hero, is not really meant for them.

We can convey to them that they don't need to be the same color as the hero of a movie to relate to them, but at the same time it does beg the question of if they actually can rise to be the hero or successful or whatever, why isn't anyone in movies that looks like them doing that. And, really, i think even adults overestimate their ability to overcome shit like that; it can be internalized and lead to the perception of a barrier that doesn't exist. A lot of shit shit is occurring at the subconscious level.

We gravitate to people that are like us [in terms of race]. Also, kids are dumb. They are going to internalize and notice when no characters look like them [in terms of race].

This is the kind of thing that's easy to claim and also easy to believe, but I've yet to see it actually supported through evidence. Given that, I don't see why anyone should take this claim any more seriously than any other unsupported claim.

Surely we are not going to throw in question the notion that people gravitate to those like them, or even suggest that this is just some far out theory that has no sound backing.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/close-encounters/201812/why-do-we-people-who-are-similar-us

I don't think that link shows that we gravitate towards people who are similar to us in terms of race, particularly in the realm of watching fictional characters on screen. You can't make the leap from the broad tendency of interpersonal attraction towards similar people (from the meta-study that was the 1st link in that Psychology Today post) to there, not without going through many steps that each require empirical support.

what you're saying only makes sense if people do not believe that another person's race makes them like them. And people gravitating to those of the same race of them is a pretty strong corollary from people gravitating to those who are like them. To suggest that race would not make someone gravitate to someone else is to say that race is an insignificant part of people's identities, which I'm not sure how you can maintain in 2022.

Also, this was found based on a very quick google. I'm not sure why you don't think someone has looked into this before, especially given how prominent DEI is. I mean anti-racism is an entire academic field. I can, in the abstract, appreciate the approach of your convictions only going as far as the research, but you can only maintain a counterpoint on those grounds if you've done the research and found that the link has not been found to exist. Not if you just haven't looked into it, especially given that this is a fairly obvious point that is a very strong corollary from a pretty obvious point that has been proven.

To suggest that race would not make someone gravitate to someone else is to say that race is an insignificant part of people's identities, which I'm not sure how you can maintain in 2022.

Whether you're using "identity" to mean self-conception or social-conception, this is actually highly variable. There are some people whose race is very relevant either internally or socially, and others where it's next to completely irrelevant.

I'll admit that I'm not an academic in the field, but I have done the research within the role of activist and found that anti-racism isn't an entire academic field - it's an entire pseudo-academic field, and I also found the prominence of DEI has basically no root in someone looking into this and finding that it's actually the case (aside: it was largely because I did this research that I'm no longer in that role of activist). It's only because I'm not an academic in the field that I leave open the possibility that I missed something despite my having done the research to the best of my abilities already, which is why I ask if the research exists.

And the point you keep seeming to ignore is the context of fictional characters on screen. The leap from "interpersonal attraction to people similar to oneself" to "can't identify with [fictional depictions of] people who have other skin colors than themselves" is one that needs actual empirical support, not just "fairly obvious point that is a very strong corollary." That's simply not how science works, especially in the realm of something "soft" like sociology/psychology.

I agree that kids are dumb, and human nature may cause them to want to see characters who look like them. Where I would disagree is that this therefore means we should accommodate that. The point of raising kids is to not accommodate such things, and teach them to overcome those impulses.

For example, kids have the human tendency to make fun of anyone who doesn't fit in. This is undeniably human nature, and something children are very prone to. But we don't say "well that's just how it is, we have to let them pick on the misfit kids". We attempt to teach them to do overcome that natural tendency. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be the same in the case of kids who prefer to see someone with the same superficial characteristics as them.

like us

Ah yes, but along which axis? Same hair color? Same favorite food? Same clothes? Same language? Other socio-cultural markers? We, to a certain extent, get to define what it means to be "like us" and who "us" is. Staying stuck on racial grouping is profoundly limited thinking.

yes i meant the same hair color. Because there are all of those subcultures rooted in having the same hair. And people with the same colored hair have all had that same unique historical experience. And, first and foremost, because someone's hair color is how they primarily define themselves. Spot on.

  • -11

Yes, even hair color. Or hair type and style. Hair can absolutely be a snigificant cultural marker. Or a religious one. Hair colors even carry stereotypes about personal character. I'm glad you and I are on the same page.

You were doing pretty well standing your ground until now.

The only way I think this is a well intended and sound point is if you didn't sense that it was sarcasm.

Do you mean me or who you were replying to?

I think in the move over to this platform a good deal of civility and adherence to the sub's rules have slackened.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I felt your previous replies were even-handed, then you sort of seemed to give up and devolve into mockery. That's the opposite of steelmanning your interlocutor or discussing in good faith.

My race is definitely not how I primarily define myself. As a redheaded white person, my hair color ranks higher than race- I've been told that not caring about my race is a white privilege, which may be the case, but it's a privilege I think others deserve. Both hair color and race fall far below my sex in terms of identity.

All of those physical characteristics are orders of magnitude less significant to my identity than my personality characteristics. I primarily define myself in a way that doesn't involve my body at all- I am the thing that lives in my brain, hosted by my body. I identify with characters that make the decisions I would. As a caveat, I expect that also carries cultural values as a piece of group identity baggage.

I'm rambling a bit, so I'll get back to the point. Maybe identifying primarily as a race is a bad thing that we should not actively pursue. From personal experience, I don't think you have to think that way. Race is something that divides us; humanity unites us.

It's 2022 and you don't see how people who are not white might identify with their skin color even though you don't? When you meet black people you genuinely don't think their race is part of their identity?

I've been told that not caring about my race is a white privilege, which may be the case, but it's a privilege I think others deserve.

It's 2022 (not relevant but accurate) and I think it's time we stop treating race as a primary identity trait. This is a prescriptive position, not a descriptive one. It's not like I don't see race, but when I meet a black person I think of them primarily as a person and I would love for them to be able to do the same. I can't read minds, but I've definitely met black people whose entertainment is exclusively manga/anime so I imagine they either don't care about representation or don't identify themselves by race in a substantial way.

Worth noting also that plenty of white people do identify with their skin color, as evidenced by the regular expression of concerns of white extinction in this community or some of the replies upthread. I think those people should think of themselves differently as well, and I expect I have your agreement there.

Again, my apologies if I'm rambling. I am doing my best to go from thoughts to words here and having a rough time with it.

I've been told that not caring about my race is a white privilege,

I suspect that a more accurate statement would be "not caring about your [characteristic] is easy/a privilege when people with [characteristic] are a large local majority." If you've got something that stands out from most of the people around you, whether it's skin color, hair color, height, etc., that tends to be noticed and flagged as significant. People might refer to Jose as "the Mexican guy" in Vermont, but nobody's going to call him that in Mexico City.

And, first and foremost, because someone's hair color is how they primarily define themselves

It gets recursively difficult to accuse someone of begging the question when they're being sarcastic, so I'll just have to be glib:

People (including both OP's black kids cheering black superheroes, and a multitude of historical groups) primarily defining themselves by skin colour, is an error on their part, harmful to human flourishing, and film makers / critics should not be seeking to pander to it, encourage it, or perpetuate it.

This is ignorant about the nature of identity and how humans work. Identity is on what basis we define the us versus the them. And that is reinforced when there is a common historical and current experience. People gravitate to those who have had that same experience as them; race is not just some arbitrary aspect of who someone is. To assume the contrary is just obtuse. Like sure it would be great if we could re-engineer human nature, but we can't. you can't just ignore something as a reality because you think it's less than savory.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats