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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This comment, and this one, are really uncharitable. In particular, the idea that it is "racist" to "care that Amazon hired black actors" requires a great deal more discussion (an in particular, a clear definition of "racist") given that race was not at all the focus of the comment to which you replied. Rather, the criticism was that people are using accusations of racism to defend the show; you've dispensed with the defending of the show, but kept the unproven accusation of racism.
Don't do that.
How is this uncharitable?
Someone said that black casting in LoTR is unnatural. How else am i supposed to disagree with it?
A lot of people are criticizing LoTR for casting black and minority actors while saying that Amazon only did this so they couldn't criticize the show at all. But then instead of attacking the show people are attacking the casting. Why does the casting matter if both sides say it doesn't matter?
I think calling the casting unnatural is racist and there's no other way to put it. That's my honest opinion. But I don't think anyone wants to explain what else they could mean, so now I'm the bad guy for pointing it out.
Sweet Eru Iluvatar. If some studio were making a new movie - hang on a mo, I just thought of the perfect example.
Now, suppose the studio thought "We really need an A-list actress in the lead role to make this a sure-fire blockbuster", and they cast, lemme see, Scarlett Johansson as General Nanisca. Would you say that was "naturally cast" or rather that casting black actresses, be they African-American or other black ethnic mix, was the "natural casting"?
One argument would be "they should only cast native Dahomeans in the parts". That's not the argument we're making.
The second argument would be "wait a minute, that's completely the wrong actress to cast in the part, it doesn't matter if she's really good".
You are trying to make the equivalent of "Why not cast Scarlett Johansson?" and telling the rest of us we are racists if we say "That's not the proper casting for this character". If they have (and they probably do) white European slave purchasers in this movie, or white European generals etc. then casting Scarlett as Lady Brassnobs is fine and appropriate. But casting Scarlett as part of the Dahomean Amazon army, and the only white Amazon, is going to make people go "What the hey, movie studio, this is not the correct thing to do even if white people do exist in this world and the Dahomeans are in contact with them".
More options
Context Copy link
Literally no one said that but you.
One person (not the one you replied to here, but in the other link I mentioned) referred to certain casting choices as "natural," which (charitably) seems like an obvious reference to fitting the lore Tolkien wrote. There are races in the original Middle Earth; different people from different regions are described as having varied skin tones etc. Just like in the real world. Nobody said it was unnatural to cast black people, unless you uncharitably modify the words they used in a separate context.
In roles where it doesn't make sense--not unlike casting a black child as the natural offspring of a Norse father and a Japanese mother. Maybe these people are wrong or mistaken or even racist, but if you're going to make that argument, you have to actually argue against what their real position is--not the naked one you (or Amazon) invented for maximum pearl-clutching.
Sure, I'd be surprised if this was Amazon's reason for casting that way (I assume they're just on the "maximum skintone diversity" train like everyone else in the movie business outside of Bollywood). But if people think Amazon does seem to be responding to real criticism by deflecting to "you're racist," that's an argument that seems plausible, too, and it's not racist to point that out.
Er... you were just telling me about people on both sides of the casting issue who think the casting matters, so I don't understand this question.
Then don't call it unnatural, as you're, again, literally the only one who has done so. But even if that's the only way to put it, you still have to actually explain yourself. Why is it racist to think that characters shouldn't be skin-tone-swapped from their author's visions in film adaptations? Like, if the next Black Panther movie had the king of Wakanda played by Tom Hanks, I assume some people would be upset--would they have a point? I've seen tons of people get annoyed at originally-Asian characters being played by white actors, so it seems to me that movie watchers are pretty consistent about being annoyed by this, and Hollywood is pretty consistent about telling them to fuck off, since they're gonna buy the movie tickets anyway.
Calling people "racist" is a serious accusation, certainly an inflammatory one, and so if you're going to do it you have to do it with lots of evidence and clear reasoning. You can't just be like "y'all racist" without putting in some work. Define your terms, or better yet, taboo your words. If you literally can't explain your problem without using the word "racist," then you don't actually understand your own problem.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link