@orathaic
i'm going to simply say that natural diversity occuring through meritocracy is best.
most of the stuff i'm not responding to here is stuff that i think we can both agree the above statement applies to
"As to your comments on white-washing. When you start out with - 100% of Oscar nominees and parts of your community say 'we should try to represent people better'; but the responce is 'there aren't any good roles for X, Y, and Z.' "
i love that claim that the oscars are racist. the liberal hollywood elites? racist? but in all actuality, there's been massive racism in the past, but if you think 2017 hollywood is a more conservative/racist environment... ooh boy you need to get out more. and yes i've seen the "Evidence"
https://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race
the problem with these analyses are that they find a discrepancy: and assume racism. a second problem? it doesn't take into account the fact that Oscars involve europeans as well, which massively skew white. they also fail to mention individual performances. Creed and Beasts of no Nation were the two big names that didn't have anyone perform, but frankly i thought that only idriss elba deserved to be nominated, Peterson is young and that was a good movie, but oscar worthy is pushing things. besides the academy has a specific style, and the younger generation movies never do as well. one snub, a racist system does not make.
why is it the we see a massive disproportionate number of nurses who are female nobody cries sexism? or when there is a massive disproportionate number of black NBA players nobody cries racism? and even when film and acting school enrollment stats shows more graduating white males, because more white males take the classes, we can find a way to yell racism there?
it's because it doesn't fit your goddamn narrative that's why
"Then you come up with a (to take a recent example) adaptation of a Japanese anime, and choose to cast a white woman instead of an Asian/Japanese-American (who have more difficult finding work, because 'there are no roles'). Is this the meritocracy you seem to crave?"
find me the japanese actress for a 110 million $ budget who speaks english who could play that part. worldwide it made 170 million$ (maybe Rinko, but fewer Americans know about her - i'd be surprised if you do), and do you know what? most people in Japan loved the movie and didn't care about the white washing. honestly. i've been looking through article after article and even seen several youtube videos interviewing people: they really didn't have a problem with it. almost at all.
there was actually some idiot saying "Well they could have had a big name actress like Lucy Liu who has asian heritage to play the role" and this fan got pissed because she's chinese in heritage.
look things up for yourself, but here are some links.
https://kotaku.com/the-japanese-internet-reacts-to-scarlet-johansson-in-gh-1771544034
https://www.polygon.com/2017/4/10/15245488/ghost-in-the-shell-live-action-box-office-japan-review
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/japanese-fans-react-ghost-shell-992255
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DhoBuU1Dtc
"Saying we want diversity of roles, and then seeing white women cast in roles which were of asian characters is just the first problem again."
but you weren't complaining when an israeli got the wonder woman role ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
it's called consistency ora
"There were not non-white people at the Awards. The casting directors said it was because there are no roles for non-white actors. They found a role, and 'adapted' it... "
The thing is, with star wars i liked Boyega, i think he did well. Rey's character was poorly constructed so i don't blame Ridley at all for that, but my whole point is this:
if you want to adapt a character to be a different race/sex because that character will be better portrayed by an actor: GO FOR IT.
but when JJ Abrams said the room was "too fucking white," i can pretty much be certain that he hadn't bene looking at the best individual for the job. if we did that with episode 4, are we losing out on Hamill and Ford?
but if the role is the best role, the best character arc for the story, and the best actor for that role is white, your "diversity" means nothing to me.
"@"4. there's actually evidence that some minority groups, especially homosexuals, are overrepresented in television. "
if you happen to grow up without any role models life can be harder. If you happen to be gay and never see a story involving the (gay) main character discovering they like a person, and how they deal with it. Then you have no narrative written for when you personally first experience this."
97% of the population is heterosexual, but some studies have found rates as high as 18% with major films for characters who are gay.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/data-shows-homosexuals-hugely-overrepresented-on-the-big-screen-but-glaad-s
so.... for diversities sake, shouldn't we make FEWER gay people?
or do you only care about the specific groups that you deem to be disadvantaged. to do this you're going to have to generalize though, but i'm starting to question whether or not you have a problem with that at all
"If you are straight, you have hundreds of these kinds of narratives."
per capita, we're underrepresented. evidence linked above. try research next time
"Now not talking about employment here. We aren't saying the gay actors need work and should be fairly represented. We're saying that it is a privilege to have characters you can identify with.
Even if you go 'that story isn't me, i'm more like Chandler than Joey' as a het guy you've got like three narratives to look at and choose from within on 90s TV show."
are you wanting to go back and time and fix stuff? because modern discrimination is not the solution to past discrimination. do you believe that? because to believe in that means you must blame people who had zero part in that discrimination, beyond sharing skin color with those people.
"This is a privilege - in that there is no right to have yourself represented on tv. It isn't the end of the world, this one little thing doesn't stop someone becoming president. Barrack Obama is a great sign that times, they are a changing. But it costs you very little to acknowledge that there are many little things which may make your life easier. It doesn't mean your life is easy by any means.
Even the wealthiest most successful white man can die from cancer (RIP Steve Jobs). So there are many things which equalize us."
like guns, #secondamendmentrightsforall i'm glad you agree #stoprapists
"@"As far as proportional representation goes, we're either approaching equilibrium on some groups, or we've pushed way past it in others."
I didn't prescribe any solutions to the issue of representation.
The separate issue of employment - where 'there are no roles for X' is unrelated to the issue of role models.
I entirely think we can promote role models outside of TV and movies. You can have a black trans kid visit older black trans adults who are willing to talk to them about life. Or come into their classroom and talk about what success looks like for them."
i'd actually rather have my tax dollars pay for... you know, education. that's what i expect from public education. counseling? sure. go into the classroom and preach for a while. oh, and a black trans person represents .0369% of the country's population, so yeah that would be good for all black transgender kids.
also, as for speaking to children about this stuff, there's HARSH disagreement
According to the DSM-5, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.
https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-transgender-battle-line-childhood-1451952794
meanwhile let's look at actual legislation, in Canada, if you're seen to deny your child's preferred gender, you are abusing them and the state can take them away. this Bill 89 added transgenderism to the human's right code for even minors.
the code is vague though, but the official language is if there is "a pattern of abuse, neglect or serious emotional harm"
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=4479
of course this is entirely arbitrary... so good job their canada.
"There are many ways apart from film and TV, and i'm not trying to prescribe what is the perfect a solution, because i don't know what that would look like.
@""Personally, i remember being upset as a child because there were no super heroes with red hair."
Poison ivy, bat girl, Mystique, Rorschach... but even then, only 2% of the population has red hair.
what it sounds like is you don't want to be accurately represented... it sounds like you want EXTRA representation. do you know what that's called? a privilege.
"
Ok, Rorschach didn't have a tv show when i was growing up. Poison ivy, bat girl and mystique (with dyed hair) weren't men, i don't think i'd have identified with them. But i never said i want extra representation. I said i was upset.
I felt that heroes who i wanted to be like were not like me. It was upsetting. Again, i didn't prescribe a solution. I proposed that you read some people who have experienced far worse than i have..."
ora... why on earth do you need to have physical characteristics similar to a character to look up to them? to IDENTIFY with them? isn't reinforcing this unhealthy? i mean sure no male superheroes had red hair (on TV i mean) but you couldn't still identify with superman?
you want to add diversity, so people can identify with similar physical characteristics that they see on TV. that's BAD. we need to have kids identify with behavior, not skin color. i LOVED everybody hates chris growing up, it was a fun show and the kid was small outspoken and weak. so what if he were black? we shouldn't care about these things.
honestly. seeing someone who looks like you on TV shouldn't be something you identify with. your physical appearance should matter MILLIONS of times less than your character.
"@"3. i do listen and empathize, but saying male PRIVILEGE is assuming i'm gaining something extra. change your terminology. i won't budge on this point."
Terminology is kinda useful for understanding. This is the terminology used by people discussing the ideas. I'm not going to change the word privilege because you don't like it."
then you'll continue to argue for something idiotic, and i'll continue to call you out for it. i don't like intellectual laziness, and your herd-behavior is exactly at.
"The extra thing you are getting, in this one example, was not being afraid. I didn't say you had to give that up, I did say your life is a little bit easier* for it. That's it.
*i didn't say, but i hope i implied, your life is less stressed, less busy worrying about your safety and more time to spend thinking about other things.
The extreme example would be never being able to leave the house for fear that your life was endangered. That would infringe greatly on your rights."
only if there is a direct threat made against you. otherwise no, you don't have a right not to be afraid.
"Now if that is a personal subjective experience and your life isn't actually endangered, then you need psychological help. Or if it is an entirely accurate picture, then you need to get the hell out of that unsafe country... (i'm not saying you should have a right to either of these things, i'm saying that not needing them is a privilege).
---
Any given narrative about white privilege, is just that, one perspective. In that it holds value it is in how it allows us see the perspective of others. There is not requirement for it to be perfect, or agreed upon by everyone, for it to hold value."
but the problem arises when one political party makes this very much mainstream. the a solid definition MUST be acquired, ESPECIALLY if legislation is going to stem off of it.
"But most white people seem to attack it because they feel like it attacks them personally."
ora: sometimes it DOES. read youtube comment sections and twitter threads, there are legitimately people who think all whites are evil. this is a real ideology that exists. you can pretend it doesn't, but the more you go along with these vagaries in the definitions of things the more you're going to prop up some nasty shit.
"People like to attribute their success to their innate skill and blame their failures on the system (see: http://planetsave.com/2013/12/23/a-rigged-game-of-monopoly-reveals-how-feeling-wealthy-changes-our-behavior-ted-video/ ). So if you take a group of people who think they are responcible for being wealthier (or insert your own criteria here) than the average person, and you go around telling them that they 'have white privilege' - or course they'll come up with some rationalization to reject the white privilege narrative."
um... duh. because your claim of white privilege lacked evidence. if you make a positive claim: you are white and are therefore this statistically more wealthy, then you must have causal evidence to back that up. but you don't. because it's bullshit
"But no narrative is perfect, no narrative can perfectly encompass the complexity of reality. So it can merely illustrate one aspect. You can use the idea of white privilege and apply it to all kind of privileges,"
i think the word you're thinking of is generalize. or perhaps... stereotype?
"to see that being able-bodied really fucking rocks and makes your life easier... and this will raise the question 'what can i do to make life a bit easier to people who aren't able-bodied' - which is a rather difficult question, and again i'm not the one to answer it. But i think it is pretty clear that we all take for granted being able-bodied (and healthy) until we're not..."
the thing is, when i get into these conversations with other people, the question is less "what can i do to make life a bit easier to people who aren't able-bodied" and more "here's what you have to do to make life a bit easier to people who aren't able-bodied"
i'm NOT accusing you of that ora, but to pretend that is null in more leftist hemispheres is also dangerous.
"@JY i did look at your charts, it is a pity that i can't tell who the outliers are. Like is Washington DC was one, i could understand, it has a unique population distribution and other factors which make it an outlier. And (if it was a positive example) not every state in the US can be like the district of columbia. But there were some serious outliers, like which country has 80% unemployment? And how reliable is that figure? Sorry raising more questions than anything else."
click on the graphs and it'll give you the sources. economic freedom score comes from WSJ and heritage foundation combined, and is well regarded
Webdipia Alt-Hist Simulator 3
would be ideal, but that is also open for change.
)
)
)
)