|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 16, 2017 17:49:21 GMT
The problem isn't only underrepresentation, its also misrepresentation.
You're a white guy so why are you virtue signalling when the OP specifically asked for minorities to respond? As a minority what annoys me about "diversity" is the vast majority of the time it means black guy to silly white liberals like yourself. Although now I guess we have "progressed" to the point it also means having the obligatory gay character shoehorned in as well. Gay is the new black after all. I'm Latino.
But even if I wasn't I should still be making this same argument because what's right is right regardless. Those of us on one side of the equation need allies from the other side to strengthen our argument. I welcome white people who see the problem and want to help me make a better world, for all of us, not just for some of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 16, 2017 17:57:40 GMT
The problem isn't only underrepresentation, its also misrepresentation.
But you understand that the films you're talking about are fiction, right? They're not documentaries. Good fiction reflects reality. Let me give you my reality: Born and raised in New York City where I saw men and women from all races, Black, Latino, White, I saw gay men and women, I saw poor and rich, dumb, smart. You name it I was raised around it. But in the movies it was always white guy lead, everyone else sidekick, criminal or comic relief. Somehow the movies weren't reflecting reality.
Why couldn't have Luke Skywalker been a black guy? Why couldn't Die Hard have been about a black guy with the white guy as his sidekick instead? There's no reason in the world.
Its got nothing to do with it being fiction, it got to do with who is in control of that fiction and whether or not we see that fiction with better eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2017 18:02:54 GMT
But you understand that the films you're talking about are fiction, right? They're not documentaries. Good fiction reflects reality. Are you simply telling me about your preference in that? It's definitely not something I agree with. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 16, 2017 18:06:48 GMT
The problem isn't only underrepresentation, its also misrepresentation.
My response to this is we should be moving past such superficiality. As much as I enjoy seeing a lesbian character done right, I don't need an abundance of that to enjoy and connect with a character. There are far more interesting things about people than their race, sex, sexuality, or anything else that ultimately should have little impact on who someone is as a person. I want my variety to be in story telling and real character traits, not just meaningless diversity. You read what I wrote, but you didnt let it sink in. I repeat:
For most of you its okay to say "just cast the best actor" because without even thinking about it there is a privilege you have, unearned mind you, of knowing that far more often than not that actor who ends up being cast is going to be like you, white. Its not even a thought. Just cast the best actor" even today still means "9 out of 10 times its going to be a white male".
And there's NOTHING superficial about any of this. Being black is who that person IS. Being Gay is who that person IS. Being a woman is who that person IS. being a black gay woman is who that person IS. How can race, sex, sexuality, etc. NOT have impact on who someone is as a person? Did you stop to think about that before you wrote it? That you say those things are superficial shows a lack of understanding that is quite telling.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 16, 2017 18:24:16 GMT
Good fiction reflects reality. Are you simply telling me about your preference in that? It's definitely not something I agree with. So you're saying that if I depicted your town as being full of gays and with every house painted pink and with neon flamingos all over them you would say "yeah, thats a fair representation of my town! That my reality. I buy that!" You're full of it and you know it. Of course good fiction reflects reality. You just don't make shit up whole cloth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2017 18:56:42 GMT
Are you simply telling me about your preference in that? It's definitely not something I agree with. So you're saying that if I depicted your town as being full of gays and with every house painted pink and with neon flamingos all over them you would say "yeah, thats a fair representation of my town! That my reality. I buy that!" You're full of it and you know it. Of course good fiction reflects reality. You just don't make shit up whole cloth.
No, I'd say that it's not the job of fictions or artworks in general to be a fair representation of reality, and that I don't at all feel that fictions or artworks are better when they're fair representations of reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Aug 16, 2017 19:46:08 GMT
I've never associated myself with characters that look like me.
I love when I relate to characters in other ways...personalities, strengths and weaknesses similar to how I view mine, or ideals that I personally relate to...but whether that character is a black man or an Asian woman makes no real difference to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by TutuAnimationPrincess on Aug 16, 2017 21:13:35 GMT
My response to this is we should be moving past such superficiality. As much as I enjoy seeing a lesbian character done right, I don't need an abundance of that to enjoy and connect with a character. There are far more interesting things about people than their race, sex, sexuality, or anything else that ultimately should have little impact on who someone is as a person. I want my variety to be in story telling and real character traits, not just meaningless diversity. You read what I wrote, but you didnt let it sink in. I repeat:
For most of you its okay to say "just cast the best actor" because without even thinking about it there is a privilege you have, unearned mind you, of knowing that far more often than not that actor who ends up being cast is going to be like you, white. Its not even a thought. Just cast the best actor" even today still means "9 out of 10 times its going to be a white male".
And there's NOTHING superficial about any of this. Being black is who that person IS. Being Gay is who that person IS. Being a woman is who that person IS. being a black gay woman is who that person IS. How can race, sex, sexuality, etc. NOT have impact on who someone is as a person? Did you stop to think about that before you wrote it? That you say those things are superficial shows a lack of understanding that is quite telling.
There are very many nuanced factors that make me who I am, being a woman and gay rank very low on the totem poll for me. I don't see anything wrong with valuing all those intricate little parts of a person's being more than what I still ultimately see as superficial wrong in the slightest. I identify as an individual first, by my own name before anything else. When I watch a film or show, it'll be a character's values, charisma, and story progression that endear me to them, not a matching of gender or sexuality. |
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Aug 17, 2017 0:31:22 GMT
You're a white guy so why are you virtue signalling when the OP specifically asked for minorities to respond? As a minority what annoys me about "diversity" is the vast majority of the time it means black guy to silly white liberals like yourself. Although now I guess we have "progressed" to the point it also means having the obligatory gay character shoehorned in as well. Gay is the new black after all. I'm Latino.
But even if I wasn't I should still be making this same argument because what's right is right regardless. Those of us on one side of the equation need allies from the other side to strengthen our argument. I welcome white people who see the problem and want to help me make a better world, for all of us, not just for some of us.
That's odd because I remember you claiming you were white on a different thread. Does it change depending on what point you're trying to make? I've NEVER seen or heard a fellow non caucasian use the term "person of color". EVER. That's a silly white liberal thing. All that multiculturalism you love boasting about has turned you into a self aggrandizing whine bag. Congratulations amigo. |
|
|
|
Post by geezer on Aug 17, 2017 1:16:42 GMT
You got something against Finns? Are you talking about the Forest Finns or the other Finns ? Fishy Finns |
|
|
|
Post by barkingbaphomet on Aug 17, 2017 1:20:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Aug 17, 2017 1:22:20 GMT
You read what I wrote, but you didnt let it sink in. I repeat:
For most of you its okay to say "just cast the best actor" because without even thinking about it there is a privilege you have, unearned mind you, of knowing that far more often than not that actor who ends up being cast is going to be like you, white. Its not even a thought. Just cast the best actor" even today still means "9 out of 10 times its going to be a white male".
And there's NOTHING superficial about any of this. Being black is who that person IS. Being Gay is who that person IS. Being a woman is who that person IS. being a black gay woman is who that person IS. How can race, sex, sexuality, etc. NOT have impact on who someone is as a person? Did you stop to think about that before you wrote it? That you say those things are superficial shows a lack of understanding that is quite telling.
There are very many nuanced factors that make me who I am, being a woman and gay rank very low on the totem poll for me. I don't see anything wrong with valuing all those intricate little parts of a person's being more than what I still ultimately see as superficial wrong in the slightest. I identify as an individual first, by my own name before anything else. When I watch a film or show, it'll be a character's values, charisma, and story progression that endear me to them, not a matching of gender or sexuality. Very well stated. It's telling that the guy presumes to tell you how you should feel and since you have a different opinion than his he discounts yours. Not because your post seemed rote or superficial (he's an expert at that) but solely because you dared disagree with his "morally superior" viewpoint. How dare you think for yourself, right? |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 17, 2017 1:42:20 GMT
It has no effect on my enjoyment of a movie but it's still neat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 8:24:52 GMT
Are you talking about the Forest Finns or the other Finns ? Fishy Finns  |
|
|
|
Post by geezer on Aug 17, 2017 8:54:20 GMT
Your just a fishist then! |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 17, 2017 13:58:35 GMT
You read what I wrote, but you didnt let it sink in. I repeat:
For most of you its okay to say "just cast the best actor" because without even thinking about it there is a privilege you have, unearned mind you, of knowing that far more often than not that actor who ends up being cast is going to be like you, white. Its not even a thought. Just cast the best actor" even today still means "9 out of 10 times its going to be a white male".
And there's NOTHING superficial about any of this. Being black is who that person IS. Being Gay is who that person IS. Being a woman is who that person IS. being a black gay woman is who that person IS. How can race, sex, sexuality, etc. NOT have impact on who someone is as a person? Did you stop to think about that before you wrote it? That you say those things are superficial shows a lack of understanding that is quite telling.
There are very many nuanced factors that make me who I am, being a woman and gay rank very low on the totem poll for me. I don't see anything wrong with valuing all those intricate little parts of a person's being more than what I still ultimately see as superficial wrong in the slightest. I identify as an individual first, by my own name before anything else. When I watch a film or show, it'll be a character's values, charisma, and story progression that endear me to them, not a matching of gender or sexuality. Good for you. I still know more than enough people that disagree with you that its valid for them to have an issue about it. But I have to say I can hardly believe that being a woman and gay rank low on the totem pole for you. I don't think you've really thought out just how much those things define you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 14:01:05 GMT
Your just a fishist then! Only to fishy finns, i am fine with Forest finns. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 17, 2017 14:13:27 GMT
There are very many nuanced factors that make me who I am, being a woman and gay rank very low on the totem poll for me. I don't see anything wrong with valuing all those intricate little parts of a person's being more than what I still ultimately see as superficial wrong in the slightest. I identify as an individual first, by my own name before anything else. When I watch a film or show, it'll be a character's values, charisma, and story progression that endear me to them, not a matching of gender or sexuality. Very well stated. It's telling that the guy presumes to tell you how you should feel and since you have a different opinion than his he discounts yours. Not because your post seemed rote or superficial (he's an expert at that) but solely because you dared disagree with his "morally superior" viewpoint. How dare you think for yourself, right? See, this is why you're an asshole Poelzig. I've seen you do this on other threads too. You take what someone's written, and if they disagree with you, you get butt hurt and then write your own version of the story in your mind where you're attacked as a victim and then you lash out. It has nothing to do with reality, it has to do with your own internal BS.
Look at everything I wrote: No where does it say that I believe I am morally superior, nowhere am I actually discounting what they say, or that I don't think you should think for yourself or any BS like what you're suggesting.
I described MY scenario to give the reader a different perspective (which was sorely needed since the whole thread seemed to be going only one way). Its one thing to disagree, but you're not disagreeing, you're just lashing out because you think I'm attacking you. I wonder... why do you think that?
And what do you mean that my posts seem rote or superficial? How much more impassioned can my post be? If it were any more there'd be blood coming out of your screen. I actually live what I talk about. What do you do but talk shit about other peoples posts?
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 17, 2017 14:24:52 GMT
I'm Latino.
But even if I wasn't I should still be making this same argument because what's right is right regardless. Those of us on one side of the equation need allies from the other side to strengthen our argument. I welcome white people who see the problem and want to help me make a better world, for all of us, not just for some of us.
That's odd because I remember you claiming you were white on a different thread. Does it change depending on what point you're trying to make? I've NEVER seen or heard a fellow non caucasian use the term "person of color". EVER. That's a silly white liberal thing. All that multiculturalism you love boasting about has turned you into a self aggrandizing whine bag. Congratulations amigo. You may have misread or misunderstood something I wrote. I am Latino, but I appear white, so I am accepted in a lot of social circles that I might not be if I were dark. I use the term person of color because I'm talking to people who are not persons of color.
Fellow non-Caucasian? So YOU'RE not white? That's interesting, because you take very pro-white stances almost all the time. I've read many of your posts. Wassup with that? Do you secretly wish you were white? If you're not then why the heck would you argue against your own interests?
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 17, 2017 14:37:40 GMT
Obviously I've pissed some people off by trying to give a different point of view.
But if you're one of those people ask yourself this: Why are you annoyed? I am arguing for the rights of people - blacks, women, gays, etc. who have been traditionally, historically marginalized in this country. You CANNOT look at the history of this country (and more specifically to this thread - movies) and say that its not true. That would be insane. And while I think there are some assholes on these boards, I don't think there's anyone who's outright stupid or insane.
So ask yourself, what is that you're really pissed off about? That I'm offering you a different perspective to chew on, or that you cant put yourself in the shoes of someone who's been marginalized? That's all I'm asking really. Before you lash out and immediately discount me as a liberal SJW take a moment and think about what it would be like if YOU were the one that was getting a life time of subtle but sustained disregard and hate.
Stop for a moment and really let that sink in, and then tell me that you wouldn't want it to change. |
|
