Author Topic: is it racist to argue in favor of...  (Read 4648 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jeremy's Sea

  • Kintsukuroi, baby.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4809
  • 667 - Neighbor of the beast.
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #45 on: September 12, 2018, 06:50:01 PM »
No one really needs to be villified and cast out over it, but it should be pointed out where we see it so we can begin to make a change.
I agree with calling out everything that is prejudiced. But I am also of the mind that this current culture is calling out situation that could be marginally considered insensitive, and the overflow of said calling out is actually causing more harm than good, because it gives valid munition to those that are racially motivated.
I may need you to rephrase that as I'm not sure I understand.

The good is that we are clearly seeing more talented people of colour starting to get the roles and recognition they deserve.

What harm is being done?
Complaining and raging against something that is not racist as being racist would hurt the movement and a racist person a way of saying "This is getting out of hand" and then with enough of those, people will start thinking that there are too many snowflakes and that the government needs to do something about that and end up voting for Trump. include social media bubbles and people are going to side with the racist debater.

It's about the same effect as when a woman calls rape when there is no rape.
Knowledge is power. France is bacon.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9324
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #46 on: September 12, 2018, 06:54:29 PM »
I took his point as, "false Positives blunt rhetoric, benefit reactionaries."  An easy example being what happened to, "socialism."
This goes back to hand wringing though, as it assumes we know that it is a significant adverse reaction. How often does it happen when someone's concern truly is guided by ignorance and not hate? How much energy do we need/want to spend separating all of that out?
Like most of us, I'm only human and sometimes in exhaustion I'll lump them both together, but also, we're all adults and have to be responsible for our feelings. When someone on a forum calls me racist, my hackles don't immediately go up and I don't double down. I kinda feel like I'm not the one who needs to be responsible for those who do. If I have the time and energy to really parse, but we have enough 88s wasting everyone's time in bad faith.

I dunno. If someone on a forum calls me racist, I take a hard look at what I just posted, acknowledge their concerns, and do whatever I can to change my behaviour.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Tarvek: There's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it.
Agatha: If that's what you think, then you're DOING IT WRONG!

Offline Jeremy's Sea

  • Kintsukuroi, baby.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4809
  • 667 - Neighbor of the beast.
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #47 on: September 12, 2018, 07:10:37 PM »
I took his point as, "false Positives blunt rhetoric, benefit reactionaries."  An easy example being what happened to, "socialism."
This goes back to hand wringing though, as it assumes we know that it is a significant adverse reaction. How often does it happen when someone's concern truly is guided by ignorance and not hate? How much energy do we need/want to spend separating all of that out?
Like most of us, I'm only human and sometimes in exhaustion I'll lump them both together, but also, we're all adults and have to be responsible for our feelings. When someone on a forum calls me racist, my hackles don't immediately go up and I don't double down. I kinda feel like I'm not the one who needs to be responsible for those who do. If I have the time and energy to really parse, but we have enough 88s wasting everyone's time in bad faith.

I dunno. If someone on a forum calls me racist, I take a hard look at what I just posted, acknowledge their concerns, and do whatever I can to change my behaviour.
I was making a general point, as to my knowledge no one has ever called me a racist anywhere, but I'm saying being misunderstood and labelled over a single comment isn't the end of the world and people need to be okay with who they are.
Of course, self reflection is always welcome.
Knowledge is power. France is bacon.

Offline Guillermo

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3231
  • (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #48 on: September 12, 2018, 07:15:03 PM »
No one really needs to be villified and cast out over it, but it should be pointed out where we see it so we can begin to make a change.
I agree with calling out everything that is prejudiced. But I am also of the mind that this current culture is calling out situation that could be marginally considered insensitive, and the overflow of said calling out is actually causing more harm than good, because it gives valid munition to those that are racially motivated.
I may need you to rephrase that as I'm not sure I understand.

The good is that we are clearly seeing more talented people of colour starting to get the roles and recognition they deserve.

What harm is being done?
Complaining and raging against something that is not racist as being racist would hurt the movement and a racist person a way of saying "This is getting out of hand" and then with enough of those, people will start thinking that there are too many snowflakes and that the government needs to do something about that and end up voting for Trump. include social media bubbles and people are going to side with the racist debater.

It's about the same effect as when a woman calls rape when there is no rape.
So we shouldnt point out things that are fucked up in case it turns people more racist or makes them vote Trump?

Im sorry, I dont buy it and I dont buy the idea that Trump is a result of this kind of progress.
I certainly dont think we should be telling people to accept such bias in case it makes some thin skinned racists more racist.
in what way am I saying that we shouldn't point out the fucked up things. We should crucify them and burn them in fire.

This world is not black and white. It's not all or nothing.

We should not accept bias that are obvious racial motives or originated from racially established situations.

But please, don't be outraged at the girl who wanted to wear a kimono to Prom night and don't confront a white guy for wearing dreadlocks if he just wants to get to class.
"There will one day be a member named "No Lynch" and he won't be able to play mafia.  :P"

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9324
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #49 on: September 12, 2018, 07:36:16 PM »
I took his point as, "false Positives blunt rhetoric, benefit reactionaries."  An easy example being what happened to, "socialism."
This goes back to hand wringing though, as it assumes we know that it is a significant adverse reaction. How often does it happen when someone's concern truly is guided by ignorance and not hate? How much energy do we need/want to spend separating all of that out?
Like most of us, I'm only human and sometimes in exhaustion I'll lump them both together, but also, we're all adults and have to be responsible for our feelings. When someone on a forum calls me racist, my hackles don't immediately go up and I don't double down. I kinda feel like I'm not the one who needs to be responsible for those who do. If I have the time and energy to really parse, but we have enough 88s wasting everyone's time in bad faith.

I dunno. If someone on a forum calls me racist, I take a hard look at what I just posted, acknowledge their concerns, and do whatever I can to change my behaviour.
I was making a general point, as to my knowledge no one has ever called me a racist anywhere, but I'm saying being misunderstood and labelled over a single comment isn't the end of the world and people need to be okay with who they are.
Of course, self reflection is always welcome.

I was once called racist on this very forum. I posted a joke, the punchline to which depended on a caricature of a Mexican accent. It was pointed out to me (politely) that it was racist, and I could see their point. I haven't used that particular joke again.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Tarvek: There's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it.
Agatha: If that's what you think, then you're DOING IT WRONG!

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 16784
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #50 on: September 12, 2018, 07:58:43 PM »
No one really needs to be villified and cast out over it, but it should be pointed out where we see it so we can begin to make a change.
I agree with calling out everything that is prejudiced. But I am also of the mind that this current culture is calling out situation that could be marginally considered insensitive, and the overflow of said calling out is actually causing more harm than good, because it gives valid munition to those that are racially motivated.
I may need you to rephrase that as I'm not sure I understand.

The good is that we are clearly seeing more talented people of colour starting to get the roles and recognition they deserve.

What harm is being done?
Complaining and raging against something that is not racist as being racist would hurt the movement and a racist person a way of saying "This is getting out of hand" and then with enough of those, people will start thinking that there are too many snowflakes and that the government needs to do something about that and end up voting for Trump. include social media bubbles and people are going to side with the racist debater.

It's about the same effect as when a woman calls rape when there is no rape.
So we shouldnt point out things that are fucked up in case it turns people more racist or makes them vote Trump?

Im sorry, I dont buy it and I dont buy the idea that Trump is a result of this kind of progress.
I certainly dont think we should be telling people to accept such bias in case it makes some thin skinned racists more racist.
in what way am I saying that we shouldn't point out the fucked up things. We should crucify them and burn them in fire.

This world is not black and white. It's not all or nothing.

We should not accept bias that are obvious racial motives or originated from racially established situations.

But please, don't be outraged at the girl who wanted to wear a kimono to Prom night and don't confront a white guy for wearing dreadlocks if he just wants to get to class.
Now you are moving the goal posts from people commenting about casting decisions and being pissed at Idris Elba being a norse god to people on social media having a problem with a racially insensitive prom dress.

Two VERY different issues and two very different discussions, but they seem to be all one from your perspective? Again, correct me if Im wrong! I did ask you to elaborate earlier because I was concerned I may not fully understand what you were saying.

Offline Nosmas

  • User Not Found
  • ***
  • Posts: 404
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #51 on: September 12, 2018, 07:59:46 PM »
Harry, I think Guillermo said that calling "racist" on things that aren't really racist is not helpful. On the contrary, it actually hurts the anti-racist movement by making anti-racists into The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Before long, people will start to think the activists are irrational hysterics who consider everybody a racist, and will just ignore them. Same thing happens when antifa refer to all conservatives as Nazis.

Steven Novella has called this phenomenon "alarm fatigue," where people become so accustomed to hearing warnings all the time that they eventually just ignore them.

I really haven't listened to the SGU in close to a year and haven't been keeping up on SBM or Neurlogica so I haven't seen Steve reference that term. I've never heard it at all before. I like it.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2018, 08:11:11 PM by Nosmas »
Providing yesterday's solutions to today's problems, tomorrow!

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 16784
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #52 on: September 12, 2018, 08:02:48 PM »
I would like to add that splitting hairs between 'racist' and 'racially biased predjudice' is about as pointless as doing it between 'ethnic cleansing' and 'genocide'.
You can make an argument about your preferred defjnition of each and the differences between them, but its really not relevant to the overall issue being discussed except to make a subset of people feel more comfortable.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12317
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #53 on: September 12, 2018, 08:26:40 PM »
Is it racist to argue in favor of not changing a character's race to a different one as described in the original source material?

Examples of this happening include:
  • Eldris Alba cast as Roland Deschain in the movie
  • Scarlet Johansen cast as Major Motoko Kusanagi
  • Tilda Swinton cast as The Ancient One
  • Samuel L. Jackson cast as Nick Fury

Clearly, Whitewashing and hating on the topic just because it's one race and and loving it because its another race are clearly racist viewpoint.

I have seen arguments in favor of casting roles that differ from the source material for the purpose of diversity saying that those that oppose it are being racist.

Back on topic....

Let's say you're a producer, and you have a great property, a high-concept action novel. A sure money-maker. The protagonist happens to be Asian.

You pay thousands (maybe hundreds) to a writer to have it adapted for the screen and now you have a great script and are ready to take it to a studio to have them: commit to producing it get full funding from investors and securing a contract for releasing it.

Now you happen to know that the first question any studio, investors and  releasing company will all ask is "who is the box office draw?" Usually, that's the main star. Tom Hanks; The Rock; Scarlet Johanson; Reese Witherspoon etc. Sometimes it's the director (Spielberg).

Say Reese Witherspoon loved the book and asks to see the script and loves it and will commit to star in the leading role (although in the original material that character is Asian).

Your choices are go ahead with the movie with Witherspoon in the lead role, or not make the film.

Finding an Asian actress to star is not an option. There is not an Asian actress with the stature to convince studios, investors and releasing companies to commit to funding the film. A big star in a lessor role won't work.

Is it racist to take this production with Witherspoon as the to the studio?

Is Witherspoon being racist by wanting to do this role?

Are the studios, investors and releasing company being racist in not wanting to risk their money on an unproven star?

Is it racist to make this movie?
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2337
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #54 on: September 12, 2018, 08:52:22 PM »
Is it racist to argue in favor of not changing a character's race to a different one as described in the original source material?

Examples of this happening include:
  • Eldris Alba cast as Roland Deschain in the movie
  • Scarlet Johansen cast as Major Motoko Kusanagi
  • Tilda Swinton cast as The Ancient One
  • Samuel L. Jackson cast as Nick Fury

Clearly, Whitewashing and hating on the topic just because it's one race and and loving it because its another race are clearly racist viewpoint.

I have seen arguments in favor of casting roles that differ from the source material for the purpose of diversity saying that those that oppose it are being racist.

Back on topic....

Let's say you're a producer, and you have a great property, a high-concept action novel. A sure money-maker. The protagonist happens to be Asian.

You pay thousands (maybe hundreds) to a writer to have it adapted for the screen and now you have a great script and are ready to take it to a studio to have them: commit to producing it get full funding from investors and securing a contract for releasing it.

Now you happen to know that the first question any studio, investors and  releasing company will all ask is "who is the box office draw?" Usually, that's the main star. Tom Hanks; The Rock; Scarlet Johanson; Reese Witherspoon etc. Sometimes it's the director (Spielberg).

Say Reese Witherspoon loved the book and asks to see the script and loves it and will commit to star in the leading role (although in the original material that character is Asian).

Your choices are go ahead with the movie with Witherspoon in the lead role, or not make the film.

Finding an Asian actress to star is not an option. There is not an Asian actress with the stature to convince studios, investors and releasing companies to commit to funding the film. A big star in a lessor role won't work.

Is it racist to take this production with Witherspoon as the to the studio?

Is Witherspoon being racist by wanting to do this role?

Are the studios, investors and releasing company being racist in not wanting to risk their money on an unproven star?

Is it racist to make this movie?

It depends.  If the source material (I wonder if ‘high concept action novel’ isn’t an oxymoron) relies heavily on the protagonist’s racial origin (and I use the term advisedly since there’s no biological races of humans), and the film adaptation carries this over, then it would be racist to change the character’s race.  But often the character’s race is only of minor interest.  I’ve read many novels in which I’m completely unaware or not particularly aware of the protagonist’s race, and it doesn’t interest me at all.  And film adaptations don’t always carry all the elements of the original source material - as an unrelated and non-racial example, casting Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher for his box office appeal was a marked alteration of the original source material; the novels made it clear that he was a giant of a man, which formed part of the plots.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12317
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #55 on: September 12, 2018, 09:05:16 PM »
"high concept" is a bit of show-biz jargon that connotes a story or setting that is condusive to making a lot of money. The novel "Jaws" was considered "high concept."
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Rai

  • PIZZASAURUS
  • Global Moderator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7167
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #56 on: September 13, 2018, 01:32:13 AM »
Finding an Asian actress to star is not an option. There is not an Asian actress with the stature to convince studios, investors and releasing companies to commit to funding the film. A big star in a lessor role won't work.

Is it racist to take this production with Witherspoon as the to the studio?

Is Witherspoon being racist by wanting to do this role?

Are the studios, investors and releasing company being racist in not wanting to risk their money on an unproven star?

Is it racist to make this movie?

The underlying cause for the lack of Asian actresses is exactly this logic. It is a catch 22 of white dominance in the film industry: you won't get cast because you are not famous enough and you can't get famous enough because you don't get cast. All this despite the fact that there are humongous audiences out there for non-white actors and stories, just look at the enormous success of Black Panther.

Of coures It is totally racist.

Especially if you consider that studios have no qualms basing movies around washed-out stars who hardly anyone wants to see or work with anymore ( professional alcoholic and wife-beaterJohnny Depp, for example) but still get cold feet over discovering and introducing non-white talent.


Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7736
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #57 on: September 13, 2018, 06:17:11 AM »
Perpetuating racism is racism, there's no "the system is racist, not my fault" copout.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2018, 08:46:32 AM by SkeptiQueer »
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline heyalison

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 159
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #58 on: September 13, 2018, 08:12:57 AM »
It's about the same effect as when a woman calls rape when there is no rape.

So, other than one gif, no one's going to comment on this sexist BS?

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 16784
Re: is it racist to argue in favor of...
« Reply #59 on: September 13, 2018, 09:20:40 AM »
It's about the same effect as when a woman calls rape when there is no rape.

So, other than one gif, no one's going to comment on this sexist BS?
Ok. Yeah.
That didnt fully register on my first reading. I'll be honest, I just dont have the energy for it.

 

personate-rain
personate-rain