justforthebs:the-penultimate-superbeans:justforthebs:the-penultimate-superbeans:justforthebs:the-pen
justforthebs:the-penultimate-superbeans:justforthebs:the-penultimate-superbeans:justforthebs:the-penultimate-superbeans:justforthebs:the-penultimate-superbeans:justforthebs:the-penultimate-superbeans:such-justice-wow:antelopian:such-justice-wow:antelopian:such-justice-wow:nunyabizni:Not a fan of that word there, but honestly that’s about the least of the issues with this happening.I thought Ruby Rose identified as nonbinary?I thought acting was all about pretending to be something you’re not, what’s with this new fuckin “if they don’t match the character in every way in their real life they can’t act as that character” likehaven’t you seen what extreme method acting does? why would you want to apply that to sexuality and race?Oh no I meant the article used female pronouns not “they” so i thought she’d stopped is all. Sorry if that wasn’t clear nah I wasn’t talking about your addition I’m talking about the social shit that’s been going on in general lmaoOhhh right! In that case I agree. I can’t remember who but someone made a post discussing it where they explained that for minorities and the like you have a smaller population to draw from anyway and from those you will likely have less people who want to act and then from THAT group you have significantly less who are actually any good. It used people with dwarfism as an example and explained why Warrick Davis is in everything if you need someone with dwarfism.I can understand to a point, like if the character is of a certain demographic, then trying to get an actor of a similar/the same demographic would be ideal. But at the end of the day, it’s acting. If they’re good enough, they can act out whatever they want convincingly.Also, notice how people only complain about this when it’s a minority that gets ‘erased’?1. You cannot act an ethnicity just like you cant act a race. Either you are or you aren’t so her acting skills or lack thereof dont have any part in this conversation.2. Do you really not understand the problem with erasing minority identities vs majority identities or are you just playing stupid?Either way I’ll explain. Hollywood [and all forms of entertainment for that matter] has historically erased and or degraded minority identities. The lack of representation or bad representation is a harmful practice that has been going on for centuries in various ways.The same can not be said for majority identities such as being straight, white, able bodied, cisgender etc. The reason it matters when its minority vs majority is because the minority has been historically and continuously harmed by these behaviors and they need be corrected. Racebending a white character isnt harming representation that white people have because they have so much. They’ve had so much. They are going to continue to have much so it doesn’t hurt them to lose some. If you’re okay with one demographic being erased, but not another, you’re not really fighting for equality are you?Tipping the balance the other way only fuels the stigma. It doesn’t matter whether the demographic is a minority or not. Yes, ideally, someone of a fitting demographic should play that demographic in a film. But that doesn’t mean it must be a hard and fast rule.Yeah okay I’m leaving this conversation. It’s pretty clear you don’t have a grasp on why its important to prioritize accurate minority representation over majority and I am just not the one to go down that rabbit hole with you. So if by ‘don’t understand’ you mean ‘disagrees with you’ then sure. Prioritising minority anything isn’t equality. It’s just pushing things the other way.Nope I mean don’t understand. Or maybe it’s just me giving you the benefit of the doubt here. Like we know representation is important for real people. We know that whitewashing and poor representation is tied to systematic oppression and various phobias and isms. And we know that victims of systematic oppression should be prioritized over the benefactors/enablers of said oppression. So me assuming you don’t understand vs you just disagreeing with prioritizing victims of systematic oppression via media is me believing you aren’t a bad person you’re just misinformed. And maybe you don’t deserve that. Yes, representation is important. But when you prioritise representing (insert demographic A here) over representing (insert demographic B here), it kinda throws the importance to the side and just brags about how ‘progressive’ it is. You don’t get equality by tipping the scales the other way. Yes, cultural/racial/sexuality etc erasure is a thing, but erasing a majority demographic is just as bad as erasing a minority one, because not only does it come across as ignorant due to people lauding something they’d otherwise complain about, but it’s a hypocritical double standard.So yes, you’re assuming. And you’re assuming wrong. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand.So currently we exist in a state of inequality when it comes to media representation. White/cis/able bodied/ straight etc have like hundreds of thousands of good representation while the rest of us are in the hundreds. Let’s give it a concrete number. 500000 vs 500. Add those two up its 500500. If I redistribute things so that the numbers are now 250250 on both sides that’s equality. People removing some representation and giving it to those that actually need it because they have so little on top of creating original good diverse content is balancing the scales so things are equal. It’s not about progressive points. Its about balancing the scales so we are equal. If you go with “oh I’ll put one on each side” we aren’t going to be equal because one side has such a huge start. Erasing a minority is not just as bad as erasing a majority simple by virtue of one being a minority and another being a majority. Real world example. Let’s say I have 100 donuts and 10 cookies. If I remove 1 cookie and 1 donut yeah I’ve removed 1 from each but it’s not just as bad because they are different values. I just removed 10% of the cookies vs 1% of the donuts.It’s only hypocritical and a double standard if you think context doesn’t matter. The reality is context changes stuff. For example:Mary shot John. Adam shot Susie. Without context they are both the same thing. With context Mary shot John because John was trying to shoot her vs Adam shooting Susie because she broke his favorite video game. Yes they both shot people but there is a difference and you know it. The context is racebending/gender/sexuality etc is done to correct centuries of historic and ongoing systematic oppression through media. White washing/poor representation is done to reinforce that stuff. There is a difference. Yeah I was assuming you were misinformed vs not caring about prioritizing victims of systematic oppression. That’s not a good thing by the way. Except that racebending or whatever isn’t ‘correcting’ anything. It’s just changing. Yes, erasure happened. Yes, it still does happen.The entire goal is to stop it from happening. On both sides. It doesn’t matter that one side had a head start. Context or no, if you look at it that way, the minority side will literally never catch up unless like everything forcibly has nothing but minorities in it for many many years. And I’d rather watch a film or whatever because it was good rather than because it has minorities in it.Yes, it would be nice to be able to correct the mistakes of the past. But tipping the scales isn’t correcting them. It’s painting over them.You do realize that correcting something and changing something can be synonymous right? If I change my answer to a question to the correct answer I am in fact correcting my mistake. And the entire goal is equality. It’s about making equal representation through multiple means. Equality means equal representation/opportunities and no whitewashing and once we get there we won’t have to racebend any more so that ends that as well. For a long ass time everything was nothing but/majority white but I doubt you were complaining. “I’d rather watch a film or whatever because it was good rather than because it has minorities in it” good thing you can have both then. Problem solved. Good movies filled with minorities. “But tipping scales isn’t correcting them. Its painting over them” you sound like those people that argue removing Confederate statues is erasing history despite the fact that books/ the internet exists. If Idris Elba becomes the next James Bond that doesn’t change/paint over/erase the fact that the previous ones were white. Your argument makes no sense when you remember that there are a lot of forms of documentation that can make sure people remember the past iteration of these characters. You honestly don’t have a leg to stand on in this conversation besides not caring about the victims of systematic oppression which I will reiterate is pretty shitty.Correcting and changing can be synonyms, yes. But that doesn’t mean they are. Let’s say you change a well known character, say Spider-Man, to be black. That is a change, but not a correction, because it’s shitting on Stan Lee’s original efforts.You’re saying that equality means no whitewashing, equal opportunities etc, and I’m all for equal opportunities. But you shouldn’t prioritise who gets those opportunities. Because then they aren’t equal. Someone applying to work in a corner store shouldn’t get shunted because of their race, sexuality, gender or anything. Doesn’t matter what race, sexuality or gender. Those wanting only minority demographics are just pushing equality farther away.What about in ~25 years when white people are the minority in the USA? Will it then be acceptable for them to be in films again?What about in southern states today where white people are minorities? Will it only be okay to show white majority films in those states? Oh wait, that would be racist wouldn’t it?Oppression sucks, yes, but we can’t keep hanging onto it and using it as a get out of jail free card for representation. I’ve never seen an asexual in any film ever, yet I wouldn’t want one because there’s an asexual in it. That would just feel shoehorned in and token. I’d want an asexual character who just is one, without all the stigma attached.You say I don’t have a leg to stand on in this argument, yet you haven’t stopped clearing out the same point since it started. Representation is good, but representation for representation’s sake is not equality. -- source link