Inclusivity and diversity in movies

[thomasw100]

I said the voice of the activist, which referred to the way you have been responding to whatever Flaffy said in response to your criticism.

And you still used the term as a pejorative against me.

No matter what he responded, you were still not satisfied and kept going.

Because when people encounter arguments they fundamentally disagree with, they should remain silent instead of speaking up? Oooookay.

I sensed a certain level of radical view here that wanted to view Flaffy as racist just because of what he said.

Please define "radical." And then show me where I called anyone here a racist.

This is what happens when a discussion enters the realm of ideology. I reject any ideology, because what ideology does is that it puts a belief or idea about society above the well-being and happiness of all people. We see the consequences of that in history and even today.

Unless you're willing to be specific about what you define to be "ideology," what you define to be "the well being and happiness of all people," and what you define to be "consequences," this is just rhetoric.

I honestly do not care at all what the cast of Jurassic World movies is composed of and gender and ethnic diversity should be the normal thing nowadays in every aspect of society. I acknowledge that this state has not been fully realized yet so some affirmative actions are still needed. But I am not in support of anything that goes beyond a fair and equal interaction and involvement of people from any type of background.

This too is just rhetoric. If you believe you can present a detailed and convincing argument against giving the leads in a future Jurassic World film to non-white actors, and how it would go beyond a "fair and equal involvement of people from any type of background," then please do so already. If not, then I reckon this is concluded.

I will only respond to the last point. I said that I do not care what the cast of Jurassic World movies is composed of. I did not say that I would have preference for any background. You should stick to what people state and not come up with interpretations which are not supported by what people write.

[Flaffy]

Because when people encounter arguments they fundamentally disagree with, they should remain silent instead of speaking up? Oooookay.

Difference is the argument that's being fundementally disagreed with is not an argument that was ever made by the other party in the first place. You are creating an argument to be fundamentally against out of thin air. No one has stated that they are against casting POC leads in JW films. I don't know how many times I have to say "I am not against casting POC leads" before it is finally registered.

If you refuse to acknowledge this basic fact, then this discussion can only go in circles. What you currently are arguing against is a gross misrepresentation, instead of what I've actually stated many times before in my posts.

[thomasw100]

Because when people encounter arguments they fundamentally disagree with, they should remain silent instead of speaking up? Oooookay.

Difference is the argument that's being fundementally disagreed with is not an argument that was ever made by the other party in the first place. You are creating an argument to be fundamentally against out of thin air. No one has stated that they are against casting POC leads in JW films. I don't know how many times I have to say "I am not against casting POC leads" before it is finally registered.

If you refuse to acknowledge this basic fact, then this discussion can only go in circles. What you currently are arguing against is a gross misrepresentation, instead of what I've actually stated many times before in my posts.

What we are encountering here is the style of discussion we see from supporters of any sort of ideology or *ism. They are deeply entrenched in the mindset of us vs. them and anyone who is not fully aligned with their worldview is not just someone with a different opinion, but an opponent. And this applies to any *ism, this could be communism, wokeism, genderism, coronism, nationalism or anything. The purpose of discussion in the framework of any *ism seems not to be the exchange thoughts and arguments with other people to find a common ground, but to dominate the discussion and society. This is what ultimately leads to phenomena such as cancel culture, division of society or even social segregation and outcasting of the non-believers.

[PumperKrickel]

No wonder America is so divided.

I'm from Germany btw.

If you come into a debate with preconceived notions about the other party, how do you expect an objective and productive discussion to be had?

Interesting 

Wishing for proper representation in movies is not activism and there is no argument against it that isn't racist, ableist or bigoted at it's core.

I don't see why being apathetic towards surface-level diversity means an individual is inherently racist, bigoted or abelist. Key word: Apathetic, not caring, don't mind when it's there but not fussed either if it isn't. Apathy is not the same nor should it be lumped into being against diversity.

Why would someone who feels apathetic towards diversity make an argument against it? I also didn't say such an individual is inherently racist, bigoted or ableist, it's not unusual for people who are none of those things to hold certain beliefs that are still somehow connected. For example I don't believe you're racist in any way, but I do think the distinction you're trying to make between meaningful representation and surface-level representation is at it's core a racist concept. There needs to be a specific reason for a character being played by a black actor and if the character could arguably be played by anyone, then casting a black actor is hollow, surface-level, meaningless. It sort of assumes that white is the default and any deviation from that "norm" must be earned in order to matter.

What we are encountering here is the style of discussion we see from supporters of any sort of ideology or *ism. They are deeply entrenched in the mindset of us vs. them and anyone who is not fully aligned with their worldview is not just someone with a different opinion, but an opponent. And this applies to any *ism, this could be communism, wokeism, genderism, coronism, nationalism or anything. The purpose of discussion in the framework of any *ism seems not to be the exchange thoughts and arguments with other people to find a common ground, but to dominate the discussion and society. This is what ultimately leads to phenomena such as cancel culture, division of society or even social segregation and outcasting of the non-believers.

Your first post in this thread accused another person of being impossible to have a discussion with, that's not exactly trying to find common ground, is it?

[GojiraGuy1954]

And this applies to any *ism, this could be communism, wokeism, genderism, coronism, nationalism or anything.

Incomprehensible

[suspsy]

I will only respond to the last point. I said that I do not care what the cast of Jurassic World movies is composed of. I did not say that I would have preference for any background.

Care to show me precisely where I accused you of saying that?

You should stick to what people state and not come up with interpretations which are not supported by what people write.

You should try following your own advice. And since you're not making any real argument as I requested, this is indeed concluded.

[Flaffy]

No wonder America is so divided.

I'm from Germany btw.

Yes I know, I am familiar with your affinity with Schleich. (or at least I recall you bemoaning Schleich-hate on the forum a couple years back, please correct me if I'm wrong)

Moreover, I don't see how you originating from Germany discounts the fact that Hollywood and America is more divided than ever before. I cannot and therefore have not commented on the political situation in Germany as I am not familiar enough with the region.

Why would someone who feels apathetic towards diversity make an argument against it? I also didn't say such an individual is inherently racist, bigoted or ableist, it's not unusual for people who are none of those things to hold certain beliefs that are still somehow connected. For example I don't believe you're racist in any way, but I do think the distinction you're trying to make between meaningful representation and surface-level representation is at it's core a racist concept. There needs to be a specific reason for a character being played by a black actor and if the character could arguably be played by anyone, then casting a black actor is hollow, surface-level, meaningless. It sort of assumes that white is the default and any deviation from that "norm" must be earned in order to matter.

Again, you are reading incorrectly into my posts. I don't believe white is the default, it is your assumption that I do, there is a very clear difference. I grew up in a country where white is most definitely not the default, and I believe I've said this before in my posts, so either it was glossed over or deliberately ignored.

I was questioning the notion to call for the casting of a specific demographic of people where it matters not to the role. Likewise, if someone asserted "give the lead role to a white heterosexual man", I would question the reasoning behind that statement. e.g. "why specifically a white person?", "why specifically a man?", "why specifically a heterosexual person?". So on and so forth for every demographic. What really matters to my eyes is casting the best person for the job.

Which reminds me of this post by @Primeval12

I'm of the opinion that unless you're a POC, you can't accurately judge what diverse casting means to members of that particular race.

I personally would not care if the lead in the next JW instalment is Chinese. I wouldn't feel left out if Christ Pratt was cast again, nor would I feel "seen" if Simu Liu was cast instead. Someone of the same race as me may have a differing opinion, and that's okay. What media means to an individual is inherently personal. People are not a monolith and do not have to share the exact same opinions.

[suspsy]

None of my posts state that I am against casting non-white leads in JW films.

Yet you have been attempting vainly to undermine the merit of diversity in film casting this entire time.

I believe I have made my stance of apathy clear, I do not care for the race of the lead in a JW film.

That's your stand. Plenty of other people including myself feel differently. And I'll note that the problem with apathy is that it always ends up favouring those who are against diversity rather than those who champion it, whether intentionally or not. That has always been the case throughout human history.

I cannot help if you insist on reading it as me being personally against POC castings.

Then perhaps you may want to stop trying to argue against it. I'm skipping over all the further stuff you continued to write about Black Panther and other films because none of it refutes a thing.

No that is not what I said. Anyone can advocate for causes they care about, and I am certainly in no position to challenge how you choose to lend support as an individual.

Yet you did precisely that.

However, one cannot deny that actions (and in this case, cold hard cash) have larger impacts than words on a screen.

And since it's been conclusively shown that many films with diverse casts have been immensely successful, I'm puzzled as to why you are still dwelling on this point.

I don't understand why you insist on twisting my argument that I'm against casting non-white people in JW films.

Again, you've been vainly arguing against diverse casting from the start, and are still doing so. I'm simply calling a spade a spade.

My original post had two main and distinct points.

a) Jurassic World has bigger issues than lack of diversity (western).

Which is really not an objective point. Many would argue that both issues are of equal value.

b) Stories that are inherently and intrinsically tied to a culture would not necessarily benefit from increased diversity (objective).

And since Jurassic World has never been inherently or intrinsically tied to any particular, this is moot. JW isn't anime either, so that's moot as well. I said to you at the very start. I'm happy to say it to you again now.

[PumperKrickel]

No wonder America is so divided.

I'm from Germany btw.

Moreover, I don't see how you originating from Germany discounts the fact that Hollywood and America is more divided than ever before. I cannot and therefore have not commented on the political situation in Germany as I am not familiar enough with the region.

Well, you brought it up while quoting me, so it seemed like it related to me in some way. I see now that I was mistaken and understand what you meant.

Again, you are reading incorrectly into my posts. I don't believe white is the default, it is your assumption that I do, there is a very clear difference. I grew up in a country where white is most definitely not the default, and I believe I've said this before in my posts, so either it was glossed over or deliberately ignored.

I was questioning the notion to call for the casting of a specific demographic of people where it matters not to the role. Likewise, if someone asserted "give the lead role to a white heterosexual man", I would question the reasoning behind that statement. e.g. "why specifically a white person?", "why specifically a man?", "why specifically a heterosexual person?". So on and so forth for every demographic. What really matters to my eyes is casting the best person for the job.

I didn't ignore that you're from a non-white country, I simply didn't think it was relevant to my argument. Ethnic biases exist in people of every ethnicity.

Nobody called for the casting of a specific ethnicity, we're just saying that after six movies with exclusively white leads it would be nice to see some diversity there. If you don't fundamentally disagree with that sentiment, why are you so vehemently arguing against it?

[stargatedalek]

Which reminds me of this post by @Primeval12

I'm of the opinion that unless you're a POC, you can't accurately judge what diverse casting means to members of that particular race.

I personally would not care if the lead in the next JW instalment is Chinese. I wouldn't feel left out if Christ Pratt was cast again, nor would I feel "seen" if Simu Liu was cast instead. Someone of the same race as me may have a differing opinion, and that's okay. What media means to an individual is inherently personal. People are not a monolith and do not have to share the exact same opinions.

Well I would feel at least a little bit seen by that. And I'd feel very seen by frankly any woman being cast as the primary lead (let alone an Asian or Arab woman [but I'd be similarly happy for any woman of colour to have the role]).

For non-white people living in predominantly white areas this concept holds a very different connotation. I live with an incredible amount of privilege in my life being white passing, and even then with it not being targeted at me, there is a lingering discomfort and awareness that even in Canada things are not truly safe for people of colour (let alone the United States). You can never really be sure the person you're about to interact with or walk past won't suddenly treat you horribly.

When you've been living with that, it's a nice little relief to see media made in the general area you live have minorities in it, especially ones like you. It feels comforting, like people are saying you're welcomed there. It's also nice because it's like having someone say "hey, this piece of media, if seeing people like this bothers you, you can either suck it up or leave". It's like a filter that keeps the most extreme and vitriolic away.

Living in a culture where you are not a minority, it's only natural there is likely going to be less impact to having someone more like you cast in such a role. That's why despite being majority white I don't really care when white people get cast in things (at least not on basis of their being white). If I lived somewhere that wasn't primarily white I'd probably at least find it really cool and novel when white people got cast in things made in the area.

[DinoToyForum]

I think this argument has run its course. Everyone has said their piece and been clear on the positions they do and don't hold. There's nowhere for this discussion to go now except in more circles, so I'm locking it.