5 ms·
>But white Christian's negatively portraying the rest of the world for the better part of a century is not political? Dr. Fu Manchu, Breakfast at Tiffany's Thi
by twofornone 4y ago
>But white Christian's negatively portraying the rest of the world for the better part of a century is not political? Dr. Fu Manchu, Breakfast at Tiffany's
This is dishonest. Minorities were also portrayed positively in legacy media, and villains were also frequently portrayed by white males.
>Why is it only political when another group is creating the content
In the past studios were creating content relevant to a predominantly (90%+) white audience. They were creating content which was largely in line with their target demographic culture.
This recent media instead is creating content to disrupt what it's owners and managers see as a "racist" culture. That's what makes it political. It's less about money and more about deliberately changing culture in a hypocritical manner - fighting alleged racism with explicit racism. Breakfast at tiffanies was not about punching down on asians, but black feminist vikings is about sending a politicized message.
- otterley 4y ago> Breakfast at tiffanies was not about punching down on asians You seem pretty sure about that for a person who wasn’t involved in its production. Even assuming, arguendo, that it wasn’t, would you contend that it would be appropriate to have such a character in a modern movie? Have you surveyed Asian people about how they feel about the Fu Manchu character?
- tomnipotent 4y ago> creating content relevant to a predominantly (90%+) white audience Sure, maybe a century ago in the 1920s but it's been several decades since international revenues eclipsed domestic. > That's what makes it political. Other people having their voices heard is what makes it political? Or that you don't like what those voices have to say?
- twofornone 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- otterley 4y ago> D&I is not discrimination against straight white men. Well, it isn't. As a straight white man myself, I don't feel like I'm particularly suffering from discrimination. Am I picked first for everything now, like maybe before I would have? Maybe not. Does it adversely impact my life? Not really. It's OK to let others to have the first sip from the fountain once in awhile, and you can help lift up historically-persecuted people without it necessarily being a loss for you. Attitude goes a long way in helping yourself be at peace with it. If you're a straight white man and you're feeling seriously oppressed by D&I, I'd like to hear from you personally and understand your situation better. Anyway, this is pretty far afield from the discussion, which is really about specifically how media is harming people and children in particular.
- snovv_crash 4y agoThis isn't some debate where you can score cheap points on technicalities. Frankly comments like this lower the quality of the discussion. If you want to know why D&I is an issue, it's because it is re-entrenching all of the stereotypes by hamhandedly trying to give everyone different handicaps, like life can be simplified to a game of golf. The reality, though, is that it doesn't matter what handicap I'm given, due to my poor golf game I'm never going to play against Tiger Woods. The only thing the handicaps change is what we're measuring, and at some point people decide not to play the game, or lobby to change the rules. Look at the resurgence of the far right: it is D&I which gave them the resentment in people's souls to which they could place their hooks.
- otterley 4y agoYou’re just reading the news and jumping straight to conclusions. If you’d like to actually defend a position against D&I and how it is actually net harmful (or personally harmful to you), or specifically how it is reenforcing harmful stereotypes with examples of such, then that would be an enlightening discussion.
- unmole 4y agoWhy do you think international audiences care about whatever is the American cause du jour? I for one don't and I'm put off by the hamfisted political content.