This is clearly a
motte-and-bailey. The objection is not to someone simply noting that "one race has historically benefited more," and I think you must know that. The objection is to:
a) noting this in the service of advocating some kind of specific change in policy, either through law or with cultural pressure.
b) assuming this is the primary (or even only) consideration in any given situation.
Duly noted. That being said:
a) I'll admit this, if only because it still merits consideration compared to Theophile's all-or-nothing ultimatum that is still poised to benefit the established status quo no matter what, whether it's through permitting problematic role-swapping or placing more of a limit on artistic expression than the original proposition would have done anyway.
b) what exactly are the other considerations that I apparently should've noticed behind Theophile's arguments? It seems like every time that I try to explain my reasoning, he just reverts to complaining about me being the one who's perpetuating racism and turning him into a Trump supporter.
I see my post was prophetic
You dropped the same "this is why Trump won" line that centrists have been using ever since he got elected - it's not so much prophetic as the latest instance of a long-established phenomenon.
Yes I blame extremist like this movie issue for partially giving rise to Trump...BUT in the same vein the extreme actions of Trump and his more fervent followers causes a backlash in the left. Which gives us the old chicken and egg, who causes these backlashes first? lefties? righties? No to both...
I think you'd have to trace it to back before modern concepts of left- and right-wing politics truly formed, all the way back to which groups first decided to oppress which other groups. Which came first, the racist or the anti-racist?
I suspect the vast majority of outrage didn't come from the transgender community, it came from bored kids in their mom's basement typing out social justice messages on Twitter & Facebook, stirring up the pot and trying to feel important.
Or it could just be a matter of supporting a marginalised group whose concerns could not make such a large impact without people from outside the group to back them up. I question why you assume the primary (or perhaps even only) reason any non-trans people spoke up about this was to be self-important trolls or whatever, but if this thread is any indication then the concept of getting overly involved in complaining about social issues that do not personally affect one's self in order to bolster one's own sense of self-importance is obviously not unique to the far-left.
I'm not a fan of social media, it's like a world wide extension of the old high school BS conformity. Back in the day when kids grew up and left school, they left the idea of conforming to peer pressure behind them. But thanks to Twitter and Facebook, this peer pressure (aka PC think) goes way beyond high school and has more effect than it should.
Depends on how you define conformity and peer pressure - or social media, for that matter. I could make the case that a message board like this one is a form of social media (its primary function is to facilitate social interaction, after all), which also means that it is still prone to concepts of conformity and peer pressure (or differing perceptions of such). What if I said that wanting to keep Scarlett in the movie was the real conformity here because of how much it fits the existing status quo of casting famous/privileged actors in Hollywood movies regardless of whether or not it actually serves the story it's trying to tell? That's a better example of conformity than the people who are simply trying to promote both individual and communal diversity. As for people being peer-pressured, I advise you to look around this thread and think about which peers are doing the most pressuring.
All I know is that you don't combat this stuff by becoming more like it. So if your problem is that Trump overstates things and thinks you can justify any kind of rhetoric so long as it leads to you winning, because winning is all there is and how you win doesn't matter, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to beat it back with that same posture. Becoming like something to stop it is a Pyrrhic victory.
Then how are you supposed to combat it? While it's all well and good to stick to the rules, it's a bit more pragmatic to recognise that playing by the rules doesn't matter so much when your opponent not only has no qualms about breaking the rules but is fine with you following them if it can be turned to their advantage. I may make mistakes from time to time, but I know where the lines are and understand that it's not just about winning for winning's sake - I'd actually like it if civil discussion was all it took to convince people to at least reconsider their opinions, but this thread and many others like it have shown that that is rarely the case (remember Theophile's
Colossal thread?). I know you have to be the impartial admin who promotes the spirit of civil discussion and all that, but I need you to understand that prioritising civil discussion above all else for fear of becoming exactly as bad as your opponent (at least in terms of decorum if not opinions) is not guaranteed to make things better, especially not if your opponent considers civility a weakness to be ridiculed and exploited. My attempts at making civil arguments in this thread get less +rep than one-line posts saying "these people should go f*ck themselves" in response to a minority group standing up for themselves, so you tell me what civility is really worth in this case.
It’s not about double standards. That’s like saying rich people should pay exactly the same tax as poor people or if an elderly person is struggling on the bus we shouldn’t offer to give up our seats.
Some people have more privilege than others- isn’t it better to give people who don’t have that privilege a chance rather than perpetuating the inequality?
As for the topic, I think Scarlett Johansson does deserve a good role. I suppose the filmmaker has to weigh up authenticity with how much money the film is likely to make- although arguably if it’s good enough, it might get award recognition and that would give some exposure.
This reminds me of when Jeffrey Tambor won a Golden Globe for playing a trans woman not too long ago and he openly addressed the issue of cis actors playing trans characters by championing the idea that he should be the last cis actor to win an award for playing a trans character. Of course, from that point on it's up to the people in charge to take the necessary steps to change that.
This is why Trump won. If I say that I am for a non-racial, non-sexist existence, somehow I am racist and sexist. Goodbye and good luck. I wish you happiness in your life, but I know that you may never find it, since you can never be happy with your Leftist views.
Yeah, nothing says "I'm not racist/sexist" like publicly declaring your support for a KKK-endorsed pussy-grabber over something relatively minor like a Hollywood A-lister not getting to star in an ill-advised trainwreck (and I already pointed out how calling yourself non-racist sounds condescending, right?). That's the path to living a life of anger right there.
Closed Thread
