Do people only give bad movies the SJW label?

Tools    





Well obviously I was exaggerating. All I meant was that kind of thinking is pervasive.
That's fine, my main point is that the whole thing is very speculative. How would someone hope to tell the difference between "this type of thinking is more common now" (which seems obvious) and "this type of thinking is pervasive/everywhere" (which isn't)? One thing that is clear is that there's enough curated media out there to find anecdotal evidence of virtually all conclusions. Partisans of all kinds can easily pass around, viral-style, every ridiculous thing the other side does or says (even if most of it's from decidedly non-mainstream people and sources), and if that's all you see it's easy to get a distorted picture of frequency.
__________________



I'm not sure political agendas were ever truly about respecting "all" people because you ultimately can't extend that same courtesy to those whose agendas are fundamentally incompatible with yours in a way that goes beyond mere agree-to-disagree differences. If you're fundamentally opposed to racism, how much respect can you genuinely extend to racists? Neutrality sounds nice in theory and all, but there are some things you just can't be neutral about.
That works fine if you have an ironclad, inarguable definition of racism. The problem, as I see it, is not that racism is more tolerated, but that the definition of racism has demonstrably expanded, and yet the people talking about it want the label to have the same amount of force and meaning as it previously did, which is literally impossible. Refusing to engage with racism seems like a pretty reasonable position, until you start diluting "racism" to mean indirect things like social structure, downstream effects, or mere inaction (or even something you judge to be insufficient action!). If your definition is that wide, then we-don't-negotiate-with-racists becomes a pretty hard position to defend, unless of course you motte-and-bailey it so people who don't like mortgage reforms are sitting in the same category as people in pointy hoods.

We've talked about this before, I'm pretty sure. I can dig up the most recent example, but I'm not sure I want to bother if this exchange is gonna go like all the other ones where I've tried to talk about this meaningfully. So let's just decide now if you wanna talk about it, or if you're gonna just swat at what you feel is the low-hanging fruit.



Welcome to the human race...
I'm just saying there's neutrality and there's neutrality. Even that post you quoted just now was meant to imply a spectrum of tolerance that's complicated to maintain, especially if it can be seen as a weakness and manipulated in bad faith (which is what breeds its own sense of extremes so, contrary to what other users have written, it is not merely those inclined towards enacting social justice who are "creating division"). It's not like I haven't been trying to field other people's motte-and-bailey arguments about what counts as "SJW" in this thread and others with decidedly mixed results.
__________________
Way too much stupid talk on the forum. Iroquois, Iím thinking about you.



I'm just saying there's neutrality and there's neutrality.
Sure, and there's "racism and then there's racism." Is there any indication here, even in the more pointed/argumentative posts, that anyone's defending the kind of racism that thoughtful people shouldn't even engage with? I don't see evidence of that. However annoying or predictable the "aggrieved majority" stuff might be to you (and certainly sometimes me, even though we often think differently on this issue), it's not the kind of racism you're describing, that shouldn't even be engaged with. So why bring it up? Either it's a non-sequitur (yes, okay, racism exists, nobody's saying otherwise), or you're implying that these users, here and now, are examples of that, even though they clearly haven't given you sufficient reason to think they are.

Even that post you quoted just now was meant to imply a spectrum of tolerance that's complicated to maintain, especially if it can be seen as a weakness and manipulated in bad faith (which is what breeds its own sense of extremes so, contrary to what other users have written, it is not merely those inclined towards enacting social justice who are "creating division").
I think we need to be careful about what "bad faith" means. After all, arguments in a court of law are "bad faith" in the sense that the lawyers involved are obligated to make the most persuasive argument whether they believe it or not. And we judge those on merit rather than motive because that's how truth works.

To me, "bad faith" means things like not engaging with the replies and incorporating them into responses and continually resetting the discussion (a constant problem in our exchanges), or deliberately trying to misunderstand. I'm not sure how you're using it, but it only seems to apply if you define it was just "being kind of belligerent." Which isn't something I like, but also isn't something so manifestly racist or genuinely bad faith that it shouldn't even have to be addressed. It's become strangely common for people to devote most of their argumentative energy to explaining why they shouldn't have to really respond to things.

It's not like I haven't been trying to field other people's motte-and-bailey arguments about what counts as "SJW" in this thread and others with decidedly mixed results.
Yeah, that's certainly a problem. I'd sure like that frustration to translate into empathy for my repeated attempts to have these conversations, though. As I continually point out, these discussions are offered up again and again, and they immediately get dropped in favor of taking shots at less thoughtful arguments. Is the point to actually defend a viewpoint against the best argument against it (which is what you do if you really believe in it and are willing to test it), or just to make it look better by only putting it up against weaker ones?



Well as far as SJW people, if that is the correct term to call them, being white goes, it seems that more of them are white which is ironic. Is is a white guilt thing perhaps?

Like when the remake of Ghost in the Shell came out, so many white Americans were complaining about how the character was changed from Asian to white, where as a lot of Japanese fans, of the source material, thought that white Americans were making too big a deal of it, and that it was okay, since it was an American remake.

I mean when Japan remade Unforgiven, all the characters were cast with Japanese actors, and Japanese audiences, didn't complain about the remake preserving the races of the original.



Well as far as SJW people, if that is the correct term to call them, being white goes, it seems that more of them are white which is ironic. Is is a white guilt thing perhaps?

Like when the remake of Ghost in the Shell came out, so many white Americans were complaining about how the character was changed from Asian to white, where as a lot of Japanese fans, of the source material, thought that white Americans were making too big a deal of it, and that it was okay, since it was an American remake.

I mean when Japan remade Unforgiven, all the characters were cast with Japanese actors, and Japanese audiences, didn't complain about the remake preserving the races of the original.

The Ghost in the Shell thing is a technicality.
WARNING: spoilers below
The character was actually Japanese but had a shell like a white woman.



Also, there's a Japanese remake of Unforgiven? Cool.



I think the Ghost in the Shell reaction does tell you a lot about the climate today though, there was a very strong desire to try and shoehorn that film into the idea of whitewashing but very limited desire to bother to do much research or indeed wait for the film itself to be released which ironically actually commented on the idea of the characters identity being stolen and replaced with a westernised one.

That doesn't mean that legitimate criticism doesn't exist(and maybe some better reasoned criticism of the above might have been possible) but just unthinkingly following the ideological battle lines as set out for you by the mass media or twitter culture is not going to put you on the right side of every issue.



That's fine, my main point is that the whole thing is very speculative. How would someone hope to tell the difference between "this type of thinking is more common now" (which seems obvious) and "this type of thinking is pervasive/everywhere" (which isn't)? One thing that is clear is that there's enough curated media out there to find anecdotal evidence of virtually all conclusions. Partisans of all kinds can easily pass around, viral-style, every ridiculous thing the other side does or says (even if most of it's from decidedly non-mainstream people and sources), and if that's all you see it's easy to get a distorted picture of frequency.
Pervasive means "(especially of an unwelcome influence or physical effect) spreading widely throughout an area or a group of people." So in other words, I meant that kind of thinking is spreading. We can all agree on that.

And while the view of both "sides" can indeed be slanted, the left-wing antifa/SJW types are having more effect on our society. Thus why political correctness is rampant, more so than its ever been.



Pervasive means "(especially of an unwelcome influence or physical effect) spreading widely throughout an area or a group of people." So in other words, I meant that kind of thinking is spreading. We can all agree on that.
I think the word "widely" is the key word there. Anyway, that's all I'm on about. The point you're making is contingent on the idea that this is widespread, which I'm not sure is the case. I think we're learning, from the Internet, that a small number of people can make a lot of noise. And that confirmation bias in closed partisan circles can greatly amplify that noise even further.

The main thing to take on board is that pretty much everybody thinks something like this about the other side. Doesn't mean someone isn't right, but it does mean that just insisting it's true is sort of talking past the built-in disagreements, which makes it of dubious value. It therefore becomes a signal that someone is just sort of firing, and maybe isn't terribly interested in talking things out. It certainly doesn't feel like an invitation to discussion, at least, and that's kinda my big thing: I like it when people reach out to discuss things, rather than just to broadcast, if you get my meaning. Not like we don't have a million other places on the Internet where people can (and do) do the former already.



I think the word "widely" is the key word there. Anyway, that's all I'm on about. The point you're making is contingent on the idea that this is widespread, which I'm not sure is the case. I think we're learning, from the Internet, that a small number of people can make a lot of noise. And that confirmation bias in closed partisan circles can greatly amplify that noise even further.

The main thing to take on board is that pretty much everybody thinks something like this about the other side. Doesn't mean someone isn't right, but it does mean that just insisting it's true is sort of talking past the built-in disagreements, which makes it of dubious value. It therefore becomes a signal that someone is just sort of firing, and maybe isn't terribly interested in talking things out. It certainly doesn't feel like an invitation to discussion, at least, and that's kinda my big thing: I like it when people reach out to discuss things, rather than just to broadcast, if you get my meaning. Not like we don't have a million other places on the Internet where people can (and do) do the former already.
Well certainly there's been no statistical analyses on the "frame of mind" we're talking about. The only thing we can go by is anecdotes and what we see or read about. I've just "noticed" that kind of thinking has become more prevalent. And yeah, I do realize confirmation bias is also at play.



Welcome to the human race...
Sure, and there's "racism and then there's racism." Is there any indication here, even in the more pointed/argumentative posts, that anyone's defending the kind of racism that thoughtful people shouldn't even engage with? I don't see evidence of that. However annoying or predictable the "aggrieved majority" stuff might be to you (and certainly sometimes me, even though we often think differently on this issue), it's not the kind of racism you're describing, that shouldn't even be engaged with. So why bring it up? Either it's a non-sequitur (yes, okay, racism exists, nobody's saying otherwise), or you're implying that these users, here and now, are examples of that, even though they clearly haven't given you sufficient reason to think they are.
I'd put forth Roy C. complaining about how the new Terminator casting a Mexican means that the movie is implicitly advocating for white genocide. An absurd and easily-disproved claim, sure, but considering how the concept of white genocide itself is a factor in white supremacist rhetoric I had to at least question why he was willing to bring it up and also prompt others to consider it by being all "if you really think about it, this is what the new Terminator is about".

In any case, would this particular type of too-racist-to-engage with rhetoric you describe also happen to be blatant enough to violate the forum rules and prompt you to do something like ban the user in question? If that's the case, it's always possible for people to figure out where the line is and how not to end up crossing it.

Anyway, I only brought up racism in this particular response to KeyserCorleone regarding the question of what really counts as political neutrality and how plausible such a concept is while also making sure to outline how said neutrality should not just be limited to a kind of performative politeness that potentially disregards legitimate conflicts (and also whether or not this is what the people who complain about SJWs actually want them to do instead of being angry and argumentative).

I think we need to be careful about what "bad faith" means. After all, arguments in a court of law are "bad faith" in the sense that the lawyers involved are obligated to make the most persuasive argument whether they believe it or not. And we judge those on merit rather than motive because that's how truth works.

To me, "bad faith" means things like not engaging with the replies and incorporating them into responses and continually resetting the discussion (a constant problem in our exchanges), or deliberately trying to misunderstand. I'm not sure how you're using it, but it only seems to apply if you define it was just "being kind of belligerent." Which isn't something I like, but also isn't something so manifestly racist or genuinely bad faith that it shouldn't even have to be addressed. It's become strangely common for people to devote most of their argumentative energy to explaining why they shouldn't have to really respond to things.
I guess that sort of covers what I was going for. In this context, I was thinking of it as something of a double-bind where someone will at once not take you seriously if you are being overly argumentative (which I can sort of understand) but still won't care if you try to be civil in your arguments. I know I've been trying to do that because you've got users like KeyserCorleone or Citizen Rules whose main problem with SJWs is more that they're too combative but my attempts to be more civil don't necessarily pan out. The latter even wrote about how in a perfect world SJWs wouldn't be so angry when they argued for things as if somehow it's the anger in and of itself that's the issue more than what the SJW is arguing against. I wonder if this counts as an example of the I-don't-think-I-have-to-respond-to-things motive you describe.

Yeah, that's certainly a problem. I'd sure like that frustration to translate into empathy for my repeated attempts to have these conversations, though. As I continually point out, these discussions are offered up again and again, and they immediately get dropped in favor of taking shots at less thoughtful arguments. Is the point to actually defend a viewpoint against the best argument against it (which is what you do if you really believe in it and are willing to test it), or just to make it look better by only putting it up against weaker ones?
Why, would you like me to dig up the last one?

I think it might also be because you seem to be the only one who's not only an actual challenge to argue with (which means I really have to bring my A-game and that can in itself be so exhausting as to prompt giving up at times) but because I get the impression that other users I argue with have probably put me on ignore anyway (which I'm guessing you the administrator couldn't do even if you wanted to).

Well as far as SJW people, if that is the correct term to call them, being white goes, it seems that more of them are white which is ironic. Is is a white guilt thing perhaps?

Like when the remake of Ghost in the Shell came out, so many white Americans were complaining about how the character was changed from Asian to white, where as a lot of Japanese fans, of the source material, thought that white Americans were making too big a deal of it, and that it was okay, since it was an American remake.

I mean when Japan remade Unforgiven, all the characters were cast with Japanese actors, and Japanese audiences, didn't complain about the remake preserving the races of the original.
It's worth remembering that social justice is about more than just addressing racial issues - it also addresses matters involving gender, sexuality, disability, and so forth. White guilt may or may not be part of it, but there is a focus on maintaining an intersectional sense of equality that extends beyond race.

As for Ghost in the Shell, I wonder how much of that has to do with cultural differences and the contrast/overlap between the two cultures, especially when it comes to matters of social justice (whether within the fan community or not). I also wonder what Japanese-Americans make of it.

I think the Ghost in the Shell reaction does tell you a lot about the climate today though, there was a very strong desire to try and shoehorn that film into the idea of whitewashing but very limited desire to bother to do much research or indeed wait for the film itself to be released which ironically actually commented on the idea of the characters identity being stolen and replaced with a westernised one.

That doesn't mean that legitimate criticism doesn't exist(and maybe some better reasoned criticism of the above might have been possible) but just unthinkingly following the ideological battle lines as set out for you by the mass media or twitter culture is not going to put you on the right side of every issue.
Maybe the real problem is that the idea of the character's identity being stolen and replaced with a Westernised one ends up serving as a good metaphor for how the remake delivered such a reductive re-interpretation on the original's themes of identity (opting to focus on a mostly artificial being rediscovering her human roots instead of being challenged by a conflict with an entirely artificial being), to say nothing of how it reads like an ad hoc justification for casting Johansson. It's one thing to simply whitewash the character, but incorporating whitewashing as an actual plot point in a way that sounds like it's excusing your initial decision to whitewash a character instead of vice versa is also questionable.



I'd put forth Roy C. complaining about how the new Terminator casting a Mexican means that the movie is implicitly advocating for white genocide. An absurd and easily-disproved claim, sure, but considering how the concept of white genocide itself is a factor in white supremacist rhetoric I had to at least question why he was willing to bring it up and also prompt others to consider it by being all "if you really think about it, this is what the new Terminator is about"....
What other members posted that they agreed with Roy C.'s white genocide reasoning for the casting of a Mexican actor in the new Terminator???

I think you're making that up, as I don't recall anyone agreeing with him on that one point...You need to provide links to prove your claim.



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
What other members posted that they agreed with Roy C.'s white genocide reasoning for the casting of a Mexican actor in the new Terminator???
If it helps, I didn't read that as other members were posting that, just that Roy was posting it and attempting to persuade others of its validity.

...if it helps.



Welcome to the human race...
What other members posted that they agreed with Roy C.'s white genocide reasoning for the casting of a Mexican actor in the new Terminator???

I think you're making that up, as I don't recall anyone agreeing with him on that one point...You need to provide links to prove your claim.
I'll admit that "prompt" was not the best choice of word. I just wanted to get across that he was doing that, not that anyone was actually agreeing with him.



Well it seems the SJW is growing and become more prevalent in movies. But I am wondering, what causes all this to happen? Was it the Metoo movement, or did something before that caused it to happen?



itís probably the fact that voices that have been marginalized for generations finally have a way to be heard through a platform like the internet and can force us to reckon with the way they have heretofore been severely underrepresented in our cultural output. either that or participation trophies. itís definitely one of those.
__________________
Most Biblical movies were long If I Recall.
letterboxd
criticker



Oh okay, but a lot of people have had the internet for a little over 20 years now, and this SJW movement took off in the last three years, at least in Hollywood. So isn't this movement caused by something in the few years therefore?



Welcome to the human race...
Oh okay, but a lot of people have had the internet for a little over 20 years now, and this SJW movement took off in the last three years, at least in Hollywood. So isn't this movement caused by something in the few years therefore?
It's worth keeping in mind that social justice movements have existed in one form or another for decades on end and that the term "SJW" now exists as a means of deriding said movements, so I would advise against using it in this context. Anyway, I pretty much agree with Frightened Inmate in that the advent of the Internet accelerated the evolution of the discourse and movement surrounding social justice, but the Hollywood mainstream was always a little slow on the uptake by nature of a production cycle where it takes months, if not years for a movie to get made even before the recent introduction of signifiers like #metoo or SJW to the general discourse.

I would correct it to:
Trendy Justice Whorior
Just because you have a username like a Twitter bot doesn't mean you have to post like one.