Re: Representation isn't as important as people think

#101
More than that, he makes the assumption that all white culture is the same thing. A creole mechanic from the swamps of Louisiana is not going have the same culture as a new-age hippy astrologer from California, or a neurotic reporter in New York, or a football obsessed factory worker from Detroit, so on, and so forth. These people can barely relate to one another. Their skin color is not the issue, the issue is their life experiences and environment are so different that they usually cannot imagine the other persons circumstances or viewpoints.

A good writer is going to need to do research or any of those personalities is going to be a cardboard cutout of what a white person is.

Black people do not have a monoculture (which is his argument, and I agree) but it needs to be said clearly that white people do not have a monoculture either.

Re: Representation isn't as important as people think

#102



Quote:Let's see, he claims that "white" culture is much easier to learn than "black" culture for reasons that boil down to "trust me bro."





"white culture" or rather the larger culture of America is definitely easier to learn than "black culture" or rather the minority culture

Quote:He claims that people should go speak to him when writing a black character or else they are doomed to fail.

 no, what he said was that they should speak to multiple black people when they wanted to accurately write a black character, he expressed respect for those that did contact him because they wanted to learn more about "black culture" when writing their characters. Not once did he say that they should exclusively consult him about "black culture".

Quote:He also, not-so-subtly, implies that your culture is wholly dependant on your skin color and not on other, more important, factors.

I do not know where you got this from, true he never went into "white culture" further than just mentioning it, but never went much further with "black culture" either.




Quote:So not only he is an ego tripping old man, he is also rather racist and views skin color as the be-all and end-all of a person.




so you have now categorized this man, of whom was the first mainstream African American comic writer-editor (no small feat here), as an ego tripping old man who is racist and cant look past skin color. I don't think this interpretation of him is correct in the slightest, I can't claim to know the man or anything but I know this is wrong.

Quote:More than that, he makes the assumption that all white culture is the same thing. A creole mechanic from the swamps of Louisiana is not going have the same culture as a new-age hippy astrologer from California, or a neurotic reporter in New York, or a football obsessed factory worker from Detroit, so on, and so forth. These people can barely relate to one another. Their skin color is not the issue, the issue is their life experiences and environment are so different that they usually cannot imagine the other persons circumstances or viewpoints.




You have made the assumption, that he has made the assumption, that all "white culture" is the same thing. I don't think that this is his viewpoint, I simply think that in that essay he never dived too deep into either culture in an effort to keep it short and sweet without alienating either culture or claiming to know extensive parts of either culture. Sure he speaks more on "black culture" and how it was misrepresented in comics than about white culture, but that is because the focus of the essay was "black culture" and not "white culture" and how writers could improve their knowledge of "black culture" to represent it more accurately.

P.S I honestly don't know much about this guy, if you really want to keep insulting him in such a rude, unprovoked, and unnecessary way then I will do much more research to get to know the guy but I think you are reading what he has written through your tinted googles of your viewpoint. He never came across as racist or egotistical, he is a writer who knows that he knows more about "black culture" than the majority of other people in his chosen profession, and he is a man who takes pride in his work no matter what other people say, taking pride in your work is not ego it is just knowing you did your best in it.

Re: Representation isn't as important as people think

#103
When you use the language "white writers do so and so" you are explicitly engaging in racially charged language. If I were to say "black writers do so and so" you'd definitely read that as a racially charged statement. Everything that comes out of my mouth after that will be heavily colored by the fact that you know a racist is speaking.

A better way of saying that would be "lazy writers do so and so" or "bad writers do so and so". Leave race out of it. There are good white writers and there are bad white writers, just like there are good black writers and bad black writers. Race is irrelevant unless you are a racist.

Re: Representation isn't as important as people think

#106

Ramingo Wrote: Not being able to write certain characters is not racist, it's being a bad writer. Perhaps you should stop looking at everything through the race lenses  peoconfused



If there is a consistent and lasting connection between being white and doing a poor job writing black characters, should that be ignored when the majority of the major comic book artists of the genre are white (and apparently doing a poor job writing black characters. I don't read superhero comics so I wouldn't know, but I'll take the authors word for it in this case)? The writer of the article is not, after all, arguing against any specific writers, he is pointing out a pattern. 

Re: Representation isn't as important as people think

#108

Ramingo Wrote: All of the writers that I've seen write people from my nation, and by extension culture, do so very poorly and by using horribly inaccurate stereotypes, are they all intolerant toward my people or just bad writers? I like to think that they are bad writers and mean no harm.

Since when are we talking about intolerance? 


We're talking about racism. Racism can be about obvious intolerance, or it can be in the little actions that you don't really think would be harmful but are. In this case, you're talking about authors from other countries writing about yours. Not getting things correctly is somewhat given if it's about a distant place you don't know. But if that author was your neighbor, and just didn't care enough to ask you a few questions about your culture when you're right there and happy to answer questions, and that happens repeatedly over the course of decades, and stories that get it right are so few and far in between that they are noteworthy when they appear, and you eventually got annoyed and said "hey you got it wrong, you can just ask me and I'll help you" and it just kept on happening as if no one heard you say anything, ignoring your opinion again and again... kind of a different issue then. The issue then isn't active intolerance, but it's still a fact that you're ignored and overlooked, perhaps deliberately, perhaps not. 

Re: Representation isn't as important as people think

#109
I would not immediately assume that is a racially motivated, or racially charged statement(don't assume other people think like you would). He is not using "white" as any sort of derogatory term, he is using it as an appropriate descriptor of the, at the time, other writers he interacted with; they were from "white culture" and their skin color was white, it is an apt descriptor and makes it so you can understand his point of view as someone from a "black culture" who is also black.

using the descriptors of "white" and "black" do not make you racist, using them in a derogatory way certainly does. So let me show every use of his term of "white writers" and see what could be taken as racist


Quote:I can't speak to the motives of the white writers who've handled cage in the heady blaxploitation days of the early 1970's, but, as a reader, most of that work seemed disingenuous, having not much in the way of anything that was true to my experience as a black youth in America.



his critique of "white writers" here is that they do not properly capture his experience a a black youth in America, "Blaxploitation or blacksploitation is an ethnic subgenre of the exploitation film that emerged in the United States during the early 1970s" from Wikipedia, he calls it disingenuous and considering the time it was written it could have been. He calls them "white writers" because there were no "black writers" at the time, as there are now. I fail to see how he is taken as a racist for this.


Quote:The larger body of work in mainstream super-hero comics in written by whites, and the larger body of African or African-American characters bear not much resemblance to any real black culture.



the first half of the sentence is merely a statement, there is no enmity in it simply facts. He says the African or African-American characters did not bear much resemblance to any real black culture, and him being from said culture I would trust him when he says that. I fail to see this as racist.


Quote:A great deal of it is an appropriation of black culture and voice; it seems to be what white people think black people are.



he believes that the "writers" wrote appropriations of "black culture", because he supposed that is what the majority of "white" people think that "black culture is. I fail to see how he is taken as a racist for this.


Quote:It's more amusing than offensive, but, taken at face value, black society in comic books seems an almost invented culture, as made up as Smallville or the Legion of Super-Heroes' headquarters, sewn together by glimpses of television shows or movies. Black culture as represented by Sherman Helmsley or Jimmy Walker or Richard Roundtree. It's an RPG universe subset Black People, with a list of rules and hair styles and speech patterns, invented for the game, but bearing little resemblance to any actual culture.



He says the writers Sherman Helmsley or Jimmy Walker or Richard Roundtree were not writing "black culture" but rather an invented version of "black culture" made from their glimpses of "black" media. I fail to see how he is taken as a racist for this.


Quote:I think what truly annoys me is that this still goes on. Before I write Ultron, I ask half a dozen people for as much info as I can get on the character, so I can be as accurate as I can about it. But, when many white writers attempt to write black culture, something I would imagine carries a bit more social risk than, say, Ultron, it seems as if few inquiries are made, and the research may begin and end with glimpses of BET.



He is annoyed that this was still happening in 2000 when he wrote this, he felt the "white writers" did not put in enough research into the characters they were writing and only looked at the surface level. He himself claims to gather information on the cultures he writes about from "half a dozen people" to get as much info as he can on the character. I fail to see how he is taken as a racist for this.


Quote:I certainly believe white writers can write black characters.



here he is trying to clear up any doubt you may have that he thinks that "white writers" can't write true "black" characters regardless of what they do. I fail to see how he is taken as a racist for this.


Quote:I think it works much better when they stop writing black characters, and just write characters, imbuing them with as much energy and verve as they do white characters, and don't worry about appropriating a "black voice" or the RPG universe subset of attributes. Just relax and have fun and don't worry about that other stuff.



Here he says they should stop differentiating "black" characters from just being characters, he says to give them as much "energy and verve" as the "white" characters that they write. He tells them to not stress out about "appropriating a "black voice" or the RPG universe subset of attributes" and to just have fun writing them without worrying about anything else that may happen. I fail to see how he is taken as a racist for this.


Quote:...Conversely, I've had to learn to write white characters, like Iron Fist or Batman, from the very beginning.



Here we see his view on writing "white" characters. There is no way he would have made it to the top by being a OTP of writing "black" characters, so he had to learn to write "white" characters just as good as the rest of the writers. I fail to see how he is taken as a racist for this.


Quote:Learning to articulate the English language, to speak "properly" and, as I've been accused, to "sound white," to be an astute social observer, is a job skill for African Americans. Blacks who cling to the idea that improper English is somehow a cultural icon are deluding themselves. The only way I'd ever get a job beyond the local 7-Eleven is to learn to relate to whites and learn to speak to them articulately and calmly, eschewing the hair-trigger histrionics that are a staple of our race in this country; the undercurrent of violence, anger and resentment that informs most every conversation, debate, or artistic expression. The Sherman Helmsley/Luke Cage vision of Black America.



"The only way I'd ever get a job beyond the local 7-Eleven is to learn to relate to whites and learn to speak to them articulately and calmly" This I could see as being taken as racist, he says he must "learn" to speak to "whites". However it is also undeniably true that someone who does not speak in the manner most familiar to the majority of people will be ostracized and likely not able to reach a higher job because of that. I do not view this as a racist statement, but rather the sad truth of the matter that some people have to change who they are to succeed in life.


Quote:To be fair, we're surrounded by white culture, the majority culture in this country. It's much easier for an African-American to learn about and mimic a white voice and a "mainstream" culture than it is for whites to learn ours.



here he states the simply truth of "black" culture not being the majority, and that does undeniably give "white" people a disadvantage in learning about "black" culture which is not the "mainstream" culture. I fail to see this as racist


Quote:…And many may perhaps feel it's sufficient to simply bear in mind The Black People Rules rather than to possibly offend someone or embarrass themselves by picking up the phone and calling someone like me and simply asking me questions relevant to the work they're doing. In 22 years in this business, I've received less than a dozen of those calls, but I certainly respect those callers, those writers who cared enough to risk embarrassing themselves with me rather than embarrassing themselves with the thousands of black readers they disenfranchise and strip of their dignity by reducing their culture to an index card list of rules.



here he is showing his dissatisfaction when "many may perhaps feel it's sufficient to simply bear in mind The Black People Rules" instead of ringing him up to ask his view as someone of the same culture that they are trying to write. He remarks how very few of those calls he has received in his career, but those that did call earned his respect for them doing their proper research on the characters. Perhaps this is where you think he is being egotistical, but he never says that they must call him to consult on this topic, simply that they need to call someone to consult on it so thatthey get the right viewpoint. I can see how you might find it egotistical, but I fail to see how it is racist

Quote:...Incidentally, we spent many a cheery afternoon whiting out shadows and reflections our eager an headstrong inker put in, arrogantly "fixing" Bright's obviously shabby work. If Tyrone ever cast a shadow or a reflection, it was because the inker put it in.


Here is probably the most arrogant that he is, where instead of assuming the inker may have simply been making a mistake out of habit or lack of knowledge, that instead somehow the inker thought he knew better than the writers.

Quote:Issue #122 is also ground-breaking in that, here Cage admits his "loud angry Negro" routine is a put-on something many whites do not realize. Many whites are shocked to see Queen Latifa or Usher or the late Tupac Shakur in film or on television shows speaking in complete sentences with a calm, even voice. It seems many whites don't realize the gregarious street voice is something we can turn on and off.


I don't see anything racist in his use of the term "whites" here because it is not used maliciously but rather to denote a certain people who would be surprised by this. It is perhaps the most racist use of his term "whites" but even then it does not come off as malicious or intending to degrade "whites"

Every time he used the term "white" or "black" neither held any sort of animosity or bias towards the other except in the familiarity or knowledge of one in particular. 

I am not going to tell you how your opinions should fall, my purpose of writing this is because you read the essay, and instead of criticizing the essay you immediately called the writer behind it racist and arrogant. I would hardly care if you were to criticize the essay as it does have a very one-sided tone to it, but it is not racist. I cared enough to write what equates to an essay because you criticized the man in a place he cannot defend himself and called him racist for no other reason than the descriptors he used, then you decided to tack on the words arrogant and egotistical because you think that is how a racist is.

P.S. if you can't be bothered to write something of equal or similar effort against this, then I am going to just ignore you as being ignorant and willfully looking at the guy and his situation in a biased way

Re: Representation isn't as important as people think

#110
First of all, my people have been oppressed for hundreds of years, and somewhat still are today, by our neighbours, and even fellow countrymen, so fuck off with your stupid and ignorant assumptions about us and how our problems can't compare. 

Second, you only focussed on the world intolerant. So much so that you even repeated my talking point of people using horribly inaccurate stereotypes when you said: "'hey you got it wrong, you can just ask me and I'll help you' and it just kept on happening as if no one heard you say anything."

Third, some of the most important, and frankly beautiful, pieces of work of my country are literally about how my people are horrible, criminals and other bad stuff in general. We just sucked it up and accepted it and the simple fact that black people in America can have these kinds of discussions, and receive general support for them, means that they are not actually oppressed right now.

Now my rant is over and, if you don't mind, this is gonna be my last message here because I'm getting tired of this.

Re: Representation isn't as important as people think

#112
I already made my point and it stands despite your lengthy reposting of an essay I'd already read. If he had replaced the word "white" with "lazy" or "bad" then the essay could have made the exact same points.

A few things you may not know.

1) the majority of big writers in comics at that time were Jewish, not white.
2) the majority of writers for Marvel comics lived in New York during the time period he is discussing, which is likely the only American (let alone black) culture they were exposed to. They were woefully inadequate at writing any type of American, of any background, except New Yorkers. They utilized the worst types of stereotypical cardboard cutouts for almost every stripe of other American.
3) Writing at that time in comics was horrible. Just awful. And during that time they were writing "Marvel style" instead of full scripts. Which means the artists would only get a rough plot. Most of the actual storytelling was left to the artist, with the writer going back in after the fact and adding dialog. This is not a writing approach that is going to deliver a lot of nuance.
4) The target audience for comics in those days was still 11-14 year old boys. Not exactly a discerning audience looking for complex social issues. Hulk smash! was about as deep as they wanted to think most of the time.

Context matters. He is bitching about a bunch of second rate (maybe even third-rate) writers who neither had the reason, nor the personal motivation to dig any deeper. The audience would likely not reward the effort, and therefore the publisher would likely not reward it. Chris Claremont (who he mentions as well) is several times the author Christopher Priest is, and his work at that time was still on the level of a bad soap opera most of the time.

There is nothing this guy is saying that is a surprise to me. I was there, I remember. The only thing shocking about this is how he is trying to make this about bad writing concerning "blackness", instead of just bad writing period.

Re: Representation isn't as important as people think

#114
I generally think people should be able to create whatever they want without having to worry about people telling them their story isn't 'politically correct' enough. It's up to the author, not the reader. That said I'm all for diversity in fiction, but when it comes to people groaning about it I think there are two primary reasons people usually have complaints from what I've seen:

1. Stories which focus heavily on diversity often shoe-horn in current-event politics solely for the purpose of putting across a political message. This turns off a lot of people who dislike hearing about politics in general, and generally makes the story appear to be pushing some political message that judges the viewer rather than earnestly trying to tell a fun story. 
2. Many characters in these stories are bad, poorly-developed or uninteresting characters that the author expects you to like based on the fact they are diverse, rather than having a good, interesting character who happens to be diverse. The second is far more important. A bad example would be Rey from the new Star Wars movies, who is one of the absolute worst contenders for Mary Sue heavy-weight champion I have ever seen, and yet people expect you to like her simply because she's a woman main character.

Though again, I must iterate I'm not trying to be anti-diversity here or say you can't do diversity well. Probably my favourite TV series of all time is The Wire, which is phenomenal in nearly every way and not only manages to have incredibly interesting, memorable characters, but managed to brilliantly portray and analyse the realities in which those characters lived without getting overly political about it. 

Re: Representation isn't as important as people think

#115

OrionTello Wrote: I agree that there's no way any one story, movie, TV show, or any other narrative could ever capture the full diversity of humans and the human experience.  It's simply impossible.  There's seven billion people on the planet.  You're only ever going to get a slice of the different people who lived.  

It's more important when we look at things broadly.  For instance, there's been 23 MCU movies - 21 have a white male lead, almost every single one has included some flavor of romance, and every romance has been straight.  I wouldn't criticize any one movie for it, but looked on aggregate, a pattern emerges.  I will criticize that pattern.  And criticism of that pattern is important.  If someone says "superhero movies are a white male power fantasy" then consider that maybe there's some truth to that.  

I will criticize a story for lack of self awareness. If every single important character is male, every leader, every general, every important person we run into, then I think you need to explicitly address the fact your universe is a sexist place at some point, and how people in that universe feel about that.



Lol, I wonder what you think about the Lord of the Ring. Should have Tolkien mention that this is a sexist world? What about ANY medieval fiction, I guess it should be mentioned that any story set in a medieval should be sexist by default for the sake of realism, after all our world WAS a completely sexist place until the 20th century. So it should be assumed that the world of any xianxia is sexist by default, after all, it is based on ancient China. If we talk about realism, then I'd say that most historical fictions are way too modernized and treat women completely unrealistic by standards of the old time.

I hope that you realize that the target audience of superhero movies ARE white straight men, right? They are the vast majority of the people who watch it. It is perfectly rational to make MC who is similar to most of the viewership. LGBT are less than 10% of the population, blacks are just 13% of the USA population (btw, Hispanics are 18%), and are even less in other modern countries. Why would you make a movie that is interesting mostly to the minority and only annoys the majority? This isn't how big business works. Nowadays, women watch superhero movies as well, this is why we have trash like Wonder Woman 1984. There are also many people who think like you in the gaming industry (because in modern western society LGBT and women have preferential treatment), this is why we have trash like The Last of Us 2.

Anyway, if your target audience is, mostly, straight white males (which is the case for RR) then please don't add SJW diversity. Straight dudes aren't interested in reading about gender-fluid male gays and their relationships. If you want to add some diversity, then make some harem members bisexual and allow them to romance each other in addition to the MC. Also add more catgirls and elves, everyone loves them.

Re: Representation isn't as important as people think

#116
Ok, uh, KonstantTeen, so you like to be constantly pandered to and you don't like to expand your horizons and try different things. You don't like change. And I sense you have some deeply personal issues regarding this topic due to your extreme abhorrence to diversity. Which is fine. Probably something that needs to be worked through on a personal level.

*Also, the US is becoming a minority majority country. Meaning 40% of the population is a minority race and that number is growing. 


Also, a lot of the readers on this site are female. A lot of the writers are also female and LGBT

Re: Representation isn't as important as people think

#117

KonstantTeen Wrote: I hope that you realize that the target audience of superhero movies ARE white straight men, right? They are the vast majority of the people who watch it. It is perfectly rational to make MC who is similar to most of the viewership. LGBT are less than 10% of the population, blacks are just 13% of the USA population (btw, Hispanics are 18%), and are even less in other modern countries. Why would you make a movie that is interesting mostly to the minority and only annoys the majority? This isn't how big business works. Nowadays, women watch superhero movies as well, this is why we have trash like Wonder Woman 1984. There are also many people who think like you in the gaming industry (because in modern western society LGBT and women have preferential treatment), this is why we have trash like The Last of Us 2.

Anyway, if your target audience is, mostly, straight white males (which is the case for RR) then please don't add SJW diversity. Straight dudes aren't interested in reading about gender-fluid male gays and their relationships. If you want to add some diversity, then make some harem members bisexual and allow them to romance each other in addition to the MC. Also add more catgirls and elves, everyone loves them.



Superhero movies, and most any movie produced on budgets of over $100 million these days, are NOT made for straight white men. In the past twenty years the film industry has geared itself to the "four quadrant blockbuster" which targets all four "main demographics": Males under 25, males over 25, females under 25, and females over 25. They cast the widest possible net so that as many people will watch the movie as they can muster. That is why there is romance and stronger female characters in most every modern blockbuster; they're trying to capture more watchers than anything else. Once you study the four quadrant movie and start to watch blockbusters, you'll start to see the obvious tactics they use to try and appeal to both younger audiences and older female audiences, and you'll never be able to un-see it.

Also, "white" is completely wrong, just utterly wrong. Most blockbusters make less than 35% of their total money in the United States/Canda, and in some cases up to 50% of their total comes from East/Southeast Asia. South America has also seen a huge surge in the movies in the past ten years and will most likely be the next place where the industry focus once China inevitably becomes unattractive due to its authoritarian/censorship policies.

Also, four quadrant blockbusters are actually not doing that well in America anymore, aside from Disney and DC Comics movies. Studios have started really struggling with movies that would have been very successful in the past, and sometimes the movies don't turn a profit at all because of the U.S. (such as the Warcraft movie, or Valerian, or Dolittle, all very non-"SJW" movies that bombed in the U.S. but did OK elsewhere). America has very recently seen a HUGE increase in movies that focus on certain minority groups and these movies make massive money thanks to lower budgets. Coco, a movie for Mexican-Americans; Girl's Trip, a comedy about Black women; Get Out, a horror-satire about Black people; Crazy Rich Asians, a movie about the Chinese diaspora in English speaking nations; The Mule, a thriller about an elderly man; and 
Knives Out, a detective comedy that is heavily political and starring a Hispanic woman.

All of these movies made gobs and gobs of money in the U.S. and sometimes elsewhere too; every single one of them made more than $100 million in the U.S. and most of them made more than Detective Pikachu, a recent traditional four quadrant blockbuster that did OK in the U.S. but made most of its money in Asia and elsewhere.

Diversity and representation is the exact reason these movies are so popular. When half the films in any given year are boring action movies with CGI setpieces and obvious pandering to China, audiences will go nuts over a movie that just does something different and fresh, that showcases a life experience that is familiar but not tired.

Royal Road's audience is also not primarily straight white men. I do not have the statistics for this but this site skews far more Asian than you would expect, and far more female/other users than anyone is aware of. Maybe they aren't as loud and obnoxious as the teenage boy readers, but you don't get a story as successful as Villager Three without a gigantic number of non-male readers. Just because there is a common assumption does not mean it is true, and we are seeing story after story on Royal Road challenge those assumptions and come out on top.

Re: Representation isn't as important as people think

#118

Thedude3445 Wrote: Diversity and representation is the exact reason these movies are so popular.

Jesus Christ... Are you... Blind? A vast majority of forced diversity movies have bombed in the US, and that's coming from a South American. Even we can see it. I know some people that work for DC comics, that place is doomed, all because of forced diversity. Do you honestly believe this "diversity" bullcrap is doing you any good? A few decades ago, most of my favorite actors were non-white: Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Bruce Lee, Eddie Murphy, Will Smith, Samuel L. Jackson, Wesley Snipes... And many others. Nowadays? I can't seem to like any of the new actors, because they all just feel like forced checkbox casts. You know what did this? Your damned 'diversity policies'. The only thing they are good for is getting high paying jobs for untalented people, just because they tick a box. But hey, i guess victimization is a good way to get cash without putting up actual effort. Diversity doing so damn good i can only remembers actors from 20 years ago— when, according to those who speak in favor of diversity, they were being opressed and being given 'no chances'. ROFL

Re: Representation isn't as important as people think

#119
KonstantTeen Wrote: I guess it should be mentioned that any story set in a medieval should be sexist by default for the sake of realism, after all our world WAS a completely sexist place until the 20th century.

There is a difference about setting your story in a sexist world and actually writing it in a sexist way.

KonstantTeen Wrote: I hope that you realize that the target audience of superhero movies ARE white straight men, right? They are the vast majority of the people who watch it. ... Why would you make a movie that is interesting mostly to the minority and only annoys the majority?

So people are only interested in stories about people that look like them? I don't normally tell people what they should/shouldn't like reading because that's personal taste, but I really don't understand this argument (especially when applied to movies). Perhaps it's because I'm not the same as the default MC and therefore got used to reading it regardless.

KonstantTeen Wrote: (because in modern western society LGBT and women have preferential treatment)

Maybe it seems like it because of "diversity quotas" but I can assure you that it very much isn't the case.

Re: Representation isn't as important as people think

#120

Lilith Wrote: "if it's a non-white non-male actor I don't personally approve of, clearly they're talentless and are just getting roles because they're non-white/non-male."

I'm not even gonna bother answering to this. The crisis Hollywood is facing right now speaks for itself. But hey! They can always try remaking another old movie with a 'more diverse' cast, right? It's working great so far, isn't it? Yay! Go go go diversity! On a serious note tho, you guys gotta have realized by now that most of the world thinks this is stupid, right? This bullcrap only flies in civilized western countries that have achieved a modicum of peace. People have nothing serious to worry about, so they busy themselves making up enemies and conjuring opression out of thin air. I sincerely wanna see you try that logic in a third world country where common thugs carry around 7.62mm fully automatic assault rifles and someone with a college degree makes less than the minimun wage in the US. When we watch movies, play games or read books, we're doing so to escape — even if only for a brief time — from our poopy reality, not to see who has such and such skin color and such and such gender. Entertainment, do you know what that word means? So yes, if I don't approve of an actor or actress it's because they are not entertaining me. As a consumer, it is my right to call out their crap acting. Diversity is doing the US so well that your super diverse and inclusive comics industry is being eaten alive by Japanese manga— which mostly feature non-diverse casts and hyper-sexualized females.