5 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

 

I noticed that you addressed zero of my points, except the questions on what you want, whose answer was that you can read ppl's minds.

 

I addressed all your points except this one, but I have zero problems answering any questions (which doesn't seem to be the case for you ), so here goes: Wayne playing Genghis Khan was ridiculous. Liz Taylor's Cleopatra was somewhat better though perfectible.

 

But those are two examples, not enough to make a generalization. In any case, whether your generalization is true or not doesn't matter: past producers' inaccuracies doesn't justify today's producers inaccuracies.

 

I want some levelling up, not levelling down (one of my points you never addressed BTW, but I'm sure you will this time )

 

I gave two examples because those are the first two that came to mind. There are so many more. Not just in classic Hollywood either.

Jake Gyllenhaal playing a Persian. Scarlett Johanssen in Ghost in the Shell. Johnny Depp playing native America Tonto in the Lone Ranger.

 

Anyway, I digress. I don't really care about any of those. And I don't see why I should care about black elves either.

 

The thing I don't understand is caring about one and not the other. Either you want characters to conform to the racial identity in the source materials or you don't.

1 minute ago, Enrico_sw said:

Once again: a) presumption of innonce and b) I don't know all the details of this story and American politics are boring.

 

You are the one who brought this up!

 

Formal and informal fallacies are too numerous on the internet.

 

They are annoying. People think they're the "good guys" and use all the cheap tactics that weaken debates.

 

Sorry, but think of one self as "the good guy" doesn't mean you can use tricks to level down debates.

1 minute ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

You are the one who brought this up!

 

 

Yeah, maybe I shouldn't have.

Just now, Enrico_sw said:

 

Yeah, maybe I shouldn't have.

 

 

But you have addressed zero of my other points...

2 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

Formal and informal fallacies are too numerous on the internet.

 

They are annoying. People think they're the "good guys" and use all the cheap tactics that weaken debates.

 

Sorry, but think of one self as "the good guy" doesn't mean you can use tricks to level down debates.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

The entirety of the debate has been like this:

 

You: I hate it when they change the race of characters from their source materials in movies and TV

Me: But this is not new, Hollywood has always done this

29 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

The entirety of the debate has been like this:

 

You: I hate it when they change the race of characters from their source materials in movies and TV

Me: But this is not new, Hollywood has always done this

 

 

Interesting, so that's what I thought: you don't read other people's posts. Your only preoccupation is to give a lesson to those who dare to disagree with you.

 

The debate has been like this:

 

Me: producers are obsessed with gender and race (that's literally my 1st post)

 

You: fictions are already bad on 101 issues

Me: it's not a justification for leveling down. We should level things up on all issues.

You:...

 

You: you made condescending statements about other people's race obsession.

Me: don't shift the blame.

 

Me: obsessing with race and gender is problematic

You:...

 

Me: there's a politicization of entertainment and it's detrimental

You:....

 

And let's not forget the best part:

 

You: you called people who disagree with you "racists in disguise" (and you don't need any proof, you just know it, you read people's minds... and you're judge, jury and executionner)

Me: this is a Stalinist trial.

38 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

Formal and informal fallacies are too numerous on the internet.

 

They are annoying. People think they're the "good guys" and use all the cheap tactics that weaken debates.

 

Sorry, but think of one self as "the good guy" doesn't mean you can use tricks to level down debates.

 

 

Oh and this post was about the Desantis argument where you used Strawman arguments. It went like this:

 

- you: "oh, you follow someone who's broken law, so I'll just spit a sarcasm on you and laugh, cause I'm the good guy"

- me: "I never said that. There's no proof he broke the law"

- you: "so, you admire a felon. Since, I'm the good guy, I'll just spit more sarcasm on you"

- me: "I never said that and justice is based on a contradictory procedure"

(round and round it goes)

You're usually better than that.

So can you explain to me how black elves are "problematic" but Hollywood's 100+ years of race-switching isn't?

Because I don't understand how any one person can have both of those beliefs at once.

 

5 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

So can you explain to me how black elves are "problematic" but Hollywood's 100+ years of race-switching isn't?

Because I don't understand how any one person can have both of those beliefs at once.

 

 

Dude, I didn't say any of this.  You are putting words in my mouth once again...

 

What I factually said:

- I talked about a Norwegian lord, not black elves (this would be another discussion)

- I didn't say it was fine what was done 100+ years ago was fine, I said the opposite.

- Mediocrity back then doesn't justify mediocrity now.

 

So, you didn't just distort what I said, you completely twisted it...

I know you're better than that, don't let the Zeitgeist weaken your critical thinking.

And you still didn't answer any of my points:

1. On the blame-shifting from Hollywood

2. On the new form of McCarthyism

3. On the obsession on race/gender in 2022

4. On the politicization of entertainement

5. On accusing people of what they never said (like in the Stalinist purges)

I answered all your points. Would you have the courtesy to answer at least one of mine?

In 2022, people invent a chimera, put words in its mouth and think they're the knight that will slay it.

 

Too common behaviour.

10 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

 

Dude, I didn't say any of this.  You are putting words in my mouth once again...

 

What I factually said:

- I talked about a Norwegian lord, not black elves (this would be another discussion)

- I didn't say it was fine what was done 100+ years ago was fine, I said the opposite.

- Mediocrity back then doesn't justify mediocrity now.

 

So, you didn't just distort what I said, you completely twisted it...

 

It's not just 100 years ago. I gave examples from movies that are less than ten years old.

 

My point is that non-white-to-white casting has always been common, so why the sudden concern about white-to-non-white casting?

Arguments/ideas have to be internally consistent for me, otherwise I don't see why I should bother.

11 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

And you still didn't answer any of my points:

1. On the blame-shifting from Hollywood

2. On the new form of McCarthyism

3. On the obsession on race/gender in 2022

4. On the politicization of entertainement

5. On accusing people of what they never said (like in the Stalinist purges)

I answered all your points. Would you have the courtesy to answer at least one of mine?

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. I will start with "blame-shifting from Hollywood", since it's the first thing on your list. Who are they blaming? What are they blaming them for?

8 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Of course, you don't. You haven't read my posts. You just pick one or two words to fuel your moral plea.

 

You used to read what people had to say. I hope you do it again.

 

8 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

I will start with "blame-shifting from Hollywood", since it's the first thing on your list. Who are they blaming? What are they blaming them for?

 

Well thanks for that. At least, that's 1 out of 5. It simple really: Hollywood is obsessed with race and gender (for political reasons). Affluent artists are often defending the moral orthodoxy they are bathed in.

 

Their obsession can by definition be called racist and sexist.

 

Producers soak their fictions with this obsession, by race-swapping and gender-swapping. When their audience points out this obsession, they reverse the blame and call them racist. Even better: the marketing departments in entertainment companies use this "race card" to protect their product, and blame the audience when their fictions aren't popular (even if said audience didn't even talk about race).

 

It's like an insurance. If your product fails, you always have your insurer (e.g. the media your company owns) to try to offset the potential losses.