Sfdebris.net

I'm talking purely as a matter of opinion in regards to the two camps. I mean, the arguments I seem to see is that the left thinks "things are more diverse than ever!" which, really, is just like... if so, it's only SLIGHTLY more diverse. I've seen that argument for Discovery, and all I can think is, did they even watch DS9? That was clearly somebody who only cared they had a gay couple finally, which... I prefer Dax, tbh. The fact people like clearspira still can't see the gender identity allegory while I can is proof that method works more, and draws more people in. Then the right thinks it's "too diverse!" which... I mean, some of these people seem outright ignorant to the fact that diversity worked well in the past, when well utilized, and could be ignored in service of a great story. Those insisting it is "too diverse" usually seem to have their own political biases at odds with reality. "Too diverse" is hard to take seriously when people are saying "how can a n&^%$# be a stormtrooper?" Which do you think is worse?

People that claim that things are too diverse in movies and TV give impression about themselves that they consider everything that isn't just white men too diverse and they aren't really helping to make that impression not seem true. I still haven't seen explanation that makes sense why they think that instead of them putting labels like SJW, Snowflake, PC and NPC like that some how would help they case when in reality it doesn't. It just make them look like idiots that aren't able to create actual arguments so they use labels and buzzwords instead.

Yukaphile wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:03 pm The fact people like clearspira still can't see the gender identity allegory while I can is proof that method works more, and draws more people in.

What the hell... This doesn't say anything. Clearspira demonstrates a clear toxic regard for socially progressive speculation of media and it's not a surprise that he downplays any significant bicurious elements for Dax. That's not a matter of the writing being just too good.

The "diversity" being talked about here is only skin deep.

I wouldn't call him opposed to that. Just that he has his own view on how it should be done. And we all do. And I'd perhaps call him a bit too ingrained into his mindset, which is why he can't see it with Dax. Doesn't mean, again, he is opposed to social progress. Do you honestly think Trek is "more diverse than ever" just for including a gay couple? Certainly black people are not "beating you over the head" with the fact they are black in-universe, thus you could argue Trek was more diverse in the 1990s in some ways, since Sisko was never "The Black Captain," but I think the common way of thinking from people like him is that the studios, those making those, have agendas, that they put into the story. And you can't deny Hollywood is very left leaning. I personally think it ties less into leftism and more into the way people high up in a power structure get out of touch. But that's his view and he's free to make it. I don't think their agenda is to shove politics into it so much as it's a byproduct of the system. I just think in the absence of quality, the flaws are more glaring, so people latch onto that based on their own confirmation biases. I've done that. Otherwise, if it wasn't such a good story, hence high quality, you could legitimately argue that Star Wars, the original trilogy, was in its own way promoting a message of white nationalism, white superiority. Because the only front-line soldiers we see are white men. So not just white nationalism, but you could even make the case it's about male superiority. Men are the warriors. Women are not meant to be. I don't think that was Lucas's intent. Again, it's a byproduct of his style of storytelling same way that it is for these studios in charge now. The EU, especially Legends, spun this into the Empire being largely chauvinistic, because they're "the bad guys," but the Rebels hardly look better when it's mostly white men doing the major lifting. I'd consider the "scores of aliens oppressed by the Empire working their way into the Rebellion" to be a retcon, but it is a good and justified one, and not because of the racial or gender or social politics, but that it makes sense. Story wise. That's just me, though.

Mecha82 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:50 pm People that claim that things are too diverse in movies and TV give impression about themselves that they consider everything that isn't just white men too diverse and they aren't really helping to make that impression not seem true. I still haven't seen explanation that makes sense why they think that instead of them putting labels like SJW, Snowflake, PC and NPC like that some how would help they case when in reality it doesn't. It just make them look like idiots that aren't able to create actual arguments so they use labels and buzzwords instead.

Cis-gendered, heterosexual, white men. But, yeah, those 'too diverse' nimrods are the worst.

The left ''everything must be diverse" are the worst. The obsession to cram whatever they ''think" is diversity into EVERYTHING really does nothing for anyone. Even when they make a super diverse whatever, the diversity people don't care, and most will still..endlessly..whine about ''no diversity" and "not enough diversity".

And if they make something all diversity, that would be a racist anti white thing. And sure, all the diverse people might ''like" it a bit, but the bulk of the normal white folks won't.

I'm really at a loss as far as how diversity significantly hurts any of this stuff like lmao srs. I maybe get how people fetischize it, but this is otherwise a very superficial aspect of media either way. On top of that the current circumstance affects the subject demographic(s) disproportionately, so who exactly is one to really give a shit about this on practical grounds?

Yukaphile wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:43 pmDo you honestly think Trek is "more diverse than ever" just for including a gay couple?

In terms of gay representation? Yeah. 'Rejoined' was a bold episode and deserves being noted for representation in Trek, but a gay couple is further progress than an alien-symbionts-who-happen-to-be-in-same-sex-bodies-right-now-but-were-married-when-one-of-them-was-a-dude couple.

Diversity isn't a minus for anyone I know, a lot of whom are on the right. But diversity isn't much of a plus, either, and aren't willing to sacrifice much for the sake of diversity.

Unfortunately, a lot of people on the left seem to confuse not wanting to make that sacrifice with being against diversity. This makes the impressions these people get pretty much without value.

For example, Marvel tried replacing a lot of their characters with a more "diverse" group, like putting Tony Stark in a coma or something and putting a teenage black girl in as the new Ironman. That meant fans of Ironman would have had to give up the character they enjoyed for diversity. Fans complained, sales weren't great (to be fair, that might not have all been due to this) and someone at Marvel said that fans apparently didn't like diversity. Which missed the point.

However, I think some on the right are wary of "diversity" being announced, suspecting it to be a dog whistle for misandry or anti-white racism. Much the same as some on the left think of "MAGA" as a white supremacist dog whistle. I think that's unfortunate on both sides, causing unnecessary friction when people argue against straw versions of each other.