Let's get down to brass tacks... (SJWs/influence in movies)

[Madner Kami]

You start with a comparison of Germany to America/England. Spice it up with some French, etc. Alright, so we're talking about western cultures here stemming from what Yuka said about Germany being an ubermensch society compared to Americans because they have three different forms for the word the.

You, sir, made my day

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

But to step back over to the other side of the fence, what Yuka was saying about the progressive initiative is true, concerning the idea that the progressives are trying to balance power systems that have traditionally favored cis white wealthy males.

I'm sure that structure does carry over to describe either eastern or otherwise more indigenous cultures, but yes the more discrete or compartmentalized on the global scale they are, the more disparate they come off when applying yesteryear's power dynamics. With eastern or middle eastern societies the dynasty aspect probably didn't get subject to the male edition of command and conquer quite the same. In geography I learned that middle eastern governments have a disproportionately high number of women as heads of power. The reason for the occurence being that the male heads of state get assassinated resulting in wives being transferred power.

[Actarus]

/bump over the Russian.

[Yukaphile]

Now who's spamming? Just let the mods handle it.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

There are plenty of occasions where casting someone of a specific race or gender is necessary or at least preferable. "Diversity" or "representation" that flies in the face of history and common sense risks being insulting (more often mildly, sometimes greatly) to all parties.

I kinda thought about this here and there, and it's not like I disagree that revisionism is at the very least tacky in a marketing sense. Go ahead and insert more complaints about it. However, I did kinda feel a need or something dissociate it from diversity so to speak, because, while the use of diversity to do revisionism is bad, diversity itself doesn't just call for revisionism. But your underlying point is right. Effecting revisionism with diversity is what's being done.

But as I was thinking more recently, representation wouldn't really be so compatible with revisionism. Representation is supposed to be a bit more inherently authentic in gesture. It sure might be possible to transplant like rich culture so to speak in a rather incongruent setting, but it's not something that'd be walked into so easily as diversity, which just means having variety.

Diversity itself does come off more as an overly simplistic measure. Good in its own right, but a pretty limited condition in its merit, and comparatively not really rich in itself as far as politics or art imo.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

There are plenty of occasions where casting someone of a specific race or gender is necessary or at least preferable. "Diversity" or "representation" that flies in the face of history and common sense risks being insulting (more often mildly, sometimes greatly) to all parties.

I kinda thought about this here and there, and it's not like I disagree that revisionism is at the very least tacky in a marketing sense. Go ahead and insert more complaints about it. However, I did kinda feel a need or something dissociate it from diversity so to speak, because, while the use of diversity to do revisionism is bad, diversity itself doesn't just call for revisionism. But your underlying point is right. Effecting revisionism with diversity is what's being done.

But as I was thinking more recently, representation wouldn't really be so compatible with revisionism. Representation is supposed to be a bit more inherently authentic in gesture. It sure might be possible to transplant like rich culture so to speak in a rather incongruent setting, but it's not something that'd be walked into so easily as diversity, which just means having variety.

Diversity itself does come off more as an overly simplistic measure. Good in its own right, but a pretty limited condition in its merit, and comparatively not really rich in itself as far as politics or art imo.

If I'm following you correctly then I agree with your point, and it was probably sloppy of me to conflate diversity and representation. Revisionism is probably a better term for what I take issue with.

Although I will add that even historically accurate representation can be a distraction; it all depends on how it's done. Or at least I don't think filmmakers need to feel obligated to regress to some sort of demographic mean. It's more important to me that the story is "true"- true to its characters and themes and plausible within its established setting.

To give a quick example- take black soldiers fighting for the Union during the Civil War. The movie Glory was explicitly about a real-life African-American regiment. That's cool, and it was an excellent movie. You could also find countless ways to include black soldiers in the Civil War as small part of a larger theme or simply show them fighting alongside a larger group of soldiers. At the same time, there are definite potentially awkward and distracting ways to shoehorn in a politically correct moment where it doesn't belong, despite reflecting a historical fact.

[Karha of Honor]

But to step back over to the other side of the fence, what Yuka was saying about the progressive initiative is true, concerning the idea that the progressives are trying to balance power systems that have traditionally favored cis white wealthy males.

I'm sure that structure does carry over to describe either eastern or otherwise more indigenous cultures, but yes the more discrete or compartmentalized on the global scale they are, the more disparate they come off when applying yesteryear's power dynamics. With eastern or middle eastern societies the dynasty aspect probably didn't get subject to the male edition of command and conquer quite the same. In geography I learned that middle eastern governments have a disproportionately high number of women as heads of power. The reason for the occurence being that the male heads of state get assassinated resulting in wives being transferred power.

There is no carry over. Those cultuyres spread misery on their own to their own people when Europe was a geopolitical backwater.

With eastern or middle eastern societies the dynasty aspect probably didn't get subject to the male edition of command and conquer quite the same.

Nice attempt at wokewashing.

[Karha of Honor]

There are plenty of occasions where casting someone of a specific race or gender is necessary or at least preferable. "Diversity" or "representation" that flies in the face of history and common sense risks being insulting (more often mildly, sometimes greatly) to all parties.

I kinda thought about this here and there, and it's not like I disagree that revisionism is at the very least tacky in a marketing sense. Go ahead and insert more complaints about it. However, I did kinda feel a need or something dissociate it from diversity so to speak, because, while the use of diversity to do revisionism is bad, diversity itself doesn't just call for revisionism. But your underlying point is right. Effecting revisionism with diversity is what's being done.

But as I was thinking more recently, representation wouldn't really be so compatible with revisionism. Representation is supposed to be a bit more inherently authentic in gesture. It sure might be possible to transplant like rich culture so to speak in a rather incongruent setting, but it's not something that'd be walked into so easily as diversity, which just means having variety.

Diversity itself does come off more as an overly simplistic measure. Good in its own right, but a pretty limited condition in its merit, and comparatively not really rich in itself as far as politics or art imo.

What is the social good that is created?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Nice attempt at wokewashing.

That's not wokewashing you doof. I said it's not the same, I didn't say they didn't have it.

There are plenty of occasions where casting someone of a specific race or gender is necessary or at least preferable. "Diversity" or "representation" that flies in the face of history and common sense risks being insulting (more often mildly, sometimes greatly) to all parties.

I kinda thought about this here and there, and it's not like I disagree that revisionism is at the very least tacky in a marketing sense. Go ahead and insert more complaints about it. However, I did kinda feel a need or something dissociate it from diversity so to speak, because, while the use of diversity to do revisionism is bad, diversity itself doesn't just call for revisionism. But your underlying point is right. Effecting revisionism with diversity is what's being done.

But as I was thinking more recently, representation wouldn't really be so compatible with revisionism. Representation is supposed to be a bit more inherently authentic in gesture. It sure might be possible to transplant like rich culture so to speak in a rather incongruent setting, but it's not something that'd be walked into so easily as diversity, which just means having variety.

Diversity itself does come off more as an overly simplistic measure. Good in its own right, but a pretty limited condition in its merit, and comparatively not really rich in itself as far as politics or art imo.

What is the social good that is created?

Not needlessly neglecting or marginalizing cultures.

[Yukaphile]

It's that revisionism I hate most. I've seen it elsewhere, and it triggers me like nothing else.