|
Post by WhutScreenName on Sept 10, 2019 18:09:01 GMT
With 24 hour news, world wide internet, social media, and the need for people to feel like they belong, it can be difficult to know what the right thing to do is. This thread is meant to share your thoughts on whatever social issue you want. Please remember the rules of the board. My intent is not to single anyone/cause/etc... out, but rather get everyone's views on topics that may be touchy.
Things like this question: Say you want to dress up as Winston from Ghost Busters, but you're white. Is it okay to wear makeup to darken your complexion, or is that "Black Face" and insulting? If it's insulting, is being a white Winston also insulting? Can you simply NOT be Winston if you're white?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 10, 2019 20:12:49 GMT
at this point, I'm going to say, on that topic, there is enough bad blood that white people shouldn't be dressing as other races and if they are called out for having dressed as other races as a child, their response should be "yes, we didn't know any better at the time, but we know better, now"
it isn't so much that it is insulting as that it is a reminder that whites used to do whatever they wanted to regardless of any one else's opinion; and at this point it is time to stop doing anything that even resembles that sort of attitude.
as for other races doing "whiteface" - I'm not offended. I figure they've got a lot of leeway built up for that.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 11, 2019 6:20:14 GMT
addendum: way back in the dark ages, when I was in school, one of the instructors explained that the statement behind doing things that offend other people is "I'm more powerful than you are because I can do this to you and you have no recourse." so basically what doing "raceface" says, now is "we don't mind you being equal as long as we can still do whatever we want to you"
it bears mentioning that it is typically the same people who think it should be okay for a white person to dress as a person of another race; as the people who complain when terms like "white privilege" "toxic masculinity" or "fragile white male" are used.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 11, 2019 16:52:33 GMT
Yet a man can put on a dress and make-up and claim to be a woman, and that is perfectly socially acceptable? We live in a really strange time.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 11, 2019 18:11:06 GMT
Yet a man can put on a dress and make-up and claim to be a woman, and that is perfectly socially acceptable? We live in a really strange time. Not quite. KHOU-TVA popular thing at "woke" libraries is "Drag Queen Story Time", in which drag queens read stories to children. A group out in Houston opposed to this was mortified to learn that the Houston Public Library system had never run background checks on the volunteers who came in as a part of it, ran their own, and discovered that one of the individuals was a registered sex offender who was not supposed to have any contact with minors. I think you can imagine how this one exploded.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 12, 2019 0:11:00 GMT
I hate the use of those terms as those using them are showing themselves to be hypocrites 9 times out of 10; They are denoting an individuals worth or lack thereof based on their gender or ethnicity. Which is the very definition of sexism and racism. They are also terms that tend to get thrown around by 'creatives' who put diversity ahead of story telling or characterization and then accuse anyone who doesn't worship their greatness of being racist and/or sexist. Made worse by trying to pretend their are doing something new when they are not.
Star Drek Discovery is a case in point, in which they claimed that the traditional Trek fanbase was sexist and racist for not liking a show with a black female lead. Because in their world Uhura never existed, nor Worf, Geordi LaForge, Ben Sisko, Janzia/Ezri Dax, Kira Narres(sp?, Katherine Janeway, Seven of Nine, B'lana Tores, Travis Mayweather or Hoshi Sato.
{EDIT}; Forgot to add Sulu, Tasha Yar, Dianna Troi, Beverly Crusher, Doctor Palaski, Tuvok, Jake Sisko, Kassady Yates, and Harry Kim.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 12, 2019 5:28:41 GMT
I hate the use of those terms as those using them are showing themselves to be hypocrites 9 times out of 10; They are denoting an individuals worth or lack thereof based on their gender or ethnicity. Which is the very definition of sexism and racism. They are also terms that tend to get thrown around by 'creatives' who put diversity ahead of story telling or characterization and then accuse anyone who doesn't worship their greatness of being racist and/or sexist. Made worse by trying to pretend their are doing something new when they are not. Star Drek Discovery is a case in point, in which they claimed that the traditional Trek fanbase was sexist and racist for not liking a show with a black female lead. Because in their world Uhura never existed, nor Worf, Geordi LaForge, Ben Sisko, Janzia/Ezri Dax, Kira Narres(sp?, Katherine Janeway, Seven of Nine, B'lana Tores, Travis Mayweather or Hoshi Sato. I've noted some rather alarming trends in media over the years that relate to this. One trend is for people to be completely ignorant of what has come before, so ignorant that one must question how sheltered they were. Consider, for example, "Black Panther" being hailed as the first superhero movie to have a black lead when "Meteor Man" did that 25 years earlier (and "Blade" came out shortly after that, meaning Black Panther wasn't even the first black *Marvel* character) or people presuming that Post Malone was the one who "discovered" Ozzy Osbourne. Another trend is for "woke" types to try and dismiss or bury any and all criticism of various works they favor by trying to find ways to claim that the critics are somehow bigoted or sexist. You yourself have noted one such example. Put these two trends together, and we have the seeds for something very, very dangerous in terms of pop culture knowledge and understanding.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 12, 2019 5:49:11 GMT
I hate the use of those terms as those using them are showing themselves to be hypocrites 9 times out of 10; They are denoting an individuals worth or lack thereof based on their gender or ethnicity. Which is the very definition of sexism and racism. They are also terms that tend to get thrown around by 'creatives' who put diversity ahead of story telling or characterization and then accuse anyone who doesn't worship their greatness of being racist and/or sexist. Made worse by trying to pretend their are doing something new when they are not. Star Drek Discovery is a case in point, in which they claimed that the traditional Trek fanbase was sexist and racist for not liking a show with a black female lead. Because in their world Uhura never existed, nor Worf, Geordi LaForge, Ben Sisko, Janzia/Ezri Dax, Kira Narres(sp?, Katherine Janeway, Seven of Nine, B'lana Tores, Travis Mayweather or Hoshi Sato. it's Neris. and of your list Uhura is the only black female, and she was blocked from being a command officer by the original producers. and I do hear a lot less from those "creatives" than I hear about them.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 12, 2019 5:54:47 GMT
I hate the use of those terms as those using them are showing themselves to be hypocrites 9 times out of 10; They are denoting an individuals worth or lack thereof based on their gender or ethnicity. Which is the very definition of sexism and racism. They are also terms that tend to get thrown around by 'creatives' who put diversity ahead of story telling or characterization and then accuse anyone who doesn't worship their greatness of being racist and/or sexist. Made worse by trying to pretend their are doing something new when they are not. Star Drek Discovery is a case in point, in which they claimed that the traditional Trek fanbase was sexist and racist for not liking a show with a black female lead. Because in their world Uhura never existed, nor Worf, Geordi LaForge, Ben Sisko, Janzia/Ezri Dax, Kira Narres(sp?, Katherine Janeway, Seven of Nine, B'lana Tores, Travis Mayweather or Hoshi Sato. I've noted some rather alarming trends in media over the years that relate to this. One trend is for people to be completely ignorant of what has come before, so ignorant that one must question how sheltered they were. Consider, for example, "Black Panther" being hailed as the first superhero movie to have a black lead when "Meteor Man" did that 25 years earlier (and "Blade" came out shortly after that, meaning Black Panther wasn't even the first black *Marvel* character) or people presuming that Post Malone was the one who "discovered" Ozzy Osbourne. Another trend is for "woke" types to try and dismiss or bury any and all criticism of various works they favor by trying to find ways to claim that the critics are somehow bigoted or sexist. You yourself have noted one such example. Put these two trends together, and we have the seeds for something very, very dangerous in terms of pop culture knowledge and understanding. you forgot whatever that very forgettable Shaquille O'neil movie was. - which was close to being a black superhero movie than blade - and nobody took meteor man seriously.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 12, 2019 8:14:25 GMT
I hate the use of those terms as those using them are showing themselves to be hypocrites 9 times out of 10; They are denoting an individuals worth or lack thereof based on their gender or ethnicity. Which is the very definition of sexism and racism. They are also terms that tend to get thrown around by 'creatives' who put diversity ahead of story telling or characterization and then accuse anyone who doesn't worship their greatness of being racist and/or sexist. Made worse by trying to pretend their are doing something new when they are not. Star Drek Discovery is a case in point, in which they claimed that the traditional Trek fanbase was sexist and racist for not liking a show with a black female lead. Because in their world Uhura never existed, nor Worf, Geordi LaForge, Ben Sisko, Janzia/Ezri Dax, Kira Narres(sp?, Katherine Janeway, Seven of Nine, B'lana Tores, Travis Mayweather or Hoshi Sato. I've noted some rather alarming trends in media over the years that relate to this. One trend is for people to be completely ignorant of what has come before, so ignorant that one must question how sheltered they were. Consider, for example, "Black Panther" being hailed as the first superhero movie to have a black lead when "Meteor Man" did that 25 years earlier (and "Blade" came out shortly after that, meaning Black Panther wasn't even the first black *Marvel* character) or people presuming that Post Malone was the one who "discovered" Ozzy Osbourne. Another trend is for "woke" types to try and dismiss or bury any and all criticism of various works they favor by trying to find ways to claim that the critics are somehow bigoted or sexist. You yourself have noted one such example. Put these two trends together, and we have the seeds for something very, very dangerous in terms of pop culture knowledge and understanding. The problem with Blade in particular is very few people outside comic book fandom realise that the character is related to the Marvel superhero universe, and then there is the question that particularly in the films he is more of an antihero than a hero.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 12, 2019 14:52:27 GMT
It was the network executives not the shows producers who didn't want Uhura as a command officer.
Uhura WAS a command officer, she was the head of the communications department and fourth officer of the Enterprise. Gene Roddenberry traded Uhura's 'Command Rank' for making the set none smoking. However the execs apparently didn't realize or understand that there is a difference between command position and command rank. Command rank is a rank at which you may reasonably expect to be given command of your own ship, while command position is a senior member of a crew usually meaning a department head. (Harry Kim was also a command officer on Voyager although he held the rank of Ensign).
This was a big deal back in 1966.
More importantly was the way Uhura was treated and how the 'diversity' angle was treated in an intelligent and truly 'progressive' way. This wasn't done just by shoving a black woman onto the bridge and having everyone worship her existence. It was done through Kirk, Spock, Scotty, McCoy...All of them treated Uhura as an equal. In season 3 a clone of Lincoln comes aboard the ship, it was not one of the better episodes before you ask. Lincoln, rather naturally for someone from the mid 1800's, comments on a black woman being one of the ships senior staff. Kirk's, and indeed the entire staff bar Uhura herself, reaction is one of confusion. He doesn't understand what Uhura's gender or skin color has to do with her being an officer on the Enterprise. I use this as one example from ToS as to why Kirk was just as, if not more important for 'diversity' than Uhura herself. Yes, Uhura was a role model for black children (of all ages) by showing and African-American women in a position of power. Something that Martin Luther King understood. However Kirk was just as important as a role model for kids by showing a white man treating Uhura (and Sulu, who everyone seems to forget for some reason...apparently myself in my last post) with respect and as an equal. If Uhura inspired a generation or two of African-American children to be more than what they were told they could be. Kirks example inspired a generation or two of white kids to treat African-American's as equals and not stand in their way.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 12, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
The main thing that irritated me about the "Jem and the Holograms" movie is how the live-action film basically *paved over* what made the original 1980s cartoon series so bold and progressive for its day.
The biggest single example? The relationship between Rio and Jerrica.
In the original cartoon show, he was Rio Pacheco. That's right; he was Hispanic. Rio was one of the precious few non-stereotypical Hispanics on American kids' television during the 1980s. No zany pseudo-Mexican clothing. No Spanish peppering his conversations. He was just an ordinary dude trying to deal with a far from ordinary situation.
What's more, Rio / Jerrica was also one of the first inter-racial relationships on American kids' television. Roy Fokker (Caucasian) and Claudia Grant (black) from the Macross portion of "Robotech" is generally credited as the first (their relationship came to a bitter end when Roy died of injuries sustained in battle), but Rio and Jerrica were only a few years behind.
The live-action movie made him a white dude for the sake of a generic Romeo & Juliet angle. Yeah.
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Sept 12, 2019 17:41:06 GMT
So what's the reason for the decline in civilization treating people with civility? It has to be more than just social media, why are we reverting to a less primitive society? As ironhold stated, we have short memories. We "HAVE" to be right at all others expense, but why has this change happened?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 12, 2019 19:42:53 GMT
It was the network executives not the shows producers who didn't want Uhura as a command officer. Uhura WAS a command officer, she was the head of the communications department and fourth officer of the Enterprise. Gene Roddenberry traded Uhura's 'Command Rank' for making the set none smoking. However the execs apparently didn't realize or understand that there is a difference between command position and command rank. Command rank is a rank at which you may reasonably expect to be given command of your own ship, while command position is a senior member of a crew usually meaning a department head. (Harry Kim was also a command officer on Voyager although he held the rank of Ensign). This was a big deal back in 1966. More importantly was the way Uhura was treated and how the 'diversity' angle was treated in an intelligent and truly 'progressive' way. This wasn't done just by shoving a black woman onto the bridge and having everyone worship her existence. It was done through Kirk, Spock, Scotty, McCoy...All of them treated Uhura as an equal. In season 3 a clone of Lincoln comes aboard the ship, it was not one of the better episodes before you ask. Lincoln, rather naturally for someone from the mid 1800's, comments on a black woman being one of the ships senior staff. Kirk's, and indeed the entire staff bar Uhura herself, reaction is one of confusion. He doesn't understand what Uhura's gender or skin color has to do with her being an officer on the Enterprise. I use this as one example from ToS as to why Kirk was just as, if not more important for 'diversity' than Uhura herself. Yes, Uhura was a role model for black children (of all ages) by showing and African-American women in a position of power. Something that Martin Luther King understood. However Kirk was just as important as a role model for kids by showing a white man treating Uhura (and Sulu, who everyone seems to forget for some reason...apparently myself in my last post) with respect and as an equal. If Uhura inspired a generation or two of African-American children to be more than what they were told they could be. Kirks example inspired a generation or two of white kids to treat African-American's as equals and not stand in their way. producers, executives. still PTBs not wanting a black woman to be as equal as the men. but you're right - it is the attitudes of the white men that are instrumental in being a role model for children as the existence of minorities in positions of equality. - and what i see from where I am is more white men whinging about minorities getting roles as heroes than I see promoters accusing white men of being racist or sexist.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 12, 2019 19:45:52 GMT
So what's the reason for the decline in civilization treating people with civility? It has to be more than just social media, why are we reverting to a less primitive society? As ironhold stated, we have short memories. We "HAVE" to be right at all others expense, but why has this change happened? it wouldn't be happening if those (epithet)s weren't getting uppity. more pointedly, look at how our "leadership" behaves. THEY set the b at confrontationally petulant, and their followers are eager to mimic them.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 12, 2019 20:43:34 GMT
white men whinging about minorities getting roles as heroes It's a rather broad cross-section of comic book fandom, including women, racial minorities, and LGBT individuals. Marvel, DC, IDW, Valiant, and a few other publishers have developed an extreme form of tunnel vision when it comes to the topic of "diversity". They believe that they need to churn out as many "diverse" characters as possible, whether they're stock characters they've already had or brand-new characters created for the purpose. Problem is, many of these characters are pretty one-note, with their "diverse" status being their defining, if not sole, character element. Not only that, but in many instances these characters came about because of a white male character getting sidelined to make room for them. Making matters worse, a number of individuals - including industry legend Christopher Priest (who is, himself, black) - have alleged that various editors at these companies won't allow anyone to write a character who isn't "just like" they are. For example, only people who are black are allowed to write black characters. Although this is ostensibly done for the sake of being "authentic", in reality it's ghettoizing writers by race / gender / et cetra and prioritizing a person's "diverse" status over their actual competence. This has led to a situation where many of the writers who are doing these "diverse" characters aren't doing a very good job of it, making them even more one-note than they already were. For example, Sina Grace's infamous first run on "Iceman" focused almost exclusively on his LGBT status, with virtually bupkiss in the way of the actual superhero action most readers wanted to see. Thing is, this same extreme form of tunnel vision is also leading to them ignoring any negative feedback. Actual comic book vendors stood up at an industry event two years ago and literally told Marvel that these "diversity" characters (actual quote) weren't selling and that they were having financial problems because of it. They were wanting Marvel to go back to the way things had been, but Marvel responded by doubling down. I think you can understand now why so many customers and retailers are getting irritated.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 12, 2019 20:47:36 GMT
So what's the reason for the decline in civilization treating people with civility? It has to be more than just social media, why are we reverting to a less primitive society? As ironhold stated, we have short memories. We "HAVE" to be right at all others expense, but why has this change happened? it wouldn't be happening if those (epithet)s weren't getting uppity. more pointedly, look at how our "leadership" behaves. THEY set the b at confrontationally petulant, and their followers are eager to mimic them. Inverse: Imagine that you're on a public social media platform. You note that you felt the effects work of the most recent blockbuster movie you saw wasn't up to par. The guy in charge of the digital effects department that worked on the film finds out about what you said, tracks you down, and calls you things you haven't heard since 4th grade. You'd be upset, wouldn't you? This is actually what's going on in comic books right now. Various creative talents have been going after critics and customers alike, as have their die-hard fans & supporters. In fact, the final straw that started Comicsgate as we know it was three industry pros getting caught scheming to have a particularly vocal critic of the industry arrested if he showed up at a particular convention; they figured that since he was a military veteran it would be easy for them to provoke him into taking a swing at them, at which point they could call the cops, have him thrown in jail, and effectively silence him. Yeah.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 12, 2019 20:48:19 GMT
That is the narrative the mainstream media and the 'creatives' want to push along with the 'toxic fanbase/fanboy' story.
Look closer however and you see that the concerns tend not to be about the gender or ethnicity of the characters themselves. Rather concerns about what promoting such things says of the 'writing' and 'story' quality.
No one cared that Sisko was a black man on DS9 for example, and indeed back in the day this was advertised simply as something the audience might notice and as an aside noting that he was the first black lead on a Trek Series. You saw the same thing with Voyager. Back then you could state that you didn't like DS9 or Voyager, heck you could state you didn't like those characters without being accused of being sexist or racist. In fact in the case of Janeway the audience who didn't like that character noted that they either disliked the writing or just the performance.
You see the same complaints today about Micheal Bernham (STD) and Rey (Star Wars). But now you are accused of being sexist and racist.
Frankly a VERY small number of people are actually concerned with the gender or ethnicity of main characters unless for some reason it wouldn't fit or that is basically the only real defining trait of that character and the stories in question.
{Update rather than posting again to answer a question above;}
The film was Steel, based on the DC character of the same name who appeared after the Death of Superman.
Also note; Studios themselves are not stupid enough to use the 'toxic/sexist/racist fan' argument directly, at least in public. They are however doing nothing to curb the 'creatives' who are working on their projects from doing that. Thus we have the 'creatives' on Doctor Who, Star Drek and Star Bores defending their utter lack of actual talent by claiming that all arguments against them are sexist and/or racist in nature. For Star Wars this is moronic, as it ignores the simple logic that if the Wars audience had been that sexist and racist they would never have gone to see Awakens. A film in which it was made rather clear that the two lead characters would be a white woman and a black man. For Star Drek it ignores that NONE of the complaints have anything to do with the gender or race of the lead plank of wood and everything to do with bad writing. The same doesn't quite hold for Doctor Who, as there were those who were against a female Doctor from the start. However a closer look both at the over all comments and the actual viewer figure trends indicate that the vast majority of that fan base were tuning in to give her a chance. But then dropped away due to the writing being bad.
This is the attitude in film and TV, but as noted it exists in an even worse form in comics. Both DC and Marvel have seen sales utterly tank to the point that both are in danger of going under* Rather than course correct companies are doubling down on this attitude, and in the case of the MCU there is a general feeling that it is done. It isn't going to happen overnight, but the results will be seen in the next few years unless Marvel changes its attitude and stops treating their own customers like walking wallets who will suck up any old crap they churn out.
(*Note; Be wary of the 'sales' figures as these tend to be copies SHIPPED not copies SOLD. Marvel, for example, inflates its figures by shipping comics to libraries and to companies like the (now defunct) Lootbox. One person in the know pointed out that Marvel was claiming one issue of Spider-Man 'sold' a million copies....which would mean that every comic book shop in the US would have had to sell several thousand copies each.)
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 13, 2019 5:34:55 GMT
With Marvel, there were numerous allegations that they were deliberately over-shipping product to retailers, with a focus being on over-shipping comics that they were trying to keep in the spotlight.
For example, if a store ordered 10 copies of something, they could actually get 12 - 20. In situations where the retailers were given a deliberate over-ship, the extra issues were *not* returnable, meaning that if they didn't sell they were left sitting on the shelves until the retailer put them on clearance or otherwise nixed them from inventory, leading to an opportunity cost as that was shelf space they could have given to another book.
Meanwhile, Marvel would proudly boast that X number of copies of that book shipped when only Y had been ordered and Z actually sold.
But yeah...
IDW is well over $7 million in debt due to a mix of factors that includes a failed attempt to adapt one of their in-house titles for television, a massive tax hit they didn't expect, and disastrously low sales. A *big* part of why sales are so low is because several books suffered from toxic writers or artists, people who either turned out poor quality product, were obnoxious to the fans, or both. One of their people, Aubrey Sitterson, so botched the "G. I. Joe" book he was assigned and was so vile on social media that Papa Hasbro had to take IDW out to the wood shed. A lot of people, myself included, were actually of the mindset that Sitterson was going to cost IDW their Hasbro licenses, and to be brutally honest I see nothing more for Hasbro to gain *by* continuing to work with them; their "My Little Pony" book is the only consistent seller they have, and the version of the franchise it's based on is going to conclude within the next year.
Image Comics' flagship title, "Savage Dragon", is literally porn now. It went from being a PG-rated comic book that plausibly spawned a kids' cartoon show to actual, uncensored graphic sex.
The current leadership at Archie don't know what they're doing, and are obviously just throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.
DC leadership is asleep at the wheel.
Marvel leadership is dangerously incompetent.
Valiant... makes me want to drink with how erratic they've been of late.
All of these companies are on death watch, and are *not* expected to survive another decade. If they do, it will be in a fashion that is completely unrecognizable by modern fans.
Either way, the fact that reprehensible people like Aubrey Sitterson, Zoe Quinn, Magdalene Visagio, Mark Waid, Kwanza Osayefo, Ta'Naheshi Coates, and so many others keep getting work is the stuff of nightmares, whereas absolute professionals like Christopher Priest and Bill Messner-Loebs are left out in the cold... literally in Bill Messner-Loeb's case, as he has gotten so little work over the last decade he and his wife are living in their car. Priest, meanwhile, is working on "Vampirella" because current publisher Dynamite was the biggest company he could find that wasn't fixated on his skin color.
It's not hard to understand why Comicsgate and other such movements have emerged, why so many fans are flocking to indie publishers, and why so many people are taking that gamble and making their own comic books. People are still fans of comics; they just can't find what they want with the bigger publishers.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 13, 2019 5:38:39 GMT
...And people wonder why my blood pressure is up...
I'm the guy tasked with taking all of this [insert long string of vulgarity here] and distilling it down into something the average Joe and Jane can understand within the confines of a mere 1200 words a week.
No, the over-the-counter store brand antacid I'm taking is not enough some days to deal with my sour stomach...
|
|