Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
That's actually built into the thing complained of. The mission of a lot of social justice focused people is to have these issues addressed in literally every facet of every day life. That's sort of the whole idea of intersectionality - everything is connected to social justice issues. As a result, you get people earnestly discussing how climate change is a race issue, because it disproportionately affects non white people. Just in my profession, there was that whole thing about lawyers having to take an oath about working for social justice in Ontario, and it's now a requirement in Alberta for us to do indigenous reconciliation training even though it has literally nothing to do with my job. It kind of IS everywhere. And the answer to anyone who doesn't want to play that game or participate in those politics is simply, "well, that's your privilege talking". Of course that's going to generate a negative reaction.
|
I don't consider myself a "social justice warrior" or anything. Just carrying on a thought experiment here with you, but I'd suppose that of course social justice is all encompassing. Social justice is literally concerned with fairness in society, so people who are proponents of justice in society would want to see it everywhere.
I'm a high school teacher and we also had to do indigenous reconciliation training (mostly indigenous history). Now, I'm a social studies teacher so it aligned with my background, but we had other teachers (predominately math/science) who didnt see the purpose or need of the training. I'd argue they're teaching indigenous kids, so its still worthwhile and important.
But, just because my job made me do indigenous awareness training doesnt mean that black actors in a previously white role is some grand scheme to promote fairness in society. I guess that was my point. People are linking the two things, when really the motives behind my employer making me do training and a movie studio choosing certain actors can be completely different. Yet people interpret them as the same.
The studio will only do something if they think it will make them money. The writer/director might have artistic notions of how the film/show should be conveyed, but then that's their individualistic artistic choice.
I think back to early examples of gay characters on TV shows in the 90s. Was that the TV studios being woke? Or was it an actor/director/writer making an artistic statement? I mean, depends how people want to interpret it I guess.