Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 09-13-2022, 10:39 AM   #2021
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

First, of course they can, but obviously the fans of the franchise are going to say what they like and don't like about the thing, including using it as a vehicle for ideology. And Sci fi / fantasy fans are notorious for going ape #### about their most treasured franchises... there's a lot of gatekeeper built into these arguments. So the response is totally unsurprising.

As for what the actual goal is, it's definitely money. Not at all the first time some profit-seeking entity has coopted a political ideology to make a buck, and it won't be the last. That said, that isn't straightforward either - there are definitely a ton of people working on these things that are subscribers to identity politics, in some cases right up to the original author of the material (Sandman is what I'm thinking of here).
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 10:45 AM   #2022
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
Without expressing any particular opinion about the strength or weakness of this position, the viewpoint being opposed is the prioritization of ideology related to racial identity - i.e., the view that the skin colour of the actor is a crucially important consideration, such that it's absolutely necessary that casting pay attention to it and ensure that there are black actors in the show. I mean I'm sure there are some of them who are just "#### black people", a lot of it is, "it's a Lord of the Rings show, not an instrument for social change, just make the show good and stop prioritizing this other stuff that isn't central to whether the writing or production are enjoyable to watch". The attitude is less "don't cast black people", so much as "don't go out of your way to intentionally cast black people as some demonstration of how progressive you are." Which is absolutely what's happening when the studio casts a black girl as the little mermaid, obviously - that's a deliberate choice to say "look, we cast a black girl, we obviously care about minority representation in film! Now, write a lot of stories about how great or terrible this is so that everyone knows this movie is coming out."
Why is the casting of a Black actor in a television show or film automatically due to some quota or broader political decision in your eyes, and not because that actor was good at what they do? And just as importantly, if the position that writing or production was somehow negatively impacted by casting a Black person over a white person is extremely weak (and it is), isn't that just the same as "don't cast Black people"? Like, if you're reason for not wanting them in the show (which is ridiculous) isn't even a remotely valid reason, how is it anything else?

I know you didn't want to get into the validity of the position, but then you went ahead and called it a valid position in terms of the Little Mermaid. So, too late.
PepsiFree is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2022, 10:47 AM   #2023
b1crunch
Retired
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
First, of course they can, but obviously the fans of the franchise are going to say what they like and don't like about the thing, including using it as a vehicle for ideology. And Sci fi / fantasy fans are notorious for going ape #### about their most treasured franchises... there's a lot of gatekeeper built into these arguments. So the response is totally unsurprising.

As for what the actual goal is, it's definitely money. Not at all the first time some profit-seeking entity has coopted a political ideology to make a buck, and it won't be the last. That said, that isn't straightforward either - there are definitely a ton of people working on these things that are subscribers to identity politics, in some cases right up to the original author of the material (Sandman is what I'm thinking of here).
Okay, but to some degree it feels like people see one example of something (say coopted political ideology) and then they go looking for it everywhere.

As well, why is being progressive around equal representation in film a bad thing? Why can't the Little Mermaid be black? (I literally know nothing about this film, and your reference to it was the first time I heard of it).

I get it can come across as disingenuous, but its no different than say an advertiser using multiple ethnicities in their TV ads. They want to appeal to as many people as possible, and sell their product to as many people as possible.

I'm struggling to see why a company using their property in the way they see fit as a bad thing.
b1crunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 10:49 AM   #2024
lambeburger
Powerplay Quarterback
 
lambeburger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
If PP doesn't know who this guy is, he is even less engaged in reality than I thought. PP knows exactly who he is and what he stands for. He'll pretend he doesn't, but that's because he already got what he needed from the picture.
I knew of the name Jeremy Mackenzie and his diagonal meme only after the media decided to gin him up as some sort of boogeyman to attack Pierre Poilievre. Never heard of him before the handshake. For such a dangerous guy the legacy media wasn't too concerned about increasing his profile and giving him more notoriety.

The fact that Pierre isn't aware of every nut-job that the chronically online crowd is obsessed over is a good thing in my opinion. Show's that he's genuinely not engaged in that "reality" one way or another. That is unless you think it's all a white supremacist conspiracy
lambeburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 10:56 AM   #2025
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
It's not about actions, it's about being aware enough to have discussions about it. Being 'woke" doesn't mean you fight for every perceived injustice you come across. It's jut the difference between being socially educated and ignorant. Are you arguing for ignorance, or are you missing the point?
So all socially educated people will come to the same conclusion?

Letís circle back to my example. Some people think blind auditions are the fairest way to select members in orchestras. Others believe they perpetuate inequality and should be replaced by race-based selections. Is one a more educated position than the other? Or do they reflect different beliefs about the sources and remedies of inequality?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 11:01 AM   #2026
Ozy_Flame

Posted the 6 millionth post!
 
Ozy_Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lambeburger View Post
The fact that Pierre isn't aware of every nut-job that the chronically online crowd is obsessed over is a good thing in my opinion. Show's that he's genuinely not engaged in that "reality" one way or another. That is unless you think it's all a white supremacist conspiracy
He can't issue a statement that distances himself from extremists like that?

People pay attention. Voting people.
Ozy_Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 11:08 AM   #2027
b1crunch
Retired
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
So all socially educated people will come to the same conclusion?

Letís circle back to my example. Some people think blind auditions are the fairest way to select members in orchestras. Others believe they perpetuate inequality and should be replaced by race-based selections. Is one a more educated position than the other? Or do they reflect different beliefs about the sources and remedies of inequality?
I'm not a big orchestra guy, but I've literally never heard of this scenario. Is there really a driving debate in society about racial fairness in orchestras?
b1crunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 11:15 AM   #2028
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
So all socially educated people will come to the same conclusion?

Letís circle back to my example. Some people think blind auditions are the fairest way to select members in orchestras. Others believe they perpetuate inequality and should be replaced by race-based selections. Is one a more educated position than the other? Or do they reflect different beliefs about the sources and remedies of inequality?
You are still missing the point. it's not about reaching conclusions, it's being informed enough about an issue to have a discussion on it. Tossing "woke" out is a way to dismiss those discussions.

Taking your example, someone who considers the issue can debate the merits of each path. Someone who says "that's just a bunch of woke BS" dismisses it before giving the idea a chance to be examined.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Press Level View Post
He has a blue checkmark next to his name, therefore his opinion is important.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 11:15 AM   #2029
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
Why is the casting of a Black actor in a television show or film automatically due to some quota or broader political decision in your eyes, and not because that actor was good at what they do?
I think in practice it ends up being both. The actor is perfectly competent, or sometimes great, but the decision to cast them is made at least partly for ideological reasons. Sometimes someone involved in the production will say so explicitly, I.e. we wanted a diverse cast, and others it's not but seems obvious.
Quote:
And just as importantly, if the position that writing or production was somehow negatively impacted by casting a Black person over a white person is extremely weak (and it is), isn't that just the same as "don't cast Black people"? Like, if you're reason for not wanting them in the show (which is ridiculous) isn't even a remotely valid reason, how is it anything else?
I don't know that it is weak in all cases, but leaving that aside, saying "don't cast black people" is definitely different than saying, "don't make skin colour a primary consideration when casting".

And yeah, I think it seemed pretty obvious that there was a deliberate choice about wanting a black little mermaid. I think that's actually great if the point was to have girls who look like that actress see themselves as a Disney princess. Couldn't care less. I think it was actually a lot about press and money, though, obviously. Meh. Whatever. Who cares.

Quote:
Originally Posted by b1crunch View Post
Okay, but to some degree it feels like people see one example of something (say coopted political ideology) and then they go looking for it everywhere.
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.

Quote:
As well, why is being progressive around equal representation in film a bad thing? Why can't the Little Mermaid be black? (I literally know nothing about this film, and your reference to it was the first time I heard of it).
I don't think it is. I don't care. I suspect you could get some arguments about how it's a further indication of ideogy seeping in everywhere in society and how it's one more step down the road or whatever, but... meh. It's the little mermaid. Whatever.
Quote:
I'm struggling to see why a company using their property in the way they see fit as a bad thing.
Well, fine, but by that logic of "they can do whatever they want with their property", casting white actors to play minority characters is also okay, which I suspect lots of people would disagree with. It cuts both ways if you're going to approach it from that angle.

Anyway, I didn't want to get into this in this much detail. Not going to convince anyone.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 11:16 AM   #2030
calgarygeologist
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by b1crunch View Post
I'm not a big orchestra guy, but I've literally never heard of this scenario. Is there really a driving debate in society about racial fairness in orchestras?
There has been a long standing debate on diversity in every group, organization and company. It isn't acceptable to hire or include the best of the best because it might turn out that the resultant group is heavily biased or over represented by a single race or sex or gender and this is bad
calgarygeologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 11:24 AM   #2031
b1crunch
Retired
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
Well, fine, but by that logic of "they can do whatever they want with their property", casting white actors to play minority characters is also okay, which I suspect lots of people would disagree with. It cuts both ways if you're going to approach it from that angle.

Anyway, I didn't want to get into this in this much detail. Not going to convince anyone.
What does that look like though? Are the white actors in black face? Because that's obviously wrong. On the other hand, lets say someone does a remake of a show that previously had black actors.... Bad Boys with Will Smith... and they wanted to do it with actors of a different ethnicity instead. Then, yea, that's okay. Why wouldn't it be?
b1crunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 11:25 AM   #2032
b1crunch
Retired
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarygeologist View Post
There has been a long standing debate on diversity in every group, organization and company. It isn't acceptable to hire or include the best of the best because it might turn out that the resultant group is heavily biased or over represented by a single race or sex or gender and this is bad
I know there's a long standing debate in society. Was just wondering why the focus on orchestras? lol
b1crunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 11:30 AM   #2033
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by b1crunch View Post
I'm not a big orchestra guy, but I've literally never heard of this scenario. Is there really a driving debate in society about racial fairness in orchestras?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/a...tras-race.html
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 11:38 AM   #2034
b1crunch
Retired
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
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.

Last edited by b1crunch; 09-13-2022 at 11:40 AM.
b1crunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 11:39 AM   #2035
calgarygeologist
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
Instead of blind auditions they should just make the concerts/performances blind. Drop a semi transparent curtain and keep the lights low so that distinguishable features of the musicians can not be seen and don't publish the names or pictures of the orchestra members. Now the public won't know if they are represented or not and can enjoy the music.
calgarygeologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 11:39 AM   #2036
bizaro86
Franchise Player
 
bizaro86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
Well, fine, but by that logic of "they can do whatever they want with their property"
I'm not the target audience for the Little Mermaid and am pretty unlikely to watch it both now and before I learned that the main character was going to be black.

All that said, I do think it's interesting to note that the Little Mermaid isn't actually a Disney owned property, but is rather a Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale. Since it's nearly 200 years old, Disney doesn't own it and it is public domain. The likeness of their Little Mermaid, their songs, etc, sure, but the character itself no. Even the story is a tough call - the Disney version is lighter, and less complicated with a more "Disney" ending, but does follow the original story to a significant degree. A competing studio could easily and legally make their own version of The Little Mermaid - anyone could, and could do it with anything from an all-White to all-Burmese to all-wearing-purple-body-paint cast. So really I don't see what the fuss is about - you don't like their movie make your own.
bizaro86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 11:41 AM   #2037
lambeburger
Powerplay Quarterback
 
lambeburger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame View Post
He can't issue a statement that distances himself from extremists like that?

People pay attention. Voting people.
"Issuing a statement" would be spun into an admission of guilt. PP has nothing to feel guilty about. He shook a man's hand at an event, that's it. Some media outlets elevated the man's profile to try to make it into a gotcha moment, but it didn't work, because PP didn't give into the smear job.

Similarly, Trudeau never issued statements condemning pedophilia after being photographed with convicted pedophiles at similar campaign events. Nobody demanded that he do so either.

Why? Because being photographed with a person doesn't equal a tacit endorsement of everything that person is about, especially when the photo is at a public meet/greet event. Deep down, we all know this, but we choose to ignore it when it's an opportunity to smear someone we dislike.
lambeburger is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to lambeburger For This Useful Post:
Old 09-13-2022, 11:42 AM   #2038
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
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.
Exactly. You donít have to go looking for this stuff to find it. Especially if you spend any time in left-leaning media and culture spaces. I read the Guardian daily, and youíd be hard-pressed to find any subject or activity - dancing, cooking, gardening, cycling - that hasnít been interrogated for its patriarchal and colonialist oppression.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 11:44 AM   #2039
b1crunch
Retired
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lambeburger View Post
"Issuing a statement" would be spun into an admission of guilt. PP has nothing to feel guilty about. He shook a man's hand at an event, that's it. Some media outlets elevated the man's profile to try to make it into a gotcha moment, but it didn't work, because PP didn't give into the smear job.

Similarly, Trudeau never issued statements condemning pedophilia after being photographed with convicted pedophiles at similar campaign events. Nobody demanded that he do so either.

Why? Because being photographed with a person doesn't equal a tacit endorsement of everything that person is about, especially when the photo is at a public meet/greet event. Deep down, we all know this, but we choose to ignore it when it's an opportunity to smear someone we dislike.
Never heard of this, but okay. I guess and issue could be that pedophilia isn't a political movement whereas the Diagalon group is. One scenario is someone who committed a crime, the other is a politicized group aligning itself with a political figure. Those are two different things.
b1crunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2022, 11:46 AM   #2040
KootenayFlamesFan
Commie Referee
 
KootenayFlamesFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Small town, B.C.
Exp:
Default

I don’t blame PP for taking a picture with someone at one of his rallies. He doesn’t know everybody’s backgrounds.

The question is why do far right types go to his rallies, support him, take pictures with him?
KootenayFlamesFan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to KootenayFlamesFan For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:11 PM.

Calgary Flames
2022-23




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021