Anyone else noticed: Engaging properly in debate is hard for some without false lazy stereotyping?

 

BC2024 said, 1703358914

CalmNudes said

Σ OI Σ said

instead of diversity quotas or box ticking, could it be done in a mathematical way that reflects the society?

although before that is taken too seriously, time for something truly controversial, how about getting back to a meritocracy? 

someone's PP page was pointed out for not being diverse enough, well what if a photographer chose to only work with the top 1% of PP models?

side note, i'm not a Dr Who fan, never watched a single episode, so what i'm really looking for is some accuracy (regarding a fictional character), i understand the Dr is a timeless entity, possibly not even human, can take on whatever form, recently the Dr was a Woman, then a Black man.  at the times it happened it seemed conveniently box ticking, no?


Bit in bold I was about go "WTF" before I saw the irony. 

What people shoot on PP isn't trying to reflect society. But why should there be an upper age limit, or dress size limit for being included in the "top" models. 

As for Doctor Who... as convenient way of explaining how different actors could play the same person, Time Lords regenerate, with a different body come personality changes too. For the first 55 years the Doctor was white and male. But when the Doctor went back to his home planet we saw that time Lords could be any skin colour and some looked female. Back when Tom Baker was playing the Doctor he had a "Time Lady" as a companion. Traditionally the Doctor had one companion, female, from earth, young and never close to his equal - female equals were few and far between. (Eddie Izzard had a routine about their stock line being "Doctor Doctor I've been captured...") Could time Lords change skin colour and gender ? Why not ? Personally I don't see anything wrong with "this time the Doctor's generated into an old white man... this time a younger woman, now - wtf she's rolled back to what he looked like 3 versions ago! - and now that version's split and his skin changed colour...". 
Yes, you're right that "Who The Doctor is this time" can become a game of box ticking, and some people will complain that it is. To me the Doctor can be anything, but it gets preachy when the Doctor's companions are trying to represent everything and they gave Whitaker's Doctor a one-of-everything companion list.    

During the winter we typically get out the DVD of the Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing - people return after having fought for the "Duke", who is played be Denzel Washington. The Duke's black, and a long line of white guys fought for him in 16th century Italy... but OK why not.  But then his brother decides to make a stir, and the brother is played by Keanu Reaves, and every time I watch it I think "how come the black duke has a white brother..." surely they could have given Washington a role which didn't have a brother or cast a black actor as the brother. It seems like American money to make the film demanded a black name, to tick a box, but not a second one to make the presence of the first make sense. So really Washington is "token black guy", and I'd rather watch something like Luther were the main character could be anything but is played by a black guy, than something where someone looked at the cast at the last moment and says "can we change this for a [member of some group we need to represent]". One's inclusive and realistic, one's tokenism and not.         


Thank you for the Dr Who info.

The mathematical stuff wasn't irony, I don't know the exact figures for racial groups across the UK, whatever they are, use it for films, adverts, etc.   Make it as representative of reality as much as possible. (i am vaguely aware of the dangers of reducing humanity to numbers).

regarding the top models, it was a defence against any accusation of "box ticking" or "diversity" or lack thereof,  choosing another metric that is easily defensible. 

as for tokenism, don't see why it's necessary when characters can be easily written and very organic, Fresh Prince, Blade, and such.

CalmNudes said, 1703371507

Σ OI Σ said

CalmNudes said

Σ OI Σ said

instead of diversity quotas or box ticking, could it be done in a mathematical way that reflects the society?

although before that is taken too seriously, ...

     

 The mathematical stuff wasn't irony, I don't know the exact figures for racial groups across the UK, whatever they are, use it for films, adverts, etc.   Make it as representative of reality as much as possible.  


If you say reviewed all the output of each channel over a year, you probably could.  

The problem comes when someone says this cast is 10 white people, as a token black person gets added (not brown... so we only see one kind of non-white).  But really we should see a couple here, none there; this one as a major character those as minor ones.    


Carlos said, 1703372270

Anyone concerned with those that complain about the over representation of (say) mixed race families/groups on TV ads, and whether said complaints may be racist, should watch Chris Rock’s ‘Outraged’ on Netflix.  If you can get past the industrial level swearing (Im a bit Puritan on that) you’ll be fascinated to find out what at least one (US) person of colour thinks about it.  I think you’ll be surprised.  Oh,and it’s very funny too…..and you also get to find out the real reason why he got slapped by Will Smith.  Enjoy.

Edited by Carlos

Alessandro Pisi said, 1703372296

Huw said

I agree.

How long before someone squeals the word "Woke"?

Edited by Huw

Now I remember why I blocked Huw

Carlos said, 1703372350

Lenswonder said

I am looking forward to the new Dr who, I think it will be as good as when Eccleston was the Dr.

I can't wait!

If I want socio-demographic lectures I’ll watch TedTalks.

Carlos said, 1703372524

ADWsPhotos said

I like being a member of Purpleport. But I realised a long time ago it’s definitely not a site for open debate. I keep seeing a clip of Elon Musk saying that free speech is about letting people you don’t like say things you don’t like. I abhor Elon Musk. However long ago I realised that this principle is NOT what Purpleport is about.

Sweetness and light, positivity, that appears to be the Purpleport ethic. It’s a privately owned site as far as I know, and encourages viewpoints which align with whatever the owner likes at that point in time.

I reiterate, I like Purpleport, l’ve just renewed my annual sub. It’s a good place to post photos. It’s not, in my view l, a place for (non trivial) debate.

Yep.  And if you are going in for witty rejoinders to group-think don’t make the owner the butt of any of your jokes.  It will get you banned from the Forums quick-style.

Carlos said, 1703372851

Stu H said

Sometimes I miss the days of vanbrighaus et all.

The forums of even 5 years ago were so much a different place than today.

General Politics was considered such a hotbed of wrath and slime that it was taken off the main fora and placed in its own little section.

Now... its a ghost of what it was.

But that's echoed throught the forums ... lively discussion is quite rare; new threads are rare; models - once a lively and welcome (who can forget the likes of RaraGoesRoar for example) - now rare and their input is stamped on rather quickly.

The forums in general are a slither of the shadow they used to be.

I really enjoyed my - oft times lengthy - debates with VBH.  His passion and erudition in supporting his (IMHO) student flat politics made for some great spats.  But, more often than not, we found ourselves on the same side (eg on modern knee jerk reactions to slavery and those responsible) due to our deep passion for and study of history.  He is sadly missed.

frank1 said, 1703373021

Hitler's greatest weapon were words. His weakest were his thoughts.  

Alessandro Pisi said, 1703373321

frank1 said

Hitler's greatest weapon were words. His weakest were his thoughts.  


What drugs are you on?

RobertP said, 1703375702

Engaging properly in debate is hard, full stop. Most people are too close minded to be worth spending the effort on. See every election where most of the money is spent in marginal constituencies. No point wasting it on people who made up their minds years or decades ago.

Alessandro Pisi said, 1703377198

RobertP said

Engaging properly in debate is hard, full stop. Most people are too close minded to be worth spending the effort on. See every election where most of the money is spent in marginal constituencies. No point wasting it on people who made up their minds years or decades ago.


What drugs are you on?

RobertP said, 1703378646

Alessandro Pisi said

RobertP said

Engaging properly in debate is hard, full stop. Most people are too close minded to be worth spending the effort on. See every election where most of the money is spent in marginal constituencies. No point wasting it on people who made up their minds years or decades ago.


What drugs are you on?

None of your business. I only take them because I really, really dislike near-death experiences.

Huw said, 1703404381

Alessandro Pisi said

Huw said

I agree.

How long before someone squeals the word "Woke"?

Edited by Huw

Now I remember why I blocked Huw


You may not have quite mastered this blocking thing yet.

Dino.3000 said, 1703463278

this is an odd conversation...  But here I go:  most people do not see the world through a logic lens but through an us/them lens.  

(I think the camera metaphor apt)

Edited by Dino.3000

Edited by Dino.3000

John VonGeezer said, 1703583260

Woke lefty snowflakes resort to lazy stereotyping me......wah!!!