Haha...I was perhaps being a little more polite than this, (only a very little though) but that was essentially my point, yes.
The lack of national diversity in the Discovery cast...
- Thread starter eschaton
- Start date
- Status
Haha...I was perhaps being a little more polite than this, (only a very little though) but that was essentially my point, yes.
So people who want diversity are trolls?
So according to you what are the facts since the threads you disagree with are fictitious?
No, trolls who want diversity are trolls. They don't cease to be trolls just because their slap a veneer of genuine social causes on their antics.So people who want diversity are trolls?
And a huge part of the "Social Justice Warrior Narf!" debate stems from people being somehow unable to tell the difference between trollism and genuine points. So a student pointing out to his professor that some comment he made could be considered racially insensitive and might be an example of microaggression is a legitimate point. That same student organizing thirty classmates to picket the class and demand an apology from that same professor? That's just trolling on a larger scale.
It is not normally very hard to tell the difference.
The FACTS as far as this thread is that diversity in television doesn't reflect the demographics of the general population, for a variety of complex reasons both historical and practical. There is an element of discriminatory hiring involved, but it is difficult to know to what extent racial/personal preference plays a roll in hiring practices without looking at the circumstances of individual cases. It is also true that media portrayals of certain minorities -- particularly, transgendered men and women and some less represented ethnic groups -- are usually subject to the constraints of a writer's imagination, which more often than not is limited by experience. The lack of diversity in those cases can be associated with a lack of diversity in the writers/producers' personal experiences. There are relatively few cases where such minorities were actively excluded from the cast of characters or from the story as a whole; there are equally few cases where minorities were actively inserted into the case purely as a bid to be "more inclusive," as here again we see such creative choices being influenced by the experiences and/or wishes of the producers themselves.
tl;dr: The "we need more diversity" debate is an issue with a huge amount of nuance that doesn't boil down to just one cause or one specific combination of causes, nor does every situation derive from the same circumstances. Which is why I am not shy about pointing out the huge amount of bullshit trollism fouling the debate; trolls do not care about nuance or subtlety, or about dealing with reaching any actual understanding from either side. Trolls are singularly interested in getting attention, and therefore cultivate outrage at every opportunity.
Good thing you aren’t a mod because you have no clue what trolling is.
I know that trolling isn't always malicious. Alot of the time it's just misguided attention whoring by someone with an emotional need for validation. From this, I work out that it doesn't matter if a person genuinely believes they're making a point or not; when you publicly accuse someone of being a bigot because they don't use gender-neutral pronouns to describe their own children, you're not trying to change anyone's mind, you're trying to generate a backlash. This makes you a troll.
Trolling for a good cause is still trolling, and we're all better off if we avoid feeding those trolls whether their cause is valid or not.
Whatever you need to convince yourself dude.
That is worth considering.
As a part of the audience that is catered to we too can lack experience from seeing various roles of diversity. It can take time to view a more inclusive world with learning and accepting eyes, just because of what we have become used to. And I've just glanced up and realised I'm in the national diversity thread. It is kind of related though. I watch a lot of American content TV so that when say an English or Australian accent is in the cast it can be distinct. Again it's what you get used to as being the norm. (To be fair though there are some all Australian content too. Which the audience happily embraces without the old 'cringe' factor. In fact seeing 'yourself' and appreciating the humour and differences is pretty good).
He's right you know.
Anyone on either extreme side of an issue who stakes out their position as the indisputable morally superior position and declares / acts as if those with a different belief system or set of values is an ignorant simpleton is themselves a giant a-hole.
Just because one might be on the popular "morally superior" side of an issue, for example, doesn't excuse a-hole behavior. It just makes one an infuriating a-hole who also happens to believe they are "right" to the exclusion of anyone else's values and beliefs.
It's why:
1. I actually loathe discussions like these. Usually nothing more than everyone's chance to talk on a message board in a way they'd never talk in a real life face-to-face social situation, where it takes TRUE courage to stand up for and defend a belief while you look others in the eye. It's so easy to have strong convictions from the safety of a keyboard. Too easy. In fairness, however, this is one of the absolute best message boards of its kind in my opinion. It's hardly an issue here, and most everyone is great.
2. I always hope for patience and moderate thinking. Meeting each extreme-sided a-hole argument with another extreme opposite sided a-hole argument is rarely a recipie for anything other than further divide. If the goal is to get someone to value your side of the argument, calling them a "snowflake SJW" or a "narrow racist ignorant" isn't not going to open intelligent debate or sway anyone to see your point.
So, to CrazyEddies point, it does, in a way, just amount to trolling at that point. Let's face it, about 75% of all posts made on boards like these are designed to draw some form of conflict or opposition.
Sorry for being kinda blunt about my take on it. Back to our regularly scheduled foolishness.
Just because one might be on the popular "morally superior" side of an issue, for example, doesn't excuse a-hole behavior. It just makes one an infuriating a-hole who also happens to believe they are "right" to the exclusion of anyone else's values and beliefs.
It's why:
1. I actually loathe discussions like these. Usually nothing more than everyone's chance to talk on a message board in a way they'd never talk in a real life face-to-face social situation, where it takes TRUE courage to stand up for and defend a belief while you look others in the eye. It's so easy to have strong convictions from the safety of a keyboard. Too easy. In fairness, however, this is one of the absolute best message boards of its kind in my opinion. It's hardly an issue here, and most everyone is great.
2. I always hope for patience and moderate thinking. Meeting each extreme-sided a-hole argument with another extreme opposite sided a-hole argument is rarely a recipie for anything other than further divide. If the goal is to get someone to value your side of the argument, calling them a "snowflake SJW" or a "narrow racist ignorant" isn't not going to open intelligent debate or sway anyone to see your point.
So, to CrazyEddies point, it does, in a way, just amount to trolling at that point. Let's face it, about 75% of all posts made on boards like these are designed to draw some form of conflict or opposition.
Sorry for being kinda blunt about my take on it. Back to our regularly scheduled foolishness.
Dismissing all of it as trolling is simple-minded. You’ll end up ignoring a lot of valid points because you’ve already decided your position is right by default. You don’t want to know anything different.
Declaring someone as simple minded because they don't see eye to eye with you is.....NOT really helping your cause to have any potential "valid points" listened to.
That is actually my ENTIRE POINT.
I'd like to understand why you've been defensive and rude to people through this entire discussion.
But dismissing it as trolling is valid? Okay...
CLAIMING that I "designated all of it as trolling" is extremely simple minded. I went out of my way to draw a distinction between someone actually discussing a point of view and a legitimate grievance and someone raising hell for emotional satisfaction.
Which makes the second half of your post incredibly ironic:
Kinda like when you decide ahead of time that you know what my position even IS, let alone that my goal is to dismiss those who don't share it as "trolls?"
It’s not like I can read your posts or anything.
If you read what I wrote, I didn't dismiss anything. I said that taking an extreme side of an argument and discounting another persons values and belief system is a counter-productive approach that has no hope in opening anyone's mind to the point you are trying to make. I said that, yes indeed, this is essentially a form of trolling because it does nothing but draw ire.
If I was dismissive, I would have shot a one or two liner declaring someone "wrong." That's not at all what I did. I simply point out that the approach is self-defeating and has no chance of engaging anyone in a thoughtful exchange.
"You don't agree with me, so you're against diversity, bro" isn't a constructive or meaningful argument point any more than "If you like DSC your a lame SJW" is a constructive or meaningful argument. It's simply taking potshots at the opposition.
Instead, why don't you explain what you think could be done better/differently etc within the context of the show, and why that kind of approach might be welcome and beneficial to the potential audience?
You know, without the whole myopic and binary "you're either with me or against diversity" argument that I've seen dismantle so much potential progress in my profession.
- Status
Similar threads
