Can I talk about this modern trend in "diversity casting in TV shows?"

[Dwarvenhobble]

See, this is what you call 'not listening to an argument and owning yourself'

You stated that jumping to judgements is bad. This is correct

What people are asking is for you to follow this concept. YOU jumping to judgements is bad. When you bring up your list, you didnt add the 2020 election, Brexit, 10 year old rape victim getting an abortion, Jan 6, Partygate, all of the CRT and transgender stuff currently going on (including you thinking somone can pretend to be transgender to rape people in bathrooms), Chris Pincher

I picked all these because A) they happened in the last month or still on going now from when they started B) some of the lies in judgements here have started before Smullet C) Most of these involves people who have not realised they made a jump to a judgements (you know, how most people changed their mind about Jessie) D) None of these people are going to jail...

Well, except maybe the 10 year old rape victim. Because that's how justice works

Again, you're argument isnt bad. It's the fact that you only target certain people and let others off scott free

I'm sorry are you legitimately now bitching about me not including things from both side when I was specifically addressing the actions of one side, a side that constantly pretends to be the fucking better of the other?

Do you really need to to point it out when you and others don't stop pointing it out constantly? Is it insecurity or what, do I need to point out the fucking obvious constantly lest of be accused of being some villain?

Guess I'd better keep saying the sky is blue too right? Lest you think I believe it's actually green.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Why would it be weird?

The fact for many many works that's just not how it worked and now suddenly an author is saying it is and always have been and that if you don't accept it and pretend that's how it's always been that you're an evil bigot who should fuck off?

Yeh totally sane and not weird cult gaslighty at all.

 

[Silvanus]

Not they assumed innocence and were attacking anyone daring to suggest anything other than total innocence while also using the situation to attacked perceived political opponents at the same fucking time.

Didn't actually happen, though.

Also, we've kind of moved away from the whole hypocrisy of decrying "weaponisation" one minute and then gleefully weaponising stuff the next. You whined that I was making it up, then I provided direct quotes, and now you've just shifted onto defending why its OK for you to weaponise in this case.

 

[Trunkage]

Not they assumed innocence and were attacking anyone daring to suggest anything other than total innocence while also using the situation to attacked perceived political opponents at the same fucking time.

Are you proposing that we DON'T assume innocence?

When did assumption of innocence leave our justice system?

As I said: this here is another example of you not applying the same rules to one group of people as you do to everyone else

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Are you proposing that we DON'T assume innocence?

When did assumption of innocence leave our justice system?

As I said: this here is another example of you not applying the same rules to one group of people as you do to everyone else

So what about the assumption of innocence for those being accused of being the reason for or responsible for the events.

Do they not get the presumption of innocence too because they're "On the wrong side of history?". Then again why am I even asking when we get to see with Rittenhouse just how it doesn't apply and people are determined to look for any possible thing to make sure people "On the wrong side of history" and harmed in any way possible.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Didn't actually happen, though.

Also, we've kind of moved away from the whole hypocrisy of decrying "weaponisation" one minute and then gleefully weaponising stuff the next. You whined that I was making it up, then I provided direct quotes, and now you've just shifted onto defending why its OK for you to weaponise in this case.

So was that before or after the stuff I actually pointed out being weaponised based just on a say so and started this whole tangent?

Also again Smollett actually happened. The trial happened. Him losing happened. What I decried was (and please try and actually read it and take it in this time as it's becoming quote obvious you keep missing this) the weaponisation without any evidence just to "Own the people on the wrong side of history"

 

[Trunkage]

The fact for many many works that's just not how it worked and now suddenly an author is saying it is and always have been and that if you don't accept it and pretend that's how it's always been that you're an evil bigot who should fuck off?

Yeh totally sane and not weird cult gaslighty at all.

That's got nothing to do with weird

That's just head canon.

You're pretending hobbits based on you own life.

You made it up what they should do based SOLELY on your own lived experience

Then pretended everyone else should think that way

Maybe you and Hawki can stop with your identity politics nonsense - please and thank you. I don't need every fastasy race or creature to be an exact copy of what I see as humans just because I'm desperate for some representation.... that I can find elsewhere in the books/movies

 

[Trunkage]

So what about the assumption of innocence for those being accused of being the reason for or responsible for the events.

Do they not get the presumption of innocence too because they're "On the wrong side of history?". Then again why am I even asking when we get to see with Rittenhouse just how it doesn't apply and people are determined to look for any possible thing to make sure people "On the wrong side of history" and harmed in any way possible.

Rittenhouse... who shot someone over a bag?

In most other countries, that would have been at least manslaughter. Possibly a high number murder (i.e. I dont think it was 1st degree murder.) But in the US, you can yell the wrong way and you get a free murder.

The Rittenhouse case is a great example of a broken justice system.

But great 'segway' from Smullet. I assume you concede defeat on that one

 

[Trunkage]

I'm going to add about Rittenhouse: I presented a case months before the Ritten house case started

There was a video of a guy yelling at a bunch of kids in front of an ice cream shop in 2018. The dad of the kids comes up and confronts the guy. He yells right in the dad's face and so the dad pushes him. The guy falls to the ground. He then pulls a gun and shoots the dad

I pointed out that this would be why Rittenhouse was going to get off scott free. And I was right. You can murder whoever you like in America. It's the land of freedom after all

All this about Rittenhouse being socially damaged... I would hope that was America finally waking up to their stupid gun laws. But that doesnt seem to be the case. I DON'T think Rittenhouse should be singled out as what he did happens all the time. Like, George Floyd wasnt the only African American killed in that way so he shouldn't be the singled out for attention like the media portrayed it as

 

[BrawlMan]

Maybe you and Hawki can stop with your identity politics nonsense - please and thank you. I don't need every fantasy race or creature to be an exact copy of what I see as humans just because I'm desperate for some representation.... that I can find elsewhere in the books/movies

Thank you for putting that in to words and awesome rant!

All this about Rittenhouse being socially damaged... I would hope that was America finally waking up to their stupid gun laws. But that doesnt seem to be the case. I DON'T think Rittenhouse should be singled out as what he did happens all the time. Like, George Floyd wasnt the only African American killed in that way so he shouldn't be the singled out for attention like the media portrayed it as

He can still fuck off. The mother-fucker ain't even close to "socially damaged", but the world at large sees him for the pathetic loser he is. Nobody wants Rittenhouse. Even the Proud Boys don't want him when he tried sucking up to BLM. BLM told him to fuck off as well.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I read an interesting article comparing modern art and NFTs a little while ago.

I mean.. yeah.

That's the joke. It's been the joke for nearly a hundred years, and it continues to work because people continue to react to it, to feed it outrage and controversy and attention.

Under capitalism, value is arbitrary. If someone will pay millions of dollars for a canvas smeared with shit, then that is what it is worth. It doesn't matter why that person will pay that, it doesn't matter if they derive aesthetic pleasure from the work or if they just want to be the person who spent millions buying some literal shit or if they've been grifted into believing they can sell that shit-stained canvas on at a higher price later. Their money is the same regardless, and money is all that matters. Money is the only thing that creates value, everything else is meaningless.

There are people who have made a lot of money off of NFTs, because if people decide that algorithmically generated image of a monkey is worth millions, then it is. Don't get me wrong, you'd be better off hitting a casino and betting everything on black than trying to make a profit off NFTs, but the same principle does operate there. A useless, ugly, meaningless thing can have value simply because people decide it does and spend money on it. Again, capitalism does not care about aesthetics or morality. Money is the only source of value.

And ironically, I think that actually does give modern art meaning. It is an honest reflection of the meaningless, arbitrary world we live in. That's why a lot of people are drawn to it, not because it's particularly beautiful or meaningful, but because it's true. It accurately reflects the state under which we live in a way beautiful things would not.

 

[Hawki]

I know this is directed at dwarf, but it's the closest Trunkage ever got to answering, so:

That's got nothing to do with weird

That's just head canon.

It's...head canon that hobbits aren't all gay?

You're pretending hobbits based on you own life.

You made it up what they should do based SOLELY on your own lived experience

Then pretended everyone else should think that way

How is dwarf doing that?

There isn't a person here that can claimed "lived experience" with hobbits. The entire point of the hobbits (or at least part of it) is that they represent an idealized rural past (and by extension, the Shire). FFS, there isn't a single element in Middle-earth, period, that anyone can claimed "lived experience" with. The closest you could claim "lived experience" with Lord of the Rings is if you treat it as an analogy for WWI, and unless anyone's here approaching 120, I doubt anyone has "lived experience" with that either.

Maybe you and Hawki can stop with your identity politics nonsense - please and thank you.

Oh please, you've been forcing identity politics here since the outset.

Play identity politics if you want, at least cut out the gaslighting.

I don't need every fastasy race or creature to be an exact copy of what I see as humans just because I'm desperate for some representation.... that I can find elsewhere in the books/movies

Jesus fucking Christ on a fucking pogo stick...

First, where did anyone, anywhere, in this thread, say that hobbits (or any fantasy race) are (or need to be) an exact copy of what we see in the real world? There isn't a single fantasy race or culture that's going to be a 1:1 representation of anything in the real world, and if there is, it's debatable whether the author is writing fantasy at that point. Yes, the hobbits have clear real-world inspirations, as do most of the races of Middle-earth, that's not the same thing as an "exact copy."

Second, you're actually right, a fantasy race doesn't "need" to be a copy of humans (not that I saw anyone claim they were). A fictional race doesn't "need" to be anything, since if you're building one from the ground up, you can ultimately choose the rules you want to follow. Since your earlier schtick was making an all-gay race, you can absolutely do that in fantasy or sci-fi, and people wouldn't batt an eye, providing the worldbuilding was sound enough. But I've already explained why making the hobbits gay is iffy from an adaptational and mechanical standpoint. Altering a pre-existing fantasy race/culture is different from creating one, and people tend to notice, examples ranging from the Fire Nation in the Last Airbender (Japanese to Indian) or the urgals in Eragon (who are no longer urgals but humans, presumably because of budget).

Third, if you actually respond to any of this, at least make it a good one, because I'm this close to just setting you to ignore.

 

[Silvanus]

So was that before or after the stuff I actually pointed out being weaponised based just on a say so and started this whole tangent?

Also again Smollett actually happened. The trial happened. Him losing happened. What I decried was (and please try and actually read it and take it in this time as it's becoming quote obvious you keep missing this) the weaponisation without any evidence just to "Own the people on the wrong side of history"

"Without any evidence"? Zeldin's own campaign chair charged the assailant, and then Zeldin used the undercharging to smear his rival. That literally happened. The chain of events isn't in dispute.

Then you brought up an unrelated case, which nobody had mentioned until then in this thread, to smear opponents. Which would be the 'weaponisation' you're so very principled about.

gaslighty

Lol, there's something really cute about accusing strangers of employing psychological and emotional abuse tactics because they disagreed on the internet.

 

[Hawki]

Well then you haven't been paying attention to anything I've been saying. I've never said "X is here, therefore, it's 'forced diversity.'"

Not saying you did, but it's in the same vein.

When a black actor is hired (not to pick on black people, but it's a fairly simple analogy to use) and the character occasionally says or does something you'd expect from a black person, that's good. When a black actor is hired and the character has the good majority of his dialog and actions some variation of "I'M BLACK YA'LL!!!" that's bad.

Probably, but:

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about the concept that diversity for diversity's sake is a very VERY bad thing. There's a big big difference between "diversity is there" and "diversity for diversity's sake."

Okay, but what's an actual example? Because it sounds like "diversity for diversity's sake" is just a fancy way of saying tokenism.

The problem is:
A. There was literally zero setup in the character of Sam or any storylines he was in whatsoever.
B. The character that DID have setup didn't get the shield.
C. They shoved aside Sam's own superhero identity and replaced it with that of another much more popular and well known superhero instead of taking the opportunity to let Sam and the name of The Falcon raise up to the level of a superhero like Captain America on his own merits. Made all the worst by the racist implications made that a black superhero can't stand on his own two feet without having a white guy prop him up.
C. And yes, the comics are relevant. The fact that Bucky had a long and well received run as Captain America to the point that a lot of fans didn't even want Steve Rodgers (THE Captain America) back as Captain America while Sam Wilson's run was VERY badly received and very quickly reversed is very relevant. This means that there was always going to be backlash against the idea of giving Sam Wilson the shield from the outset, no matter how they handled it.

FYI, your second C should be D.

But on that note:

A: Arguably, that's true. But the TV series "does" set it up, so it's somewhat mitigated.

B: I disagree that Bucky was set up at all. There's plenty going against Bucky having the shield.

C: That isn't an entirely unreasonable chain of thought, but I don't agree with it. First, as I think has been pointed out, characters have taken up mantles before. Two, I don't think the implications are there. Sam's well aware of the baggage that comes with the shield, and he still keeps his old tech - him becoming Cap doesn't mean giving up being Falcon, so to speak.

D: Well, we disagre there, because I don't think the comics are relevant in this case. Wasn't the original Bucky Barnes a plucky sidekick, and not a brainwashed assassin who's one bad day away from killing everyone around him? And again, the people who watch the films vastly outnumber the people who read the comics. Heck, even cartoon adaptations would have more readers than comics.

Giving Sam the shield is the kind of thing incompetent writers would do for cheap shock value, and if the writers of the MCU have proven anything over the years it's that they're anything but incompetent.

Since there's only a handful of MCU films I consider genuinely good, I'll disagree with you there.

The only remotely rational reason to give Sam the shield was for the diversity. To promote "A black guy is now Captain America!" The story had absolutely nothing leading to this moment, at all. If for some reason they didn't want to or couldn't give the shield to Bucky, there's no reason there couldn't just... not have a Captain America anymore.

Hell, they could've set the shield aside for a while and did a series just like "Captain America and the Winter Soldier" where Sam stayed Falcon then gradually came to want and deserve to be Captain America before concluding with taking up the shield rather than having the mantle just thrust upon him at Endgame. There could've been setup both before and after Endgame to justify this passing of the torch before it actually happened.

Yeah, but he goes through the 'deserving' phase in the TV series.

If we skipped from Endgame to New World Order, I'd probably agree, but that isn't what's happened.

In short, the problem was that giving Sam the shield had nothing whatsoever to support it nor was it in any way necessary, so for diversity's sake the only possible motivation behind it.

Well, guess all we can do is agree to disagree.

 

[Elijin]

If every hobbit was gay and reproduced asexually it would change precisely nothing in the story, as there were no hobbit sex scenes or romances. It would only be note worthy as a self reporting mechanic for personal hangs up.

 

[Dalisclock]

If every hobbit was gay and reproduced asexually it would change precisely nothing in the story, as there were no hobbit sex scenes or romances. It would only be note worthy as a self reporting mechanic for personal hangs up.

Does this mean that Hobbits are 40K Orks?

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Wait, are the Orks gay or do they just reproduce Asexually via spores? Do I even want to find out?

 

[Agema]

If every hobbit was gay and reproduced asexually it would change precisely nothing in the story, as there were no hobbit sex scenes or romances. It would only be note worthy as a self reporting mechanic for personal hangs up.

One might point out that every hobbit could be gay, and yet they could also still reproduce as a species because being gay does not prevent someone carrying out some key reproductive tasks with a member of the opposite sex.

 

[Silvanus]

as there were no hobbit sex scenes or romances.

You sure about that?

"Share the load, Frodo..."

 

[Elijin]

You sure about that?

"Share the load, Frodo..."

I considered this at length, as well as the interaction with the elf queen, thinking whether to add a disclaimer. I decided they were not implicitly romantic interactions, but subject to interpretation.

 

[Casual Shinji]

You sure about that?

"Share the load, Frodo..."

Nasty little hobbitses.