The problem is when points of view become the headline of the review, instead of the work itself. Societal factors are often overblown for an agenda, yes even when the person is not actively pursuing said agenda.
The by now famous escapist review made a mistake, because it focussed very strongly on the subjective view of the reviewer. As stated, this is not something that can ever be avoided, but it is another thing to completely embrace it. A reviewer needs to understand its platform and audience. The difference is in the way it is finally communicated. The review was actually quite mild, but did make it the main point of the review. That is the mistake, because people aren't terrible interested in the author in general and the author has just made the piece about him/herself, instead of for the audience. Probably a lot of the audience will hold similar views, so it is certainly relevant. But it shouldn't be the point.
Also 'check your privilege' is horrible in an objective sense. It can only be used to ignore viewpoints based on the background of the person saying them. And is only used when it is about backgrounds. It is the ultimate irony that is only accepted because the person affected is indeed actually part of a privileged group. That doesn't make it less stupid however. Using it will therefore never lead to interesting debate, it is a fallacy used to get moral high-ground.
I feel like people who use it are half-way there in terms of growing up. The next step is to realise that being insulted does not give anyone any rights and that being part of a non-privileged group also doesn't give you any privileges.
The utopia is that race/sex/whatever is a non-issue, not that no one gets insulted. This is an important distinction. There is no such thing as accidental racism/sexism/etc! I know most people will not agree to the last part, but it is actually a fact. But discussing it will lead mostly to a semantic discussion that I'm not too interested in having. Just realize that discrimination is all about intention, it is an active act, not passive. On some level this is clear to everyone; I think everyone understands that Django Unchained is not racist, even though it includes wildly racist characters and themes.
By the way, I think Bob's Ender review fits more or less perfectly with what I said above. It acknowledges something, but doesn't make it a point. People are maximally informed in an entertaining way and everyone understands clearly I think where Bob's opinions are coming from. It is exactly how a review should be imo. The creator and his ideas clearly matters to a lot of the audience, it simply needed to be addressed.
The by now famous escapist review made a mistake, because it focussed very strongly on the subjective view of the reviewer. As stated, this is not something that can ever be avoided, but it is another thing to completely embrace it. A reviewer needs to understand its platform and audience. The difference is in the way it is finally communicated. The review was actually quite mild, but did make it the main point of the review. That is the mistake, because people aren't terrible interested in the author in general and the author has just made the piece about him/herself, instead of for the audience. Probably a lot of the audience will hold similar views, so it is certainly relevant. But it shouldn't be the point.
Also 'check your privilege' is horrible in an objective sense. It can only be used to ignore viewpoints based on the background of the person saying them. And is only used when it is about backgrounds. It is the ultimate irony that is only accepted because the person affected is indeed actually part of a privileged group. That doesn't make it less stupid however. Using it will therefore never lead to interesting debate, it is a fallacy used to get moral high-ground.
I feel like people who use it are half-way there in terms of growing up. The next step is to realise that being insulted does not give anyone any rights and that being part of a non-privileged group also doesn't give you any privileges.
The utopia is that race/sex/whatever is a non-issue, not that no one gets insulted. This is an important distinction. There is no such thing as accidental racism/sexism/etc! I know most people will not agree to the last part, but it is actually a fact. But discussing it will lead mostly to a semantic discussion that I'm not too interested in having. Just realize that discrimination is all about intention, it is an active act, not passive. On some level this is clear to everyone; I think everyone understands that Django Unchained is not racist, even though it includes wildly racist characters and themes.
By the way, I think Bob's Ender review fits more or less perfectly with what I said above. It acknowledges something, but doesn't make it a point. People are maximally informed in an entertaining way and everyone understands clearly I think where Bob's opinions are coming from. It is exactly how a review should be imo. The creator and his ideas clearly matters to a lot of the audience, it simply needed to be addressed.
