"Titans" Actress Anna Diop Has Been Hit With Racist Insults

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
The Lunatic said:
No, I'm pretty sure I'm thinking of modern day Indians, but good on you for trying to tell me what I actually thought.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,289
1,488
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Ogoid said:
the December King said:
This. This is what I came here to say. As far as I care, it worked for Gamora, it will likely work for Starfire.

The only problem I have ever had in casting was with Idris Elba being cast as Roland in The Dark Tower. And I'm sure he was awesome, but I still was confused and frustrated (haven't gotten around to seeing it, but it's not a boycott or anything, I've just been really busy).
Particularly when ethnicity was a factor in Roland's relation with other characters, i.e. Detta Walker... not that I think there was a snowball's chance in hell they'd include her in a Hollywood film these days.
I don't know drug addled Stephen King wrote characters that well anyway. Detta being a prime example. Eddie's entrance wouldn't be done partial naked either. I'd also assume that they just skip straight to Susanne becuase all that stuff seems to complex to show on film.
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
erttheking said:
The Lunatic said:
No, I'm pretty sure I'm thinking of modern day Indians, but good on you for trying to tell me what I actually thought.
Well, given modern Indians are descended from those old Aryans, it makes sense they'd have Caucasian features.
So, yeah...

Dravidians have the lowest influence of those old Aryan genetics, and as such, take on a more Australoid appearance, featuring a wide nose, more pronounced brow and protruding jaw.

 

JamesStone

If it ain't broken, get to work
Jun 9, 2010
888
0
0
Both sides are stupid, but one is stupid and racist so I know what side I'll be on in this fight, if only for opposition to racists.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,289
1,488
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
JamesStone said:
Both sides are stupid, but one is stupid and racist so I know what side I'll be on in this fight, if only for opposition to racists.
This is pretty much my philosophy
 

Vendor-Lazarus

Censored by Mods. PM for Taboos
Mar 1, 2009
1,201
0
0
JamesStone said:
Both sides are stupid, but one is stupid and racist so I know what side I'll be on in this fight, if only for opposition to racists.
It's not always black or white, and shouldn't be treated as so binary.
For most, it's actually all shades of grey.

Imagine; What if they aren't racist, and only called that by their opponents?

I can call you an athlete. Doesn't make it so.
Instead of listening to the self-labelled "good guys" hating, evaluate the information logically and neutrally.
Then decide.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,184
173
68
Vendor-Lazarus said:
JamesStone said:
Both sides are stupid, but one is stupid and racist so I know what side I'll be on in this fight, if only for opposition to racists.
snip
And if after evaluating the information logically and neutrally the conclusion is that they were acting like racists, does sharing those findings makes one a self-labelled "good guy" hating?

Imagine; What if they aren't self-labelled "good guys" hating, and only called that by their opponents?
 

Recusant

New member
Nov 4, 2014
699
0
0
CaitSeith said:
Vendor-Lazarus said:
JamesStone said:
Both sides are stupid, but one is stupid and racist so I know what side I'll be on in this fight, if only for opposition to racists.
snip
And if after evaluating the information logically and neutrally the conclusion is that they were acting like racists, does sharing those findings makes one a self-labelled "good guy" hating?

Imagine; What if they aren't self-labelled "good guys" hating, and only called that by their opponents?
Okay, before this gets too bitter, I'm going to step in and spoil the joke- sorry, Agent_Z, but it's pretty apparent it didn't work anyway. Take a look back at the first post. "Bigoted asshole says something unpleasant" is hardly newsworthy, is it? Even if the asshole in question isn't Donald Trump? No. Of course it isn't. Words are just words, and a bigot who's flooding someone social media account is a bigot who's not setting fires or shooting people or doing anything to actually make the world a worse (if not more unpleasant) place. Of course, an anti-bigot who's reporting on the actions of bigots is an anti-bigot who's not educating people or challenging views or doing anything to make the world a better (again, if not more unpleasant) place. Here's the punchline: if a person is a "good guy" because they oppose racism, are they going to make this announcement by decrying an action as "beyond the pale"? This is satire.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,289
1,488
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Vendor-Lazarus said:
JamesStone said:
Both sides are stupid, but one is stupid and racist so I know what side I'll be on in this fight, if only for opposition to racists.
It's not always black or white, and shouldn't be treated as so binary.
For most, it's actually all shades of grey.

Imagine; What if they aren't racist, and only called that by their opponents?

I can call you an athlete. Doesn't make it so.
Instead of listening to the self-labelled "good guys" hating, evaluate the information logically and neutrally.
Then decide.
in the same vein, I could call myself an athlete, that doesn't make it so. Just becuase I claim I'm not racists, doesn't make me not racist. How do we decide what's racist then?
 
Feb 26, 2014
668
0
0
Well, as much as I like to think that the world is full of morally grey choices, this seems pretty damn black and white. It's either A.) You approve of racist hate mail or B.) You don't. There really is no middle ground here. As such, fuck these racist pieces of shit. I hate it when things from my childhood are changed as much as the next fan, but getting vitriolic about it to the point of harassment is unhealthy and disgusting.
 
Sep 24, 2008
2,461
0
0
Vendor-Lazarus said:
JamesStone said:
Both sides are stupid, but one is stupid and racist so I know what side I'll be on in this fight, if only for opposition to racists.
It's not always black or white, and shouldn't be treated as so binary.
For most, it's actually all shades of grey.

Imagine; What if they aren't racist, and only called that by their opponents?

I can call you an athlete. Doesn't make it so.
Instead of listening to the self-labelled "good guys" hating, evaluate the information logically and neutrally.
Then decide.
You got a lot on this already, but here's one more angle.

Do you know why people wear uniforms? To show they are on the same side. Do you know why people do group think or speak? To allow themselves to be indoctrinated and/or show that they were.

If people use racist language, they open themselves up as declaring themselves as racist.

You can even be displeased with her casting choice. I'm not a hundred percent a fan, but I'm not a fan of anything DC is doing lately besides Young Justice. But when they bring in racist tactics, how can you ask people to look past their speech and torment of a human being to try to find a different way of viewing it? They weren't bothered with finding a different way of presenting themselves. So I say let's take them as they wanted to show themselves.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,184
173
68
Recusant said:
CaitSeith said:
Vendor-Lazarus said:
JamesStone said:
Both sides are stupid, but one is stupid and racist so I know what side I'll be on in this fight, if only for opposition to racists.
snip
And if after evaluating the information logically and neutrally the conclusion is that they were acting like racists, does sharing those findings makes one a self-labelled "good guy" hating?

Imagine; What if they aren't self-labelled "good guys" hating, and only called that by their opponents?
Okay, before this gets too bitter, I'm going to step in and spoil the joke- sorry, Agent_Z, but it's pretty apparent it didn't work anyway. Take a look back at the first post. "Bigoted asshole says something unpleasant" is hardly newsworthy, is it? Even if the asshole in question isn't Donald Trump? No. Of course it isn't. Words are just words, and a bigot who's flooding someone social media account is a bigot who's not setting fires or shooting people or doing anything to actually make the world a worse (if not more unpleasant) place. Of course, an anti-bigot who's reporting on the actions of bigots is an anti-bigot who's not educating people or challenging views or doing anything to make the world a better (again, if not more unpleasant) place. Here's the punchline: if a person is a "good guy" because they oppose racism, are they going to make this announcement by decrying an action as "beyond the pale"? This is satire.
Cute of you to think that being actively bigot online somehow stops that person from being actively bigot on real life. I wish to know when the harassed person agreed with you to take one for the team...
 

theevilgenius60

New member
Jun 28, 2011
475
0
0
Most of the crackback I've seen against her Starfire hasn't been race based. ~95% of the rancor has been aimed at her costume and hair for the role.
 

kiri3tsubasa

New member
Jan 24, 2016
107
0
0
The issue with the costume and how she is presented. Seriously the people in the costume department should have been fired for this. They could have made it work, but they didn't and because of that all legitimate criticisms brought against the costume department are thrown away under the guise of sexism. I found an image that shows what they could have done with her, but chose not to for what ever reason.

So what prevented them from presenter her as the image shown on the left? We have the technology and the practicable ability. Look at Gamora from Guardians of the Galaxy.

Actually, what if they intentionally made her look like that for the very reason of calling all critics sexist and misogynistic? Im starting to think we are getting to that point, after all you can dismiss all criticisms if you call your criticisms racist, nazi, misogynistic, etc.

undeadsuitor said:
theevilgenius60 said:
Most of the crackback I've seen against her Starfire hasn't been race based. ~95% of the rancor has been aimed at her costume and hair for the role.
Which is even weirder, cause the entire casts wardrobe and hair is awful but you don't hear much about them
Probably because they couldn't make it seem bad, but when the exact same criticism happens to also be against the costume design for a black female they could ride the white horse and claim racism despite their being none.
 

Ogoid

New member
Nov 5, 2009
405
0
0
kiri3tsubasa said:
The issue with the costume and how she is presented. Seriously the people in the costume department should have been fired for this. They could have made it work, but they didn't and because of that all legitimate criticisms brought against the costume department are thrown away under the guise of sexism. I found an image that shows what they could have done with her, but chose not to for what ever reason.
Word. You'd think it wouldn't be too much to ask of professional makeup and costume artists to put as much effort into it as some random person on the internet with Photoshop and 10 minutes to spare [https://i.redd.it/lcsjlfjnmhr01.jpg], but instead, here we are.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
kiri3tsubasa said:
The issue with the costume and how she is presented. Seriously the people in the costume department should have been fired for this. They could have made it work, but they didn't and because of that all legitimate criticisms brought against the costume department are thrown away under the guise of sexism. I found an image that shows what they could have done with her, but chose not to for what ever reason.

So what prevented them from presenter her as the image shown on the left? We have the technology and the practicable ability. Look at Gamora from Guardians of the Galaxy.

Actually, what if they intentionally made her look like that for the very reason of calling all critics sexist and misogynistic? Im starting to think we are getting to that point, after all you can dismiss all criticisms if you call your criticisms racist, nazi, misogynistic, etc.

undeadsuitor said:
theevilgenius60 said:
Most of the crackback I've seen against her Starfire hasn't been race based. ~95% of the rancor has been aimed at her costume and hair for the role.
Which is even weirder, cause the entire casts wardrobe and hair is awful but you don't hear much about them
Probably because they couldn't make it seem bad, but when the exact same criticism happens to also be against the costume design for a black female they could ride the white horse and claim racism despite their being none.
I don't like her costume as much as the next person, but let's be real here: Many of the complaints are not just about her costume they specifically stated that having a black actress was a poor choice. We should not just ignore that or attempt to downplay it or pretend that is not what it is. It makes it a lot more difficult to discuss the cut of her dress and the bulky obnoxious fur coat when you have people just offended for her being black regardless of what she wears.

Personally I don't like the hair in either of the photos you showed. Starfire is supposed to have A TON of hair, so long it trails behind her and so fluffy and full it dwarfs her face. It is not supposed to be tight curls and it is not supposed to be flat like the other photo. What they should have used was a FULL over bulked up lady Godiva wig in fire red. More like lady godiva:
cut a bit off the front style to a tip in the back and poof it up a bit more dye it red and this would even work ( of course in a much better quality of wig though):



This is the hair they should have been going for here:





The awful wig they used looks nothing like her character wig, but neither does the flat straight hair. It needs to go in a different direction all together.
 
Sep 24, 2008
2,461
0
0
kiri3tsubasa said:
The issue with the costume and how she is presented. Seriously the people in the costume department should have been fired for this. They could have made it work, but they didn't and because of that all legitimate criticisms brought against the costume department are thrown away under the guise of sexism. I found an image that shows what they could have done with her, but chose not to for what ever reason.

So what prevented them from presenter her as the image shown on the left? We have the technology and the practicable ability. Look at Gamora from Guardians of the Galaxy.

Actually, what if they intentionally made her look like that for the very reason of calling all critics sexist and misogynistic? Im starting to think we are getting to that point, after all you can dismiss all criticisms if you call your criticisms racist, nazi, misogynistic, etc.

undeadsuitor said:
theevilgenius60 said:
Most of the crackback I've seen against her Starfire hasn't been race based. ~95% of the rancor has been aimed at her costume and hair for the role.
Which is even weirder, cause the entire casts wardrobe and hair is awful but you don't hear much about them
Probably because they couldn't make it seem bad, but when the exact same criticism happens to also be against the costume design for a black female they could ride the white horse and claim racism despite their being none.
Here's the point. You're absolutely right that the picture shows she would have made a very acceptable Starfire.

The issue is that dropping racist remarks on her twitter for the design choice the Producers and the Directors of the show made is unacceptable.

That is literally what this thread is about.

If we had another thread that compared the number of racist insults people personally levied towards her and insults people made on general about the idea of not coloring a Tamaranian orange... well, I don't understand why we would, but if we did that would be one thing.

Here, we're talking about people going onto her Instagram and harassing her. To the point where she had to shut it off. Do you remember the link [https://mobile.twitter.com/badpostitans/status/1020303702282899456] in the OP?

The first response was this

Miki
Miki
@PradBlain
?
Jul 20
Replying to @badpostitans
I mean her costume did suck tbh.
Like it's that easy. "Yeah, it's horrible that people were racist. But understandable that they were because the costume she didn't pick for herself WAS terrible. So I get it."

A person was harassed by others using taboo and heinous means because they are upset with a choice she had no control over. That's wrong. Marginalize it, twist the focus to another part, or whatever... it's still wrong.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
3,102
614
118
Country
United Kingdom
The Lunatic said:
So, it's off topic, but I'm going to come down hard on this because it's frankly dangerous to indulge scientific racism even a little..

"Caucasian" was a term from the common "three races" system of scientific racism, popular in the 19th century. Like all forms of scientific racism, it was bullshit, and although people sometimes use the word as shorthand for white people, there is no such thing, scientifically speaking, as a "Caucasian".

Indo-European is a language group which we theorize derives from a common source language called proto-Indo-European (or PIE). Because of the distribution of Indo-European languages, it is generally believed that over about 3000 years, Indo-European speaking people migrated outwards from somewhere in the near east (there are various theories as to where, but the dominant one depicted by your map has PIE originate on the Pontic steppes) to both Europe and Central Asia.

This is also backed up by archaogenetic evidence, which suggests that originally, Indo-European speakers did have a distinct ethnic identity, and that some of their genes were assimilated into populations where they migrated. However, beyond a few genetic markers which we use to track their migrations, we know almost nothing about them.

However, this is where reality begins to separate from scientific racism and myth. There's no evidence whatsoever that Proto-Indo-Europeans were the ancestors of white people or were responsible for creating some kind of "caucasian" race. For comparison, Neanderthals went extinct tens of thousands of years before the Indo-European migrations, and we can still identify distinct trends based on the relative presence of their DNA in European and Middle Eastern populations versus those elsewhere in the world. PIE migrations definately influenced the genetics of people they migrated into, but they became one of many, many factors influencing the genetics of people in that region.

The reason why North Indians and South Indians sometimes look a little different is much less dramatic than an invasion of magic white people. There isn't a magical barrier preventing people crossing the Indus. Much of North India is very rich and fertile, so naturally people have always migrated from Central Asia into India. It is possible and indeed likely that some of these migrations were invading armies, there have after all been several invasions of India by Altaic conquerers during our recorded history. But there is no evidence of a single "Aryan invasion" of India.

"Aryan", incidentally, is the etymological root of the word "Iran". It literally just refers to the region and its people, not to any mythical race.