Your argument was so stupid it really wasn't worthy of anything better.
My statement was of observation of human behaviour that people will deny the evidence if they disagree with it. I am not making any claim beyond that.
You characterised my statement to implying I want to hand wave people away regardless of evidence, those don't follow by definition.
One would presume because you believe in a particular position you believe regardless of evidence, and you want to characterise me as being your preferred type bad actor to hand wave away; in this case QAnons.
You might as well by the same logic say all gay men are misogynists, since not wanting to have sex with women implies a hatred therefore all gay men hate women.
You clearly already have your mind made up on this report despite not having seen a word of it, and that is the actual difference between us.
>>92966 >You clearly already have your mind made up on this report despite not having seen a word of it, and that is the actual difference between us.
That's funny given that you were already laying down the "It doesn't matter if that is 100% true people will refuse to believe it." line before having read it yourself, yet nobody particularly questioned the report in the thread until things started coming out about its circumstances.
You're the one who jumped the gun. And no, unless the commissioners of the report turn around and retract their statements about it having been altered by number 10, in non suspicious circumstances, there's not a lot of point in reading it now.
>>92978 You're the one who jumped the gun. And no, unless the commissioners of the report turn around and retract their statements about it having been altered by number 10, in non suspicious circumstances, there's not a lot of point in reading it now.
I'm not even him, but we can keep this up all day if you don't feel like learning to spell.
I don't see why you want to carry this on, I already said I haven't made up my mind and won't until we see the report and the other lad has said he won't believe the report unless the person who had a bias to never support the report if it didn't match agenda says it is true.
So there is an impasse. He won't ever change his mind and the report hasn't been released yet.
As a hypothetical imagine there was a report into domestic violence in the UK and it invited various fisherpersons onto the committee and it concluded (as the science does) that women are more likely to be the perpetrators of domestic violence, any fisherpersons on that committee would be washing their hands of it claiming it was distorted stats, cherry picked evidence, unfounded and sexist, and imply hidden agenda and abuse behind the scenes. Would that make the report invalid? How is that any different from this? It isn’t and until the report is public that we can know the truth about those claims. So how about we all just wait for the report quietly, since I already know what the other lad thinks and his insistence that anyone who hasn't made their mind up to be the same as his yet is working against him is an absurd argument I am tired of him repeating.
>>92983 Clearly you don't have any actual interest in waiting to see the report since it came out two weeks ago, so you can take your disingenuous bollocks and get in the sea.
You're all arguing about a load of bollocks and I suspect that was rather more the point of a report like this, and the inevitable response.
People like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were class reductionists by today's standards. When the black man labours in the same factory as the white man, the black man's problems are the same as the white man's problems, to paraphrase.
Divide and conquer innit. Every time the subject comes up we have a stunning demonstration of how effective it is.
I don't think this is entirely fair, I think there are people that are seeing through the identity politics game (without diminishing the importance of race). This thread contains a few examples.
Idris Elba’s Luther ‘isn’t black enough to be real’, says BBC diversity chief
As one of the first prime time television dramas starring a black actor in the title role, Luther broke new ground for on-screen representation. Idris Elba’s depiction of the obsessive detective John Luther earned him a clutch of best actor awards including a Golden Globe, as well as recognition from the NAACP, America’s foremost civil rights organisation.
There is just one problem with the character, according to a BBC diversity chief: he’s not authentically black enough. Miranda Wayland cited the popular crime drama as an example of a series that is only superficially diverse, as the corporation seeks for more convincing and rounded portrayals of minority groups.
“When it first came out everybody loved the fact that Idris Elba was in there — a really strong, black character lead,” said Wayland, the corporation’s head of creative diversity. “We all fell in love with him. Who didn’t, right? But after you got into about the second series you got kind of like, OK, he doesn’t have any black friends, he doesn’t eat any Caribbean food, this doesn’t feel authentic.”
The BBC executive said that while it was important for key characters in landmark series to come from diverse backgrounds, casting more black actors was only part of the solution. “It’s about making sure that everything around them — their environment, their culture, the set — is absolutely reflective,” she told the MIPTV conference.
Her comments may come as a surprise to Neil Cross, the show’s creator and writer, who previously revealed that Elba was attracted to the role precisely because race was not a major factor. The character only became black when Elba was cast. “I have no knowledge or expertise or right to try to tackle in some way the experience of being a black man in modern Britain,” Cross, who is white, has said. “It would have been an act of tremendous arrogance for me to try to write a black character. We would have ended up with a slightly embarrassed, ignorant, middle-class, white writer’s idea of a black character.”
>>92996 The beauty of this article is that it'll annoy people on both sides, on one for trying to push diversity into everything, on the other for the simplistic and vaguely racist understanding of what diversity means.
>>92999 >vaguely racist understanding of what diversity means
I'd say it's more than vaguely racist, the reduction of "the black lived experience" to nothing more than hanging around with other black people and eating jerk chicken. If I was black I'd be massively offended at the lazy stereotyping. What the fuck does it even mean to be "authentically" black? As if black people who don't conform to those narrow and reductive stereotypes are somehow inauthentic, properly insulting. Fucking madness.
Anyway here I am falling for the bait, at least i've not clicked through to any of the articles.
I'm reminded of an article I read years ago about the sitcom Teachers. The author argued that the character Kurt represented a breakthrough for British TV, because the part hadn't been written as "an Asian" but happened to be played by an Asian actor. It seems a bit silly now, but twenty years ago it was rare for an ethnic minority actor to play a role that could have been played by anyone, rather than a part that was very conspicuously written as an ethnic minority character. It was a huge change to see a character who was totally unburdened by the weight of stereotypes.
>>93000 Am I right to think the BBC is probably in a bit of a vicious cycle with this sort of thing?
The BBC says or does something vaguely socially liberal
People get upset because they think it's political correctness gone mad
The government goes "Enough of this liberal, loony left nonsense that nobody wants. BBC, you must give the people what they want! From now on you'll have to prove that's what you're doing"
So for web content the BBC looks at what gets the most clicks, and it turns out what gets the most clicks is articles relevant to contentious political debates. So they churn those out.
Which the government and "political correctness gone mad" crowd will see as a continued BBC agenda of pushing PC nonsense that people don't want, while the BBC thinks it's doing exactly what it was asked and has reams of empirical evidence - site viewership figures, outside media coverage, etc - that attest to the fact that angry people click more, which the government will be disinclined to believe because very few people say they want to be pissed off all the time.
So the BBC is told in even stricter terms: No, Make what people want.
So they set out to boost their engagement figures even more, using best practice... articles relevant to contentious political debates...
>>93005 I have also noticed that the BBC website is much, much more left-wing than BBC television. I know they're supposed to be impartial always, but the TV channels have Tim Davie breathing down their necks to make sure they don't question or criticise anything the Conservatives do, while the news website is written entirely by 19-year-old Twitter obsessives, and it shows.
This is the demonstration of what >>92952 and >>92949 were getting at. The concept of race exists, to this person, as a collection of stereotypes, assumptions, and behavioural expectations. Or in other words, racism.
Serious question. What is the difference between a racist stereotype and a portrayal of cultural differences? Is accuracy relevant? Is it just how perjororitive the statement is, how much the person it is said about doesn't like it? If I said black people are more likely to eat black eye peas that is just observation. If I said they like watermelon that is racism. I presume to some extent the idea black people ate watermelon in America isn't born out of nothing
Equally you get weird chips on peoples shoulders Asian American representation groups (who I presume to largely have just lived in America their who lives) are very quick for example to claim racism in an Hollywood film that portrays aspects of far eastern cultures, where as the people who live in those cultures in question don't have a problem. Is that just a power game on their part to stay relevant?
>What is the difference between a racist stereotype and a portrayal of cultural differences?
In theory it's about representing people as complex individuals who aren't defined by their ostensible differences from "the norm", but in practice it's just whatever people are touchy about at the moment.
The diversity and inclusion agenda is re-normalising tokenism, because it presupposes that everyone should feel represented by everything; when you're crowbarring "diverse identities" into things, subtlety inevitably goes out of the window and you veer back towards crass stereotypes.
It's one of those things we should be able to judge by common sense and assessment of intent, but obviously that's far too complex with the reactionary mob out there hungry for something to be offended by. Somewhere along the line we've lost the distinction between simply portraying a thing, whether it be real, imagined, innocent or satirical; and the concept of endorsement or messaging attached to the thing.
There's a lot of cognitive dissonance attached to all of it too. We're all basically fine with films and games where the heroes go around violently injuring and killing dozens of people with the flimsiest of justifications, and we know that it's just fantasy with no real social influence or harm. But of course, the racial diversity of our cast of merciless killers will surely come under scrutiny, as will the writer's motivations if a female character isn't portrayed in a positive light, or what have you.
On a tangentially related note, this was a good video that reminded me of the discussion we were having about healthcare outcomes earlier on. He doesn't go into race too much, only briefly touches on it, but I don't think it takes too much to put 1+1 together given the evidence presented.
>>93066 It was written for white guy to be just another generic white detective trope.
They got Idris because he's an internationally famous hollywood actor in the right place at the right time who wanted to do something local.
>We live in a world where the majority of main characters on children's television are white; where there are more animals than people of colour protagonists populating the pages of children's books.
>Where are the disabled, queer, poor, gender diverse, dogs of colour and single-parent dog families in Bluey's Brisbane? If they're in the background, let them come forward. (Maynard, voiced by Sean Choolburra, I'm looking at you.)
What say you, britfa ethics committee? Are anthropomorphic cartoon dogs too white? Can we create a minority coded anthropomorphic cartoon dog without it ending up a racist caricature in and of itself?
>>93156 >This thread hadn't been touched for six days
Welcome to .gs, where the userbase occasionally has better things to do than shitpost on the internet.
