|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The social-progressive mindset
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Or we could just put such men in their own gated community. No one ever goes in, and no one ever comes out. Nice high walls, so they don't have to see us, and we don't have to see them.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
The libertarian “ freedom” espoused by Russ is ultimately the freedom of privileged classes.
Don't you think that everyone should have the freedom associated with privileged classes in past societies ? Rather than the level of freedom associated with lower classes - slaves and serfs - in past societies ?
Moral rights are universal. Any right I espouse is for everyone.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Because winning inevitably involves beating someone else?
Yes, obviously. That's what the word means.
If that were true, then the notion of a win-win outcome would be meaningless.
There are competitive aspects to life. Only one person can be president. But seems to me there's something twisted in a view of life that sees everything as competitive.
That identifies improving one's own situation with worsening somebody else's.
[Fixed code - Eliab]
[ 03. February 2018, 11:33: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Yes, the problem is that some talk as if avoiding racism is a moral imperative. Whereas I'm saying that the term is used so broadly that it covers both acts that are morally wrong because they infringe the rights of others and acts that are not.
What happened to your recognition a couple of days ago that acts that don't infringe the rights of others can be morally wrong if they're based on a morally wrong intention? For example, an intention motivated by prejudice, unfair discrimination, or antagonism directed against people of a different racial or ethnic group?
Is that recognition no longer operative?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Don't you think that everyone should have the freedom associated with privileged classes in past societies ? Rather than the level of freedom associated with lower classes - slaves and serfs - in past societies ?
In tenth century France everyone, the privileged classes and the serfs, had the freedom to extort tribute from other people.
Now some people might think that as the privileged classes had swords, armour, and horses, and the serfs didn't, that makes it meaningless to say that the serfs had that freedom. But on your principles they were equally meaningfully free. Just as today you assert that millionaires and the precariat equally have the freedom to decline employment opportunities that do not pay a living wage or are unduly onerous or unsafe.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
We don't choose our likes and dislikes.
Likes and dislikes are immutable. But skin colour, secondary sex characteristics, and physical ability are choices one makes at birth, and one ought to serenely accept the consequences if one has chosen a non-preferred set.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Nobody else would say racism is a moral wrong in the way theft is a moral wrong, because racism is an attitude or belief, and theft is an action. In the same way, hatred or avarice are attitudes that are morally wrong.
So you're saying "racism" means something like "an attitude of hostility to people of other races" ?
And racist acts are those motivated by such an attitude ?
Seems reasonable.
So not hiring the black guy because you think the customers might not like it isn't racist because it isn't done out of hostility ? Choosing one's watering-hole purely on the basis of one's own feelings of comfort can't be racist because it isn't done out of hostility ?
If you find people guilty on the basis of motivation you have to be prepared to find them innocent on the same basis.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So not hiring the black guy because you think the customers might not like it isn't racist because it isn't done out of hostility ?
For about the bazillionth time, not hiring a black guy because your customers are racists is pandering to racism, and is in itself a racist act.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
For about the bazillionth time, not hiring a black guy because your customers are racists is pandering to racism, and is in itself a racist act.
I know you think that. So why aren't you disagreeing with Dafyd when he characterises racist acts as those undertaken from the particular motive of inter-racial hostility ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
For about the bazillionth time, not hiring a black guy because your customers are racists is pandering to racism, and is in itself a racist act.
I know you think that. So why aren't you disagreeing with Dafyd when he characterises racist acts as those undertaken from the particular motive of inter-racial hostility ?
Because he's not wrong?
And in this particular case, he's still not wrong. Not hiring the black guy because you're afraid of what the racists might do to your shop is still racism. You think more of what the racists will do and say, than you think of what the black guy will do or say.
This is racist. This how racism perpetuates itself. This how racism grows and forces minorities out of the economic and social commons.
But this has been explained to you over and over again, in many different ways. You appease racism. You perpetuate racism. You grow racism. All the while, you pat yourself on the back and say to yourself "I'm not a racist."
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I know you think that. So why aren't you disagreeing with Dafyd when he characterises racist acts as those undertaken from the particular motive of inter-racial hostility ?
If I don't hire a black candidate because I think my customers don't want dirty black hands touching their stuff or whatever, that is a motive of inter-racial hostility.
You want to argue that I wouldn't be being personally racist - I just think all my customers are racists, and I'm just a perfectly moral businessman dealing with economic realities; that my motives are pure, but I'm imputing immoral racial hostility to my customers.
But that's still a motive of inter-racial hostility. I'm not hiring the black guy because of inter-racial hostility (on the part of my customers). That's racist, and fits Dafyd's definition. (Also, "I'm not racist, but I have to pretend to be racist because my nasty customers expect it" is often just a smokescreen.)
An example of non-racist racial discrimination would be not hiring a white man to play Martin Luther King in a biopic, or not hiring a black man to play King George III. Having actors look like the people they are portraying is a reasonable reason for using the physical appearance of an actor as a deciding factor.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If you find people guilty on the basis of motivation you have to be prepared to find them innocent on the same basis.
I thought that acts done for innocent reasons could still be morally wrong according to your theory? That to be morally permissible the motivation must be innocent and the act itself must be innocent?
It rather seems that on this thread you're arguing that discrimination against people from other races is only unacceptable if both conditions are fulfilled, rather than the either condition you advocate for treatment of people of the same race as yourself.
If you think it's important you could reserve racism for the attitude, and use racial discrimination for morally wrong behaviour or acts that unfairly disfavour certain races. But I don't think that the gain in analyticity is worth the bother. It just lends itself to nitpicking. Racism will do for both. (The OED uses belief as the handle by which to take hold of the bundle, but includes discrimination in its definition.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Motivation is the difference between murder and manslaughter. The legal systems of our various countries seem to think it's a reasonable distinction to make.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Motivation is the difference between murder and manslaughter. The legal systems of our various countries seem to think it's a reasonable distinction to make.
Because the person who's untimely death it is doesn't get much of a say in the matter.
And the victim of racism is much less inconvenienced once they find out they didn't get the job because the customers of the shop are racists rather than the shop owner being racist.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Motivation is the difference between murder and manslaughter. The legal systems of our various countries seem to think it's a reasonable distinction to make.
But not in the way that Russ is using "motivation". It's murder if you intended to cause someone serious damage, and manslaughter if you didn't (more or less).
In Russ's logic, if I hated you and killed you, I would be a murderer. If, on the other hand, I had no bad opinion about you at all, but killed you because my neighbours all hated you and wouldn't associate with a person who suffered a felonious rodent to live, then I'd just be a moral upstanding businessman dealing with the circumstances in which he finds himself.
Perhaps Russ will claim that I'm being unfair to him here, and that killing you is an active wrong, whereas not employing you is merely the absence of a morally good action. But I don't think that this passive/active distinction really stands. You can act in a way that is racist, or you can act in a way that is not racist. Choosing not to act is still a choice; it is not a neutral option.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yes. In Orthodoxy was have a prayer that asks for forgiveness of what we have done, what we have left undone, for sins known, and sins unknown.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
A few weeks ago, I had a difficult conversation with the writer of a TV drama. In that drama, an obviously disabled actor portrayed a baddie. I told him about my discomfort at this part of the story. For me, it felt like the disability was being used to "other" the character, particularly as there were no other disabled characters in the cast.
The writer was insisting to me that the actor had been chosen on their merits and that disabled people should have the chance to play evil bastard characters too.
I'm still not comfortable with this explanation.
[ 05. February 2018, 14:14: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Which is, I suppose, to say that this isn't an easy thing to deconstruct.
If you live in a culture which mocks and belittles a minority, I don't think you simply get let off the hook if you add to the attitude in society by putting your only disabled actor in the part of an evil baddie. Even if you could somehow prove that the disability had no part in the casting (how would you do that?), you still have some responsibility for perpetuating a stereotype. If you are casting for a character who is an amoral greedy banker, I don't think you get let off if you give the job to someone who is obviously Jewish by saying that some Jews are evil amoral bankers and Jewish actors should have the chance to play baddies.
Of course there is a difference in that it is harder to show that an actor is unquestionably Jewish compared to being black or disabled. Who is "obviously" Jewish?
I conclude that it is a dangerous thing to reinforce notions of prejudice in TV dramas. It might be that it is society, not you the individual writer, which is prejudiced. I don't think that makes it ok.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Motivation is the difference between murder and manslaughter. The legal systems of our various countries seem to think it's a reasonable distinction to make.
Intent. The difference between manslaughter and murder is intent, not motive. Motive might go to build a case, but intent is the important factor.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A few weeks ago, I had a difficult conversation with the writer of a TV drama. In that drama, an obviously disabled actor portrayed a baddie. I told him about my discomfort at this part of the story. For me, it felt like the disability was being used to "other" the character, particularly as there were no other disabled characters in the cast.
The writer was insisting to me that the actor had been chosen on their merits and that disabled people should have the chance to play evil bastard characters too.
I'm still not comfortable with this explanation.
Because it fails applied logic. By itself, it might seem reasonable: Anybody should be able to play any role. But in reality, "other" has been linked to villainy since theatre began. So, until that is redressed, "other" playing the baddie will be a continuation of the stereotype.
And, yes, there are roles that are exceptions. They do not sufficiently test the rule, because they remain exceptional.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
You can see it as a double bluff - disabled are stigmatized, therefore should not be cast as villains, so we will, not to reinfoce the stigma, but to get rid of it. It's probably too sophisticated though.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can see it as a double bluff - disabled are stigmatized, therefore should not be cast as villains, so we will, not to reinfoce the stigma, but to get rid of it. It's probably too sophisticated though.
Probably? quetzacoatl; let me introduce you to the human race.
The biggest problem is that the default character written is pretty generic, but those generic roles are seen as for strait, white males. Straight, white females when necessary.
Roles for anything else are typically written with specificity. As if colour, sexuality or ability carried inherent behaviours and characteristics.
[ 05. February 2018, 16:15: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I suppose the difficulty is whether or not I'm over-sensitively noticing the disabled actor and ignoring other flawed and/or evil bastard characters in the drama.
It is probably fair to say that this wasn't the only baddie and that many of the characters were flawed.
It was a Welsh-language drama and alongside other dramas it is interesting to see how English-only speaking characters are used. Often they're hated authority figures or the fact that they don't speak in Welsh is a distinguishing part of their character.
Was the disability used to "other" the character in a way that the English language wasn't "other-ing" other characters? Were there other subtleties of othering - to do with sex, marital status, sexuality - that I didn't even notice?
I don't know. There is an English language version of the drama out soon, it'll be interesting to watch to see if the disabled actor stands out for me again (same actors, same scenes, just filmed in English rather than Welsh).
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One solution would be to do a Brecht-type alienation device, and introduce your disabled gangster, or whatever, with a speech saying, 'yeah, we know you think that we have somebody disabled to make a meaningful point about gangsters being disabled, but we didn't, so fuck off'. This might work in tiny left-wing theatres, but even then, it's too confusing.
[ 05. February 2018, 16:27: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suppose the difficulty is whether or not I'm over-sensitively noticing the disabled actor and ignoring other flawed and/or evil bastard characters in the drama.
I don't think you're overly sensitive. This, from Changing Faces, is excellent.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Of course there's another way of looking at it, which is that you're essentially saying the disabled actor shouldn't have gotten the part, no matter how talented he is, simply because of his disability. That seems counter productive somehow.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suppose the difficulty is whether or not I'm over-sensitively noticing the disabled actor and ignoring other flawed and/or evil bastard characters in the drama.
It is a recognised trope, so likely not.
quote:
It was a Welsh-language drama and alongside other dramas it is interesting to see how English-only speaking characters are used. Often they're hated authority figures or the fact that they don't speak in Welsh is a distinguishing part of their character.
Was the disability used to "other" the character in a way that the English language wasn't "other-ing" other characters?
Yes. Using English as an 'othering' characteristic is a response to the power England has over Wales. It is a response to a power imbalance. Othering the disabled is creating a power imbalance.
quote:
Were there other subtleties of othering - to do with sex, marital status, sexuality - that I didn't even notice?
Part of the difficulty might lie in the pretence that every show is judged by itself. But they do not exist in a vacuum. So it is possible that you can write a drama where the black, disabled, butch lesbian from the hood is a rapping drug dealing pervert baddie for non-stereotypical reasons; but it can still be part of the overall problem.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Of course there's another way of looking at it, which is that you're essentially saying the disabled actor shouldn't have gotten the part, no matter how talented he is, simply because of his disability. That seems counter productive somehow.
No. It isn't. Once again, most roles are written generically, but they are not cast that way. Casting actors who are not straight or white or perfectly able in those generic roles is the way forwards. And it is done, just not often enough.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I conclude that it is a dangerous thing to reinforce notions of prejudice in TV dramas. It might be that it is society, not you the individual writer, which is prejudiced. I don't think that makes it ok.
Nice example of social-progressive thinking.
You're uncomfortable with a TV drama having a disabled villain.
From outside the mindset, it seems clear that:
1.Such casting is disconcerting because it challenges the meta-narrative that disabled people are Victims who can do no wrong.
2. It's not a morally-wrong decision because nobody's rights have been infringed and nobody's intent is evil.
3. Watching this TV drama didn't make you feel hostility to disabled people in general, but you seem to be worried that it will affect other lesser mortals that way.
4. It's not an issue of stereotyping - there are few disabled villains in contemporary culture. And you'd be quite happy with a greedy rich villain, which is far more of a cliche.
But I don't expect you to admit any of that.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
4. It's not an issue of stereotyping - there are few disabled villains in contemporary culture. And you'd be quite happy with a greedy rich villain, which is far more of a cliche.
I'd argue that having a villain with some outward deformity to mirror his or her inner corruption is a fairly common trope with a very long history, probably because it's easy shorthand for an author to use. Shakespeare used it in his Richard III. It shows up in the Iliad, where Homer uses Thersites' deformities to let us know that he's a thoroughly unpleasant person. Contemporary portrayals are more common than you seem to think. Darth Vader (prosthetic limbs, artificial respiration, massive scarring) comes to mind as an obvious example. Any number of Bond villains fall into this category as well.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Nice example of social-progressive thinking.
You're uncomfortable with a TV drama having a disabled villain.
From outside the mindset, it seems clear that:
1.Such casting is disconcerting because it challenges the meta-narrative that disabled people are Victims who can do no wrong.
Not even slightly. I am aware that disabled people can be evil bastards, I think I even said this above.
My problem absolutely isn't that the drama accurately shows that some disabled people are evil bastards.
quote:
2. It's not a morally-wrong decision because nobody's rights have been infringed and nobody's intent is evil.
Not sure I said that either. I think it is a morally problematic idea to contribute to negative stereotypes about a minority of people.
quote:
3. Watching this TV drama didn't make you feel hostility to disabled people in general, but you seem to be worried that it will affect other lesser mortals that way.
I see. So now I'm not allowed to consider the impacts on certain minorities of stereotypes in popular media.
quote:
4. It's not an issue of stereotyping - there are few disabled villains in contemporary culture. And you'd be quite happy with a greedy rich villain, which is far more of a cliche.
And here is your problem right there: you simply don't accept the notion of "punching down" because you are so comfortable and privileged that you don't see the effects are disproportionate on minorities.
White rich people don't need any protection. Black people, disabled and other minorities may well be disproportionally impacted.
If a regular trope in dramas was about gangs of paedophile Muslim men, one might ask whether this was appropriate - even though clearly it has happened in reality.
Because Muslims as a community do not generally have any protection from negative stereotypes in the media.
Regular tropes about rich white men stealing money from banks has almost no impact on rich white men - because they hold almost all the power in society.
quote:
But I don't expect you to admit any of that.
Correct. Because it is bullshit, as anyone who bothered to read what I originally wrote could tell you.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
So many straw men, we could collect them together and build a straw house. The one about disabled people not being shown as evil made me blink. Eh?
I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them–
Dick III.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Because it is bullshit, as anyone who bothered to read what I originally wrote could tell you.
Anyone with a minimum level of consciousness or conscience would understand Russ' "reasoning" to be false. No need to read what anyone else wrote.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
An interesting and influential contemporary example of the disfigured villain: Freddy Krueger, in the Nightmare on Elm Street series of films.
https://tinyurl.com/ybjc25as
[ 07. February 2018, 15:52: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
4. It's not an issue of stereotyping - there are few disabled villains in contemporary culture. And you'd be quite happy with a greedy rich villain, which is far more of a cliche.
I'd argue that having a villain with some outward deformity to mirror his or her inner corruption is a fairly common trope with a very long history, probably because it's easy shorthand for an author to use. Shakespeare used it in his Richard III. It shows up in the Iliad, where Homer uses Thersites' deformities to let us know that he's a thoroughly unpleasant person. Contemporary portrayals are more common than you seem to think. Darth Vader (prosthetic limbs, artificial respiration, massive scarring) comes to mind as an obvious example. Any number of Bond villains fall into this category as well.
And when they do have the symptoms of privilege, you get 'Draco in leather pants', or Raffles becoming a hero or in the physical world...
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...1.Such casting is disconcerting because it challenges the meta-narrative that disabled people are Victims who can do no wrong.
Wrong. It can be problematic if it promotes the narrative that disabled persons are unhappy and angry and hate 'able-bodied' people. For starters, it's simply not true for the overwhelming majority of people with disabilities.
...
quote:
...But I don't expect you to admit any of that.
And I don't expect you to admit that you've never heard of Shakespeare's Richard III, or to admit you didn't actually take any time to research disabled characters in film or theatre before writing your post, or admit that "victims can do no wrong" is your favourite straw thing. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So many straw men, we could collect them together and build a straw house. The one about disabled people not being shown as evil made me blink. Eh?
I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them–
Dick III.
However:
--The real Richard really was disabled. His remains were found several years ago, under a parking lot. He had spinal problems.
--He's seen as evil because of allegedly murdering the two young princes. (For another view, read "Truth Is The Daughter Of Time", by Josephine Tey.)
--In the bit you quoted, he's talking about how other people see and treat him.
His disabilities do augment people's view of him as evil. BUT that quote presents him as a *person* who is mistreated because of his disabilities.
YMMV.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
However:
--The real Richard really was disabled. His remains were found several years ago, under a parking lot. He had spinal problems.
Yes but also no.
The popular image of him has nothing to do with his back and everything to do with popular myths originating with Shakespeare.
quote:
--He's seen as evil because of allegedly murdering the two young princes. (For another view, read "Truth Is The Daughter Of Time", by Josephine Tey.)
I'm not sure what you think you are proving here. Richard III is a scheming, murdering hunchback according to Shakespeare. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how this attitude might affect other disabled people.
quote:
--In the bit you quoted, he's talking about how other people see and treat him.
His disabilities do augment people's view of him as evil. BUT that quote presents him as a *person* who is mistreated because of his disabilities.
I don't see that this makes any difference. Shakespeare's racism is often couched in ways that are supposedly excusable - eg Shylock being a sympathetic character.
Whatever the truth of what he intended, the attitude it shows is racist. The attitude towards disabled people is that they're brooding and evil.
quote:
YMMV.
I wish you'd stop posting this - my mileage certainly does vary when what you've posted is bollocks.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It can be problematic if it promotes the narrative that disabled persons are unhappy and angry and hate 'able-bodied' people. For starters, it's simply not true for the overwhelming majority of people with disabilities.
I agree that such a narrative isn't true of disabled people in general.
But why do you think casting one disabled actor necessarily says something about disabled people in general ? Why do you see the category instead of the person ?
Do you think that artists who do not wish to assert anything about disabled people in general should avoid casting them in any role at all ? That would seem to be the logical conclusion...
quote:
And I don't expect you to admit that you've never heard of Shakespeare's Richard III or to admit you didn't actually take any time to research disabled characters in film or theatre before writing your post
Richard III wasn't disabled. He wasn't blind, deaf, dumb, crippled. What he was is ugly - unpleasing to the eye.
And yes, Ian Fleming and others use ugliness on the outside as a metaphor for ugliness on the inside. If MrCheesy had complained of a stereotype of ugly villains, there would be something in what he says.
quote:
or admit that "victims can do no wrong" is your favourite straw thing.
No-one admits to believing it. You'd sort of hope that nobody is stupid enough to literally believe it. But it does seem to explain social progressive attitudes rather well.
Isn't SP all about identifying groups
or classes of people as victims and then seeking to portray them in a totally positive light ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
[ Croesos ] So here we are, 16 pages in, with no more insight into what's so terrible about "the social-progressive mindset" than repeated assurances from Russ that compassion is stupid and you shouldn't have "sympathy" for anyone. Especially not if they've been the victim of some kind of horrific abuse or suffered some terrible tragedy.
quote:
[ Russ ] Not at all. It's good to have compassion for others, and for that to motivate acts of grace - supererogatory acts of kindness - towards them, within the space of actions that one has the moral right to perform.
I have read through some of this very long thread and reached the conclusion that Russ seems very misunderstood.
It strikes me that within the norms of the society of His day Jesus was not very 'sympathetic', He was however strongly motivated, attacking the moralism inherent in Judaism, (which was the society within which he lived), for its stultifying and oppressive affect upon the people. The motivating factor was almost certainly empathy rather than mere sympathy. Sympathy can be a very self indulgent, subjective emotion and when directed at a particular class of persons rather than adopted as a general rule of justice and equity, can sometimes lead to partiality and bias. Ex. 23:3, 6.
I don't think Russ is a Troll but he does set cats among pigeons to watch the feathers fly. He seems to be an eloquent literary blood sports enthusiast.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But Russ operates via straw men. Look at his last post: 'Isn't SP all about identifying groups
or classes of people as victims and then seeking to portray them in a totally positive light ?'
Note, there is no accompanying evidence for this, no link to a more detailed examination.
The phrase 'in a totally positive light' gives the game away, as this is a ludicrous claim, not backed up.
It's easy to give a counter-example - feminism has often fought bitter internecine wars, far from totally positive about various groups of women. But why bother, since Russ is not really putting forward a reasoned position, but a collection of half-baked generalizations.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
And I don't expect you to admit that you've never heard of Shakespeare's Richard III or to admit you didn't actually take any time to research disabled characters in film or theatre before writing your post
Richard III wasn't disabled. He wasn't blind, deaf, dumb, crippled. What he was is ugly - unpleasing to the eye.
What exactly counts as "crippled" if a spinal curvature and withered arm don't count?
quote:
Then be your eyes the witness of this ill:
See how I am bewitch'd; behold mine arm
Is, like a blasted sapling, wither'd up
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And yes, Ian Fleming and others use ugliness on the outside as a metaphor for ugliness on the inside. If MrCheesy had complained of a stereotype of ugly villains, there would be something in what he says.
Going strictly by the cinematic Bond:
- Doctor No (Dr. No, 1962) - prosthetic hands
- Emilio Largo (Thunderball, 1965) - missing eye
- Tee-Hee (Live and Let Die, 1973) - prosthetic arm
- Ernst Stavro Blofeld (For Your Eyes Only, 1981) - requires neck brace and mechanized wheelchair (this one may not count since his condition is a result of previous run-ins with Bond and/or a copyright dispute)
- Raoul Silva (Skyfall, 2012) - prosthetic jaw and massive bone damage to skull
And that's just a brief sample supplied by my research assistant, Mr. Google. If reliance on prosthetics or artificial means of mobility don't count as a disability in your reckoning, what does?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'
It's easy to give a counter-example - feminism has often fought bitter internecine wars, far from totally positive about various groups of women.
Fair point.
Put it the other way around. If someone does think that the man is always in the wrong and the woman always in the right, would that not be reason enough to call that person a feminist ? Possibly even an extreme feminist ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Fair point.
Put it the other way around. If someone does think that the man is always in the wrong and the woman always in the right, would that not be reason enough to call that person a feminist ? Possibly even an extreme feminist ?
I believe the term you're looking for is "straw feminist".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If I don't hire a black candidate because I think my customers don't want dirty black hands touching their stuff or whatever, that is a motive of inter-racial hostility.
No. It may be a motive of profit maximization. It may be a motive of pleasing one's neighbours.
Profit maximization isn't a good motive, but it isn't evil either.
quote:
You want to argue that I wouldn't be being personally racist - I just think all my customers are racists, and I'm just a perfectly moral businessman dealing with economic realities; that my motives are pure, but I'm imputing immoral racial hostility to my customers.
Whether you believe your customers to be nursing racial hostility, or ignorant, or simply more comfortable with others like themselves, is beside the point.
When we talk about the motive or intent of an action, we mean what's in the mind of the person committing the action. What situation are you trying to bring about - intent - and why - motive.
quote:
An example of non-racist racial discrimination would be not hiring a white man to play Martin Luther King in a biopic, or not hiring a black man to play King George III. Having actors look like the people they are portraying is a reasonable reason for using the physical appearance of an actor as a deciding factor.
I agree - resemblance is a relevant consideration.
And I note your usage, distinguishing between "racial discrimination" being a matter of fact and "racism" being a value judgment of wrongful discrimination on the basis of race. I'll try to adopt that usage.
So in the above example, not hiring a black candidate because he's black is racial discrimination.
And it's racism if you're wrong to do it. And you're wrong to do it if you act from your own feelings of animosity or hostility. Or if you breach his moral rights by so doing.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But why bother, since Russ is not really putting forward a reasoned position, but a collection of half-baked generalizations.
If this thread is solely about debating Russ, then it is a complete waste of time.
However, if anyone else reading learns something, then it is worth it.
For my money, the cogent responses to Russ' inconsistent Gish Waddle are completely worth the effort.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And it's racism if you're wrong to do it. And you're wrong to do it if you act from your own feelings of animosity or hostility. Or if you breach his moral rights by so doing.
Racism is not a synonym for hatred.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And it's racism if you're wrong to do it. And you're wrong to do it if you act from your own feelings of animosity or hostility. Or if you breach his moral rights by so doing.
Racism is not a synonym for hatred.
It is absolutely, most emphatically not. IMO, the article makes the the case with easy examples. There are others, though they are less comfortable to read.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
