No, I get it. It’s been repeated ad nauseum for decades at this point, so it’s hard to miss.
“The monolith of white characters in media is problematic, sure, but don’t change any of them. That would be ‘wrong’ and ‘ruin’ them for all the white people that like them the way they are. Make your own characters and keep them separate. That way nothing gets ruined, yeah?”
Or, in short:
“Diversity is OK, but only if it doesn’t touch ‘my’ media.”
Look I don’t exactly care myself, so you’re not arguing with me. But I see what people are saying and like it or not they have a point, and the backlash that’s happening is not exactly unpredictable. You don’t make a whole lot of allies by saying “I refuse to understand your point of view and you’re wrong for thinking it”
I do understand it and they are wrong. They don’t “have a point”. They just don’t like the idea of not being the defacto archetype and lash out at anything suggesting change, pretending to offer “reasonable” alternatives as if that’s not just perpetuating the same problems. Like I said, it isn’t anything new.
Then you need to alter your approach, because calling people wrong for liking their characters isn’t going to win people over to our side, it’s going to annoy them and push them away. You need to have at least some understanding and empathy for the way they think, because you’re making a lot of assumptions about them not liking the default.
After all, I’m a pretty strong ally, and as I mentioned I don’t have a big stake in the ground here, but even I was put off by your statement, and if I can, then I definitely understand why so many others are annoyed with us.
From their point of view, you have the liberal left who is very quick to demonize and tell people they are lashing out and label them, or you have the comforting right who smooths that all over and says “no we don’t think you’re wrong, come on over”. Then they of course get worse because their negative sides are reinforced.
Think about how you present these ideas to others. Understand that they have other opinions, and what you think they may be thinking may not actually be what they’re thinking.
I’ve thought plenty on how I “present to others”. Maybe go lecture them on how they present while they’re defending systemic racism and sexism. Or worry about your own look, jumping to their defense. I have no interest in coddling anyone that finds it “annoying” to see someone pointing out basic issues. If the past 100 years (hell, the past 20 years) have proved anything, it’s that constant compromise to not offend quote-unquote “centrists” (lest we “push them” into the arms of racists and bigots) only leads to validation of and shifting to the values of those racists and bigots. If being faced with their own prejudices and problems “forced” them to become hateful, then that’s what they were always going to end up as. That’s on them, not anyone else. And being an apologists for them won’t lead to any progress, only regression.
I think you missed the point. On both of our comments.
No, I get it. It’s been repeated ad nauseum for decades at this point, so it’s hard to miss.
“The monolith of white characters in media is problematic, sure, but don’t change any of them. That would be ‘wrong’ and ‘ruin’ them for all the white people that like them the way they are. Make your own characters and keep them separate. That way nothing gets ruined, yeah?”
Or, in short:
“Diversity is OK, but only if it doesn’t touch ‘my’ media.”
Look I don’t exactly care myself, so you’re not arguing with me. But I see what people are saying and like it or not they have a point, and the backlash that’s happening is not exactly unpredictable. You don’t make a whole lot of allies by saying “I refuse to understand your point of view and you’re wrong for thinking it”
I do understand it and they are wrong. They don’t “have a point”. They just don’t like the idea of not being the defacto archetype and lash out at anything suggesting change, pretending to offer “reasonable” alternatives as if that’s not just perpetuating the same problems. Like I said, it isn’t anything new.
Then you need to alter your approach, because calling people wrong for liking their characters isn’t going to win people over to our side, it’s going to annoy them and push them away. You need to have at least some understanding and empathy for the way they think, because you’re making a lot of assumptions about them not liking the default.
After all, I’m a pretty strong ally, and as I mentioned I don’t have a big stake in the ground here, but even I was put off by your statement, and if I can, then I definitely understand why so many others are annoyed with us.
From their point of view, you have the liberal left who is very quick to demonize and tell people they are lashing out and label them, or you have the comforting right who smooths that all over and says “no we don’t think you’re wrong, come on over”. Then they of course get worse because their negative sides are reinforced.
Think about how you present these ideas to others. Understand that they have other opinions, and what you think they may be thinking may not actually be what they’re thinking.
I’ve thought plenty on how I “present to others”. Maybe go lecture them on how they present while they’re defending systemic racism and sexism. Or worry about your own look, jumping to their defense. I have no interest in coddling anyone that finds it “annoying” to see someone pointing out basic issues. If the past 100 years (hell, the past 20 years) have proved anything, it’s that constant compromise to not offend quote-unquote “centrists” (lest we “push them” into the arms of racists and bigots) only leads to validation of and shifting to the values of those racists and bigots. If being faced with their own prejudices and problems “forced” them to become hateful, then that’s what they were always going to end up as. That’s on them, not anyone else. And being an apologists for them won’t lead to any progress, only regression.
sigh