Has political correctness actually gone mad?

Weird how the police made a beeline for the person in question instead of those having a go. You’d hope it was just to pull them out of there?
 
Ian Reus said:
"There are no black people on Game of Thrones’
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...-thrones-why-is-fantasy-tv-so-white?CMP=fb_gu

Although there definitely is.
Click to expand...

Written by someone who clearly understands the difference between fantastical and far fetched.

There are non-white characters where you would expect (you know, in port cities and in countries with hotter climates). It's a medieval fantasy set in a similar place to europe where travel is done with difficulty (so only with reason), of course people from far off lands aren't common there. It's a non sequitur to point at something that is fantastical but within the 'rules of the world' in argument to that.
 
GiddyUp said:
Haha, where can I donate. People who are regularly discriminated against have a right to protection under the law but being an ignorant dick, or conservative, since this is a PC thread, is not one of them. They are basically looking for people who call them out over their stupid or bigoted opinion to be prosecuted. fecking snowflakes, more balls on my hippy mother in law then any of these assholes.
Well to them I say this, I think conservatism is a mental illness and I think it should be treated the way most Americans with a mental illness are treated, in the county jail.
Click to expand...

How is conservatism a mental illness? And why do you assume they have bigoted views. That's a huge generalisation and seems pretty baseless to me.

I fall left of centre generally before you start assuming my motives here.
 
Drainy said:
Written by someone who clearly understands the difference between fantastical and far fetched.

There are non-white characters where you would expect (you know, in port cities and in countries with hotter climates). It's a medieval fantasy set in a similar place to europe where travel is done with difficulty (so only with reason), of course people from far off lands aren't common there. It's a non sequitur to point at something that is fantastical but within the 'rules of the world' in argument to that.
Click to expand...

Your post reminded me of something recently. I know someone who has written and released a relatively successful fantasy book. He's writing the second now but his publisher has basically told him to edit out all the parts about black slaves and a whole country drawing heavy influences from Indian culture, incase it offends anyone who might not like how its been handled.
 
DouLou said:
Your post reminded me of something recently. I know someone who has written and released a relatively successful fantasy book. He's writing the second now but his publisher has basically told him to edit out all the parts about black slaves and a whole country drawing heavy influences from Indian culture, incase it offends anyone who might not like how its been handled.
Click to expand...
I may be mistaking you for another poster, but are you the guy that bangs on about reverse racism and how slavery wasn't so bad? If so.... I'd suggest your mate listen to his publisher, and not you.

Edit. It was Dumbat, not you. I'm shit with names...

Anyway, wrt the publisher. I'm not surprised they want to avoid things that may end up affecting the bottom line. It's entirely possible that your colleagues portrayal of slavery or Indian culture was problematic. Have you read it?
 
Last edited:
Ian Reus said:
"There are no black people on Game of Thrones’
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...-thrones-why-is-fantasy-tv-so-white?CMP=fb_gu

Although there definitely is.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the showrunners are necessarily responsible for most of the criticisms - they're largely adapting the content that's been given to them from the books, have actually expanded one or two smaller roles portrayed by black actors, and any clumsiness has probably come more from poor writing and the fact that they're largely streamlining what they're adapting as opposed to out of any malice. Similarly I don't think GRRM is necessarily malicious at all but there is an argument some of the content in the books perhaps draws on some harmful/unfair stereotypes, with a lot of the Eastern characters there largely as props for the more central white characters to work their way around. Although maybe that would be a harsh critique, I dunno.
 
Cheesy said:
I'm not sure the showrunners are necessarily responsible for most of the criticisms - they're largely adapting the content that's been given to them from the books, have actually expanded one or two smaller roles portrayed by black actors, and any clumsiness has probably come more from poor writing and the fact that they're largely streamlining what they're adapting as opposed to out of any malice. Similarly I don't think GRRM is necessarily malicious at all but there is an argument some of the content in the books perhaps draws on some harmful/unfair stereotypes, with a lot of the Eastern characters there largely as props for the more central white characters to work their way around. Although maybe that would be a harsh critique, I dunno.
Click to expand...

A lot of these eastern groups weren't meant to be as widely represented by black people. The Dothraki were meant to be a mix of everything for instance. The slaves were meant to be of every and any race. But they shot most of the scenes in Morocco and a lot of the extras that showed up were black .... so, it creates images that in hindsight don't look great but being practical its hard to hold against the show runners.
Fantasy has a lot of tropes associated with the King Arthur Legends or Tolkien or maybe stretching out to Norse / Greek Mythology. It doesn't do a great job of having a wide representation and they should stretch out. But criticising a series started 30 years ago for an adaption made 10 years ago for a lack of mutliculturalism and judging it by todays standards seems pretty unfair (it'd probably be above average in that regard most generations wouldn't it?).
 
afrocentricity said:
I may be mistaking you for another poster, but are you the guy that bangs on about reverse racism and how slavery wasn't so bad? If so.... I'd suggest your mate listen to his publisher, and not you.

Edit. It was Dumbat, not you. I'm shit with names...

Anyway, wrt the publisher. I'm not surprised they want to avoid things that may end up affecting the bottom line. It's entirely possible that your colleagues portrayal of slavery or Indian culture was problematic. Have you read it?
Click to expand...

The implication wasn't that the content itself was bad, just it shouldn't be coming from someone who isn't Black or Indian. I'm not surprised either that they want to avoid controversy, I just despise that this is where we are right now.
 
This political correctness movement is just a religion for young people. Religion in the Western world was destroyed in the late 2000s and early 2010s when YouTube blew up. This PC movement will also be destroyed by the internet, because like religious people, SJWs can't actually defend their ideas in a debate with logic, so they rely on censorship.

The nice thing about the internet is that in the end, the truth always prevails.
 
Infordin said:
This political correctness movement
Click to expand...
hmm...
is just a religion for young people.
Click to expand...
sounds doubtful...
Religion in the Western world was destroyed in the late 2000s and early 2010s when YouTube blew up.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's quite right...
This PC movement will also be destroyed by the internet,
Click to expand...
not sure about that...
because like religious people, SJWs can't actually defend their ideas in a debate with logic, so they rely on censorship.
Click to expand...
super sketchy...
The nice thing about the internet is that in the end, the truth always prevails.
Click to expand...
oh you were joking.
 
dumbo said:
oh you were joking.
Click to expand...
If you have a free market of uncensored discussion, in the end the truth will win.

That’s why religious groups and SJWs rely so much on censorship. They are not capable of defending their world view rationally on an equal platform.

When SJWs do try to defend their pov, more often than not they are humiliated.
 
Infordin said:
If you have a free market of uncensored discussion, in the end the truth will win.

That’s why religious groups and SJWs rely so much on censorship. They are not capable of defending their world view rationally on an equal platform.

When SJWs do try to defend their pov, more often than not they are humiliated.
Click to expand...
You sound like a nice, rational, empathetic type of guy.

'SJW' is essentially this decade's 'do-gooder'. Damn those thoughtful bastards!
 
It is pretty incredible that anyone could look around the internet at the moment and conclude that in the end the truth prevails.

Maybe the truth will win, in the end. But the evidence right now is pointing in the opposite direction and things are getting worse all the time with video editing technology. In a few years time its likely to be pretty much impossible to know for sure whether any video footage you ever see will be authentic or not. Censorship will be irrelevant when the truth is drowned out in a sea of misinformation.
 
Infordin said:
This political correctness movement is just a religion for young people. Religion in the Western world was destroyed in the late 2000s and early 2010s when YouTube blew up. This PC movement will also be destroyed by the internet, because like religious people, SJWs can't actually defend their ideas in a debate with logic, so they rely on censorship.

The nice thing about the internet is that in the end, the truth always prevails.
Click to expand...
Oh dear, we have an unironic amalgamation of everything braindead on the YouTube skeptic community. you may have forgotten to sprinkle in some cultural Marxism in there somewhere.
 
Adebesi said:
It is pretty incredible that anyone could look around the internet at the moment and conclude that in the end the truth prevails.

Maybe the truth will win, in the end. But the evidence right now is pointing in the opposite direction and things are getting worse all the time with video editing technology. In a few years time its likely to be pretty much impossible to know for sure whether any video footage you ever see will be authentic or not. Censorship will be irrelevant when the truth is drowned out in a sea of misinformation.
Click to expand...

Which is the main reason why we need quality journalism again. I won't say they are infallible and not prone to some bias but it's still a way better if you have people who can actually check materiel and sources on their Wahrheitsgehalt ("truth value" - I don't think there is an English word for that).

If on the other hand people just start getting all of their information from people sharing rumors on Facebook and twitter... well let's say we are fecked.
 
niMic said:
Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read on the Caf.
Click to expand...

It's the idea if you only have enough rational arguments people will stop believing but that in my experience never works. I'm more inclined to follow Noah Harari's viewpoint that religions die out because they become irrelevant and can't offer any satisfactory guidance for people on how to live their life in this modern world. With topics like AI and Gene editing becoming more and more relevant in the future.
 
So Netflix killed terrestrial television.
Amazon killed the High Street.
Facebook and Google both killed democracy and news. (They were both caught standing over its bloody, mangled corpse, but nobody is sure who dealt the fatal blow.)
YouTube killed religion.

Damn these internet disruptors, is nothing sacred?
 
2 man midfield said:
Weird how the police made a beeline for the person in question instead of those having a go. You’d hope it was just to pull them out of there?
Click to expand...
The article addresses that. They “moved her to safety” but called her “monsieur” (like calling her sir) and told her “not to dress like that”
 
Cheesy said:
I'm not sure the showrunners are necessarily responsible for most of the criticisms - they're largely adapting the content that's been given to them from the books, have actually expanded one or two smaller roles portrayed by black actors, and any clumsiness has probably come more from poor writing and the fact that they're largely streamlining what they're adapting as opposed to out of any malice. Similarly I don't think GRRM is necessarily malicious at all but there is an argument some of the content in the books perhaps draws on some harmful/unfair stereotypes, with a lot of the Eastern characters there largely as props for the more central white characters to work their way around. Although maybe that would be a harsh critique, I dunno.
Click to expand...

Any criticism of this nature applies far more to Lord of the Rings and Tolkien than Martin.
 
Adebesi said:
It is pretty incredible that anyone could look around the internet at the moment and conclude that in the end the truth prevails.

Maybe the truth will win, in the end. But the evidence right now is pointing in the opposite direction and things are getting worse all the time with video editing technology. In a few years time its likely to be pretty much impossible to know for sure whether any video footage you ever see will be authentic or not. Censorship will be irrelevant when the truth is drowned out in a sea of misinformation.
Click to expand...

As a lover of conspiracy stuff it definitely doesn't prevail. The slew of long debunked sandy hook stuff I see attests to that. And any long standing conspiracy buffs who call it out for the absolute shit it is get called shills or accused of being paid off by various factions.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Any criticism of this nature applies far more to Lord of the Rings and Tolkien than Martin.
Click to expand...
The entire fantasy fiction genre is profoundly problematic, the more you think about it, considering it draws heavily from underpinnings of identitarianism, racial derogation via religiosity (where values like kindness and humanitarianism were largely reserved for in-group adherents), Victorian anthropology and related hierarchies, missionization of the evil and barbaric and swarthy “others,” et cetera — from Lewis to Tolkien at the head of the queue (slight caveat of them being bound by their time and socioeconomic class), and even someone enlightened and modern like Rowling (who disingenuously and aggressively positions herself as a retroactive champion of groups that are marginzalized in the mainstream).
 
Infordin said:
If you have a free market of uncensored discussion, in the end the truth will win.

That’s why religious groups and SJWs rely so much on censorship. They are not capable of defending their world view rationally on an equal platform.

When SJWs do try to defend their pov, more often than not they are humiliated.
Click to expand...
This might be the single worst post in the history of Red Cafe.
Are you sure they're not just humiliated because they're having to defend their point of view to the type of people who use the term SJW?
 
SJW. What is using that term meant to achieve? When you envoke it what point are you trying to get across?
 
afrocentricity said:
SJW. What is using that term meant to achieve? When you envoke it what point are you trying to get across?
Click to expand...
What kind of a twat would fight for something as absurd as social justice?

I mean, justice? Fairness? A fair society? Someone who fights with the intention of bringing about fairness in society?

I would be utterly embarrassed to have my name associated with something like that.
 
Invictus said:
The entire fantasy fiction genre is profoundly problematic, the more you think about it, considering it draws heavily from underpinnings of identitarianism, racial derogation via religiosity (where values like kindness and humanitarianism were largely reserved for in-group adherents), Victorian anthropology and related hierarchies, missionization of the evil and barbaric and swarthy “others,” et cetera — from Lewis to Tolkien at the head of the queue (slight caveat of them being bound by their time and socioeconomic class), and even someone enlightened and modern like Rowling (who disingenuously and aggressively positions herself as a retroactive champion of groups that are marginzalized in the mainstream).
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with all this. I just found it odd that that article targeted Game of Thrones when Martin has probably been more inclusive about basing cultures on non-European sources than most of the entire genre (and certainly far more than the other biggest authors).
 
Invictus said:
The entire fantasy fiction genre is profoundly problematic, the more you think about it, considering it draws heavily from underpinnings of identitarianism, racial derogation via religiosity (where values like kindness and humanitarianism were largely reserved for in-group adherents), Victorian anthropology and related hierarchies, missionization of the evil and barbaric and swarthy “others,” et cetera — from Lewis to Tolkien at the head of the queue (slight caveat of them being bound by their time and socioeconomic class), and even someone enlightened and modern like Rowling (who disingenuously and aggressively positions herself as a retroactive champion of groups that are marginzalized in the mainstream).
Click to expand...

Depends what purpose the author used the setting for. If it is glorifying events, perhaps it's a problem, while using it to explore ideas about humanity and other mature philosophical points is perfectly artistically valid.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Yeah I agree with all this. I just found it odd that that article targeted Game of Thrones when Martin has probably been more inclusive about basing cultures on non-European sources than most of the entire genre (and certainly far more than the other biggest authors).
Click to expand...
Yep, some of the singling out is definitely unfair — Martin has done a slightly better job than some of the others (the bar was very low). However, you do get a sense that his inflexibility and tone deafness in terms of relentlessly drawing parallels between the real-fictional worlds to justify his writing (despite having no issues with integrating any number of fantastical beasts that definitely didn't exist in the former) whilst initially facing broader criticism served to exacerbate the issue. Then again, he shouldn't be held responsible for representation in his canon, especially if it feels forced and doesn't happen in an organic way.

Um, on a somewhat unrelated note, Avatar: The Last Airbender (a cartoon) did a great job of seamlessly drawing from a myriad cultures and weaving disparate concepts into a coherent storyline. You have Inuit and Native and Aboriginal tribes (all of these groups are rarely represented in any form of media, let alone in a complex light where they aren't mere props), militaries based on Imperial Japan, people and traditions that are definitely inspired by Tibetian and Chinese and Indian and Mongolian and Arabic and Vietnamese and Persian cultures — without making it overwhelmingly central to their identity in a or maladroit way, or perpetuating insidious stereotypes (like Rowling sanctioning a submissive Asian woman as a caricatured guise for Nagini). Too bad all of the flavor and whimsy of Avatar was undone in the insipid Hollywood movie!
 
But Avatar is a GOAT animated show. It sets a high bar. Dragon Prince is currently scratching that ich for me and mine.
 
NoLogo said:
It's the idea if you only have enough rational arguments people will stop believing but that in my experience never works. I'm more inclined to follow Noah Harari's viewpoint that religions die out because they become irrelevant and can't offer any satisfactory guidance for people on how to live their life in this modern world. With topics like AI and Gene editing becoming more and more relevant in the future.
Click to expand...
Religion hasn’t been relevant in a long time, but it wasn’t until YouTube blew up that they really lost. Religion relies on brainwashing people, and you cannot brainwash people if everyone is connected.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...y-countries-especially-in-the-u-s-and-europe/

Anyway, remember how a decade ago, almost everyone believed that the wage gap was a real thing? Nowadays there is so much information on the internet to debunk this 77 cents to the dollar theory. Only clueless fools believe in that feminist propaganda now.
 
it's true, youtube is also why my entire town is building a shrine to planet X and our alien overlords, the rest of you who don't spend all day watching mumblers on early youtube won't be saved when the cataclysm comes
 
Last edited:
Infordin said:
Religion hasn’t been relevant in a long time, but it wasn’t until YouTube blew up that they really lost. Religion relies on brainwashing people, and you cannot brainwash people if everyone is connected.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...y-countries-especially-in-the-u-s-and-europe/

Anyway, remember how a decade ago, almost everyone believed that the wage gap was a real thing? Nowadays there is so much information on the internet to debunk this 77 cents to the dollar theory. Only clueless fools believe in that feminist propaganda now.
Click to expand...
Don't you mean feminazis? Oh, and ***** of course. fecking feminist propaganda indeed. Also, religious belief is globally on the increase disappointingly.
The only thing the internet has enabled is the collective gestalt international consciousness of misogynists to talk absolute crap about a movement thats literal purpose is equality between the sexes.
Remember how a decade ago almost everyone believed that there was a general progressive trend in society towards equality and fairness in the West before that illusion was shattered by the prevalence of the types of bullshit views that you express?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.