tripu @tripu@social.cleverlibre.org
Technologist, Spaniard, male, 42
Joined May 2020
Where is the hard-on emoji? I can't find it.
> _“Looking at those #films in the list you provided could be enlightening. I started another thread specifically to comment on the films.”_
I saw that. It's great, thanks! (I only saw two or perhaps three of them, so I can't comment on those ten specifically.)
> _“If you care about racial injustice, you need to care about racial bias in media.”_
I care about injustice. There are injustices much, much bigger than the black/white gap in the US and that are treated very seldom or never at all in popular contemporary art. If we were to take the statistical critique of film to its final consequences, the vast majority of films we watch should portray the struggles of poor (or extremely poor) people from Nigeria or Bangladesh, or the miseries of being a woman or a homosexual in a theocracy, the terror of so many living under autarchies, millions of miserable deaths that go unnoticed, etc.
Do you care only about the US when criticising films made in Hollywood? I think that's not rational, but OK, let's see: in the US alone there is ageism and aspectism, too. Those forms of discrimination are pervasive (in film, too) and impact the lives of more people than blacks citizens live in the US. There is political correctness and social conformity. Too much ignorance and too little love for books and reason, an epidemic of obesity and diabetes, very poor nutrition, too many opioids, an oversized military, narcissism and invasion of privacy fuelled by tech giants…
Do you want me to give you biases in film, presumably with negative consequences in real life, that are much, much common than anti-black propaganda? In film, everybody is way more attractive than in real life; slimmer, younger, taller. Shouldn't we denounce that to prevent body issues, depression, anxiety, and suicide — especially among teenagers? In film, all houses are larger, brighter, prettier, better equipped. (I'd say larger rooms and sets make shooting much easier for the crew, but) isn't that distorting our own expectations? In film, there are way too many heroes, leaders, champions, and winners (isn't the vast majority of people neither of those?) In film, people speak very clearly, think very fast and act decisively; sex is glamorous (that distorts our expectations), fights are cool (ditto), nobody ever goes to the loo or cuts their finger with a piece of paper or spends one hour on the phone with the insurance company or leads an unremarkable life or needs assistance to walk up the stairs. Looking at real life stats, there are too few plumbers, street sweepers, pickpockets, truck drivers and ice-cream factory workers in movies. Too many athletic blokes and extremely feminine girls compared with real life. Way too many Americans, guns, mysteries, terrorists, protestant congregations, apple pies and school baseball games to reflect what the real world looks like.
How on Earth is film, or any other art, supposed to be realistic, balanced, representative?
We seem obsessed with racism affecting blacks, gay rights and trans issues. We see _those_ biases and transgressions everywhere. A few comfortable topics monopolise the discussion. People complain about racist bias in a film in which _the countries of the world, all speaking English and in harmony, end up defeating the alien invasion with an atomic laser under the leadership of a sex-symbol and the help of the caricature of a scientist, plus the sex-symbol happens to find true love in the process_. A film in which nothing even _tries_ to map real life. Yet the lack of black characters with enough lines is undoubtedly racist, and outrage. I find that perplexing.
> _“Film and TV are main drivers that perpetuate racial bias against black people in society.”_
As I said, I think art does three things with the status quo: reflect it, reinforce it, subvert it.
I am not saying that there aren't racist (and xenophobic, sexist, aspectist…) films, songs, books… But I also see a great deal of art with a very progressive agenda; more and more every day — that's my impression. That's why I'm sceptical of your “pessimistic” view. You can't diagnose Hollywood by looking at its worse output _only_.
> _“Regarding bias against white people, I have just one question: Would you rather be a black person in the US or a white person? There’s your answer.”_
How is that relevant? Don't tell me you are one of those people who think bias and discrimination only exist (or only count) when the recipients of prejudice are, on average, worse off than the “offenders”…
Let me use your same argument: in the US today, you would rather be a Jew, a Mormon, a Chinese, a Cuban exile, a Nigerian, an Indian, a Lebanese-American or an Iranian — rather than a WASP. Because all those groups, on average, clearly outperform white Christians Anglo-Saxons — in educational attainment, social status and earnings. Does that mean that bias, prejudice, racism/xenophobia, discrimination against those groups is not such, or that it “does not count”? Of course it is, and of course it counts! Why would prejudice against whites, or men, or Christians, be any different?
/cc @bonifartius @freemo
(Answering the rest of your message from a few days ago; sorry, I've been busy :)
> _“…or in a position of authority or dominance over a character played by a white person. If a black actor plays a boss, it typically is a ‘mean boss’ or one who is in opposition to the protagonist.”_
I don't know about this. I have no idea what's the ratio “mean black boss of a white character” vs “nice black boss of a white character” in Hollywood films. I'm surprised that you think you have a large enough sample to measure that, that you have an estimation for that ratio, and that you feel the ratio is unjust or indicative of racism (!). I haven't watched _that many_ films for sure (nor do I keep so many tallies in my head about so many possible combinations of race, role, screen time, lines spoken, etc).
I really want to see studies about all this. Otherwise the debate is hunches vs intuitions.
> _“Or black people are rappers, janitors, criminals, slaves, soldiers, boxers, cops, etc.”_
Seriously: is it any wonder that in film, the percentage of blacks among characters of slaves and rappers is higher than 13% (the approximate percentage of blacks in the US population)? In that case, surely the fact that the vast majority of slave owner characters are white is indicative of anti-white prejudice, right? I mean, at most 73% of slave owners should be white (and don't forget, of every ten fictional slave owners, one should be Mexican!).
Again: there are _just so many legit reasons_ why representation and primacy of races, genders, sexual orientation, age, etc. in fiction may not be evenly distributed, and not even representative of the real world.
> _“What about a film that excludes black people entirely? Is that bias?”_
It doesn't have to! The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation of racism — not on the artist.
Why is it that hard to imagine that in certain occupations some genders/races/ages/religions are more represented than others, and that those people and the projects and companies they create tend to focus slightly more (or even much more) on _their_ stories, subcultures, interests and tastes?
Do gay comic artists portray mostly straight characters, or do they have a special interest (and the right) to focus on people like them?
Do female writers put male protagonists in 50% of their novels? Why should they?
Aren't there too many intellectuals, too many rich people, and too many Jews in Woody Allen films? Is that classist? Is that anti-Semitic because he indulges in stereotypes about Jews and makes fun of them? Or is that anti-gentile because non-Jews are unfairly under-represented in his films? Or… is it possible that is just what the guy knows best and enjoys doing, and what his audience prefers and expects?
> _“It’s complicated.”_
It is, sometimes. I'm just saying: don't try to make it more complicated than it needs be.
/cc @bonifartius @freemo
tripu
boosted
A worrying thread that warns about China preparing for war with the US. Balaji says China would likely win a short war, and an internal US conflict would follow.
RT @balajis@twitter.com
Just saw The Battle at Lake Changjin. Through-the-looking-glass experience, where the good guys are the plucky underdog Chinese and the bad guys are the powerful Americans.
It’s the #1 movie in the world, and seemingly meant to prepare for conflict. https://youtu.be/1aHDj84CcsY
tripu
boosted
i wish i could recompile my brain this time proving the --with-happyness and --enable-ignorance flags
tripu
boosted
“Decoupling HTML, CSS, and JavaScript in design systems - Go Make Things” https://gomakethings.com/decoupling-html-css-and-javascript-in-design-systems/
> _“I'd love to conduct an actual research study of this sort, with proper controls and methodology. […] If I could get funding for a study, I'd do it, really.”_
OK, we'll have to shelve our little experiment, then. I'd love to see such a study, too. (Honestly, I would be surprised if it's not been done already; but I don't have the time to research that…)
> _“‘Racist’ is a charged word. ‘Biased’ is probably more objective.”_
Exactly. That's a good point. Now we're converging, I think.
One of my issues is that in your toots you seemed too quick to see racism where there might be other kinds of benign, or innocuous, bias. There are lots of ways in which lots of things can be “biased”, but only some of those biases are motivated by racial hatred. Causes and motivations matter a lot.
> _“After I presented my evidence, the response could be, ‘I don't think that's bias’, then we're back where we started.”_
I don't care about biases per se in art (I _do_ care very much about biases in public policy and in science, though.)
So my response to you would almost never be “I don't think that's bias”, but perhaps “how _exactly_ is that bias caused by racism, and not by a number of other explanations?”, or “if you think that biased representation is caused by racial animosity, how do you explain this _other_ bias in the _same_ piece of art or by the _same_ artist/company, which goes in the _opposite_ direction? wouldn't that be a _denunciation_ of racism? shouldn't they ‘cancel’ each other?”.
> _“Do the things I mentioned constitute bias in your opinion? […] Rarely is a black person cast for a leading character who is, for example a Wall Street banker…”_
Tell me first: what is the percentage of blacks among Wall Street bankers? And most likely there aren't enough Hollywood films with a Wall Street banker protagonist to constitute a large enough sample. But if there are, and we find that, say, out of 25 recent such films, only in one the guy is black, and in another one he's of Asian descent… so what? What is the minimum number of cinematic black Wall Street bankers to tick the box? And how could we answer that question without taking into account the real world (of Wall Street banking, in this case)?
I'm not being frivolous. How many Hollywood “hackers” are older than 35? My hunch is: very few. Is that ageism? Or rather a reflection of the real world (of computer geniuses)? Perhaps the real world _is_ ageist, insofar as it admires and comments on very young hacker disproportionately over their older peers. But **an artist who decides to more or less reflect an uneven reality is not necessarily endorsing nor promoting that unevenness**.
In how many 21st-century Hollywood films the serial killer is not white? I can't think of one right now. Is that anti-white hatred? Just a coincidence? Is it an accurate reflection of the demographics of psychopathy and violent behaviour in the US? Imagine a scriptwriter working right now on a thriller about a hideous black serial killer who is chased and killed by a white investigator: is it conceivable that that scriptwriter is feeling a certain unease about presenting their work to the world in 2021?
What percentage of film villains are female? Not the “cute” kind (Cruella de Vil) or the “cool” kind (a Bond villain), but the truly vicious type (Hannibal Lecter, Max Cady, Anton Chigurh)? Is it 50%, thus reflecting the distribution of male/female population? If not: does it match the percentage of female murderers? If not: is that a bad thing?
(I'll continue answering your toot on a separate response…)
/cc @bonifartius @freemo
@freemo I love bad word puns myself, actually 👍
tripu
boosted
10 random films of the 2010s: I found [this raking of 100 popular films of the decade](https://www.imdb.com/list/ls021078225/?st_dt=&mode=simple&page=1&ref_=ttls_vw_smp&sort=alpha,asc) (surely biased, but apparently it got lots of votes, and 100 is a large enough sample to smooth out some noise), sorted it alphabetically (ie, quite randomly), and then picket the 10 right at the middle of the list (ie from no. 46 to no. 55).
> “_I don’t think I have [watched ≥10 Hollywood films released in 2020]. […] Did they even produce 10 films during the pandemic?_”
Coming from someone who “watches a lot of films”, I'm surprised by the question. Of course they did, both _produce_ and _release_: [2019](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2019/), [2020](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2020/), [2021 YTD](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2021/).
> “_At this particular instant films may not be following the trend. However, if you picked 25 random films released during this century (20xx), I could find bias in 20 of them._”
One could almost say you're trying to duck out 😉 But OK, let's adapt the challenge: here goes your (reasonably random) selection of 10 Hollywood films of the 2010s (see image; methodology on a separate response).
How exactly are ≥8 of them “racist”?
> “_I’m not sure I understand what [conceding that, in principle, nobody above twenty should need trigger warnings, etc] has to do with Prof. Sheng needing to contextualize his film that had blackface in it._”
It was a theoretical attempt of mine to compromise to move the conversation forward. I just wondered if we could agree to keep being that protective with young people (not that I like it) and in exchange agree to drop all that hypersensitive nonsense for _adults_.
Like, let's concede Sheng should have warned students in advance. All right. Can we at least forget about trigger warnings, taboo words, and images or words counting as “violence” when dealing with people aged 21+?
> “_In the US [the majority of the population today discriminates against blacks more than they unconsciously discriminate against other subsets of people]. Very much so. Prime example is in the selection of mates. Black/white interracial marriages are rare in the US._”
Of course they are. Not surprising at all. Stats say ~1/8 of US adult population is black. Let's make the most generous assumptions: everyone's married, and _all blacks are married to whites_ (ie, all blacks and whites are racist in that _they always prefer a mate of the other race_). In this (very favourable) scenario, still only ~1/4 of all marriages in the US would be black+white. And again, this is a _very distorted_ model.
But much more is wrong about using interracial marriage as a measure here:
> “_Think of all the RomComs out there. How many depict black/white leads? A random pairing of couples would yield many, many more. Even a random sampling of couples in the US would yield more._”
Marriage is _not_ a random pairing of two adults, by any stretch of the imagination. If there's nothing wrong with Americans of German descent being more likely to marry other German-Americans, or heavy metal fans marrying disproportionately other heavy metal fans, how is it surprising or problematic across any other demographical divide one could think of?
Even if actual interracial marriage doesn't match mathematical probability, how do you know that is not caused _also_ by _blacks_ not wanting to marry whites?
> “_So, yes, a majority of the population in the US does discriminate and segregate into black churches and white churches, white neighborhoods and black neighborhoods, etc, etc, etc. But Hollywood films are even much worse than the general population when comes to bias. They perpetuate it._”
How is whites going to church with mostly other whites any different than Italian Americans going to church with mostly other Italian Americans, or fifty-somethings going to live music events with mostly other fifty-somethings, or PhDs inviting to their BBQ mostly to other highly educated people, or Korean Americans living mostly close to other Korean Americans, or…?
That's the hyper-sensitivity I was alluding to. #Race triggers emotions and conclusions that aren't justified rationally, and that takes us to very strange and divisive places.
/cc @freemo
https://qoto.org/@Pat/107122564291693893
@Pat: again, we agree about a lot 👏
Commenting on a few points of yours:
> _“I know that most actors self-identify as ‘progressive’, whatever that means, but the above-the-line producers, directors, editors who decide what the final product looks like – those guys are putting out racist content.”_
I meant those people, yes: actors, directors, producers and scriptwriters. Especially the celebrity types.
> _“I watch a lot films, and 8 out of 10 Hollywood films have racist content.”_
Since you watch a lot of films, I'll assume you've watched at least ten Hollywood films released in 2020. Among those, there should be (at least) eight films with “racist content”, according to you. **Would you care listing eight 2020 Hollywood films plus a succint description of the racist content in each?**
> _“As I said, college is supposed to teach those critical reasoning skills, so kids can learn to put those things into context themselves. But they come into college from a wide range of experiences.”_
OK, I _could_ concede that **seventeen-year-olds** _might_ need those warnings and explanations. Let's assume some of them may be that immature or simply inexperienced.
Would you then concede that, in principle, _nobody_ **above twenty** should need trigger warnings, advisories about “graphic” or “explicit” content, edited or softened versions of books/films/photographs/paintings, etc?
> _“People of color are still portrayed stereotypically in a lot of Hollywood films.”_
I'd generalise with this variant of your own sentence, to summarise my position: _“people ~~of color~~ are still portrayed stereotypically in a lot of ~~Hollywood films~~ places.”_
#Stereotypes, as useful heuristics and for humour, are everywhere, and that is not always a bad thing. People like me (software engineers, Spaniards, forty-somethings, introverts) are portrayed stereotypically _all the time_ — as are native Americans, poets, paraplegics, lesbians, counterfeiters, libertarians, participants in eating contests, CEO's, Mormons, British pensioners, and chemistry students.
This fixation with (against) stereotypes about very narrow subsets of the population, simply because those subsets endured very specific miserable situations at particular places and at particular times, is inconsistent, distracting, and exhausting. The majority of the population today does not discriminate against blacks any more than they unconsciously discriminate against British pensioners, Mormons, or introverts. But this atmosphere of denunciation, extreme sensitivity, and _guilty-unless-proven-innocent_ makes us all fearful, suspicious, less creative and free, and much less fun.
Let's combat #racism, and all other forms of meaningful discrimination, where they occur. But only there.
/cc @bonifartius
> _“I'm not surprised that Hollywood was tone-deaf to that criticism. Judging by the subliminally racist films that come out of Hollywood (even now well into the 21st century), those filmmakers are much more racist than the rest of society.”_
You must be joking. Do you really think that #Hollywood is “much more racist than the rest of society”?
On the contrary: the film industry as a whole is very progressive. [Just one article about that.](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/top-hollywood-execs-give-99-percent-political-donations-democrats-midterms-1151392/)
> _“I said, ‘...blackface in almost any context is inappropriate today...’. There are some very narrow cases where it is appropriate.”_
You are right: you left open the possibility of someone painting their face in black and that being an innocuous act, and I should have acknowledged that. Sorry.
(We differ about there being “very narrow cases” when it's innocuous. I'd like to think that innocuous make-up is the default presumption, and getting upset when there is evidence of racist implications only.)
> _“You cannot assume what kids know and what they don't, especially today with all these information silos. A freshman college student may not know about blackface or the civil rights movement at all.”_
This is patronising and exaggerated. Again: surveys show that college students are, as a whole, very progressive in their mindset. It's not like you have to tell them about slavery, racism, homophobia, or climate change: those concerns are fortunately front page and trending topic each and every day in 2021.
As I said before: if you feel one should warn college students about derogatory depictions of black people in art, be prepared to warn them every day about so much more, and worse, in the literary canon, in old paintings, in popular culture, etc — not to mention popular contemporary fiction (TV, films, comics) depicting verbal abuse, cruelty, violence, murder, and war _all the time_. Why do we feel compelled to give trigger warnings before showing a white actor impersonating a fictional black character (even if that impersonation is itself derogatory), but not before discussing a chapter of The Iliad (which may well be sadistic, xenophobic, abusive, misogynistic)? We are not consistent, because if we were, we'd spend half the time putting everything in (today's) context. Fortunately most people are mature enough to do that for themselves.
> _“Yes, context matters. And not just the context of presentation, but the historical context. Historically, blackface was used to deny black people acting jobs and to represent them in a derogatory, stereotypical manner. The use of blackface today happens within the backdrop of that historical context. This is why it is so different than painting a face in some other colors.”_
“Historically, blackface was used…” That's they key. Historically it was used for other purposes. Today people can (should) use it if they please without those connotations.
tripu
boosted
@Pat @bonifartius @tripu
> "The students should have confronted him directly and respectfully and discussed the issue."
That doesn't virtue signal enough, and it is all about "Look at me/us, we struck down on this....", not about educating, debating or strengthening our consensus.
@Pat @bonifartius It seems we do not disagree that much, that's great. Let me answer to just a couple sentences of yours:
> _“The practice of using #blackface perpetuates #racism whether or not the people doing it understand that it’s wrong.”_
I don't think so. This is too simplistic (and the source of so much unnecessary confrontation). Non-blacks can admire, and want to emulate, black figures. A white person may be cast sometimes to portray a black character (for a number of legit reasons). There's Halloween, historical recreations, sketches, comedy, parody. Context matters. Painting your face in black (or in white, yellow, brown) to more closely resemble some historical figure, fiction character, etc may be as innocuous as wearing a hat, high heels, a doublet, a wig, fake breasts, lipstick, etc.
How does a ten-year-old in love with Michael Jordan or Whitney Houston, who does all s/he can to emulate his/her idol, including hair and make-up, at a family party, school play or street parade, “perpetuate racism”. On the contrary!
> _“You can never see into somebody’s brain to know for sure if they are consciously racist or just slow at becoming ‘#woke’.”_
It's the very wide chasm in between that's overlooked. **There's _a lot_ in between “racist” and “woke”!** That's where the majority of decent people sit, in fact.
Please let's all let that sink in, and share the thought with others.
tripu
boosted
bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
I already knew of **doctors who smoke**.
The other day I learnt that a neighbour of mine, a **mathematician** by training (working in IT now), **plays the #lottery regularly** (weekly, plus special dates).
🤦♂️
Technologist, Spaniard, male, 42
Joined May 2020
