@cswood said:

I'm convinced the people who make this stuff don't actually talk to black people before they make these things. Some of us don't see ourselves as perpetual slaves or oppressed victims. But I guess that's how Hollywood sees black people. I will be surprised if this lasts more than 1 season.

boo hoo you cant handle social commentary if it means it makes white people uncomfortable.

@barnacles14 said:

boo hoo you cant handle social commentary if it means it makes white people uncomfortable.

"If it makes white people uncomfortable"? The goal should be to entertain. As a black person I have had it with nearly every story coming out of Hollywood featuring a black character being about their race. It's inherently racist and divisive.

In the 80s and 90s there were plenty of movies and shows that featured people of all groups working together to defeat a common enemy, now it's about white vs non-white man vs woman hetero vs non-hetero etc and I'm sick of it. And given this show and others like it routinely get cancelled I'm not the only one who thinks so.

You can tell a good story with social commentary as long as that commentary serves the story and not the other way around.

@cswood said:

@barnacles14 said:

boo hoo you cant handle social commentary if it means it makes white people uncomfortable.

"If it makes white people uncomfortable"? The goal should be to entertain.

That's your view. Artists and creative people are quite capable of determining for themselves what their goals are.

You can tell a good story with social commentary as long as that commentary serves the story and not the other way around.

Again, you can't dictate how creative people write and tell stories. You can like, or not like, the stories they tell, that's up to you, but I fan think of plenty of stories that were written to serve up commentary and were done well...some were done so well most people fail to correctly interpret through the allegory and symbolism to the commentary (not enough of the audiences are literarily adept).

boo hoo you cant handle social commentary if it means it makes white people uncomfortable.

"Social commentary".

There's good social commentary, then there's blatant and repeated browbeating from the filmmakers trying to shove their very specific ideology down our throats. Classic "Star Trek" and the subsequent shows (until recently) were social commentary. "Babylon 5" was social commentary. "Alien Nation", "Dawn of the Dead", and "The Expanse" are social commentaries. This wasn't. It was the filmmakers getting up on their platforms and lecturing us, and yes, we are tired of it.

I don't mind stories about slavery, Jim Crowe, the genocide of the Native Americans, or the other evils of the US from time to time. Those films have been made, and respected. This constant onslaught of heavy-handed lecturing, and the constant hijacking of other stories in order to inject pure ideology is tiring, and counterproductive. It's not moving, or enlightening. It's us watching a giant circlejerk between idealogues trying to prove to each other how "stunning, and brave", they are.

Enough.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

That's your view. Artists and creative people are quite capable of determining for themselves what their goals are.

That's true. And as a paying customer I can tell them how creatively bankrupt those artists are. "Racism is bad" is not going to make a shitty product taste better.

I've talked to some of my white acquaintances and of course they don't see a problem with it because from their perspective they're being "educated" by these type of products whereas I don't see them as accurate enough for education. They're just wearing the social commentary as a shield against an otherwise bad story and characters and as a way to push other messages.

It's funny how we rarely if ever see a strong confident heterosexual black man in a marriage or positive relationship with a black woman without that man turning out to be bad, weak, or evil in some way. That's because these same people who preach about equality and black lives matter don't actually care about portraying positive family home situations with black fathers. It's usually single mothers where the dad is just not existent or he was an abusive asshole.

This was one of my biggest beefs with Lovecraft Country, because the dad was an abuse prick who of course is secretly gay (nothing wrong with him being gay, but lgbt supersedes positive black father figure), and the uncle character cheated on his wife with his brother's wife, so despite being a seemingly good father was unfaithful and then is killed.

And then they show our main character shooting unarmed prisoners in war (which also trying to get us to sympathize with communists during that same episode). So, no, I do not respect these "artists" and will continue to poop all over failed virtue signaling projects like this.

Again, you can't dictate how creative people write and tell stories.

Of course I can. And I did. That's why it was cancelled. Not enough people were interested in it, because the story wasn't engaging enough. I admit there were a few aspects I did enjoy (the two dancing monster girls), but overall it was crap because it put its "message" first instead of telling an engaging story.

@cswood said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

That's your view. Artists and creative people are quite capable of determining for themselves what their goals are.

That's true. And as a paying customer I can tell them how creatively bankrupt those artists are. "Racism is bad" is not going to make a shitty product taste better.

I've talked to some of my white acquaintances and of course they don't see a problem with it because from their perspective they're being "educated" by these type of products whereas I don't see them as accurate enough for education. They're just wearing the social commentary as a shield against an otherwise bad story and characters and as a way to push other messages.

It's funny how we rarely if ever see a strong confident heterosexual black man in a marriage or positive relationship with a black woman without that man turning out to be bad, weak, or evil in some way. That's because these same people who preach about equality and black lives matter don't actually care about portraying positive family home situations with black fathers. It's usually single mothers where the dad is just not existent or he was an abusive asshole.

This was one of my biggest beefs with Lovecraft Country, because the dad was an abuse prick who of course is secretly gay (nothing wrong with him being gay, but lgbt supersedes positive black father figure), and the uncle character cheated on his wife with his brother's wife, so despite being a seemingly good father was unfaithful and then is killed.

And then they show our main character shooting unarmed prisoners in war (which also trying to get us to sympathize with communists during that same episode). So, no, I do not respect these "artists" and will continue to poop all over failed virtue signaling projects like this.

Again, you can't dictate how creative people write and tell stories.

Of course I can. And I did. That's why it was cancelled. Not enough people were interested in it, because the story wasn't engaging enough. I admit there were a few aspects I did enjoy (the two dancing monster girls), but overall it was crap because it put its "message" first instead of telling an engaging story.

This is one of those discussions in which I have little investment because I've never watched the movie/show. I let myself get dragged into the discussion based on the provocative overarching title but, without any real familiarity with the show, I don't have much of an informed opinion worth contributing to the discussion.

Cheers.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

This is one of those discussions in which I have little investment because I've never watched the movie/show.

Well that explains a lot.

@cswood said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

This is one of those discussions in which I have little investment because I've never watched the movie/show.

Well that explains a lot.

Aren't you the one who wrote that everything Jordan Peele has done since Get Out is "mediocre at best"? I think that explains a lot more.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Aren't you the one who wrote that everything Jordan Peele has done since Get Out is "mediocre at best"? I think that explains a lot more.

But everything he's done has been mediocre though. Us wasn't the worst thing ever but was very uneven and split the audience, and I haven't seen Nope but I hear mostly mixed things about it. Much of the stuff he's produced has been nothing special. And I've been clamoring for more black filmmakers to make more black horror/thriller films, and I'm glad Get Out has spurred an increase in those films, but we still are not getting any bangers on the level of The Ring or The Conjuring or Insidious.

Much like Spike Lee in the 90s, Jordan Peele is probably the one black director who could get a movie greenlit tomorrow based just on his name and he is choosing to put out less than great movies. I fear he has gotten high on his hype.

@Tsavo said:

OK, I was waiting for this and it's the main reason why I ignored the thread for so long. In my opinion, that is not racism, it's merely discrimination. I hope not to get into a back-and-forth with you about that.

I am not afraid to get into a back and forth. Any discrimination based on race is racism. No poor pseudo-intellectual attempts to re-define the term so that your rhetoric appears less racist than it is will ever change that. (Please note that when I say "you", I am not referring to you personally, but rather to those who have been attempting to change the definition.

Tsavo, uh, what on Earth made you think I was "afraid to get into a back and forth?" Frankly, I find these types of discussions to be a fantastic waste of time, that's all.

As for the rest of your post, I wonder if you could EVER openly admit to yourself right here that anyone can put something into a dictionary--thus creating your "definition."

@CelluloidFan said:

I've had it.

I'm not going to bother addressing each individual comment because you clearly misread my comments either on purpose or through ignorance and you would just react emotionally to them anyway, everything I said comes from age and experience as a black person living in a black area for most of my life, as well as trading stories with other people in my family/friend group and observing online shaming tactics used against black people.

Black people have been and still are shamed for "not being black enough". Hell, I was an english major and repeatedly got talked down to for "talking white" because I didn't "sound black". There's an ongoing joke that if you grew up with your dad then "you're not really black" because only 1 out of 9 black kids are raised with their fathers and we never even attempt to fix it.

I've seen dark skinned women insult, fight, or ruin the reputation of light skinned black women who were perceived to be more attractive, and many of those light skinned blacks were the ones trying harder than most to "be black" to prove themselves. And any black person dating out is still highly frowned upon, especially among the men; black women usually take it as a direct personal insult.

It's self hate. Always was, always have been. Not saying it's every single one, but there has always been a crabs in a bucket mentality in our community that we have to let ourselves be boiled alive by the culture rather than to fight against it. So say what you want, I really don't care at this point, you'll be talking to dead air. But I won't stop pointing these things out where I see them because far too many black people are afraid to point out our flaws and would rather suffer in silence rather than challenge the culture.

It’s fine but in reality, I was mostly using your words as a springboard to discuss some ideas that have me pissed off. If you weren’t subtly talking down to me in the words I quoted, that’s great. Thanks for touching on the horrors that folks like me go through just for being born this way, in your post.

@CelluloidFan said:

@Tsavo said:

OK, I was waiting for this and it's the main reason why I ignored the thread for so long. In my opinion, that is not racism, it's merely discrimination. I hope not to get into a back-and-forth with you about that.

I am not afraid to get into a back and forth. Any discrimination based on race is racism. No poor pseudo-intellectual attempts to re-define the term so that your rhetoric appears less racist than it is will ever change that. (Please note that when I say "you", I am not referring to you personally, but rather to those who have been attempting to change the definition.

Tsavo, uh, what on Earth made you think I was "afraid to get into a back and forth?" Frankly, I find these types of discussions to be a fantastic waste of time, that's all.

As for the rest of your post, I wonder if you could EVER openly admit to yourself right here that anyone can put something into a dictionary--thus creating your "definition."

I never said you were afraid, only that I was not. You should be careful with assumptions.

As to your second point, incorrect. Not just "anyone" can put something into a dictionary. Sure, they can edit wikipedia articles, make their own definitions, and push them out there, but in the end they generally have to become cultrally accepted and embraced in order for it to gain any real foothold. Sometimes bad ideas and sloppy definitions break through, but generally not. Ideological re-interpretation of terms for political advantage usually ends up in the latter.

@Tsavo said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@Tsavo said:

OK, I was waiting for this and it's the main reason why I ignored the thread for so long. In my opinion, that is not racism, it's merely discrimination. I hope not to get into a back-and-forth with you about that.

I am not afraid to get into a back and forth. Any discrimination based on race is racism. No poor pseudo-intellectual attempts to re-define the term so that your rhetoric appears less racist than it is will ever change that. (Please note that when I say "you", I am not referring to you personally, but rather to those who have been attempting to change the definition.

Tsavo, uh, what on Earth made you think I was "afraid to get into a back and forth?" Frankly, I find these types of discussions to be a fantastic waste of time, that's all.

As for the rest of your post, I wonder if you could EVER openly admit to yourself right here that anyone can put something into a dictionary--thus creating your "definition."

I never said you were afraid, only that I was not. You should be careful with assumptions.

As to your second point, incorrect. Not just "anyone" can put something into a dictionary. Sure, they can edit wikipedia articles, make their own definitions, and push them out there, but in the end they generally have to become cultrally accepted and embraced in order for it to gain any real foothold. Sometimes bad ideas and sloppy definitions break through, but generally not. Ideological re-interpretation of terms for political advantage usually ends up in the latter.

OK. So, clue me in then: Who does it -- the owner(s) of the dictionary?

@CelluloidFan said:

@Tsavo said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@Tsavo said:

OK, I was waiting for this and it's the main reason why I ignored the thread for so long. In my opinion, that is not racism, it's merely discrimination. I hope not to get into a back-and-forth with you about that.

I am not afraid to get into a back and forth. Any discrimination based on race is racism. No poor pseudo-intellectual attempts to re-define the term so that your rhetoric appears less racist than it is will ever change that. (Please note that when I say "you", I am not referring to you personally, but rather to those who have been attempting to change the definition.

Tsavo, uh, what on Earth made you think I was "afraid to get into a back and forth?" Frankly, I find these types of discussions to be a fantastic waste of time, that's all.

As for the rest of your post, I wonder if you could EVER openly admit to yourself right here that anyone can put something into a dictionary--thus creating your "definition."

I never said you were afraid, only that I was not. You should be careful with assumptions.

As to your second point, incorrect. Not just "anyone" can put something into a dictionary. Sure, they can edit wikipedia articles, make their own definitions, and push them out there, but in the end they generally have to become cultrally accepted and embraced in order for it to gain any real foothold. Sometimes bad ideas and sloppy definitions break through, but generally not. Ideological re-interpretation of terms for political advantage usually ends up in the latter.

OK. So, clue me in then: Who does it -- the owner(s) of the dictionary?

When a redefinition becomes generally accepted and used by society, it eventually finds its way into the dictionary. That's the way it's always worked until now.