Alabama passes bill making some transgender healthcare a felony

[Saint Frankenstein]

As dumb and lazy a form of pandering as making Ariel black is, it's way more offensive when they make actual historical figures something totally different, like having a black woman play a historical Viking jarl or a black Anne Boleyn.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As dumb and lazy a form of pandering as making Ariel black is, it's way more offensive when they make actual historical figures something totally different, like having a black woman play a historical Viking jarl or a black Anne Boleyn.

Man I wish we had more conversations about not pretending Disney is some bastion of progressivism because they do little things like this or a female character line-up, and that the wokism of corporate greed and pandering is taking away from actual projects with nuance.

Much more interesting discussion than 'how dare they make that character black/gay/hispanic/a migrant'.

 

[fantome profane]

As dumb and lazy a form of pandering as making Ariel black is, it's way more offensive when they make actual historical figures something totally different, like having a black woman play a historical Viking jarl or a black Anne Boleyn.

Should we discuss Pocahontas?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Should we discuss Pocahontas?

I don't know much about that (I haven't seen that movie since I was a child), but it's wrong regardless of who it is done to.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't know much about that (I haven't seen that movie since I was a child), but it's wrong regardless of who it is done to.

I was really only kidding, I don’t really want to get into a discussion about another Disney movie. But very briefly Pocahontas was a child and John Smith was an old man. Disney changed that to make another cliché “princess” finding her “prince” movie.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I was really only kidding, I don’t really want to get into a discussion about another Disney movie. But very briefly Pocahontas was a child and John Smith was an old man. Disney changed that to make another cliché “princess” finding her “prince” movie.

Wow, that's pretty gross and creepy. But that's pedo Disney for you.

 

[fantome profane]

Good. Let’s go recast a new black panther remake then with a white guy.

They already made that movie. It was called Tarzan.

The white guy who became king of the African Jungle.

Or how about the white guy who became The Last Samurai?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And we can be that storyteller.

Yeah. In my story Ariel is slab of sushi.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They already made that movie. It was called Tarzan.

The white guy who became king of the African Jungle.

Or how about the white guy who became The Last Samurai?

That post made me realize I don't think I have ever actually read or watched any version of Tarzan.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Disney should have made a new character then, not race swapped an iconic one.

It is a fake character. It literally does not matter. You have to let this stuff bother you.
And if it's not your project you have no business or right telling the artists what they should and shouldn't do. It is their art and you clearly aren't the target audience.

 

[Reyn]

It is a fake character. It literally does not matter. You have to let this stuff bother you.
And if it's not your project you have no business or right telling the artists what they should and shouldn't do. It is their art and you clearly aren't the target audience.

Good. So how about that Black Panther remake with a white guy? That’s fine, right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As dumb and lazy a form of pandering as making Ariel black is, it's way more offensive when they make actual historical figures something totally different, like having a black woman play a historical Viking jarl or a black Anne Boleyn.

Yeah. I find it mildly irritating that it's pretty obvious they are doing it just to pat themselves on the back for jumping on the bandwagon, doing it so frequently and so much it doesn't even seem sincere but more of a fad, like they care about casting minorities and women for the wrong reasons rather than doing it where it makes sense. Like a female Pinhead, despite there being female Cinobites and Pinhead not even being in the book and the character being a priest of Hell. So why not just have something happen to Pinhead and have a priestess of Hell for his successor?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Good. So how about that Black Panther remake with a white guy? That’s fine, right?

I said I don't care. It's a different portrayal of the character, not fundamentally changing an established portrayal.

 

[SomeRandom]

Gingers are a minority but that didn't stop Disney from blackwashing Ariel, did it? Anyways, back to the topic. I'm against trans women being considered women because it's erasing womanhood itself. It's also erasing lesbians, since what even is a lesbian now? It's a woman who isn't attracted to a man and by default, who isn't into dick. However, I've heard mentally ill men who are deluded into thinking they are women say that lesbians who don't want to go out with them because they have a penis are transphobic. They aren't and I'm sick of this.

In literary circles Ariel is thought to be a metaphorical self insert for the author’s unrequited homosexual feelings towards another man. Fun fact.
Hans Christian Andersen was a known homosexual (possibly bi) man who extensively wrote about suffering (because he was Catholic) and about his own desires. For which he was shamed for by his society.
Also black folks can have ginger hair. Don’t know if you know that, but it’s a known phenomenon. Indeed in the trailer Miss Bailey seems to have ginger hair. Just saying. Facepalm material much?
If Ariel doesn’t turn into sea foam by the end, it’s already not being true to the original source material.
So I ask, does the white version in Disney’s animated version do that???
Because if not they’re not being true to the author’s original vision. Just saying

Also shes a goddamned mythical fish. Who cares what colour she is? She literally changes species in both the original tale and the Disney adaptation. Come on now. Ffs!!
Way to miss the obvious moral of a children’s film

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In literary circles Ariel is thought to be a metaphorical self insert for the author’s unrequited homosexual feelings towards another man. Fun fact.
Hans Christian Andersen was a known homosexual (possibly bi) man who extensively wrote about suffering (because he was Catholic) and about his own desires. For which he was shamed for by his society.
Also black folks can have ginger hair. Don’t know if you know that, but it’s a known phenomenon. Indeed in the trailer Miss Bailey seems to have ginger hair. Just saying. Facepalm material much?
If Ariel doesn’t turn into sea foam by the end, it’s already not being true to the original source material.
So I ask, does the white version in Disney’s animated version do that???
Because if not they’re not being true to the author’s original vision. Just saying

Also shes a goddamned mythical fish. Who cares what colour she is? She literally changes species in both the original tale and the Disney adaptation. Come on now. Ffs!!
Way to miss the obvious moral of a children’s film

Maybe it's here and there differences, but I've always been told gingers are red haired and fair skinned (and also getting more vitamin D from sun exposure because we can't safely be in it like those with more pigmented skin).

 

[SomeRandom]

Maybe it's here and there differences, but I've always been told gingers are red haired and fair skinned (and also getting more vitamin D from sun exposure because we can't safely be in it like those with more pigmented skin).

Whilst that may be true. Don’t underestimate humanity’s propensity towards diversity. People possessing ginger hair are not always white.
Can Black People Have Red Hair? Facts and Misconceptions

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, suddenly this is all about The Little Mermaid remake... Cool.

See, what irritates me about this debate is that the arguments from one side are utterly disingenuous. For some reason, people want to act like "thing bad" is entirely down to "thing" itself. For example "changing a traditionally black character to being white is bad, therefore changing a traditionally white character to being black is equally bad." It acts as if the very act of altering the race of a character ITSELF is the bad thing, when this has almost literally never been the case.

Is it really that revelatory to these people that something happening in one way can be bad while the same thing happening another way isn't? Is that seriously a level of nuance that is beyond some people's brains?

See, I have never once heard the argument from the left that "all changes in characters races is bad". That's not a thing I have ever heard, so how can it be a double standard to accept one form of racial change over another. What I HAVE heard, and what I never see the other side address, are the actual specific REASONS why one is justified and the other is not. It's not bad BECAUSE changing a fictional character's race is somehow intrinsically bad; it's a result of context and intent.

I know that there are people in this world who don't understand this extremely basic idea when applied to this situation, so let us apply it in another.

1) Killing a person is bad.
2) Patrick killed someone for fun.
3) Joseph killed someone in self defense.
4) Since killing is bad, both Patrick and Joseph are equally bad and did an equally bad thing.

I doubt anyone would agree with the above. So why would anyone capable of thinking about something for more than three seconds use THE EXACT SAME LOGIC when applied to characters changing race in popular media.

This really is not that complicated, guys. Try harder.

 

[Aštra’el]

So, suddenly this is all about The Little Mermaid remake... Cool.

See, what irritates me about this debate is that the arguments from one side are utterly disingenuous. For some reason, people want to act like "thing bad" is entirely down to "thing" itself. For example "changing a traditionally black character to being white is bad, therefore changing a traditionally white character to being black is equally bad." It acts as if the very act of altering the race of a character ITSELF is the bad thing, when this has almost literally never been the case.

Is it really that revelatory to these people that something happening in one way can be bad while the same thing happening another way isn't? Is that seriously a level of nuance that is beyond some people's brains?

See, I have never once heard the argument from the left that "all changes in characters races is bad". That's not a thing I have ever heard, so how can it be a double standard to accept one form of racial change over another. What I HAVE heard, and what I never see the other side address, are the actual specific REASONS why one is justified and the other is not. It's not bad BECAUSE changing a fictional character's race is somehow intrinsically bad; it's a result of context and intent.

I know that there are people in this world who don't understand this extremely basic idea when applied like this situation, so let us apply it in another.

1) Killing a person is bad.
2) Patrick killed someone for fun.
3) Joseph killed someone in self defense.
4) Since killing is bad, both Patrick and Joseph are equally bad and did an equally bad thing.

I doubt anyone would agree with the above. So why would anyone capable of thinking about something for more than three seconds use THE EXACT SAME LOGIC when applied to characters changing race in popular media.

This really is not that complicated, guys. Try harder.

Not being a hypocrite is also not that complicated.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not being a hypocrite is also not that complicated.

I see. Like those hypocrites who think killing someone for fun is bad, but killing someone in self defense isn't.

Read my post before responding in future.

 

[Aštra’el]

I see. Like those hypocrites who think killing someone for fun is bad, but killing someone is self defense isn't.

Read my post before responding in future.

You mean those who understand the difference between committing murder, which is a felony, and taking someone’s life in self defense, which is legal.

What a sad argument.