Well then I guess I'm also anti-short people, because I totally pictured the kid who messed with mines as being taller than he was.
And anti-not-super-beefy people, because in my mind Cato was probably 50 pounds more muscle than in the movie.
And probably a few other things. Like anti-green skin, 'cause that hairdresser was supposed to have much greener skin than she did!
And a different color of blue hair for the announcer guy. Wasn't what I pictured for some reason.
The fact that these differed from my expectations (which was just in my imagination, and doesn't make the movie worse because of it), does not show that I have faults in my character.
Drez, you've got two different thoughts. One, that the people tweeting about it are racists, which is reasonable (and I agree). Two, that everyone who was surprised or shocked is racist.
That's just silly. People have an idea of how things should look, and when it doesn't match up, that's not wrong to be surprised. Nor is it wrong for people to assume that Rue is white if they skipped the line or whatever (which happens). People naturally more easily recognize that which they are surrounded with. It's why babies raised without any contact from people of other races react very differently when confronted with someone with a different race. It's why white people often visualize anime characters as white. Not because they are racist (although bordering on ignorant if they think that Japanese people intentionally draw them as white), but just because when the details are left to your imagination, you automatically fill it in with what makes sense based on your environment.
"People have an idea of how things should look, and when it doesn't match up, that's not wrong to be surprised."
That's exactly what's wrong - that people have an idea of "how things should look".
What you are defending is an attitude where it's okay for people to think people should look white.
How is that not the crux of racism?
Unless you think it's literally a biological reflex to assume that unsubscribed people share the same racial characteristics as you (which I don't believe), then really this is not a good defense that surprise/shock doesn't equal racism.
No, but it is a normal reflex to picture unsubscribed people, things and events in ways that are familiar to you personally.
I mean this has been said several times now. And I'm not really sure how that statement, in itself, can be disagreed with -- is that not everyone's experience?
Hell, I pictured President Snow as Major Monogram from Phineas & Ferb for a long time because I was watching a lot of P&F around the time I read the Hunger Games, and all I took the time to remember from Snow's description was "white hair, authority figure".
Physical appearance is not something I give a lot of fucks about, though.
Define "normal" in this context. You seem to consider certain complex behavioral reactions to be "normal" and I'd like to know what you are basing that on.
For bonus points, please explain why something being "normal" makes it right, which is what you seem to imply.
I don't disagree that, at least, mild surprise is an action that will be shared by perhaps even a majority of viewers. I would say that qualifies as a "normal" reaction. But that doesn't mean it's a morally justified reaction, and it doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't work against it.
I think it is detrimental to a cohesive, unbiased society for people to be constantly "surprised" when what a character turns out to be subverts their racially-motivated expectations. It may be "normal" for that to happen, but so what? Lots of shit is "normal" that we shouldn't do.
Well then I guess I'm also anti-short people, because I totally pictured the kid who messed with mines as being taller than he was.
And anti-not-super-beefy people, because in my mind Cato was probably 50 pounds more muscle than in the movie.
And probably a few other things. Like anti-green skin, 'cause that hairdresser was supposed to have much greener skin than she did!
And a different color of blue hair for the announcer guy. Wasn't what I pictured for some reason.
The fact that these differed from my expectations (which was just in my imagination, and doesn't make the movie worse because of it), does not show that I have faults in my character.
So, you think you have no faults in your character?
That's kind of funny.
edit: I'm not trying to be personal here. We all have faults. I'm not calling you a monster. I'm trying to explain that this is a mindset that society would be better off without. It's a fault. It's a fault shared by almost everyone, but it's still a fault, and it's something we shouldn't just chuckle at and say "oh well I'm just being normal." Extending beyond mild surprise, you have the quite clearly racist tweets as shared by the Jezebel article. One leads to the other, I think that is obvious. I'm glad you didn't leap on twitter to denounce the filmmakers, but I think the patterns of thought are just gradients in the same line.
Drez, you've got two different thoughts. One, that the people tweeting about it are racists, which is reasonable (and I agree). Two, that everyone who was surprised or shocked is racist.
That's just silly. People have an idea of how things should look, and when it doesn't match up, that's not wrong to be surprised. Nor is it wrong for people to assume that Rue is white if they skipped the line or whatever (which happens). People naturally more easily recognize that which they are surrounded with. It's why babies raised without any contact from people of other races react very differently when confronted with someone with a different race. It's why white people often visualize anime characters as white. Not because they are racist (although bordering on ignorant if they think that Japanese people intentionally draw them as white), but just because when the details are left to your imagination, you automatically fill it in with what makes sense based on your environment.
"People have an idea of how things should look, and when it doesn't match up, that's not wrong to be surprised."
That's exactly what's wrong - that people have an idea of "how things should look".
What you are defending is an attitude where it's okay for people to think people should look white.
How is that not the crux of racism?
Unless you think it's literally a biological reflex to assume that unsubscribed people share the same racial characteristics as you (which I don't believe), then really this is not a good defense that surprise/shock doesn't equal racism.
No, but it is a normal reflex to picture unsubscribed people, things and events in ways that are familiar to you personally.
I mean this has been said several times now. And I'm not really sure how that statement, in itself, can be disagreed with -- is that not everyone's experience?
Hell, I pictured President Snow as Major Monogram from Phineas & Ferb for a long time because I was watching a lot of P&F around the time I read the Hunger Games, and all I took the time to remember from Snow's description was "white hair, authority figure".
Physical appearance is not something I give a lot of fucks about, though.
Define "normal" in this context. You seem to consider certain complex behavioral reactions to be "normal" and I'd like to know what you are basing that on.
For bonus points, please explain why something being "normal" makes it right, which is what you seem to imply.
I don't disagree that, at least, mild surprise is an action that will be shared by perhaps even a majority of viewers. I would say that qualifies as a "normal" reaction. But that doesn't mean it's a morally justified reaction, and it doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't work against it.
I think it is detrimental to a cohesive, unbiased society for people to be constantly "surprised" when what a character turns out to be subverts their racially-motivated expectations. It may be "normal" for that to happen, but so what? Lots of shit is "normal" that we shouldn't do.
Except the expectations weren't racially-motivated for a lot of folks, just inattention-motivated. Your brain fills in details you don't actively notice -- this is, like, half of the brain's job. If you don't notice skin color, your brain's gonna go "ok what skin color is the first I see -- OK there's a black person that character was black -- now, moving on".
This is a biological function of the brain. You're not going to change that -- and gods help us if you ever do.
Well then I guess I'm also anti-short people, because I totally pictured the kid who messed with mines as being taller than he was.
And anti-not-super-beefy people, because in my mind Cato was probably 50 pounds more muscle than in the movie.
And probably a few other things. Like anti-green skin, 'cause that hairdresser was supposed to have much greener skin than she did!
And a different color of blue hair for the announcer guy. Wasn't what I pictured for some reason.
The fact that these differed from my expectations (which was just in my imagination, and doesn't make the movie worse because of it), does not show that I have faults in my character.
So, you think you have no faults in your character?
That's kind of funny.
Errr. That's not what I meant to say, and not what I think I said, but I can see how it would be interpreted that way.
Those things are not indicative of character faults. Does that make more sense? (Honestly asking)
Well then I guess I'm also anti-short people, because I totally pictured the kid who messed with mines as being taller than he was.
And anti-not-super-beefy people, because in my mind Cato was probably 50 pounds more muscle than in the movie.
And probably a few other things. Like anti-green skin, 'cause that hairdresser was supposed to have much greener skin than she did!
And a different color of blue hair for the announcer guy. Wasn't what I pictured for some reason.
The fact that these differed from my expectations (which was just in my imagination, and doesn't make the movie worse because of it), does not show that I have faults in my character.
So, you think you have no faults in your character?
That's kind of funny.
Errr. That's not what I meant to say, and not what I think I said, but I can see how it would be interpreted that way.
Those things are not indicative of character faults. Does that make more sense? (Honestly asking)
Yes, read my edit above. I was a bit too hasty in my reply - I know that's not actually what you were saying. What I meant was this: I consider it both "normal" and a fault, yes. You aren't being abnormal, and you aren't a monster, but you are feeding upon a subtle bias that pervades modern society. Rather than sweeping it under the rug because you are offended at the prospect of being swept into the same category as those assholes on twitter (or worse), why not just take a long, hard look at why you make these assumptions in the first place, and then decide from there whether these are good things or not? I doubt anyone here has done this. A lot of people are just shrugging and saying "this is what people do," but I don't think that's good enough. I don't think being "normal" means you aren't at fault.
Well then I guess I'm also anti-short people, because I totally pictured the kid who messed with mines as being taller than he was.
And anti-not-super-beefy people, because in my mind Cato was probably 50 pounds more muscle than in the movie.
And probably a few other things. Like anti-green skin, 'cause that hairdresser was supposed to have much greener skin than she did!
And a different color of blue hair for the announcer guy. Wasn't what I pictured for some reason.
The fact that these differed from my expectations (which was just in my imagination, and doesn't make the movie worse because of it), does not show that I have faults in my character.
So, you think you have no faults in your character?
That's kind of funny.
Errr. That's not what I meant to say, and not what I think I said, but I can see how it would be interpreted that way.
Those things are not indicative of character faults. Does that make more sense? (Honestly asking)
Yes, read my edit above. I was a bit too hasty in my reply - I know that's not actually what you were saying. What I meant was this: I consider it both "normal" and a fault, yes. You aren't being abnormal, and you aren't a monster, but you are feeding upon a subtle bias that pervades modern society. Rather than sweeping it under the rug because you are offended at the prospect of being swept into the same category as those assholes on twitter (or worse), why not just take a long, hard look at why you make these assumptions in the first place, and then decide from there whether these are good things or not? I doubt anyone here has done this. A lot of people are just shrugging and saying "this is what people do," but I don't think that's good enough. I don't think being "normal" means you aren't at fault.
I'm honestly curious about my other assumptions, though, at the top of the page. It's obviously partially in jest, but the point is that I do the same thing with other qualities. Does that mean anything?
Also, it sounds a bit (particularly in your edit) that you are arguing the slippery slope. "No, what you are doing now isn't necessarily bad, but if it gets more extreme you can see where it leads!" That happens with everything.
Well then I guess I'm also anti-short people, because I totally pictured the kid who messed with mines as being taller than he was.
And anti-not-super-beefy people, because in my mind Cato was probably 50 pounds more muscle than in the movie.
And probably a few other things. Like anti-green skin, 'cause that hairdresser was supposed to have much greener skin than she did!
And a different color of blue hair for the announcer guy. Wasn't what I pictured for some reason.
The fact that these differed from my expectations (which was just in my imagination, and doesn't make the movie worse because of it), does not show that I have faults in my character.
So, you think you have no faults in your character?
That's kind of funny.
Errr. That's not what I meant to say, and not what I think I said, but I can see how it would be interpreted that way.
Those things are not indicative of character faults. Does that make more sense? (Honestly asking)
Yes, read my edit above. I was a bit too hasty in my reply - I know that's not actually what you were saying. What I meant was this: I consider it both "normal" and a fault, yes. You aren't being abnormal, and you aren't a monster, but you are feeding upon a subtle bias that pervades modern society. Rather than sweeping it under the rug because you are offended at the prospect of being swept into the same category as those assholes on twitter (or worse), why not just take a long, hard look at why you make these assumptions in the first place, and then decide from there whether these are good things or not? I doubt anyone here has done this. A lot of people are just shrugging and saying "this is what people do," but I don't think that's good enough. I don't think being "normal" means you aren't at fault.
Of course not, but this is literally a biological function of the brain: filling in details that you missed, and organizing new experiences in the context of the familiar.
race isn't really equivalent to literally anything that you listed in the least bit.
Why? I mean, not culturally why we treat it differently, that's obvious. But in the context of my personal experience, why does it matter what quality of the characters surprises me?
Well then I guess I'm also anti-short people, because I totally pictured the kid who messed with mines as being taller than he was.
And anti-not-super-beefy people, because in my mind Cato was probably 50 pounds more muscle than in the movie.
And probably a few other things. Like anti-green skin, 'cause that hairdresser was supposed to have much greener skin than she did!
And a different color of blue hair for the announcer guy. Wasn't what I pictured for some reason.
The fact that these differed from my expectations (which was just in my imagination, and doesn't make the movie worse because of it), does not show that I have faults in my character.
So, you think you have no faults in your character?
That's kind of funny.
Errr. That's not what I meant to say, and not what I think I said, but I can see how it would be interpreted that way.
Those things are not indicative of character faults. Does that make more sense? (Honestly asking)
Yes, read my edit above. I was a bit too hasty in my reply - I know that's not actually what you were saying. What I meant was this: I consider it both "normal" and a fault, yes. You aren't being abnormal, and you aren't a monster, but you are feeding upon a subtle bias that pervades modern society. Rather than sweeping it under the rug because you are offended at the prospect of being swept into the same category as those assholes on twitter (or worse), why not just take a long, hard look at why you make these assumptions in the first place, and then decide from there whether these are good things or not? I doubt anyone here has done this. A lot of people are just shrugging and saying "this is what people do," but I don't think that's good enough. I don't think being "normal" means you aren't at fault.
I'm honestly curious about my other assumptions, though, at the top of the page. It's obviously partially in jest, but the point is that I do the same thing with other qualities. Does that mean anything?
Also, it sounds a bit (particularly in your edit) that you are arguing the slippery slope. "No, what you are doing now isn't necessarily bad, but if it gets more extreme you can see where it leads!" That happens with everything.
I'm definitely not arguing a slippery slope.
I'm arguing that these are all gradients informed by the same racial biases that are ingrained in modern society. I'm saying that those biases have both a subtle and unsubtle impact on people's reactions. I'm not saying that you, personally, will slide from assuming a character is white to tweeting your shock at some point in the future. I'm saying that you and the twitter people are quite far from each other on the scale of racism, but that your perspective is still a biased one, albeit very low on the scale.
I'm suggesting that being very low on that scale, or "normal," or however else you want to put it isn't necessarily good and it's something you shouldn't hand wave away.
As for the other characteristics you were talking about, I think there's a very clear phenomenon in society where white, straight people assume fictional characters are also white, straight people. Skin color is something one notices immediately. This is different from the intricacies of someonie's build, such as height.
Yes. Yes they are. I don't think anybody is arguing that they aren't, although occasionally Drez reminds us that they are :P.
But the disagreement here is whether personally feeling any shock at the characters' appearances is wrong or not.
I started posting all this because SniperGuy was calling the Jezebel article "atrocious" and a few people were saying that the twits on twitter were not being racist. Though nobody in the recent past seems to have been arguing this.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
Well then I guess I'm also anti-short people, because I totally pictured the kid who messed with mines as being taller than he was.
And anti-not-super-beefy people, because in my mind Cato was probably 50 pounds more muscle than in the movie.
And probably a few other things. Like anti-green skin, 'cause that hairdresser was supposed to have much greener skin than she did!
And a different color of blue hair for the announcer guy. Wasn't what I pictured for some reason.
The fact that these differed from my expectations (which was just in my imagination, and doesn't make the movie worse because of it), does not show that I have faults in my character.
So, you think you have no faults in your character?
That's kind of funny.
Errr. That's not what I meant to say, and not what I think I said, but I can see how it would be interpreted that way.
Those things are not indicative of character faults. Does that make more sense? (Honestly asking)
Yes, read my edit above. I was a bit too hasty in my reply - I know that's not actually what you were saying. What I meant was this: I consider it both "normal" and a fault, yes. You aren't being abnormal, and you aren't a monster, but you are feeding upon a subtle bias that pervades modern society. Rather than sweeping it under the rug because you are offended at the prospect of being swept into the same category as those assholes on twitter (or worse), why not just take a long, hard look at why you make these assumptions in the first place, and then decide from there whether these are good things or not? I doubt anyone here has done this. A lot of people are just shrugging and saying "this is what people do," but I don't think that's good enough. I don't think being "normal" means you aren't at fault.
Of course not, but this is literally a biological function of the brain: filling in details that you missed, and organizing new experiences in the context of the familiar.
Okay, maybe I was misusing "biological function of the brain."
It may be, but it's also one that is conditioned, informed, and shaped by bias, and your schema can change. You don't come out of the womb assuming everyone is white.
race isn't really equivalent to literally anything that you listed in the least bit.
Why? I mean, not culturally why we treat it differently, that's obvious. But in the context of my personal experience, why does it matter what quality of the characters surprises me?
I don't understand what you're asking. also I imagine you're saying something like 'oh i imagined cinna to be white, but because i'm not a virulent racist this is not really impacting the movie for me'
whereas these people
are pretty upset because characters they like are black, and they pretty plainly don't like black people. I mean rue and thresh are clearly stated to be dark skinned, but a lot of this stems from people just imagining everyone to be similar to themselves, and not having the self possession to say 'oh that is mildly surprising and not at all a big deal'
rue and thresh and cinna are three of the most likable and honorable characters, and I'm guessing a lot of these tweets come from people who dont associate these qualities with black people
Well then I guess I'm also anti-short people, because I totally pictured the kid who messed with mines as being taller than he was.
And anti-not-super-beefy people, because in my mind Cato was probably 50 pounds more muscle than in the movie.
And probably a few other things. Like anti-green skin, 'cause that hairdresser was supposed to have much greener skin than she did!
And a different color of blue hair for the announcer guy. Wasn't what I pictured for some reason.
The fact that these differed from my expectations (which was just in my imagination, and doesn't make the movie worse because of it), does not show that I have faults in my character.
So, you think you have no faults in your character?
That's kind of funny.
Errr. That's not what I meant to say, and not what I think I said, but I can see how it would be interpreted that way.
Those things are not indicative of character faults. Does that make more sense? (Honestly asking)
Yes, read my edit above. I was a bit too hasty in my reply - I know that's not actually what you were saying. What I meant was this: I consider it both "normal" and a fault, yes. You aren't being abnormal, and you aren't a monster, but you are feeding upon a subtle bias that pervades modern society. Rather than sweeping it under the rug because you are offended at the prospect of being swept into the same category as those assholes on twitter (or worse), why not just take a long, hard look at why you make these assumptions in the first place, and then decide from there whether these are good things or not? I doubt anyone here has done this. A lot of people are just shrugging and saying "this is what people do," but I don't think that's good enough. I don't think being "normal" means you aren't at fault.
I'm honestly curious about my other assumptions, though, at the top of the page. It's obviously partially in jest, but the point is that I do the same thing with other qualities. Does that mean anything?
Also, it sounds a bit (particularly in your edit) that you are arguing the slippery slope. "No, what you are doing now isn't necessarily bad, but if it gets more extreme you can see where it leads!" That happens with everything.
I'm definitely not arguing a slippery slope.
I'm arguing that these are all gradients informed by the same racial biases that are ingrained in modern society. I'm saying that those biases have both a subtle and unsubtle impact on people's reactions. I'm not saying that you, personally, will slide from assuming a character is white to tweeting your shock at some point in the future. I'm saying that you and the twitter people are quite far from each other on the scale of racism, but that your perspective is still a biased one, albeit very low on the scale.
I'm suggesting that being very low on that scale, or "normal," or however else you want to put it isn't necessarily good and it's something you shouldn't hand wave away.
As for the other characteristics you were talking about, I think there's a very clear phenomenon in society where white, straight people assume fictional characters are also white, straight people. Skin color is something one notices immediately. This is different from the intricacies of someonie's build, such as height.
I pictured Katniss as Asian, actually. Does that un-racist me?
Anyways, again, you are right in that white people disproportionately visualize fictional characters as white. But you know, the same thing happens with other races. It's just how people are. But it's not wrong.
When I hear the name "Casey" I may instinctively assume it's a guy. Someone else may always assume it's a girl. Does that make both of us sexist?
Not only that, but most of those tweets are likely from young adults. I mean, I'm just basing that on a quick looksee of their photos but that's what it seems to be.
Well then I guess I'm also anti-short people, because I totally pictured the kid who messed with mines as being taller than he was.
And anti-not-super-beefy people, because in my mind Cato was probably 50 pounds more muscle than in the movie.
And probably a few other things. Like anti-green skin, 'cause that hairdresser was supposed to have much greener skin than she did!
And a different color of blue hair for the announcer guy. Wasn't what I pictured for some reason.
The fact that these differed from my expectations (which was just in my imagination, and doesn't make the movie worse because of it), does not show that I have faults in my character.
So, you think you have no faults in your character?
That's kind of funny.
Errr. That's not what I meant to say, and not what I think I said, but I can see how it would be interpreted that way.
Those things are not indicative of character faults. Does that make more sense? (Honestly asking)
Yes, read my edit above. I was a bit too hasty in my reply - I know that's not actually what you were saying. What I meant was this: I consider it both "normal" and a fault, yes. You aren't being abnormal, and you aren't a monster, but you are feeding upon a subtle bias that pervades modern society. Rather than sweeping it under the rug because you are offended at the prospect of being swept into the same category as those assholes on twitter (or worse), why not just take a long, hard look at why you make these assumptions in the first place, and then decide from there whether these are good things or not? I doubt anyone here has done this. A lot of people are just shrugging and saying "this is what people do," but I don't think that's good enough. I don't think being "normal" means you aren't at fault.
I'm honestly curious about my other assumptions, though, at the top of the page. It's obviously partially in jest, but the point is that I do the same thing with other qualities. Does that mean anything?
Also, it sounds a bit (particularly in your edit) that you are arguing the slippery slope. "No, what you are doing now isn't necessarily bad, but if it gets more extreme you can see where it leads!" That happens with everything.
I'm definitely not arguing a slippery slope.
I'm arguing that these are all gradients informed by the same racial biases that are ingrained in modern society. I'm saying that those biases have both a subtle and unsubtle impact on people's reactions. I'm not saying that you, personally, will slide from assuming a character is white to tweeting your shock at some point in the future. I'm saying that you and the twitter people are quite far from each other on the scale of racism, but that your perspective is still a biased one, albeit very low on the scale.
I'm suggesting that being very low on that scale, or "normal," or however else you want to put it isn't necessarily good and it's something you shouldn't hand wave away.
As for the other characteristics you were talking about, I think there's a very clear phenomenon in society where white, straight people assume fictional characters are also white, straight people. Skin color is something one notices immediately. This is different from the intricacies of someonie's build, such as height.
I pictured Katniss as Asian, actually. Does that un-racist me?
Anyways, again, you are right in that white people disproportionately visualize fictional characters as white. But you know, the same thing happens with other races. It's just how people are. But it's not wrong.
When I hear the name "Casey" I may instinctively assume it's a guy. Someone else may always assume it's a girl. Does that make both of us sexist?
the movie seemed to imply that he was killed by the dogs, as opposed to being killed by Cato for stealing his number #2 bag. dunno why they changed it, other than to make Cato look less villanious? Weird.
Well then I guess I'm also anti-short people, because I totally pictured the kid who messed with mines as being taller than he was.
And anti-not-super-beefy people, because in my mind Cato was probably 50 pounds more muscle than in the movie.
And probably a few other things. Like anti-green skin, 'cause that hairdresser was supposed to have much greener skin than she did!
And a different color of blue hair for the announcer guy. Wasn't what I pictured for some reason.
The fact that these differed from my expectations (which was just in my imagination, and doesn't make the movie worse because of it), does not show that I have faults in my character.
So, you think you have no faults in your character?
That's kind of funny.
Errr. That's not what I meant to say, and not what I think I said, but I can see how it would be interpreted that way.
Those things are not indicative of character faults. Does that make more sense? (Honestly asking)
Yes, read my edit above. I was a bit too hasty in my reply - I know that's not actually what you were saying. What I meant was this: I consider it both "normal" and a fault, yes. You aren't being abnormal, and you aren't a monster, but you are feeding upon a subtle bias that pervades modern society. Rather than sweeping it under the rug because you are offended at the prospect of being swept into the same category as those assholes on twitter (or worse), why not just take a long, hard look at why you make these assumptions in the first place, and then decide from there whether these are good things or not? I doubt anyone here has done this. A lot of people are just shrugging and saying "this is what people do," but I don't think that's good enough. I don't think being "normal" means you aren't at fault.
I'm honestly curious about my other assumptions, though, at the top of the page. It's obviously partially in jest, but the point is that I do the same thing with other qualities. Does that mean anything?
Also, it sounds a bit (particularly in your edit) that you are arguing the slippery slope. "No, what you are doing now isn't necessarily bad, but if it gets more extreme you can see where it leads!" That happens with everything.
I'm definitely not arguing a slippery slope.
I'm arguing that these are all gradients informed by the same racial biases that are ingrained in modern society. I'm saying that those biases have both a subtle and unsubtle impact on people's reactions. I'm not saying that you, personally, will slide from assuming a character is white to tweeting your shock at some point in the future. I'm saying that you and the twitter people are quite far from each other on the scale of racism, but that your perspective is still a biased one, albeit very low on the scale.
I'm suggesting that being very low on that scale, or "normal," or however else you want to put it isn't necessarily good and it's something you shouldn't hand wave away.
As for the other characteristics you were talking about, I think there's a very clear phenomenon in society where white, straight people assume fictional characters are also white, straight people. Skin color is something one notices immediately. This is different from the intricacies of someonie's build, such as height.
I pictured Katniss as Asian, actually. Does that un-racist me?
Anyways, again, you are right in that white people disproportionately visualize fictional characters as white. But you know, the same thing happens with other races. It's just how people are. But it's not wrong.
When I hear the name "Casey" I may instinctively assume it's a guy. Someone else may always assume it's a girl. Does that make both of us sexist?
Why is it not wrong?
I've explained why I think it is wrong.
You just keep saying the same thing over and over - that this is something people do. I haven't refuted that. I only refute that it isn't wrong.
Please explain to me why it isn't wrong to do this.
Gandalf seems to think that whatever the brain shits out is a morally justified thought. Is that your argument too?
Well then I guess I'm also anti-short people, because I totally pictured the kid who messed with mines as being taller than he was.
And anti-not-super-beefy people, because in my mind Cato was probably 50 pounds more muscle than in the movie.
And probably a few other things. Like anti-green skin, 'cause that hairdresser was supposed to have much greener skin than she did!
And a different color of blue hair for the announcer guy. Wasn't what I pictured for some reason.
The fact that these differed from my expectations (which was just in my imagination, and doesn't make the movie worse because of it), does not show that I have faults in my character.
So, you think you have no faults in your character?
That's kind of funny.
Errr. That's not what I meant to say, and not what I think I said, but I can see how it would be interpreted that way.
Those things are not indicative of character faults. Does that make more sense? (Honestly asking)
Yes, read my edit above. I was a bit too hasty in my reply - I know that's not actually what you were saying. What I meant was this: I consider it both "normal" and a fault, yes. You aren't being abnormal, and you aren't a monster, but you are feeding upon a subtle bias that pervades modern society. Rather than sweeping it under the rug because you are offended at the prospect of being swept into the same category as those assholes on twitter (or worse), why not just take a long, hard look at why you make these assumptions in the first place, and then decide from there whether these are good things or not? I doubt anyone here has done this. A lot of people are just shrugging and saying "this is what people do," but I don't think that's good enough. I don't think being "normal" means you aren't at fault.
Of course not, but this is literally a biological function of the brain: filling in details that you missed, and organizing new experiences in the context of the familiar.
Okay, maybe I was misusing "biological function of the brain."
It may be, but it's also one that is conditioned, informed, and shaped by bias, and your schema can change. You don't come out of the womb assuming everyone is white.
No. But if the people you see, as a baby, are white, then you more easily associate white people as normal people, as a baby.
Yeah they are. I don't think this and being surprised are the same at all.
It seems like if I'm shocked Cato wasn't the size of a professional body builder, it's not big deal, but if I'm shocked Rue was black, then it's a really big deal. It just seems to be arbitrarily motivated by cultural and "political correctness" and such. Objectively, there's not much of a difference in my mind.
the movie seemed to imply that he was killed by the dogs, as opposed to being killed by Cato for stealing his number #2 bag. dunno why they changed it, other than to make Cato look less villanious? Weird.
that's what I thought
not enough screen time for Thresh, imo
but then again I liked any time Katniss wasn't on screen soooo
Well then I guess I'm also anti-short people, because I totally pictured the kid who messed with mines as being taller than he was.
And anti-not-super-beefy people, because in my mind Cato was probably 50 pounds more muscle than in the movie.
And probably a few other things. Like anti-green skin, 'cause that hairdresser was supposed to have much greener skin than she did!
And a different color of blue hair for the announcer guy. Wasn't what I pictured for some reason.
The fact that these differed from my expectations (which was just in my imagination, and doesn't make the movie worse because of it), does not show that I have faults in my character.
So, you think you have no faults in your character?
That's kind of funny.
Errr. That's not what I meant to say, and not what I think I said, but I can see how it would be interpreted that way.
Those things are not indicative of character faults. Does that make more sense? (Honestly asking)
Yes, read my edit above. I was a bit too hasty in my reply - I know that's not actually what you were saying. What I meant was this: I consider it both "normal" and a fault, yes. You aren't being abnormal, and you aren't a monster, but you are feeding upon a subtle bias that pervades modern society. Rather than sweeping it under the rug because you are offended at the prospect of being swept into the same category as those assholes on twitter (or worse), why not just take a long, hard look at why you make these assumptions in the first place, and then decide from there whether these are good things or not? I doubt anyone here has done this. A lot of people are just shrugging and saying "this is what people do," but I don't think that's good enough. I don't think being "normal" means you aren't at fault.
I'm honestly curious about my other assumptions, though, at the top of the page. It's obviously partially in jest, but the point is that I do the same thing with other qualities. Does that mean anything?
Also, it sounds a bit (particularly in your edit) that you are arguing the slippery slope. "No, what you are doing now isn't necessarily bad, but if it gets more extreme you can see where it leads!" That happens with everything.
I'm definitely not arguing a slippery slope.
I'm arguing that these are all gradients informed by the same racial biases that are ingrained in modern society. I'm saying that those biases have both a subtle and unsubtle impact on people's reactions. I'm not saying that you, personally, will slide from assuming a character is white to tweeting your shock at some point in the future. I'm saying that you and the twitter people are quite far from each other on the scale of racism, but that your perspective is still a biased one, albeit very low on the scale.
I'm suggesting that being very low on that scale, or "normal," or however else you want to put it isn't necessarily good and it's something you shouldn't hand wave away.
As for the other characteristics you were talking about, I think there's a very clear phenomenon in society where white, straight people assume fictional characters are also white, straight people. Skin color is something one notices immediately. This is different from the intricacies of someonie's build, such as height.
I pictured Katniss as Asian, actually. Does that un-racist me?
Anyways, again, you are right in that white people disproportionately visualize fictional characters as white. But you know, the same thing happens with other races. It's just how people are. But it's not wrong.
When I hear the name "Casey" I may instinctively assume it's a guy. Someone else may always assume it's a girl. Does that make both of us sexist?
Why is it not wrong?
I've explained why I think it is wrong.
You just keep saying the same thing over and over - that this is something people do. I haven't refuted that. I only refute that it isn't wrong.
Please explain to me why it isn't wrong to do this.
Gandalf seems to think that whatever the brain shits out is a morally justified thought. Is that your argument too?
Maybe I'm getting a bit rambling, if so, sorry.
Let me summarize. I don't believe that imagining Rue as a different race is wrong because I don't see her race as any more important than other physical qualities about her. Culturally, it may be, but to me personally, it's not.
That's why I'm bringing up other physical qualities and how they also surprised me. Because I don't think you'd agree those are bad, and therefore, to me, the exact same thing with skin color shouldn't be wrong. The fact that race is so important to you strikes me as more telling, honestly. Maybe I'm just weird, I dunno.
kime: I understand what you are trying to say. You are trying to prove that because we all make somewhat-arbitrary visual assumptions about the literary characters we read, that no assumptions we make are necessarily informed by biases. I don't agree. I think that racial assumptions are always informed by biases. Same goes for sexual preference. Assuming a character is tall or short may not be informed by any particular bias on your part. Assuming a character is white or straight is always informed by some kind of bias. You may not be doing that consciously, but that's how the brain works - to use Gandalf's own phrase.
Well then I guess I'm also anti-short people, because I totally pictured the kid who messed with mines as being taller than he was.
And anti-not-super-beefy people, because in my mind Cato was probably 50 pounds more muscle than in the movie.
And probably a few other things. Like anti-green skin, 'cause that hairdresser was supposed to have much greener skin than she did!
And a different color of blue hair for the announcer guy. Wasn't what I pictured for some reason.
The fact that these differed from my expectations (which was just in my imagination, and doesn't make the movie worse because of it), does not show that I have faults in my character.
So, you think you have no faults in your character?
That's kind of funny.
Errr. That's not what I meant to say, and not what I think I said, but I can see how it would be interpreted that way.
Those things are not indicative of character faults. Does that make more sense? (Honestly asking)
Yes, read my edit above. I was a bit too hasty in my reply - I know that's not actually what you were saying. What I meant was this: I consider it both "normal" and a fault, yes. You aren't being abnormal, and you aren't a monster, but you are feeding upon a subtle bias that pervades modern society. Rather than sweeping it under the rug because you are offended at the prospect of being swept into the same category as those assholes on twitter (or worse), why not just take a long, hard look at why you make these assumptions in the first place, and then decide from there whether these are good things or not? I doubt anyone here has done this. A lot of people are just shrugging and saying "this is what people do," but I don't think that's good enough. I don't think being "normal" means you aren't at fault.
I'm honestly curious about my other assumptions, though, at the top of the page. It's obviously partially in jest, but the point is that I do the same thing with other qualities. Does that mean anything?
Also, it sounds a bit (particularly in your edit) that you are arguing the slippery slope. "No, what you are doing now isn't necessarily bad, but if it gets more extreme you can see where it leads!" That happens with everything.
I'm definitely not arguing a slippery slope.
I'm arguing that these are all gradients informed by the same racial biases that are ingrained in modern society. I'm saying that those biases have both a subtle and unsubtle impact on people's reactions. I'm not saying that you, personally, will slide from assuming a character is white to tweeting your shock at some point in the future. I'm saying that you and the twitter people are quite far from each other on the scale of racism, but that your perspective is still a biased one, albeit very low on the scale.
I'm suggesting that being very low on that scale, or "normal," or however else you want to put it isn't necessarily good and it's something you shouldn't hand wave away.
As for the other characteristics you were talking about, I think there's a very clear phenomenon in society where white, straight people assume fictional characters are also white, straight people. Skin color is something one notices immediately. This is different from the intricacies of someonie's build, such as height.
I pictured Katniss as Asian, actually. Does that un-racist me?
Anyways, again, you are right in that white people disproportionately visualize fictional characters as white. But you know, the same thing happens with other races. It's just how people are. But it's not wrong.
When I hear the name "Casey" I may instinctively assume it's a guy. Someone else may always assume it's a girl. Does that make both of us sexist?
Why is it not wrong?
I've explained why I think it is wrong.
You just keep saying the same thing over and over - that this is something people do. I haven't refuted that. I only refute that it isn't wrong.
Please explain to me why it isn't wrong to do this.
Gandalf seems to think that whatever the brain shits out is a morally justified thought. Is that your argument too?
Maybe I'm getting a bit rambling, if so, sorry.
Let me summarize. I don't believe that imagining Rue as a different race is wrong because I don't see her race as any more important than other physical qualities about her. Culturally, it may be, but to me personally, it's not.
That's why I'm bringing up other physical qualities and how they also surprised me. Because I don't think you'd agree those are bad, and therefore, to me, the exact same thing with skin color shouldn't be wrong. The fact that race is so important to you strikes me as more telling, honestly. Maybe I'm just weird, I dunno.
It's not important to me at all.
What I'm saying here is that if you're always "arbitrarily" assuming literary characters are white, then that is informed by bias, and it's not arbitrary.
And I guess to that extent, if you are always assuming that they are skinny, tall, straight, blonde, and so on - those are informed by biases too.
But we don't really have a massive problem with height insensitivity in modern society, so I really don't care about those biases, if they exist.
Yeah they are. I don't think this and being surprised are the same at all.
It seems like if I'm shocked Cato wasn't the size of a professional body builder, it's not big deal, but if I'm shocked Rue was black, then it's a really big deal. It just seems to be arbitrarily motivated by cultural and "political correctness" and such. Objectively, there's not much of a difference in my mind.
I feel like you're being really defensive about this for some reason. It's not a moral failing to be a little racist. I don't think anyone is saying that it's a huge deal either. As you said, a lot of how you see the world is based on your experiences as a young child. The important thing is that you know that it doesn't matter what race she is. Nick Fury in the Marvel films is black, whereas the Nick Fury I grew up with was white. Is it a little jarring? Sure. Does it really matter? Not even a little bit!
And please, don't wave the "political correctness" flag. There's no shadowy organization dictating what's "correct" or not that people live in fear of offending.
Posts
And anti-not-super-beefy people, because in my mind Cato was probably 50 pounds more muscle than in the movie.
And probably a few other things. Like anti-green skin, 'cause that hairdresser was supposed to have much greener skin than she did!
And a different color of blue hair for the announcer guy. Wasn't what I pictured for some reason.
The fact that these differed from my expectations (which was just in my imagination, and doesn't make the movie worse because of it), does not show that I have faults in my character.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Define "normal" in this context. You seem to consider certain complex behavioral reactions to be "normal" and I'd like to know what you are basing that on.
For bonus points, please explain why something being "normal" makes it right, which is what you seem to imply.
I don't disagree that, at least, mild surprise is an action that will be shared by perhaps even a majority of viewers. I would say that qualifies as a "normal" reaction. But that doesn't mean it's a morally justified reaction, and it doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't work against it.
I think it is detrimental to a cohesive, unbiased society for people to be constantly "surprised" when what a character turns out to be subverts their racially-motivated expectations. It may be "normal" for that to happen, but so what? Lots of shit is "normal" that we shouldn't do.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
So, you think you have no faults in your character?
That's kind of funny.
edit: I'm not trying to be personal here. We all have faults. I'm not calling you a monster. I'm trying to explain that this is a mindset that society would be better off without. It's a fault. It's a fault shared by almost everyone, but it's still a fault, and it's something we shouldn't just chuckle at and say "oh well I'm just being normal." Extending beyond mild surprise, you have the quite clearly racist tweets as shared by the Jezebel article. One leads to the other, I think that is obvious. I'm glad you didn't leap on twitter to denounce the filmmakers, but I think the patterns of thought are just gradients in the same line.
Except the expectations weren't racially-motivated for a lot of folks, just inattention-motivated. Your brain fills in details you don't actively notice -- this is, like, half of the brain's job. If you don't notice skin color, your brain's gonna go "ok what skin color is the first I see -- OK there's a black person that character was black -- now, moving on".
This is a biological function of the brain. You're not going to change that -- and gods help us if you ever do.
Errr. That's not what I meant to say, and not what I think I said, but I can see how it would be interpreted that way.
Those things are not indicative of character faults. Does that make more sense? (Honestly asking)
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
The racistest.
No. It's not obvious. It's not obvious, because it's fucking ridiculous.
I was disappointed his gold eyeliner wasn't more prominent, actually. I know it wasn't supposed to be, but still...
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Yes, read my edit above. I was a bit too hasty in my reply - I know that's not actually what you were saying. What I meant was this: I consider it both "normal" and a fault, yes. You aren't being abnormal, and you aren't a monster, but you are feeding upon a subtle bias that pervades modern society. Rather than sweeping it under the rug because you are offended at the prospect of being swept into the same category as those assholes on twitter (or worse), why not just take a long, hard look at why you make these assumptions in the first place, and then decide from there whether these are good things or not? I doubt anyone here has done this. A lot of people are just shrugging and saying "this is what people do," but I don't think that's good enough. I don't think being "normal" means you aren't at fault.
like
'i don't like black people' kind of tweets?
I'm honestly curious about my other assumptions, though, at the top of the page. It's obviously partially in jest, but the point is that I do the same thing with other qualities. Does that mean anything?
Also, it sounds a bit (particularly in your edit) that you are arguing the slippery slope. "No, what you are doing now isn't necessarily bad, but if it gets more extreme you can see where it leads!" That happens with everything.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Of course not, but this is literally a biological function of the brain: filling in details that you missed, and organizing new experiences in the context of the familiar.
Some good reading on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology)
Yes. Yes they are. I don't think anybody is arguing that they aren't, although occasionally Drez reminds us that they are :P.
But the disagreement here is whether personally feeling any shock at the characters' appearances is wrong or not.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
race isn't really equivalent to literally anything that you listed in the least bit.
Why? I mean, not culturally why we treat it differently, that's obvious. But in the context of my personal experience, why does it matter what quality of the characters surprises me?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
How fuck up am I?
Wait, that's not the discrepancy everyone is having?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I'm definitely not arguing a slippery slope.
I'm arguing that these are all gradients informed by the same racial biases that are ingrained in modern society. I'm saying that those biases have both a subtle and unsubtle impact on people's reactions. I'm not saying that you, personally, will slide from assuming a character is white to tweeting your shock at some point in the future. I'm saying that you and the twitter people are quite far from each other on the scale of racism, but that your perspective is still a biased one, albeit very low on the scale.
I'm suggesting that being very low on that scale, or "normal," or however else you want to put it isn't necessarily good and it's something you shouldn't hand wave away.
As for the other characteristics you were talking about, I think there's a very clear phenomenon in society where white, straight people assume fictional characters are also white, straight people. Skin color is something one notices immediately. This is different from the intricacies of someonie's build, such as height.
http://hungergamestweets.tumblr.com/
I started posting all this because SniperGuy was calling the Jezebel article "atrocious" and a few people were saying that the twits on twitter were not being racist. Though nobody in the recent past seems to have been arguing this.
Okay, maybe I was misusing "biological function of the brain."
It may be, but it's also one that is conditioned, informed, and shaped by bias, and your schema can change. You don't come out of the womb assuming everyone is white.
I don't understand what you're asking. also I imagine you're saying something like 'oh i imagined cinna to be white, but because i'm not a virulent racist this is not really impacting the movie for me'
whereas these people
are pretty upset because characters they like are black, and they pretty plainly don't like black people. I mean rue and thresh are clearly stated to be dark skinned, but a lot of this stems from people just imagining everyone to be similar to themselves, and not having the self possession to say 'oh that is mildly surprising and not at all a big deal'
rue and thresh and cinna are three of the most likable and honorable characters, and I'm guessing a lot of these tweets come from people who dont associate these qualities with black people
it makes me think they were expecting a tanned brad pitt or something
I pictured Katniss as Asian, actually. Does that un-racist me?
Anyways, again, you are right in that white people disproportionately visualize fictional characters as white. But you know, the same thing happens with other races. It's just how people are. But it's not wrong.
When I hear the name "Casey" I may instinctively assume it's a guy. Someone else may always assume it's a girl. Does that make both of us sexist?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
How is that not a massive problem?
I don't understand why you're arguing this
Why is it not wrong?
I've explained why I think it is wrong.
You just keep saying the same thing over and over - that this is something people do. I haven't refuted that. I only refute that it isn't wrong.
Please explain to me why it isn't wrong to do this.
Gandalf seems to think that whatever the brain shits out is a morally justified thought. Is that your argument too?
the discussion is whether or not these staggeringly racist tweets are staggeringly racist or not
No. But if the people you see, as a baby, are white, then you more easily associate white people as normal people, as a baby.
Yeah they are. I don't think this and being surprised are the same at all.
It seems like if I'm shocked Cato wasn't the size of a professional body builder, it's not big deal, but if I'm shocked Rue was black, then it's a really big deal. It just seems to be arbitrarily motivated by cultural and "political correctness" and such. Objectively, there's not much of a difference in my mind.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
No it isn't.
At least, that's not what I thought we were discussing. And I don't think Drez thinks we are discussing that either?
If so, then.... nevermind.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
that's what I thought
not enough screen time for Thresh, imo
but then again I liked any time Katniss wasn't on screen soooo
Maybe I'm getting a bit rambling, if so, sorry.
Let me summarize. I don't believe that imagining Rue as a different race is wrong because I don't see her race as any more important than other physical qualities about her. Culturally, it may be, but to me personally, it's not.
That's why I'm bringing up other physical qualities and how they also surprised me. Because I don't think you'd agree those are bad, and therefore, to me, the exact same thing with skin color shouldn't be wrong. The fact that race is so important to you strikes me as more telling, honestly. Maybe I'm just weird, I dunno.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
It's not important to me at all.
What I'm saying here is that if you're always "arbitrarily" assuming literary characters are white, then that is informed by bias, and it's not arbitrary.
And I guess to that extent, if you are always assuming that they are skinny, tall, straight, blonde, and so on - those are informed by biases too.
But we don't really have a massive problem with height insensitivity in modern society, so I really don't care about those biases, if they exist.
When my black friends refer to a light-skinned person I always automatically think of someone white. Which is of course not what they mean.
I feel like you're being really defensive about this for some reason. It's not a moral failing to be a little racist. I don't think anyone is saying that it's a huge deal either. As you said, a lot of how you see the world is based on your experiences as a young child. The important thing is that you know that it doesn't matter what race she is. Nick Fury in the Marvel films is black, whereas the Nick Fury I grew up with was white. Is it a little jarring? Sure. Does it really matter? Not even a little bit!
And please, don't wave the "political correctness" flag. There's no shadowy organization dictating what's "correct" or not that people live in fear of offending.