4 hours ago, AutismMommaMD said:

 

,

And it's hilarious that a TV show can alter a character's clothing, height, hair color, eye color, weight, etc, and nobody complains. It's only when SKIN COLOR darkens that the tantrums begin.

 

might want to have a talk with the Jack Reacher fans about that.

11 hours ago, AutismMommaMD said:

 

ppl complained about the casting before ROP and HOTD aired, too. They saw black ppl and melted down. They are super particular abt their fantasy worlds and retreat there all the time cuz real life is too hard for them. The casting didn't match their imaginary friends, and it shattered their world. Characters like Aviendha are described w/ tan, brown skin, but they lose it if that shows up on their TV screen. They behave like they're literally traumatized, still complaining abt it for those shows I mentioned 3 yrs in and during the off-season. And their sense of entitlement is almost as big as their escapism dependency. They don't like something, so it's wrong, not okay, and even an "attack" on the author lolol. It's like, okay, so u prefer the book...well what's stopping u from reading that instead of spending years in a conniption?

 

The claim that there's some type of "agenda" and something being "forced" on them is the best lol. I can't even ... lol. An agenda to what, exactly? To include POC? To force them to accept that everyone isn't white? To make them look at darker skin? To convince them that other races aren't inferior? Still trying to figure out the "forcing" part, though. Maybe they've spent so much time retreating to fantasy worlds that they can't separate it from reality anymore, and believe that an intruder has entered their home, super-glued their eyes open, and is holding them at gunpoint in front of the TV while the show plays.

Lol in the 1990's and 2000's, u could watch any TV show or movie without encountering these toxic ppl. I won't call them fans, cuz their relationship w/ these stories is something else entirely....an unhealthy obsession that defines their entire existence. FANS love a book/show; they don't believe they own it and anything created in that universe must have their approval. FANS come back to the real world after reading/ watching. They don't permanently reside in that world and therefore freak out over any rendition that differs from said world. And they use their remote to change the channel when they don't like something instead of going on a tirade for years, continuing even after they reach the end of the internet.

 

Maybe these ppl were around 1-2 decades ago, just closeted or unnoticed until the internet and social media reached their current state of maturity. It sucks to not be able to look up a question abt your show w/o wading through endless sewage from ppl who HAVE to let the world know how they feel about a TV show. If they had relationships, responsibilities, and a career, they'd lack the time & motivation to carry on like that year after year, starting before the show even does, usually as soon as they learn of a colored person being casted. They're determined to make the show a miserable experience for everybody else like a cranky toddler who breaks their toy so nobody else can use it.

 

It's hard to believe there's ppl like this out there. I guess I've never come across one in person cuz they never go out. That would also explain their shock at seeing someone who looks differently than they do.,

And it's hilarious that a TV show can alter a character's clothing, height, hair color, eye color, weight, etc, and nobody complains. It's only when SKIN COLOR darkens that the tantrums begin.

 

Lots of complaints are made about character appearance changes beyond their race.  As an example, Thom Merrilin and Bayle Domon have specific and distinct facial hair in the book that was ignored in the show.  This seems especially egregious simply because facial hair is something that you can control independent of casting.  But when I criticize the changes in facial hair, you don't accuse me of being a bigot.  And so, the criticism sort of fades away because it's just acknowledged as being valid but also not crucial to the show being good.  Which is true of the racial casting as well.  

 

(This is not to say that race doesn't matter at all to the show, since it is made clear in the books that regional differences in appearance are easily recognizable.  People from a certain place should be more homogenous than they are in the show.  But that may create too much of a burden on the casting and it's ultimately something that can be sidelined without ruining the show.)

 

The idea that the show creators didn't have an agenda is a rather obnoxious motte and bailey argument.  They have clearly made changes around not only race but also gender and sexuality, for which they receive and solicit praise.  But when criticized for it, they pretend that their critics are jousting at windmills that definitely don't exist.  And yet, all of this would be mostly overlooked if they made a good show with an interesting story.  

 

But the show is awful for reasons of character development, production quality, and storytelling. The WOT books story is far from perfect and could definitely be streamlined.  If the show creators could credibly demonstrate that they have a coherent vision, changes would be welcomed.  But it's obvious that the people in charge don't have a vision.  They are just getting us through the next episode, kicking the can down the road to solve the immediate need for something on the screen.  

That is a strange point you are making there, Samt. Making media and society more inclusive and tolerant is a good thing. Does not in itself make for good entertainment though. So cultivating the relationship between Moiraine and Suian can be seen as something that disrupts the hetero-normative narrative that is so common, and can be a good or bad thing in terms of the story which will probably rely a lot on how well it is written.

 

However when people criticize it as it is not exactly the same as the books, there often seems to be an underlying reason for it. While sometimes that will be a rather childish "it doesn't look like the pictures in my head", there is always the implication that the only possible justification for challenging the hetero-normative narrative if it religiously follows the source.

 

The show certainly emphasizes some themes from the source material. That is always going to be a given in any adaptation. The question should be how well that is done, not claiming it has been ruined by an agenda, not by making personal attacks on the showrunner. Things are very polarized politically speaking, and sadly that will mean that misunderstandings will easily be made. That said there is no doubt that some people will like changes that they agree with politically, regardless of how entertaining or good the writing actually is. And the other way about, of course. Surely here we should be trying to ignore both of these groups and concentrate on those that enjoy or not the show on its merits or lack thereof? 

 

It hardly seems appropriate to label the show and its proponents as having an agenda, whereas its detractors are straight-talking, telling-it-like-is honest dudes? In this polarized world, there will always be those with an agenda on both sides, the difference being that being in favour of inclusion is a good thing, but it isn't a substitute for good writing. 

Edited January 31Jan 31 by HeavyHalfMoonBlade

Inclusion isn't an inherent good.  Some things are bad and should be excluded.  

9 minutes ago, Samt said:

Inclusion isn't an inherent good.  Some things are bad and should be excluded.  

So inclusion is bad.  What a sad life you are leading.

40 minutes ago, expat said:

So inclusion is bad.  What a sad life you are leading.

Not being an inherent good and being bad are obviously not the same thing.  Either you aren't serious or have a below room temperature IQ.  

6 hours ago, Samt said:

Inclusion isn't an inherent good.  Some things are bad and should be excluded.  

Now you are twisting words. Inclusion does not include bad things. We are specifically talking about skin colour, sexual orientation, and other personal characteristics. To argue against inclusion because child murderers are bad is completely ridiculous. 

 

And you are still avoiding explaining why you think all proponents of the show (including the makers) have an agenda and like it as it ticks boxes on the SJW bingo card, but no detractors have an agenda and dislike the show because of those same ticks. 

 

It is kind of disappointing that my attempt to steer the discussion back to the actual topic veered onto a debate about whether inclusion is a good thing.

12 hours ago, Samt said:

Not being an inherent good and being bad are obviously not the same thing.  Either you aren't serious or have a below room temperature IQ.  

Sorry you can't read, but why didn't you quote the second sentence as well as the first?  "Some things are BAD and should be excluded".  Since this sentence came immediately after one which only talked about inclusion, what other concept could it be referring to?  I wouldn't have made my comment if it was just the first sentence.

2 hours ago, expat said:

Sorry you can't read, but why didn't you quote the second sentence as well as the first?  "Some things are BAD and should be excluded".  Since this sentence came immediately after one which only talked about inclusion, what other concept could it be referring to?  I wouldn't have made my comment if it was just the first sentence.

Not sure if you’re being intentionally obtuse here.  I said that some things are bad and should be excluded (meaning not included).  The obvious conclusion is not that inclusion is bad but that inclusion can’t always be good or bad.  Inclusion adopts the moral qualities of the thing being included.  @HeavyHalfMoonBlade seemed to be suggesting that changing the show to be more inclusive was an inherent positive quality(among other potential qualities) and that is what I am objecting to.  We have to base the judgment on the nature of the thing being included or excluded,  not simply on the fact that it is inclusive.  
 

I suspect that I can bring examples of things that you would find objectionable and not want to be included on the simple basis that inclusion is better than exclusion.  “Inclusion” or “inclusivity” are mostly code words in the context for something else, the substance of which is being obscured for rhetorical purposes.

10 hours ago, Samt said:

Not sure if you’re being intentionally obtuse here.  I said that some things are bad and should be excluded (meaning not included).  The obvious conclusion is not that inclusion is bad but that inclusion can’t always be good or bad.  Inclusion adopts the moral qualities of the thing being included.  @HeavyHalfMoonBlade seemed to be suggesting that changing the show to be more inclusive was an inherent positive quality(among other potential qualities) and that is what I am objecting to.  We have to base the judgment on the nature of the thing being included or excluded,  not simply on the fact that it is inclusive.  
 

I suspect that I can bring examples of things that you would find objectionable and not want to be included on the simple basis that inclusion is better than exclusion.  “Inclusion” or “inclusivity” are mostly code words in the context for something else, the substance of which is being obscured for rhetorical purposes.

Inclusion is not bad and should not be a priori excluded except in specific contexts. Sex/religion/ethnicity etc. of characters are generally window dressing that are not terribly important to the story.  In these cases, which make up the vast majority of fiction, I DON'T CARE if they are changed in an adaptation in an attempt to make viewers more comfortable or expand the audience.

 

I agree that where sex/religion/ethnicity are integral to the story (e.g, what it means to be Jewish in pre-WWII Germany, growing up black in the racist Jim Crow south, trying to function as a non-Japanese in the hetrocentric Japanese society, the trials of being a women in a patriarchic society), changing these characteristics must be done with care.  Even here, it would be perfectly acceptable to go SCi-FI and totally invert the characteristics (e.g, the Broadway play Hamilton) to subvert the audience's expectations and world view while still maintaining the heart of the story.  

 

Like everything else, inclusion can be done heavy handed/badly, negatively affecting the adaptation.  Standing pat can also be done badly and negatively affect the adaptation by feeling anachronistic and using unnecessary/discredited stereotypes which turns off the audience.

2 hours ago, expat said:

Inclusion is not bad and should not be a priori excluded except in specific contexts. Sex/religion/ethnicity etc. of characters are generally window dressing that are not terribly important to the story.  In these cases, which make up the vast majority of fiction, I DON'T CARE if they are changed in an adaptation in an attempt to make viewers more comfortable or expand the audience.

 

I agree that where sex/religion/ethnicity are integral to the story (e.g, what it means to be Jewish in pre-WWII Germany, growing up black in the racist Jim Crow south, trying to function as a non-Japanese in the hetrocentric Japanese society, the trials of being a women in a patriarchic society), changing these characteristics must be done with care.  Even here, it would be perfectly acceptable to go SCi-FI and totally invert the characteristics (e.g, the Broadway play Hamilton) to subvert the audience's expectations and world view while still maintaining the heart of the story.  

 

Like everything else, inclusion can be done heavy handed/badly, negatively affecting the adaptation.  Standing pat can also be done badly and negatively affect the adaptation by feeling anachronistic and using unnecessary/discredited stereotypes which turns off the audience.

Well that clears it up inclusion is not bad except when it is.

It is simpler than that. Inclusion is always a good thing, nor is it a difficult thing to understand the definition of, however Samt would like to muddy the waters. 

 

Having contradictory story elements is always a bad thing - having Magneto played by a Chinese teenager while having the back story of being a Jewish Holocaust survivor, does not come under the heading of inclusion. 

 

It is strange how the argument against inclusion is always about continuing a hetero-normative, white, Christian narrative when we are talking about a globally marketed product. 

3 hours ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

It is simpler than that. Inclusion is always a good thing, nor is it a difficult thing to understand the definition of, however Samt would like to muddy the waters. 

 

Having contradictory story elements is always a bad thing - having Magneto played by a Chinese teenager while having the back story of being a Jewish Holocaust survivor, does not come under the heading of inclusion. 

 

It is strange how the argument against inclusion is always about continuing a hetero-normative, white, Christian narrative when we are talking about a globally marketed product. 

So including cannibalism, pedophilia, beastiality, or child mutilation?  Or do you agree that inclusion is only good when you are including good things?

55 minutes ago, Samt said:

So including cannibalism, pedophilia, beastiality, or child mutilation?  Or do you agree that inclusion is only good when you are including good things?

That isn't what inclusion means. How bigoted do you have to be to compare skin colour or sexual orientation to paedophilia, bestiality and child mutilation? 

4 hours ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

That isn't what inclusion means. How bigoted do you have to be to compare skin colour or sexual orientation to paedophilia, bestiality and child mutilation? 

I think accusing him of that is a stretch.

 

It seems to me that the main sticking point is the definition of inclusion. Do you for example include religion in your definition as expat does above?

 

 

4 hours ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

That isn't what inclusion means. How bigoted do you have to be to compare skin colour or sexual orientation to paedophilia, bestiality and child mutilation? 

Well, what do you mean by inclusion?  Because it seems you just mean including things or people that you think are good.  Which was my point.  Inclusion is good when we include good and bad when we include bad.  
 

So instead of saying inclusion is always good, you should say that including something in particular is always good.  Otherwise, you are over generalizing to avoid needing to defend the particular case you want to make.

Inclusion is not about things that are good or bad. It has nothing to do with the judgmental labels that you two appear to want to slap on everything that is different from yourself. 

 

Inclusion is just about including people as they are. And where appropriate, that would include religion. WoT itself including so many eastern themes such as the circularity of time could even be said to be inclusive in this respect, and the names that Jordan used take their inspiration from all over the globe. 

 

People come in all different colours and orientations and a whole bunch else. Inclusion is about not excluding parts of the world population. It has nothing to do with criminality, or torture, or anything else like that the right wing media continually try to claim so as to reject a pretty straight forward and simple concept. 

 

Inclusion is a good thing, exclusion is a bad thing. 

 

But I thought we were here to discuss the Wheel of Time? Though it is strange that you two "inclusion is only a good thing in certain circumstances" are also in the "the show is terrible because of bad writing" camp. But certainly not due to any agenda you guys have, no, no, that would be the people that can take some enjoyment out of seeing their favourite book brought to life. Those despicable people are just grinding their political axes all day long. Imagine enjoying things! 

Edited February 3Feb 3 by HeavyHalfMoonBlade

2 hours ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

Inclusion is not about things that are good or bad. It has nothing to do with the judgmental labels that you two appear to want to slap on everything that is different from yourself. 

 

Inclusion is just about including people as they are. And where appropriate, that would include religion. WoT itself including so many eastern themes such as the circularity of time could even be said to be inclusive in this respect, and the names that Jordan used take their inspiration from all over the globe. 

 

People come in all different colours and orientations and a whole bunch else. Inclusion is about not excluding parts of the world population. It has nothing to do with criminality, or torture, or anything else like that the right wing media continually try to claim so as to reject a pretty straight forward and simple concept. 

 

Inclusion is a good thing, exclusion is a bad thing. 

 

But I thought we were here to discuss the Wheel of Time? Though it is strange that you two "inclusion is only a good thing in certain circumstances" are also in the "the show is terrible because of bad writing" camp. But certainly not due to any agenda you guys have, no, no, that would be the people that can take some enjoyment out of seeing their favourite book brought to life. Those despicable people are just grinding their political axes all day long. Imagine enjoying things! 

Ok so religion is in so that means that you are in fact in favour of inclusion of views that support genital mutilation, homophobia, transphobia and genocide.

 

I think that for the purposes of the definition of inclusion taken in this setting it should be for a person's innate traits only. Everything beyond this is selective. You choose to be a christian, nazi, racist or scientologist. If there is a demonstrated and demonstrably unfair bias against a group I have no issue with attempts to redress that imbalance.

 

Your read that I am right wing or on the conservative side of politics is hilariously incorrect.

Did I say I was in favour of organised religion? And personal religious beliefs can be represented in media without giving any support to extremist views. Or should only your views on spirituality and religion be included in mass media? 

 

It is strange how difficult a line it is for you to draw to exclude promoting the violation of people's human rights. 

 

I'm glad to hear you fully support the inclusion of race, gender and sexual orientation. That would cover all the relevant points of inclusion as relates to WoT. Strange how despite this support you appear to have been arguing against inclusion all this time. Must have been my misunderstanding. 

49 minutes ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

Did I say I was in favour of organised religion? And personal religious beliefs can be represented in media without giving any support to extremist views. Or should only your views on spirituality and religion be included in mass media? 

 

It is strange how difficult a line it is for you to draw to exclude promoting the violation of people's human rights. 

 

I'm glad to hear you fully support the inclusion of race, gender and sexual orientation. That would cover all the relevant points of inclusion as relates to WoT. Strange how despite this support you appear to have been arguing against inclusion all this time. Must have been my misunderstanding. 

 

 

 

It's not just fringe and extremist religions that teach homophobia, transphobia, genocide and genital mutilation its all the major ones as well. I don't see why your choice to follow those beliefs needs to be included in an inclusion policy.

 

You falsely claimed that samt equated skin color to child mutilation yet are happy to include religions that practices exactly this act to this day.

 

Most of this has been about getting a definition for what people deem as inclusion and if you look back you have been the one name calling.

 

I would like for you to find a quote from me arguing against inclusion on gender, race or sexual lines.

 

Twisting of words does not make an adequate argument. Extremists of religions, or in the case of FGM, misguided followers (a majority of Muslims in Malaysia think that their Type IV FGM is required by Islam, despite immams telling them it is not), believe in the violation of human rights. Not the moderate mainstream. Male circumcision is totally different kettle of fish which this is not the appropriate forum to dive into, due to mixed messages from the medical world. And that is not a uniquely religious issue, given the US's cultural opinion on the issue. 

 

And Samt absolutely does equate inclusion of one thing to the inclusion of another, a prime example of the slippery slope argument made by conservatives about pretty much everything, and in particular about such things as same sex marriage (where does it stop? Can we marry our dishwashers, our cats, our children? Where does this madness end?). You equally equate the inclusion of non-Christian ideas (religious ideas should not be included, according to you) such as circular time with non-therapeutic circumcision, even though this is practiced by certain Christian sects. Inclusion is not difficult to define or understand. 

 

You'd like for me to re-read your posts? Ha ha. That is a good one. As I said, if must have been my misunderstanding that I missed your pro-inclusivity and left wing views and your overflowing love of humanity. 

9 hours ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

Twisting of words does not make an adequate argument. Extremists of religions, or in the case of FGM, misguided followers (a majority of Muslims in Malaysia think that their Type IV FGM is required by Islam, despite immams telling them it is not), believe in the violation of human rights. Not the moderate mainstream. Male circumcision is totally different kettle of fish which this is not the appropriate forum to dive into, due to mixed messages from the medical world. And that is not a uniquely religious issue, given the US's cultural opinion on the issue. 

 

And Samt absolutely does equate inclusion of one thing to the inclusion of another, a prime example of the slippery slope argument made by conservatives about pretty much everything, and in particular about such things as same sex marriage (where does it stop? Can we marry our dishwashers, our cats, our children? Where does this madness end?). You equally equate the inclusion of non-Christian ideas (religious ideas should not be included, according to you) such as circular time with non-therapeutic circumcision, even though this is practiced by certain Christian sects. Inclusion is not difficult to define or understand. 

 

You'd like for me to re-read your posts? Ha ha. That is a good one. As I said, if must have been my misunderstanding that I missed your pro-inclusivity and left wing views and your overflowing love of humanity. 

Twisting of words does not make for a good argument you are correct. You choose to attack a fringe sect of Islam for what you deem as being misguided yet then defend Judaism for male circumcision hiding behind a medical argument. Pretending that they are performing this for medical reasons is a completely disingenuous argument. They are doing it for the exact same reason that the Malaysian muslims are because they believe that their god wants them too.

 

Marriage is not hard it's simply informed consent.

 

You again seem to think I am a christian for some unknown reason despite my clear and unmissable criticism of their teaching in my previous posts. I would more accurately describe my thoughts on religion as following those of Dawkins, Fry, Harris, Hitchens and company.

Edited February 4Feb 4 by Mailman

I neither attacked nor defended. I was merely pointing out that FGM and circumcision take place under very different circumstances. 

 

I never said you were Christian, I was only enquiring if you thought all other personal faiths should be excluded but yours, which apparently you do, given your anti-religious fervour. Also Christian values are rather hard baked into Western culture, even for those who actively disbelieve in God. Discussing inclusion as regards to WoT does not include organised religion due to the world setting, yet you have made it a major talking point to argue against inclusion as a good thing. 

 

I'm an agnostic atheist and have always thought that there could be nothing worse than a close minded militant theist to debate with, but recent experience (elsewhere) has taught me that atheists can just as close minded, aggressive and unreasonable. Which I suppose is understandable, but also rather depressing. 

1 hour ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

I neither attacked nor defended. I was merely pointing out that FGM and circumcision take place under very different circumstances. 

 

I never said you were Christian, I was only enquiring if you thought all other personal faiths should be excluded but yours, which apparently you do, given your anti-religious fervour. Also Christian values are rather hard baked into Western culture, even for those who actively disbelieve in God. Discussing inclusion as regards to WoT does not include organised religion due to the world setting, yet you have made it a major talking point to argue against inclusion as a good thing. 

 

I'm an agnostic atheist and have always thought that there could be nothing worse than a close minded militant theist to debate with, but recent experience (elsewhere) has taught me that atheists can just as close minded, aggressive and unreasonable. Which I suppose is understandable, but also rather depressing. 

Sure seemed like you were defending it, at the very least you were granting it far more acceptance when the reasons for the actions are identical.

 

Religion (and atheism for that matter) can appear in movies and stories I just don't see the need for it to be an active inclusion policy. You choose what you believe in and you should be judged on what those things use as a framework for their beliefs, teachings and actions. 

 

That is why I said before that I think that inclusion should be limited to innate traits. 

 

I am assuming you are against inclusion for those Malaysian typ4 extremists yet as you said before 

20 hours ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

should only your views on spirituality and religion be included in mass media? 

 

You talk about close minded yet you have been abundantly keen throughout this to peg me as a christo facist bigot

Edited February 4Feb 4 by Mailman

Religious representation and inclusion does not necessitate advocating for human rights abuses. Just as the inclusion of male American actors does mean that you are advocating male infant circumcision. Malaysian culture promotes the type 4 FGM (which is non-surgical, though I don't know exactly what it entails, the medical papers I read were not dealing specifically with this aspect). To blame this on religion, or to exclude Malaysians from such things as casting on WoT, does not seem an effect way of helping young Malaysian women to me. 

 

Being in favour of exclusion, whether in grounds of racism, or on grounds of all religion is wrong and only you know the truth, does smack of bigotry. And seeing as the context of the discussion is diverse casting in the Wheel of Time, your antagonism against said inclusion, and support for opinions such as those of Samt, is somewhat confusing if you are wholly in favour of this type of inclusion. 

 

Perhaps it is simply your desire to be as unpleasant as possible to people who enjoy the show, but I would advise that if you want to discuss an issue that you state your own opinion as opposed to attacking and mocking those who may have a slightly different from you.