• WoodScientist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    What’s wrong with doing something just for the sake of inclusiveness? That is a moral good in and of itself. Really, inclusiveness is limp-wristed weak term. The better term would be “correcting historical exclusion.”

    We used to find it acceptable to only write white characters. Characters were written white not for any important narrative reason, but just due to a racist ideal of white as default. Then when people try to correct this historical exclusion, fragile white men lose their god damn minds.

    When you’re used to privilege equality feels like discrimination.

    • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Because it’s not real inclusivity it’s pandering.

      Yeah yeah racists gonna racist but to me race swapping a character for the sake of being inclusive is the worst way to do it. It’s basically going “fuck people are complaining we’re not inclusive enough. Fuck it this characters black now. See guys! We’re being inclusive! The character acts exactly the same as they did before because we can’t be bothered to actually put effort into this change, but we’re inclusive!”

      If you can’t come up with a new character or a new story with whatever characters you want from the beginning it feels forced and disingenuous.

    • conartistpanda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      How would you feel if Super Mario was a white male instead of an Italian?

      But seriously, some changes might stick like a sore thumb, it depends.

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I’m talking works of fiction. Even Hamilton is not meant to be a faithful documentary accurately predicting historical events.