Media Central

Beyond his half-definition of identity politics, @Lanzman also misses the fact that American politics has been identity politics from the outset: white, landowning men were the only identity with access to politics from the start. We didn't even have universal suffrage until the last 100 years or so, and we didn't have the universal application of civil rights until the last 50-60 years (and arguably we still don't in some areas). For @Lanzman to pretend that ones identity is irrelevant when it comes to politics ignores the fact that for the majority of US history, one's identity was and still is highly relevant to politics.

Politics? I thought we were talking about entertainment media.

It's not called identity personhood. The things you listed define whether you get more or less political standing in a racist, misogynist political setting.

Would you like to try again? You were about to guess what might colour your view such that you underestimated the personal political consequences of being black, or female, or gay. Here, have another go.

I thought we were talking about a tv show, not real life?

You're bitching, in real life, about a tv show that presents people in different lights - as opposed to a straight, white, christian, male. So, you tell me where the problem is - if not identity politics, which, btw, you are the one invoking.

See? You don't even understand the term. Politics is in the name.

That's why I was trying to understand Federal Farmer's use of the term. Neither of you are using the term correctly in the given context. To the both of you, it's just a buzzword often used as a dog whistle.

You brought up politics.

No that's not what I'm bitching about at all, you have no clue what you're talking about.

I brought up identity politics in a tv show. It's not the same as real life.

I've only read the thread. But, it seems...

You're bitching because everyone rails at you in media central.
Everyone else is bitching because you fill every thread bitching about SJWs (which is not unbelievable).
You are defending your posts because of SJWs.
Ergo, you're bitching, in real life, about a tv show that presents people in different lights (damned SJWs) and then claim others are using "identity politics".

What do you understand "identity politics" to mean?

I'm not giving you a definition because this is the same group of people that pretended to not know what SJW means. I'm also not going to spend page after page on semantics either.

Ask the idiot who pretty much derails every thread in Media Central with some whine about SJWs or identity politics.

I mean, it's clear you don't understand the term, so I can't say I'm surprised that you're unable to define it. Words and phrases have specific meanings, and when you use a word but are thinking it means something different, that creates confusion. If you're going to deliberately misuse words and phrases, why even bother participating in discussions?

My best guess is that you're using it as a buzzword to justify your dislike of things that are different than you, which ironically is tied to your identity.

I've got a pretty good idea, and rather identify as one.
so for my benefit, you can answer Fishy's question.

Then that's what losing looks like.
You lose.
Leave the thread.
And hurt inside in your feelings.

@The Ghost of Crazy Horse, what you're doing is the equivalent of running into a room, proclaiming the sky is green, and then when questioned what you mean by that, you get indignant and refuse to elaborate. Why even bother in the first place?

It wasn't even that long. Indigenous people didn't get the right to vote until after the Civil Rights Act was officially passed IIRC.

And since I'm spilling tea, the biggest reason white woman sufferagw was entertained in the first place was as a means to suppress the male black vote, so let's all jot that shit down.

i wasn’t aware that there was a competition.

I think @Lanzman gave a couple of pretty good definitions. That being said, it's more of a, "I know it when I see it" kind of thing, but I'll try to give you a few examples. Last night I was watching The Expanse and there was a guy with a handicap, he was missing a hand, I assume a genetic defect. It wasn't a big deal, he got a speaking role and it was fine. You didn't see the producers go, "look at us, we have a diverse cast and we had a handicapped person on our show, give us a medal" like you do with Discovery and for a time with Disney. With Discovery it's, "look at us we have gay characters, look at us we have a non-binary character" and they want a pat on the back for it.

Alex Kurtzman and CBS go around falsely claiming that we've never seen these type of things on Star Trek, it's disingenuous. We've seen non-binary people, we've seen people of the same sex in love, we've seen trans type characters and the writers didn't beat us over the head with it.

They put those things ahead of story and characterization. They use Star Trek as a platform for pushing an agenda rather than simply telling good science fiction stories. You know what makes "far Beyond the Stars" a good morality tale, it's a good story. Yes it has a political slant, but it's good. Some of the best Trek is when the writers allow the audience to come to it's own conclusion of whether the Captain or whoever made the right decision. Discovery doesn't really do that, they basically tell you what's right and wrong.

Another comparison with The Expanse and Discovery is the female on male combat. Bobby Draper is believable ass a woman who can kick a man's ass, Space Hitler, not so much, but they show her beating up big dudes that there's no way she should be able to do that.

Remember "The Force is Female" when Kathleen Kennedy wanted to push for female character in Star Wars? Then they make Ray a Mary Sue and introduce female characters and basically did nothing with them. Now I'm not including Clone Wars, Rebels or The Mandalorian, but the sequel trilogy.

Gender swapping and race swapping for no reason is another thing. I love Lawrence Fishbourne, by why does he have to be Perry White? It's not that big of a deal, but it's there. Why? What did race swapping Perry White do to enhance his character?

All of those things are just virtue signaling bullshit that are unnecessary. These things I'm pointing out, that's identity politics, placing it above storytelling is just wrong IMO. Your race, ethnicity, sex, or whatever should be irrelevant , just tell us a good story and if you want to make those characteristics part of the character development then fine, but that shouldn't be central to your character. If you want a diverse cast fine, but don't make it so only the female characters get any development, that's not equality. Every main character should get some development. Again, The Expanse does this really well and every character has their own skills and tasks to do. You don't see that much in Discovery.

Which male characters in Discovery do you feel have gone underdeveloped compared to equivalent female characters?

edit: Didn't realise where this was, why is this discussion happening in the Help Desk?

Christmas magic.

None of those are examples of identity politics. But they are examples of your own self esteem issues. Why does there need to be a reason for making a brand new character female instead of male? Or black instead of white? Or trans instead of cis? Or different from you in any way?

It wasn't even a trick question. You could have easily googled the term. (You're on the right track narrowing it down based on identity, but you are missing the second half of the term which very clearly relates to politics)

-----
identity politics
noun (used with a singular or plural verb)
political activity or movements based on or catering to the cultural, ethnic, gender, racial, religious, or social interests that characterize a group identity.
-----

So is your position that Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. are political movements?

For fuck's sake, I can dislike the new Star Wars movies well enough on their merits. Not because Rey was a "Mary Sue." If Luke Skywalker or Anakin Skywalker were women, you'd be calling them Mary Sue's too.

Hanukkah is the Festival of Lights.
Instead of one fragile male ego,
We have 8 crazy white knights.

Why ask me to define something if your just going to define it for me anyway? See, this why I didn't want to go down this road with you in the first place.

It really isn't, no

Good for The Expanse, but did it occur to you that what's good rep for one group is not good for another one? If you're an invisible minority already that people think enbys* are some Tumblr fad the kids are all jumping on, the last thing one may want it to just fade into the background.

*Slang for "non-binary

All of which were written by straights white men, for other straight, white men with minimal input from any of the groups involved. And most of those examples are better than what most of TV was doing, but let's look at those examples, shall we?

*An androgenous person choosing a gender who was later brainwashed back into being genderless and played by a woman against Jonathan Frakes' own suggestion that said character be played by a male actor

*Two women whose hosts reunited but were straight married in their previous lives and don't even get a happy ending

*"Congenitor" the fact that garbage is considered the highlight of ENT's 2nd season speaks volumes about everything that was wrong about that show.

Explain how this is better than what nuTrek has done.

Show your work.

But that measure, Tuvix should be leading the charts for best episode of Star Trek ever produced!

Snark aside, 90s Trek's biggest failing is that they played it way too safe on way too many issues where they could have and should have used a diverse voice. B'Elanna's entire mixed raced heritage being one such example.

Kkkathleen Kennedy *is* exactly the fake wokester the incels say she is, and that is something I've been told directly but people involved in the film who confirmed she fought hard against John Boyega's inclusion in the series. She can suck dicks in Hell.

With that outta the way, I'm not foolish enough to think that manchildren wouldn't have had the same reaction under another woman creator, like they all shot their boxers over the "bad" redesigns of She-Ra when a lesbian chick gave their character designs that weren't just one body type for Hasbro to roll out the same doll 100,000 times.

Now I'm not including Clone Wars, Rebels or The Mandalorian, but the sequel trilogy.

That's a lotta words for something's that's not a big deal, pal.

And yet, I live in the reality that these things matter and they do shape our life experiences and views of the world, so if media wants to acknowledge that, it's fine. At worst, our grandkids will point and laugh at how hokey the writing was and be glad they live in a society that I hope has progressed further than we have on this shit.

Sorry, I started my reply during my lunch break 5 hours ago

To give you a chance to understand what you're talking about. Turns out, you don't.

Trying to think of the last time I met a white guy named "Perry" and drawing a blank... Third grade, maybe?
But yeah, what does switching up the character do to detract from his history?

I really haven't been keeping an eye on the Star Trek Discovery thread because I haven't watched more than the pilot episode and like the third episode. I think my last post in there was a few years ago. But if this is the level of discourse from Federal Farmer, it's pretty obvious he does "not know how to avoid being a complete asshole without a set of detailed instructions" while posting here.