Inclusivity towards women in Dragon Ball?

[Jord]

Then you should know that insulting members is also against the rules here. If you want this forum to be a positive place you should always set the right example yourself. Insulting other users usually just leads to the topic getting messy. Please try to be a bit civil.

The guy he's responding to is being openly bigoted towards another forum member.

At this point Kunzait is just giving back the shit this guy is throwing at Julie.

Big post

We have a moderation system for that. Insulting other users back isn't the way to change someone's point of view. It also isn't a way to improve a thread on a forum.. In fact, it makes it even worse. Before you know it, everyone will hurl insults here and the forum winds up a negative mess.

[VegettoEX]

Nah. They were given the chance. Several. Fuck the open (spooooooky) TERFs. You have all the mods’ and admins’ permissions on that.

Backing up the “tolerance of intolerance is complicity” explanation.

But hey, that’s that! Moving right along.

[Kunzait_83]

Insulting other users back isn't the way to change someone's point of view.

People like that clearly aren't interested in having their point of view changed. They're only here to cause harm to others they perceive as weaker or lesser than them. Allowing them freely to do so without pushback is roughly the same (or fairly close to it) as helping them cause said harm.

Before you know it, everyone will hurl insults here and the forum winds up a negative mess.

And if you're a doormat for bullies, they'll keep on bullying and walk all over everyone in the forum, and before you know it this place winds up indistinguishable from KiwiFarms.

So no. Fuck 'em.

Please reread the "Nazi Bar" story I posted in my previous post: the (incredibly important) moral of that story clearly did not land.

Nah. They were given the chance. Several. Fuck the open (spooooooky) TERFs. You have all the mods’ and admins’ permissions on that.

Backing up the “tolerance of intolerance is complicity” explanation.

But hey, that’s that! Moving right along.

Both you and the other mods around here should be getting paid at least the same salary as a typical janitor, what with all the trash you guys keep having to take out.

[JulieYBM]

Thank you, boys. This was bringing up some old traumatic memories of a time when I was being made very uncomfortable IRL, so I'm glad someone decided to tell them to fuck off while I waited for a mod to notice. Shit like that is a large part of why I hate having to advertise myself as trans.

Jord's on my ignore list and I'm not going to unblock them and then reblock them just to reply, but for fuck’s sake Jord, you just saw a woman get sexually harassed by some creep openly on a forum she's been a regular member of for twenty years and your first go-to is civility politics? Fuck all the way off.

Posts in this thread live as literal examples of the sort of attitudes toward women and girls that we're criticizing in art, by the way. I've gone on about this shit happening in fandom spaces for years and my criticisms have fallen on deaf ears of a lot of the usual suspects. I'm glad to see others calling out the bullshit when I didn’t feel comfortable and safe doing so.

On the subject of DB: still excited to see if Toriyama gets talked out of his worse tendencies by the inclusion of two women at the top of the series' production. It would be nice to not have a spectre like that hanging over this project's head!

[MasenkoHA]

Better yet, why don't you just go fuck off on out of here altogether? You're just another ban waiting to happen at this point. You're not making any kind of grand point or statement here: all you're accomplishing here is making yourself into a huge scumbag.

(See folks: THIS is what it looks like when I'm ACTUALLY insulting a user here. I'm not subtle either.)

Then you should know that insulting members is also against the rules here. If you want this forum to be a positive place you should always set the right example yourself. Insulting other users usually just leads to the topic getting messy. Please try to be a bit civil.

.

Oh fuck off with that show tolerance to intolerance bullshit

[VegettoEX]

Oh fuck off with that show tolerance to intolerance bullshit

I know it continues to sting, but this has already been addressed. We're moving on. Let's do the real convos, now!

[Mireya]

I've made a thread months ago here and in other forums and I've in other forums argued against Roshi's gag scenes since they take sexual harassment in a casual way. He'd get beaten up but that's a light consequence as the getting beaten up was all part of the joke and treated as comedy. Some comebacks were that it's a joke scene, to which I say that's precisely the problem, treating joke scenes with world consequences as gag-ish and in a light way, distracting from the real problem. Ok, it's a different culture, and s different age, but speaking of it now, I think it's reasonable to see that as badly done and aged poorly, though we see in animes like Seven Deadly Sins even more straight wards jokes with sexualization, which shows it's still a thing in modern and seems more acceptable in Japan, but yet again I'm sure comedy cartoons like Family Guy also depicts these things in a similar way, so they questioned that there's a freedom for humor, raising also the point that many times ppl laugh when violent scenes are employed, like, in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, people would laugh at the scene of Brad's character beating up the Manson's invaders and Leon character setting one on fire... But then I raise the point that violence in general is way more trivialized, you joke saying "I'll kill you!!" and can be done and acceptable depending on the context, but joking saying rape is already seen badly, so there's definitely a difference --- one is more trivialized whether the other is not. But is still raised the question of why trivialize one and not the other, why like characters like Freeza who are genocidal and find them cool --- which I see no problem, and the point still revolves around one being more acceptable but the why and why and why is hard to get... I figure out that violence is a broader thing that can target any group, while sexualization is targeted primarily towards a specific group, hence the separation, though violence occurs more with poor, black people too, though if done towards them people will obviously not laugh, as seen for example with the serious way the death of blacks are portrayed in Django Unchained... I feel that's enough reason why, but can it maybe raise questions about morals, of why take violence as more trivialized because it doesn't primarily target one group and can happen more widely, but still a serious issue nonetheless... Killing being serious roo. So is another reason stronger still to draw the line between the difference in reactions between both?

[Cure Dragon 255]

Sorry, Cure.

Anyways, are we gonna talk about female inclusivity in dragon ball or what?

Akane Kimidori. I know she's only in like 3 episodes but what a character. Tomboyish, hates cooking and is surly and very smart. And likes to stir up trouble. Quite an interesting choice for Toriyama-sensei. He treats her as a damsel in distress in one adventure, she isn't afraid to fight back, but it's hard for a normal powered character against guns. She has a few adventures as lead, the time she gets ahold of the time stop watch, and when she thinks she's asleep dreaming and talks the others into ransacking the village. Toriyama does marry her off, but to her love Tsukutsun, and they're seen working in her parents shop in the future. (Maybe they own it now?)

Why she isn't your standard treatment of a woman character: Bad tempered, hates cooking/cleaning, leads instead of follows, prankster.

You dont know me at all, stop talking like you do, it's creepy and rude.

[Cure Dragon 255]

Oh fuck off with that show tolerance to intolerance bullshit

I know it continues to sting, but this has already been addressed. We're moving on. Let's do the real convos, now!

Ok this isnt true, mireya HAS not been banned despite being so in your face about their awfulness and outright ban evading (mireya) I didnt want to say anything because I've been accused of mini modding but THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

[Mireya]

Oh fuck off with that show tolerance to intolerance bullshit

I know it continues to sting, but this has already been addressed. We're moving on. Let's do the real convos, now!

Ok this isnt true, mireya HAS not been banned despite being so in your face about their awfulness and outright ban evading (mireya) I didnt want to say anything because I've been accused of mini modding but THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

I'm not awful, please drop this shit. Almost all of my posts here have been DB related because that's why I came for, DB discussion. I had a previous account in which I took a position I acknowledge as wrong, I worded and made a case for things I wouldn't/shouldn't say, came back to discuss DB only and felt a big disdain since I was taken as someone who I am not... In a way I despise a lot (ppl can feel free to search my posts on other forums... I know what I am and what I am not in a moral way). But I've moved through that and won't persist on this endless discussion, despite the fact I felt truly regret and at the same time resentfulness... Both because I took a stance previously I wouldn't/shouldn't take, but because in spite of that I was worded in a way that I abominate and will likely take that for my life as I'm not that... Ever... Even accounting for the wrong position I took back then, I didn't show that which was said! Were I ever that thing said, I wouldn't be able to live, to feel well being me... I know what I am on a moral way.

It's a fact I've made a dupe. They have reasons to ban me and I'm not pushing my stay, in spite of valuing the huge information value the site has and offers, as well as some of its discussions. But that's at the mod's discretion, you shouldn't be playing mod or pretending to know things you don't know. Just have your time in the forum as I don't bother anyone without reason... No reason for you to feel anything that doesn't affect you. Just be nice and I'll reciprocate, dedicating to fair DB debating always. If anyone needs to raise this point, it's not you.

[BootyCheeksJohnson]

Spoiler:

Forced diversity exists and has plagued numerous TV shows and canons, I mean we have Ariel from the Little Mermaid being swapped out for a black chick (a completely pointless change and one that arguably undermines redheads, who themselves have had a history of marginalization) and totally ruining its chances in cinema polls for god's sake lol.

I also find it funny this thread has done a 180 from simply discussing female representation to shitting on capitalism and calling the opposition Nazis. Really goes to show the state of the modern left today.

I created the thread so if that adds any legitimacy to you let me state very clearly that "forced diversity' is B.S. People who complain about stuff like the new Little Mermaid being black act like it's a modern blacksploitation film and not a casting that was done because the casting director thought that she best fit the part. If that means that the company could make a few extra bucks off of a market that can see themselves represented in the leas character then that's just an added bonus to their salaries.

[BootyCheeksJohnson]

The only true example of "forced diversity" I can think of is in regards to a relatively recent Doctor Who episode set in the 1800s where a group of British redcoat soldiers end up on Mars (long story), and among them was a black actor. Apparently, the writer Mark Gatiss objected to this as he didn't believe the British Army recruited black people and it affected the historical accuracy. Considering that the British Empire is otherwise accurately portrayed in an aggressive, colonising force, you can see his point - it doesn't look progressive from a "woke diversity" standpoint to have a black man in the uniform of the oppressing side, either. However, the casting conflict led to the writer researching and discovering that there were a few examples of black soldiers in the British Army and he came to appreciate that the history was more diverse than he believed, and ironically wished he had given the black soldier a much larger role in the script.

My only issue with media corporations' fixation on diversity for the sake of widening audience appeal and making more money is that it can make things predictable. You definitely start to notice patterns in terms of how "token" characters are largely portrayed in much more saintly, virtuous lights than white characters. But I've noticed that this has the opposite of the intended effect. Villains, sleazeballs and comic relief stooges tend to be the most popular characters in any given work because they're allowed to be flawed, entertaining personalities and may also get compelling character development. And chances are, those roles will still end up going to white actors, because corporations are terrified of portraying minority characters in realistically flawed ways. I was watching a supernatural drama series recently and I correctly predicted from a country mile away that the handsome blonde-haired white guy would be the asshole.

Let's talk about The Boondocks. Now, it would be stupid on its face to frame that series through the lens of diversity because the show and comic are obviously fundamentally about the black experience in America. Nevertheless, it gave us Uncle Ruckus: a fat, ugly, kowtowing, white-supremacist, Uncle Tom motherfucker who's hilariously ignorant that he is, in fact, 200% black. This character is horrible, but he's hilarious and memorable, and he's balanced against the completely opposing perspectives of the main protagonists Huey, Riley and Robert (plus Michael Caesar in the comic strips), who are also foils to each other. That, I feel, is the true diversity we need to aim for in more media going forward - making actual good, engaging characters that contrast each other in more ways than just their gender or skin colour. And if it does have to be about gender and skin colour, then actually make an effort to level with that, corporate cowards.

The problem isn't the diverse casting, though, it is yet again the corporation. You know how you get diverse characters who are complex? You hire us to make those characters complex. I sure as shit don't trust a cis (straight or queer) guy (lest he hire consultants or something) to tell a story about a trans fem character who just so happens to be an awful person, but I'd trust a trans woman to tell that story and do it both good and deliciously awful.

Also, there really aren't enough cishet white guys being the villains, so fuck that, make more of them (they suck) and actually tie that shit back into a real life example.

To add on to your point here's a good "geek culture" (I hate that phrase so much) example. "Across the Spider-Verse" portrays a wide range of people and groups and the team at Sony Pictures made sure to hire artists and consultants of each of those respective backgrounds to give more authentic portrayals of those groups. Compare that to the Insomniac Spider-Man 2 where they gave Miles Morales a Cuban flag in his room... to represent his Puerto Rican heritage. Insomniac got rightfully made fun of for missing such an obvious oversight that could have been fixed with a basic Google search.

[BootyCheeksJohnson]

The leaps you're making are bonkers (see earlier: is this a bit?). If you're on your (at least?) third account, and you keep getting called out by multiple members for bizarre things and ultimately banned... perhaps you're the common denominator here, and that's worth considering?

To an(other) earlier point: why do you need to keep coming back? It's clearly not working. We're not meant for each other. You could have just gone away forever and no-one would remember or care.

You're done here. You've said enough. More than enough. We get it. We do. Really. I promise you. Understood. Aye, captain. Gotcha.

This has been brought off-track so much -- I have to congratulate and thank the folks who keep trying to pull it even remotely on the rails again. Thank you thank you, and I'd love to hear some other thoughts from folks who perhaps aren't already contributing!

Quick question: isn't creating new accounts after being banned from this site ban evasion and grounds for the new account being IP banned?

[Jord]

Spoiler:

Forced diversity exists and has plagued numerous TV shows and canons, I mean we have Ariel from the Little Mermaid being swapped out for a black chick (a completely pointless change and one that arguably undermines redheads, who themselves have had a history of marginalization) and totally ruining its chances in cinema polls for god's sake lol.

I also find it funny this thread has done a 180 from simply discussing female representation to shitting on capitalism and calling the opposition Nazis. Really goes to show the state of the modern left today.

I created the thread so if that adds any legitimacy to you let me state very clearly that "forced diversity' is B.S. People who complain about stuff like the new Little Mermaid being black act like it's a modern blacksploitation film and not a casting that was done because the casting director thought that she best fit the part. If that means that the company could make a few extra bucks off of a market that can see themselves represented in the leas character then that's just an added bonus to their salaries.

Devil's advocate: if Disney were to hire her because she's black they would never publicly admit it. Of course they would say she was the best candidate.

I would never trust PR as a reliable source of information, especially not from Disney.

[JulieYBM]

Playing Devil's Advocate is going to miss the forest for the trees. Casting a woman of color in a role over a white actress isn't some affront to white people—it's a business deciding to go for a vibe you don't like or agree with, which is...like...who gives a shit? White people—or anyone play Devil's Advocate—don't have a pony in this race (letting more people of color tell stories). Lest you want to sit through thousands of auditions to somehow craft some objective report that one actress or another was better, thus proving that skill had nothing to do with the casting for a film...I just don't really see the point of this.

I understand minorities wanting to see more of themselves on screen—I don't understand privileged abled, nuerotypical cishet white people wanting to as if the creation of art is a competition and therefore there has to be a winner (and it has to be them).

[AliTheZombie13]

"Oh no, they changed a character's color to earn more 'representation points' and... *GASP*... money!!!!!"

I mean... yeah. Even if they did cast The Little Mermaid as black for no other reason than marketing value and good PR, who gives a shit? Companies do whatever they can to get money, Disney is no different. It's not a hidden agenda to go Hitler on all white people of Planet Earth, it's simply to get more money.

It's impressive that people focus more on the actress' race, something that bears no actual relevance to the story, rather than every other legitimate problem the movie had, including the sidekick animals' terrifying and soulless CG. Whether you like it or not, the changing of Ariel's race is a non-issue and making a big deal out of it makes you look bad.

[MasenkoHA]

Spoiler:

Forced diversity exists and has plagued numerous TV shows and canons, I mean we have Ariel from the Little Mermaid being swapped out for a black chick (a completely pointless change and one that arguably undermines redheads, who themselves have had a history of marginalization) and totally ruining its chances in cinema polls for god's sake lol.

I also find it funny this thread has done a 180 from simply discussing female representation to shitting on capitalism and calling the opposition Nazis. Really goes to show the state of the modern left today.

I created the thread so if that adds any legitimacy to you let me state very clearly that "forced diversity' is B.S. People who complain about stuff like the new Little Mermaid being black act like it's a modern blacksploitation film and not a casting that was done because the casting director thought that she best fit the part. If that means that the company could make a few extra bucks off of a market that can see themselves represented in the leas character then that's just an added bonus to their salaries.

Devil's advocate: if Disney were to hire her because she's black they would never publicly admit it. Of course they would say she was the best candidate.

I would never trust PR as a reliable source of information, especially not from Disney.

Counterpoint to your stupid ass argument: Assuming a person of color was only hired because of her race and not her own merit is both racist and stupid. Especially when the actress was applauded by most people for her singing. This wasn't like Emma Watson in Beauty and the Beast where the autotune was fighting for its life.

It's impressive that people focus more on the actress' race, something that bears no actual relevance to the story, rather than every other legitimate problem the movie had, including the sidekick animals' terrifying and soulless CG. Whether you like it or not, the changing of Ariel's race is a non-issue and making a big deal out of it makes you look bad.

And yes it was gonna be terrible regardless because the Disney remakes are aggressively mediocre on a good day. Most of them are hideous and soulless and try to "fix" things in regards to plot that didn't be fixed. Fixating on the lead actress's race of all the other issues is extremely telling

[Basaku]

"Oh no, they changed a character's color to earn more 'representation points' and... *GASP*... money!!!!!"

I mean... yeah. Even if they did cast The Little Mermaid as black for no other reason than marketing value and good PR, who gives a shit? Companies do whatever they can to get money, Disney is no different. It's not a hidden agenda to go Hitler on all white people of Planet Earth, it's simply to get more money.

It's impressive that people focus more on the actress' race, something that bears no actual relevance to the story, rather than every other legitimate problem the movie had, including the sidekick animals' terrifying and soulless CG. Whether you like it or not, the changing of Ariel's race is a non-issue and making a big deal out of it makes you look bad.

The most hilarious part was still all these gymbros, neckbeards and the rest suddenly pretending they ever CARED for The Little Mermaid movie at all lol. I was like "... at least pick some comic book to look less obvious what is this really about"

Besides the little fact that we're talking a freaking MERMAID, as in a fictional creature, in the first place...

[Mireya]

I cared a lot for the Little Mermaid when I was a kid, would watch it plenty of times lol haha. Jokes aside (though I really liked Little Mermaid as a kid), I don't care about now the remake is made, so long as it's good material, which I can't say it's good or bad because I haven't watched. I don't care at all for inclusion of different groups and ethnicities, I rather think that's very good, valid, and is a form of speaking up for those who were misrepresented heavily due to bias, misogyny and racism before. I'm just saying that creating contents and adding different color characters to once established ones isn't a problem, the point Julie made before about art not being science or math reasoned very well... I'm just saying that not focusing on the story itself, making the character faithful in regards to their personalities and making the story a totally different one when being seen as Death Note, may give the wrong impression... As the reason is good enough, having a black L to represent a character so liked by the fans but at the same time not giving this character what made the original one shine, hence the representation likely losing its meaning as people will remember the movie as trash, for it wasn't at all DN like. I think inclusion should also come together with a powerful and well crafted storytelling not to give the impression the movie was made only for means of representation without care of the outlining of the backbone of the story, plot, moments. That was my point. I'm not against having differing than the original characters in ethnicity or gender, but if the story isn't made reasonably and most laugh when remembering it, as fans of DN, what's the point?

I remember Muhammad Ali raised a valid point once about the misrepresentation of black people, that if I'm not mistaken, had included Tarzan, the king of the forest (dunno how it's worded in English) being white... Though I don't know, some people may also see representing a character who was created by monkeys as a black person as poorly done too and racist as well... It's complex too, I'd say.

[Kunzait_83]

Spoiler:

What movie even is this a review for? Why even post this at all if you're not even going to specify what film its from?

Forced diversity exists and has plagued numerous TV shows and canons,

1) Name names then. Go ahead, list specific examples (besides The Little Mermaid, which I'll get to). If its been happening "numerous times", then list a bunch of specific, concrete examples.

2) And not just the titles, but also the actual, specific casting choices therein that show "forced diversity".

3) And lastly, once you name specific titles and specific casting choices, cite evidence or specific behind the scenes stories that point to the diversity being "forced" unwillingly on the studio or the creatives, rather than simply being a choice that was made freely.

This is the central rub with "forced diversity": either its all kept incredibly vague without ANY specific examples noted, or in the cases where any specific examples are cited, there's NEVER any evidence shown that the diversity casting was unwillingly "forced" onto the production.

This is my primary ask of anyone in this thread (or other similar threads) who wishes cite "forced diversity" as being an actual phenomenon or problem in media: please, please submit actual, tangible evidence - even if its in the form of candid, behind the scenes interviews with cast or crew or SOMEONE aligned with the actual production - that the "diversity" casting was FORCED onto the production. Either by the studio, the creatives, or literally ANYONE.

Cite some actual, hard evidence that this casting was unwillingly forced onto the production and wasn't a freely made creative choice, and THEN we can have an actual, serious conversation about this.

Because without actual proof or evidence that the diversity casting was forced, or without ANY kind of specifics other than just general grumbling and grousing... then it doesn't take a genius to understand why to the average person seeing these complaints, it looks an AWFUL lot like these complaints are really just about seeing more black/brown/gay/trans people on camera in and of itself, and not like there's anything "nefarious" going on other than diversity is popular among more people today and the studios and creatives are just following where the audience/money is.

I mean we have Ariel from the Little Mermaid being swapped out for a black chick (a completely pointless change and one that arguably undermines redheads, who themselves have had a history of marginalization) and totally ruining its chances in cinema polls for god's sake lol.

1) As noted earlier, redheads are and have been literally EVERYWHERE in media, and include high brow Oscar winners to low brow bit players across both old and new movies and TV shows.

From (and these are just off the top of my head) Amy Adams to Jessica Chastain to Isla Fisher to Christina Hendricks, to Julianne Moore, to Lindsay Lohan, to Eric Stoltz, Seth Green, Molly Ringwald, Rupert Grint, David Caruso, Carol Burnett, Bryce Dallas Howard, Ron Howard, Bella Thorne, Alicia Witt, Cynthia Nixon, Nicole Kidman, Debra Messing, Sophie Turner, all the way down to fucking D-list examples like Carrot Top and Danny Bonaduce, and goddamned animated/drawn examples like Jessica Rabbit, Batgirl, Lois Griffin, Poison Ivy from Batman, George and Jane Jetson, Wilma and Pebbles Flintstone, Jean Grey, Ranma Saotome (female), Kyle Broflovsky, Yosemite Sam, and Daphne from Scooby Doo and the chick from that Pixar movie Brave...

...mainstream examples, obscure examples, classic Hollywood examples, modern examples, fictional examples... hell, non-redheads from Kim Kardashian to Katy Perry to Emma Stone to Rihanna, have been dying their hair red because its seen as so attractive now (and no, before someone chimes in with this ludicrously dumb point, that is NOT the same or equivalent to blackface, for reasons so stupidly, historically obvious and glaring that I should not have to rehash it here: god help you if your basic grade school education failed you here)...

...the days of redheads being significantly discriminated against (which in modern times go all the way back to the days when the Irish were considered non-white: which is roughly 100 years ago now, literally) had stopped being a significant problem in Hollywood and in overall general media at least (in regular day to day life, it still happens primarily as a form of bullying among small children) a LONG time ago and has not been a thing media-wise in literally almost a century now.

Redheads haven't carried NEARLY the same degree of social stigma as black and brown people have for a VERY, very long time now.

Hell, I say all that as an Italian myself - who were in much the same basket as Irish/Redheads a century ago and were not considered white at the time and were very similarly discriminated against much in the same way as Irish/Redheads were: that discrimination ended and has not been a significant obstacle in a hundred fucking years now.

Redheads/Irish (and Italians, such as myself, along with them) have not faced employment and voter discrimination, pay discrimination, redlining, unlawful/unjust police violence, street harassment (beyond playground bullying as kids largely, which still sucks granted), and so forth due to their ethnicity/color for a VERY long time: unlike black and brown people, for whom ALL of this has been and continues to be, a problem to this day. This is and has been a non-issue for redheads for quite some time now.

Simply put: equating redhead discrimination with black/brown skin discrimination in 2024 is... highly, laughably out of touch and smacks of desperately grasping at straws for an absurdly false equivalence.

2) The live action Little Mermaid evidently did just fine at the box office. So I don't know what this "ruining its chances at the cinema polls" bit is referring to. It wasn't the highest grossing Disney movie ever or anything, but it certainly made its money and didn't bomb. Note: I don't now, nor have I ever given two shits about The Little Mermaid either way: I'm just going by verifiable, actual box office numbers here, which directly contradict your statement.

3) Once again... there is ZERO evidence that the change of Ariel's ethnicity from white (bear in mind, Redheads a century ago used to be considered non-white) to black was in any way a change that was "forced" on anyone, either at the creative level or even at the studio level. According to pretty much ALL accounts from all levels of production, the actress was chosen based solely on her singing ability first and foremost: again, what happened to color-blindness and meritocracy?

Again: provide SOME hard evidence - literally ANYTHING at this point - that even vaguely hints that these casting decisions are being "forced" onto the filmmakers/creatives, and aren't simply a response to audience demand and chasing the almighty dollar.

And if they're being "forced" on the filmmakers/creatives (for reasons beyond simply attracting a bigger audience and making more money): to what end or purpose? What possible reason is there that isn't to do with just increasing profits from a bigger audience?

Again: BE SPECIFIC AND NOT VAGUE: "pushing a political agenda" is NOT a specific answer AT ALL. What's the "agenda" in question? How is it political in nature (do you even know, like on a basic dictionary level, what the word "political" even means or refers to)? What's the purpose of the agenda? Who does the pushing of the agenda (whatever it is) benefit and how/why does it benefit them?

These are not difficult gotcha questions I'm asking: I'm asking you to lay out the basic-most foundations of a basic-ass argument here. One that isn't steeped in vague innuendo and oblique evasiveness.

I also find it funny this thread has done a 180 from simply discussing female representation to shitting on capitalism and calling the opposition Nazis. Really goes to show the state of the modern left today.

1) Capitalism came up in this thread for a very logical reason: it came up in reference to the actual real life reasons why corporations and studios are using more diverse casting choices: because they wish to make more money.

Capitalism is, among other things, the business acquisition of an ever-increasing amount of profit (or Financial Capital): it is literally THE reason why you're seeing "more diversity" in media: Corporations, who under a Capitalist economic system (such as the one we have largely worldwide, and particularly in the USA) exist SOLELY to make more and more money every year, see a bigger audience to attract with these more diverse casting choices (which has come about largely organically as social mores towards other races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations has softened across many corners of society: which, unless you're a genuine racist/bigot, is generally seen as a GOOD and positive social development), and with a bigger audience comes more profit.

There: we just now, in but a single paragraph, solved the "great mystery" of why big movie studios and TV networks are casting more and more people of color and queer people in movies and TV/streaming shows: because lots of people of color and queer people watch movies and TV too, and the studios want to add their money to their yearly revenue.

Hence: Capitalism came up in this thread. VERY organically, as its impossible to talk about these kinds of decisions without at least mentioning capitalism.

Hell, its almost impossible to talk about damn near ANYTHING that happens of note or substance in the world without mentioning capitalism, as capitalism is the mechanism/engine for which basically EVERYTHING happens among people and groups/entities with any power in the world: they happen to make more and more money for said people in power. Because in a capitalist society (which we're in here in real life), money = power and power = money.

To avoid ever mentioning capitalism in such discussions is to basically avoid acknowledging reality in favor of fantasy.

Fantasy like say... studios and artists are just randomly out of the blue deciding to "force diverse casting" onto an unwilling and unwanting audience (who keep showing up and breaking box office/ratings records for many of these films and shows anyhow) for absolutely no reason whatsoever other than some undefined, vague, murky "woke agenda" that achieves... something undefined which no one ever wants to discuss or describe in any detail what that "something" entails.

2) The Left Wing as its ALWAYS existed in politics has ALWAYS been defined in no small part by its criticism and (to varying extents) opposition - or at least, adversarial relationship - toward Capitalism. I find it incredibly laughable, not to mention historically illiterate, in your presenting criticism of Capitalism as a reason why "the state of the modern Left" is somehow in dire straights... as if Left Wing politics has EVER been anything without an adversarial view towards Capitalism as one of its central, primary defining characteristics.

Its like saying "this is why no one can take basketball seriously anymore: all that dribbling and players constantly sinking the ball into a net".

My dude: what the fuck did you think the Left Wing in politics even was for all this time and all these years? Never mind just "the modern Left", go back like a few hundred fucking years ago even.

Not understanding that an oppositional eye (to one varying degree or another) towards Capitalism was ALWAYS one of its central, defining tenants... that says WAY more about you and your base of basic historical knowledge than it does ANYTHING about the Left as a political entity.

3) I word-searched this whole thread: literally NO ONE, not a single person in this thread was ever once called a Nazi. By anyone.

Go and word search the thread and see for yourself if you don't believe me.

Nazis were referenced only a couple of times in abstract or in historical reference or in calling certain specific hate groups outside of this thread: but NEVER as a name called to anyone in this thread or even as something to compare anyone in this thread against.

It sounds like you're dragging in baggage of yours from other discussions, but not this one we're having in this thread.