Why is representation considered political?

[@TTRPGSarvis]

It's political because one side of politics is the status quo. Progress is about questioning and challenging that status quo. Progressives believe that there are always ways to make the world better, conservatives believe that we might make the world worse by changing things.

[@carbootstudios2459]

But what if progress itself is the status quo? And what if someone questions progress?

[@madelinechamberlain7212]

@@carbootstudios2459 That is a political ideology, it's called Conservatism, and that is one of its central tenants. You're not dismissing the politics of progressivism, you're exemplifying the politics of conserving the world around us. Which, for the majority of people, is shite.

[@trolldrool]

This is a very fair description of the difference between Progressive and Conservative without showing a positive/negative bias towards either.

[@arubinojr5670]

@@carbootstudios2459 In what situation is progress the status quo? EDIT: Ok, to skip to the end: If there's no relevant example, this is a word game and not really able to be compared.

[@carbootstudios2459]

@@madelinechamberlain7212 Political correctness sounds like shite to me.

[@MrDarthT]

"Oh, there's a reason. Explanation might be better. It's stupid and ridiculous, but it's the only one that fits... A dislike for the unlike." Ian Chesterton, Doctor Who, "The Daleks", 1963

[@madauntiekeith2814]

This is such an important distinction to make and it's why when ppl ask me why i'm making everything gay i respond 'why do you make everything straight?' because watching them try not to say 'because it's the normal thing' is telling

[@matthewbaker5741]

Ooh, VERY well said.

[@Acidfrog475]

What do you respond with? Also, I get really disturbed when my and my siblings' mother asks "can't we have any straight kids?!". Ugh. I love her... but like, no. Mom, please don't do that.

[@shrinkingviolet1953]

Damn, are you ever rocking that hair and the purple lipstick.

[@aprilrichards762]

And the rainbow frames, she rocks them too!

[@IceNixie0102]

Ditto, totally just in the comments to say how GORGEOUS you are today :)

[@mertmsn73]

i want that lipstick so bad 😫😫😫

[@aprilrichards762]

I love her nail polish too!

[@PartridgeQuill]

"A lack of inclusion is also political." This! ☝️ Preach! 👏👏👏👏

[@PartridgeQuill]

Also, your look is on-point in this vid.

[@snaketooth0943]

Because even saying not everyone who is different is bad offends bigots. I may not be LGBTQIA+ or a POC, but I am autistic, so I know a bit about what bigots can be like to those who are different.

[@A_Potato_of_Infinite_Wisdom]

I think there's a bit more nuance to it than that. Even the word "bigot" has been bastardised in modern culture. I mean, I doubt many people who agree with this video would like my point of view existing, but I wouldn't label them a "bigot". Representation is considered political because it is forced to appease people of a particular political ideology, not because "bigots" don't like it. Black people might get insulted that a medieval fantasy set in a central European-inspired world is full of blacks, just like how I hate that Tom Cruise is in The Last Samurai. It's tokenism and is primarily used to appease modern left-wing culture and is just as much a political issue as old films that would demonize foreign cultures.

[@vintheguy]

@@A_Potato_of_Infinite_Wisdom May I ask What is token to you? What isn't token?

[@A_Potato_of_Infinite_Wisdom]

@@vintheguy token is when a character is purposed around pandering to a particular demographic. A black guy in a central European setting during the medieval age would be tokenism 101, but you can also get a token "strong female character" or a token white guy (granted, Tom Cruise being in The Last Samurai is more for the sake of lazy exposition to non-Japanese audiences, but I still count him as a bit of American tokenism too).

[@vintheguy]

@@A_Potato_of_Infinite_Wisdom What isnt token?

[@A_Potato_of_Infinite_Wisdom]

@@vintheguy anything that isn't what I mentioned. Basically anything that isn't pandering to a demographic.

[@Mojjs92]

Maybe a tangent topic, but related to the thing you mentioned about how not including something that is different from what you yourself view as normal is an active choice: I had a conversation with my friends the other day about allergies and how people who are not used to having to account for them tend to forget that they exist, thus excluding people from certain events/areas. I think it’s easy to forget that not everyone is like you (I myself tend to default to that) and that you need to actively work on recognising when that happens and strive to avoid it. Everyone can be oblivious at the start, but once you have been repeatedly shown the error of your ways remaining oblivious becomes an active choice and choosing to do so is equivalent to acting kind of like an asshole.

[@ErekLich]

Absolutely! I have Celiac, and not being able to eat wheat is a much bigger deal than most people think. And I think you have an excellent point that we need to do more to differentiate between "blind spot" obliviousness and "willful" obliviousness. I'm fortunate that most people never veer into the latter regarding my food restrictions, but those who have are entirely a different matter than people who unknowingly offer me crackers, and if I were to treat the latter as the former I'd very quickly find myself with no friends.

[@jessicastraw6593]

I really appreciate your perspective that lack of inclusion is also political - too often people think only non-white, non-men are political when in reality in 2020 not including anyone who isn't a white man is extremely political. Also, I really liked the note from your editor that lack of mention of ramps implied they're aren't any. My mom was in a wheelchair and it frustrates me to no end how lacking our society is in providing wheelchair compatibility.

[@Maerahn]

As a writer myself, I understand how tricksy an area this is. I've had people asking me why I 'decided to make' this character Asian, or that one gay, and some of them just aren't satisfied with my answer of "I didn't 'decide to make' them that way, they just WERE." They tell me I need a 'reason' for it - as if these characters have to somehow use their diversity like a superpower, in a way that would legitimately invalidate a white/straight person playing that part instead. Obviously I'm not advocating glossing over the cultures of others, writing them as if they were just a white person in a black person's skin, for instance - but at the same time it irks me there's this notion that any character who doesn't fit the straight white cis mould has to 'earn' their right to be included in a story, when the aforementioned straight white cis ones don't have to.

[@linamunar8795]

This. Absolutely, no one ever asks why a character is white cis straight man, but any other experience has to be “justified” to appear in a story/film/show

[@petrairene]

Plus, I don't want these minority characters being total clichees. What I couldn't stand about the Black Panther movie was the clear overkill in black African cultural stereotypes in that movie. I mean, even I as a white European could see that this isn't properly and credibly African, this is just the projection of an enthusiastic US foreigner on that continent.

[@forestgrump4723]

@@creed8712 Why is simply creating a character that way flaunting them though? I have a side character in one of my early novels who is a single father. He also happens to be black. Because why? Because he can be. He’s an incredibly supportive, funny, caring dude. There’s no reason he has to be black but there’s also no reason he shouldn’t be. Now, he’s a side character so he’s treated as such and only exists for a couple chapters but is his mere inclusion “flaunting” him?

[@forestgrump4723]

@@creed8712 No, he’s not a main character. I mostly only talk about my main characters.

[@douglaswolfen7820]

This is it exactly. People expect to see a white person. A straight guys cis male white person. If you don't have a specific reason to do anything else, then the character just "ought" to be white.

[@Marsllama]

Haven’t watched yet of course but I think representation is inherently necessary to reflect real society. There should be diverse characters in any story that depicts a diverse society. The only issue is when writers think that diverse characters don’t need personalities and that stereotypes are enough, but I don’t think that happens nearly as often as people claim.

[@Merilirem]

It happens a lot but worse yet the ones doing it use it as an excuse to be jerks while shoving it in everyone's faces to make sure they know whose "in the right here".

[@Percival917]

@@Merilirem HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD

[@annabelcrescibene4257]

@@BradLad56 Repersentation is to help people feel normal and seen and like they aren’t alone. You may not care if something has a disabled character. But a little girl who’s deaf does. That girl would feel really happy to see herself on a screen.

[@trolldrool]

@@joeespin4377 I don't understand this question. "If it does, then is it true inclusion?" You seem to presume to know their answer before they respond. Why ask a question about an opinion they haven't yet expressed having?

[@rebeccan7276]

@@joeespin4377 lemme know if that ever gets close to happening. As it is, your argument is nothing more than making up a hypothetical harm to distract from an actual situation that is actively harmful to people right now who actually exist, unlike your example (straight white males who lack representation).

[@WhaleManMan]

"I dont have a problem with representation, I just get really mad every time it happens.

[@arenkai]

I think most people don't care when it's done like it's normal. What people tend to have issues with is when the narrative loses itself in signaling how virtuous it is for being diverse. Captain Marvel is a good example of how not to do it. Everything is tied to her being a "strong woman" to the point where we're left here saying "Okay, cool, I love Sarah Connor too, now can we please have something substantive ?" It's like today's shows/movies expect us to clap because they put a woman in the lead role and they will have a significant amount of screen time dedicated to reminding us that this woman is super strong and independant. My favourite show is The Haunting of Bly Manor which features women of colour and gay relationships. And you know how much time it allocates to reminding me how cool it is that those characters are coloured or gay ? None. Because it's too focused on telling a good story first and foremost and diversity is just treated as being normal. I could also cite Mr.Robot, Buffy or Firefly All among my Top5 favourite TV Shows But you will never see Captain Marvel even close to the top100 of movies I think are good, because it isn't. And trying to garner goodwill by showcasing how cool it is that Disney has a strongfemalecharacter doesn't do anything positive to my engagement because it's already normal to me to have female characters being strong, so I'm waiting for the story to start giving her a personnality, and it never does because it knows people will clap for her either way for shallow reasons.

[@SilvinoGonzalezMorales]

I've been on a similar train of thought for a while. Dealing with my own biases, my privilege as a white cis middle-class male, as a graphic designer, artist and someone who is focused on work with Indigenous Nations in education this process has been a natural development of my journey; and at the same time, it has forced me to face how so few people question both concepts and accept how everything has a political subtext and even text. Btw. What a beautiful smile my friend, thanks for share it.

[@Alex-ph5ir]

Yes, this is such an important addition to the conversation. The status quo is political. Resisting the status quo is political. It's always political! When people say that they don't like it when something is political, what they really mean is that they don't like the particular political positionality that piece of media is coming from and they only want their own political framework depicted. It's kind of a similar mindset to people who think cis men don't have a gender because 'man' is viewed as the default human and they only see gender as something that applies to those who diverge from the 'default.'

[@mxar2074]

I think it's seen as political because representation contributes to the idea of a society in which all are equal and therefore also represented in media. Those who are "against the inclusion" of lgbtq+ characters as well as poc characters usually don't feel like these minorities are oppressed and therefore don't like being reminded of inequalities through the media they consume.

[@JoelFeila]

ding ding ding you when the prize

[@Johury]

A yes the two sexualities, straight and political.

[@inactive-ot9mj]

Let's not forget the whole Ariel debacle last year. I remember one video raged against this and said "AAAAAAAAA DISNEY'S GETTING WOKE AAAAAAAH" Also can we please stop using the term woke as slang?

[@whitneymohrhauser8753]

The holistic inclusion is Avatar: The Last Airbender on diverse characters. Toph Beifong is blind and she is strongest character in the series. As disabilities including Autistics are often exclusionary from social but especially work. An Autistic person the unemployment is at 87%.

[@nekusakura6748]

Speaking as someone with Austism, that certainly tracks for me.

[@k.stewart007]

Your daughter is so lucky to have you as a role model. Were all lucky to have you running our meetings. 😊

[@irrevenant8724]

Although I *still* haven't seen an agenda for this thing...

[@CharlestonRat]

I’m actually very glad your editor mentioned the lack of disabled representation in your initial drafts of your novel. Whilst I’ve never been much of a bookworm, disabled representation in film and TV is something that’s been on my mind for a number of years now. So much so, that I’m in the process of writing a dissertation examining both how it’s represented and the many ethical complexities behind it. Once I’m happy with it, would it be okay if I posted it on the Discord server? Fair warning, it’s 6,400 words so far.

[@MagsPM]

Writer M. E. Vaughan included a WLW wedding in her debut novel, The Sons of Thestian. Her editor at the time asked her if including a wedding between two women in a fantasy novel was "realistic".

[@darlalathan6143]

A possible answer: "It's as realistic as magic and monsters and imaginary lands."

[@spencerluther6485]

This is one of the best takes on inclusion politics I have ever heard, and helps me understand my previously unvoiced issues with thing like superhero movies and crime drama tv shows

[@maurinet2291]

Loved the conversation about your book, and elements of exclusion or inclusion. I hadn't thought of that either; it's one of those aspects that most authors don't bother with. What an incredibly powerful tool. Because even a couple of words or sentences would tell you so much about the society. How a culture deals with marginalized people is key to understanding who they are, in fiction or reality.

[@cozy_chrysocyon7019]

13:26 Interesting? For sure. The details you included really helped to contextualize and flesh out your points. Your own unintentional determination of political matters in your book world was a great example. Thoughtful? This definitely gave me a new way to think about things. It’s always been sad or frustrating for me to see people shy away from challenges to the status quo, and now I have some words to address it. The idea that a person’s status quo is itself political seems a valuable insight to bring to this evolving discussion. Entertaining? This isn’t the sort of thing I would watch with popcorn on a Friday, but you better believe that “Deal with it” at 13:07 put a goofy smile on my face. It’s my first time seeing this channel, by the way. Excited to see what else you’ve done. (Don’t worry, I remembered to press the shiny red button.)

[@lunaskies624]

I've always thought that politics is everywhere and in everything. But I'd never really considered the perspective you've addressed so succinctly. Thank you for drawing my attention to it and opening my eyes further in my lifelong journey of learning..

[@cathunsworth7915]

Yes! Thank you! This! All the way through, every time you said “inclusion is political”, I was screaming at the screen (but, you know, nicely) “so is exclusion, but it’s treated as default”. So I was very happy to hear that point made so well by you.

[@kierenevans2521]

Either everything is political or nothing is. Given the absurdity of the latter, I'd go with the former.

[@daveroe4961]

The only reason everything is political nowadays is because people make the conscious choice to make everything political. And people are tired of being preached at when they want to be entertained.

[@SpoopySquid]

@Dave Roe no, the reason everything (in this case, entertainment) is political is because it's made by people, who are consciously or unconsciously influenced by their personal politics to some degree. There's valid discussion to be had about what those influences may be and how it impacts the work but to deny they exist at all is at best incredibly naïve or at worst deliberate blindness. There is no such thing as politically neutral art

[@daveroe4961]

"There is no such thing as politically neutral anything." Every totalitarian dictator throughout the whole of human history.

[@charlieparker5346]

@@daveroe4961 You only take that position because YOUR politics are "everything is fine how it is and only straight white men are worthy of being protagonists and heroes". It's not because everything isn't political. It's because what's considered "apolitical" matches with YOUR politics.

[@daveroe4961]

@@charlieparker5346 Amazing. Every word you just said is wrong. Diversity matters, but what matters most is that it's done right, creating protagonists who are likeable due to the nature of their character, rather than because disliking how bland or badly written they are is anti/ist/phobic

[@CapriUni]

All art (and especially narrative art) is political because all art is a representative model of our society. However you construct that model is a reflection of your attitude toward that society. That's either to agree with your society's structure and priorities, or to challenge them. Speaking personally, as a wheelchair user, I'm always disappointed at how rarely I see disabled people in background crowd scenes in movies or TV shows. Back when I owned a TV, and could spend time just idly channel surfing, I could instantly tell whether a city crowd scene on a street was in a fictional world, or the real world (either live news, or a documentary), because in the fictional city scenes -- the movie or tv shoots -- there are never any visibly disabled people. And on the news, and in documentaries (at least, when there's a crowd in the background), there (almost) *always* is (usually an elderly person with a cane or a walker). If a disabled person shows up in a crowd on a fictional set, it (so far) has always turned out to be because of a plot twist of some kind. So I'd like to thank your editor for making sure disability was just part of the background color of your world..

[@alsatusmd1A13]

The basis of academic modern art (and architecture) includes a rebellion against the (classical) concept of art (and architecture) as a representative model of real of hypothetical things. However, this tends to reflect little to nothing of what attitude the artist (or architect) might actually have had toward these things. Thus apprehenders of the work may project their own attitudes toward these things onto it and not really be wrong. This is how we got examples of the radicalist architecture of both wings of the 1920s and 30s looking essentially the same (see two images in rationalwiki.org/wiki/Modern_art_and_architecture). As for the disabled people in fictional crowd scenes, how would you know about any of them only being because of this or that plot twist unless you had anything to do with the editor?

[@naomigreen2147]

Finally, someone else who acknowledges that it is impossible not to be political. My pet hate is people failing to understand that being a man is just as much a thing as being a woman, being cis is just as much a thing as being trans, being white is just as much a thing as being black or Asian, etc. What I'm trying to say is that I hate this elevation of one particular way of being into "the norm," as though it's somehow above everything else.

[@tsuritsa3105]

I think that addressing the way conversations are framed is a valuable contribution to the discourse and I'm glad you did it. I hadn't considered it from this direction either, and it makes a lot of sense. I'm looking at the way I write my own fiction and thinking about the subconscious political elements that go into it. Thank you for this!

[@carmanwillis7537]

I really appreciate your perspective on all these things. It's made me really challenge what I have thought on things. For the better. Thank you for thoughtfully and elegantly always making your cases and giving all of us things to think about in a understanding and compassionate way.

[@zravenwolf1408]

I watched this a few days late because we're moving, but I love this. Also. You look amazing--the hair, the makeup, the outfit, the glasses... all of it.

[@TheAdamSplitter]

Marketing diversity doesn’t help. When people sell representation instead of include it naturally, it creates a feeling of an agenda to change what you’re comfortable with instead of a normalization of it. Separately, I really like the viewpoint you present.

[@Percival917]

Yes. This, exactly.

[@TheAdamSplitter]

@@Percival917 right? Even when I agree with the message they’re selling me-which I often do these days- I still don’t like it. Plus with all the marketing off diversity there is, creating that feeling of actively trying to take away what people are comfortable with to replace it with something new, it creates a correlation in the minds of many between the inclusion of diversity and representation and the intention of taking away what they’re comfortable with for the sake of profit. That psychological association between diversity and the marketing of diversity to appeal to certain groups for profit makes it a lot harder to include any diversity or representation in a story without being accused of doing the same, even if factually you are not. This is what leads people to feeling like they’re being bashed over the head with it, getting it stuffed down their throat-because there ARE people who are doing that, powerful people, in incredibly public ways, establishing the connection between diversity and profit or other shallow and/or tacked on goals, despite the fact that those goals don’t actually occur to people who are actually invested in normalizing it they cannot escape the psychological association.

[@EmeralBookwise]

Not to assume any malicious intent, but this whole notion of distinguishing between "forced" vs "natural" inclusivity probably says more about the preconceptions and biases of the those complaining than about those people supposedly making the inclusions in the first place. At the very least it's rooted in a cynicism that profit and market targeting is the ONLY reason such elements would ever be included, denying the possibility of genuine good will or even just the mundane reality that we live in an increasingly diverse world were "inclusion" can happen entirely as an incidental reflection of shifting demographics. Moreover, even if we assume profit was the sole motivation for diversity inclusions, so what? That just means that someone at an executive level did financial analysis and came to a conclusion that they were leaving money on the table by not marketing to an untapped audience. Again, anyone ascribing any "agenda" more sinister than that is only betraying their own bias and fear of whatever group is being represented. If the mere inclusion of minority groups makes someone uncomfortable and feels as if it is in any way an attack on their own sense of normalcy, it really only reveals how narrow minded and bigoted that person is.

[@TheAdamSplitter]

@Jesse Schoedel you’re absolutely correct. I don’t think it disproves anything I said about how the marketing impacts people psychologically. I’m not sure I said anything about political propaganda or hating anything based on the marketing. I also wasn’t trying to “argue” anything, only to add what I consider to be a different, but related, part of the issue.

[@TheAdamSplitter]

@Jesse Schoedel ah! Yes i agree with that. thank you for clarifying. Unfortunately, marketing does actively shape our perception of what a piece of content is supposed to be, despite the likelihood that the creator of the content likely had no hand in it. This absolutely leads to bad faith criticism, you’re completely right. The challenge we face is that in a world where the content we are marketed is increasingly hid behind many, many different paywalls of some sort or other, we must rely on the marketing to help us determine what we want to spend our money on. Hell even when theaters were a thing we could go to, it was not cheap and we had to rely on the marketing to tell us what we were in for. There’s a lot in the way of just getting into the story and judging it on it’s own merits, which obviously would be the ideal way to experience anything. It’s a two-way problem: consumers fail to judge a piece of content on its own merits, and those who own the content fail to foster an environment where that is a reasonable and risk-free way of judging it.

[@JeronisLeror]

As amazing as ever, Vera! Well done!

[@frankshort8713]

What really irks me about people who complain about the presence of anything remotely "political" in their popular entertainment is that they always seem to believe that being provided with said entertainment is inherently more important than any type of political discourse, which is a total load of BS for reasons that shouldn't need to be explained.

[@sirtoby4939]

The original right-left political divide is as prominent today as it was when it began. It's a divide between people who want more equality, and people who desire stratification in society.

[@FeaturingRob]

I check some of the boxes that you mentioned (white, male, and cis-gendered), but as a lifelong sci-fi fan, I have always sought to try to understand others first. To me, the entire point of science fiction is to help create the bridges of understanding due to the different ways sci-fi can create metaphors for our own world. I have to state that I have always been way too sensitive for my own good, and I fall into the classification of 'highly sensitive person' and possibly (i would argue 'probably') empathic. My own default from a young age is to play the thought experiments of placing myself in the shoes of other people and try to see the world as they see it. So, when people want to exclude others because of color, sexual identity, gender identity, disability, etc...I find myself able to see their point of view mentally but completely mystified at their point of view emotionally. My own default is to say, "These are human beings you are talking about. Not creatures or freaks or whatever. Human beings, not that dissimilar from you or me.Why this animosity?" This is not to say I do not have my own blind spots...I am human, and all too aware of my own foibles and faults not to at least acknowledge that they are there. However, when I am confronted with possible blind spots, I automatically start questioning why I have them and how I can overcome them. The thought experiments resume. It's never easy. Change and growth, inner or outer, are never easy. The more I see what happens in the world as far as representation and the political aspects of any representation, it seems to me that it comes down not so much as a political point of view alone. You're right...everything IS political, ultimately. The question is, "How is this political perspective being used?" For the white, cis-male, heterosexual, and able-bodied, they feel threatened and the pushback is a weaponized political perspective...hence the nastiness we see all around. The name-calling, the narratives of fear, anger, and hatred, the lack of empathy or understanding, the weaponizing of religious faith, etc. Life is too short for fear of other human beings, no matter the way they live their lives. We as a nation, as a species are stronger in our diversity. The greatest thing that Star Trek taught me...IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations). My first Council of Geeks video...quite an eye-opener! I loved it! I think I might fit in here!

[@merelymayhem]

great video, i think you explained it very well, i have the same stance and i´ve been of this oppinion for a long while and the online discourse annpys me lots but in person the conversations i´ve had where interesting and mostly good

[@SilverStormShadow]

When it comes to actors/actresses in entertainment, I simply believe that whoever the best person for the role is the person that gets the role, if a Black person is the best fit, then cast them, if a Lesbian is the best fit, cast them, what people tend to not like is when companies cast people in minorities just for the sake of saying "lol we have inclusion" The vast majority of the time when I'm watching entertainment I am not sitting there thinking, oh look there is a gay actor in this, or look at how many White men there are here. I just enjoy the entertainment.

[@CouncilofGeeks]

I’ve talked about the “best for the role” argument before, because it has some serious issues when you look at how casting actually works: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fIbIgKt9orxnm6s

[@SilverStormShadow]

@@CouncilofGeeks Yeah, it is a real shame that these companies can't work on a "best for the role" model, because sometimes they prioritize casting either a big name actor/actress or an actor/actresses that is part of a minority group. Once again though the audience causes problems here too, as when someone is cast, people on both sides can complain about it. If a big name actor is cast, people who want more representation are upset due to the lack of representation, but if these companies do choose to be inclusive, then people will complain about it being political. Bottom line though, I just wish everyone could enjoy good entertainment regardless of the casting.

[@f-lorui]

that's something i've been trying to explain to people for a long time, glad you put it so eloquently so i can just redirect them here now, cheers 🥂

[@ryanhollist3950]

For me, I used to be a bit confused about discussions of anything being political because I only understood the word "political" in the sense of what's happening in government. What really helped pull it together was when I finally heard the definition that politics is about the distribution of power: both who has it and who gets to decide who has it. This sharply pulled thing into focus on issues such as representation.

[@DWViking4]

Have yet to watch the video, but I think the best reflection of how to answer the question was done in the Boys season 2. I don't think it's necessarily about the representation itself, but why and how these big media companies incorporate that representation

[@AnMuiren]

Brilliant. Thank you from someone who has been told in every Trans support group over the past 20 years that gender is personal while race is political and so outside the mission of the group, because discussion of race is activism. I have been told this by peers as well as licensed social workers and PhDs with oversight from Boston to Atlanta, from Columbus and Cincinnati, to Denver and Phoenix, and now San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland where just my asking if my mentioning race would be a problem has cause White, Asian, and Light Skinned European looking Latinx Women to get up and leave the meeting without saying a word.

[@ThatGUY666666]

"Everything is political" just out of curiosity did you ever study political science? I ask because that is literally the second thing you learn. For the sake of disclosure I am white, male, straight, able-bodied, and until I lost my faith a few years ago I was a Christian. And before anyone gets any ideas the reason I disclose those things is because like your political association they impact how you contextualize the events you experience and how you view the world. Basically, they are other potential sources of biases. The way I see it, this mess is due to three issues. First there are the bigots; the racists, the religious fanatics, the homophobes, and so forth. I think their role is pretty self-explanatory. The second issue is my opinion is that some (though thankfully not all) writers and media companies seem to be trying to put minority characters in roles of prominence to try to make up for lazy or even outright bad writing or story-telling. First example that comes to mind was that Ghost-Busters sequel. The third issue is I think that for a lot of people who typify what is considered "the norm" in their societies, while they may not be necessarily hostiles to minorities (like the bigots), it is very uncomfortable for them to face the fact that societies do not have a good history of treating minorities well or including them in society's benefits. To be clear this is true just about anywhere in the world, whether it is the United States, Britain, China, or anywhere else you can think of. In that situation, such people tend to react in one of two ways; they either learn from and try to be better and more mindful like you after your exchange with your editor or they become hyper-defensive and start lashing out.

[@CouncilofGeeks]

No I’ve never studied political science.

[@keegszzz8356]

Speaking as someone who is a straight White man (please don’t assume the worst I just wanted to give my perspective). The issue with discussion surrounding representation is that not only has it been done badly a number of times, but the creatives involved ALWAYS respond by mass accusing ANYONE who dares utter criticism as racist/sexist/homophobic. Because most white guys don’t know the extent of the white male privilege they live with (even I don’t know the extent despite my attempts at reaserching) they see these bad implementations of diversity which are also bad stories more often then not, and come to see any other talks of diversity as more of that. Thus turning potential allies into enemies and creating shouting matches between childish adults who should know better. Diversity in my book is a good thing, but the behavior of the creatives branding people as sexist/racist/homophobic is not okay, it just creates a circle of hate and thus no discussion can happen.

[@Percival917]

You. Are. So. RIGHT!!!

[@trolldrool]

I think another part of the same problem is that people exist who will accept no representation. People who's definition of "Not having it shoved in their faces" is "Blink and you'll miss it". There are times where I wonder if the mass accusations are a deliberate move to provoke these kinds of people to come crawling out of the woodwork so that it'll be easier to point the finger and say these are the sort of people who don't like their movie in order to attract support from underrepresented groups. Sometimes I wonder if the mass accusations are a deliberate move to manipulate the underrepresented demographic into supporting their movie, as if pre-release ticketpurchases is taking a stance against racism.

[@demigodgamer8517]

Fellow straight white dude: Preach. I love stories, and I love great characters. I think what we are going through is this metamorphosis where who writes stories and characters and who those characters are is becoming more inclusive, but a lot of people don't know how to write that well. Western media has had roughly a few centuries to perfect writing able-bodied straight white cis guys to the point where most competent authors who are also at least 3 of those can write one who is passable. Most of Western storytellers don't have that kind of foundation laid for other groups, so those characters can be more hit or miss.

[@reversepolarity8981]

The example you're bringing up concerns issues with the media itself - representation has been done badly, you're absolutely right, and that generates complaints from across the board. But issues with how that representation was executed is very different than complaints about there being characters who are not cisgender, white, straight or biologically male. In the latter instance, if you complain there is a woman of color, say, in a role traditionally belonging to a white male, then yes, I am going to suspect racism. Why else would you have a problem with it? There are literally hundreds of thousands of other media where you can find a straight white male protagonist to identify with. Let other people have a chance. Speaking personally, I'm a German Jew raised in a v. Italian area, and if I wasn't different enough, am also trans and autistic. I've loved fantasy/sword & sorcery/books movies since I fell in love with the genre when I was six. I absolutely and wholeheartedly love the classics, but the ones closest to my heart have always been those that resonated with what makes me different - the bullied Bastian, the ostracized Aerin who is a different race from the other Damarians in the Hero & The Crown, and every-fucking-thing about Good Omens, which was basically Chicken Soup for The Autistic and/or LGBTQ+ soul. The latter has been flogged by its detractors for biological females of color in traditionally white male roles (among other things), yet the effect it has had on a spectrum of neurodiverse people has literally been astounding. We need content like this. Stories that affirm our existence is a positive thing. Every story that is told does not need to be about white men who get the girl. Sometimes we need to see that one of the healthiest and most positive relationships ever portrayed is between a male presenting angel and demon where god is a female and gender doesn't effing exist. IMHO, I think the best way to sum it up is with the quote that "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." We're not trying to take away from white, heterosexual males, only add in a sprinkling of other people, too.

[@PackmasterJack]

@@trolldrool It's absolutely this, and it's absolutely appalling as the use and abuse of this 'defense' solidifies the popular notion that female-focused/minority-focused media is inferior, thus harms the ability of those communities to see their media recognized and (in extreme cases) produced. See also the uproar any time a non '5-pointer' dies, is injured, suffers mishap, or just fails at something or has believable flaws - and wonder why the notoriously risk-averse entertainment industry tends to keep pumping out 'five-pointer' protagonists.

[@MyNameIsCody]

Personally, I feel that fiction is only ever 'too' political when the political agenda is at the detriment to the story; but representation isn't going to ruin a story!! All it's going to do is make a larger portion of the audience connect more strongly to the story. That's my contribution to the council :) but your video pretty much sums it up anyway

[@daveroe4961]

I agree entirely, but all too often the political agenda is pushed to the detriment of the story, especially in terms of characterisation.

[@irrevenant8724]

If the political agenda is to the detriment of the story then that's a poorly written story. Stories that are intensely political are intensely interesting - if done well.

[@Fluffkitscripts]

Geekdom 26227: “anything that makes me think is political”.

[@ashleysketchy]

Thank you so much for making this! I've had plenty of conversations surrounding this topic and found I could never fully articulate my frustrations with the implication that representation is political meanwhile the absence of it is not.

[@a.f.watcher8898]

As someone who is a left wing populist and someone who realized while in quarantine to be Bisexual, for example I have no interest in a LGBTQ+ or non white Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Hulk and the like. BUT I want to see Alphabet and POC characters be given their chance to shine. For example, I don’t care about a gay Batman or gay Superman but I am starved for a Midnighter and Apollo film or show, MY green lantern is John Stewart cuz of JL cartoon taking a chance and giving him his chance to shine (FYI Hal and John will allegedly be in a movie a la Lethal Weapon in space) I am also Italian American, but I don’t need Peter Parker or Miles Morales to be Italian’s from SI. Pete is an Irish American white kid from queens and Miles is a Puerto Rican Black American from Brooklyn. You want to say represent ME, either expand on an existing character or create a new one. I can overlook that in the case of the REboot, Hannah John-Kamen LOOKS enough like Jill Valentine and is a solid actress so I don’t care, same for Leon’s actor. But I am skeptical of Robbie Amell as Chris Redfield (my Fav RE character) based on acting ability, he kind of looks the part but can he PLAY it? I don’t need him to be made BI or gay to represent ME to like him, BUT I want new and existing characters who are or POC to get their chance despite “obscurity” in other words EVERYONE gets a fair chance despite what ignorant money people in power think. You can put out a product that is the biggest BJ to Bernie Sanders, AOC, the justice Dems, and every progressive champion and cause and history, Hell you could have Clark Kent say “not me, us” to pander to me but if the message is wrapped around a product that I find stupid, ugly, wrongheaded, hypocritical, intellectually offensive, pandering, or just Boring I’m gonna call BS on it like I would say Frank Miller post 80’s for writing incoherent schlock and Alt right propaganda. Anyway dude, good discussion and please stay safe.

[@EmeralBookwise]

I would maybe argue the point about the value of a non-white Superman. Not that I'm saying we should change Clark Kent, but rather that I'd love to maybe see a major motion picture about Hernan Guerra, the "hispanic" Superman from _Gods and Monsters._ Superman has always had undertones of immigration in his story, but it's all too easy for people to forget or ignore that about the simple Kansas farmboy. Even when it does get brought up it can feel very tokenistic for a character who's never really had to face any over discrimination. I'm not even saying this because I want representation for myself. I'm so white my own family calls me a vampire. But especially as I look around my country, at the fear and prejudice towards immigrants, especially hispanic immigrants, I think that a Superman who can more directly advocate on behalf of the unfairly marginalized is a HERO we desperately need.

[@a.f.watcher8898]

Emeral Bookwise Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with alternate universe versions getting the spotlight especially in the case of putting a lampshade on current issues, but changing established ones to get that comes off as lazy to me.

[@EmeralBookwise]

@@a.f.watcher8898: I guess my question then would be, what does it even mean for something to be "alternate universe"? I mean, a move like 2013's _Man of Steal_ or even the 1978 _Superman_ are neither of themselves the actual comicbook source material. They're both adaptations and in any adaptation changes are made. Heck, even in the comicbooks themselves reboots happen every few years, wherein all sorts of revisions may be made to the characters. Is Superman becoming black or latino really any different from him becoming blue and made of electricity? Now, I'm certainly not trying to claim all changes are good, only that even characters we might otherwise consider iconic and set in stone actually change all the time, be it gradually in subtle incremental ways or in drastic publicity stunts. Many of those changes might get reverted, but others may prove popular enough to endure. Heck, even so called alternate universe can be later canonized in the main line. For example, _Killing Joke_ was originally a one off side comic, until it was decided to use the shooting of Barbra Gordon as the backstory for her new identity as Oracle. Being paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair could very much be seen as changing a character to fit some kind of diversity quota, and while to some Batgirl might be their preferred version of the character, and yet Oracle has become equally valid to the point where cartoons like _Beware the Batman_ feature Barbra taking on that moniker without ever having been Batgirl at all. So again, in a medium as diverse as superheroes where characters are constantly being adapted and readapted across various sources, what does it even mean for something to be "alternate universe"?

[@a.f.watcher8898]

Emeral Bookwise My main reason why, is that it can be rather boring. Not only are we getting same thing over and over, but we’re getting it in a different package. For instance, I am so done with Evil or dark Superman, even if you change his identity BUT do the same tired trope over and over it’s more of the same. That’s why I can enjoy yet hate Homelander as his own character but roll my eyes at the SS game trailer. I’m not alone in this, if all were going to get is “but not with this identity we haven’t done the same thing before” then how are we ever going to get G&M’s Superman or Apollo or any existing character that offers something new if companies are so afraid to take even the slightest risk? They announced Vixen will FINALLY get big screen treatment as well Static Shock which is LONG overdue. Similar reason I refused to Ghost in the Shell, whitewashed characters and a dumbing down of the source material in favor of something more generic and SAFE.

[@EmeralBookwise]

@@a.f.watcher8898: I can appreciate the sentiment, but while dark/evil version of a character is an admittedly over used trope, it's not really the same thing as recasting a character as a different race or ethnicity. I'll agree that another Superman gone rogue in Suicide Squad game trailer doesn't excite me. But things like the comic Red Son (or its recent animated adaptation) still do. I love seeing familiar characters reinterpreted in different contexts. It lets examine what the true fundamental core concepts of those character are. That said, yes, I'd love just as much to see lesser known characters like Vixen or Static get a chance to go mainstream. I don't think, however, these have to be mutually exclusive concepts to alternative interpretations of more familiar characters. We're probably going to be getting multiple superhero movies a year for the foreseeable future, so there should be plenty of room for a little bit of everything.

[@Cosmos0000]

This was eye-opening for me. I had never thought about it this way. Thank you for sharing.

[@Merilirem]

It isn't but Americans make EVERYTHING political nowadays. You can't even watch cute cat video's anymore without someone bringing up Trump or Biden or whoever came before that. Of course the groups that are being presented are a topic of political interest in any country coming to terms with reality. So i guess it is as far as one could say being a racist is political. Who your racist against probably picks a side for you after all. I am just sick of American politics pushing its way into the rest of the world. So many Americans act like they and their politics are the be all and end all of humanities evolutionary process.

[@Percival917]

Even as an American, I feel this down to my bones.

[@irrevenant8724]

Yup. The term "forced diversity" has grated with me for ages. It took me a while to realise that it bugs me because no-one ever talks about "forced non-diversity" - which is the default that happens every single time a creator chooses to go with a white, straight male. *All* casting is forced - why do we only acknowledge that when minorities are involved?

[@irrevenant8724]

@Antisocial Freak It's always been normal to be female or black or gay or disabled too. It's just a matter of which sort of normal a given creator chooses to represent.

[@GameCat16]

Because there is always such a thing as an "average" and a "norm." In Japan, the norm is Japanese. In China, it's Chinese. In Africa, it's African. There are writers in all three of those countries who write stories with casts that are 100% that race. If you're not prepared to demand greater representation of white people in the stories written in those countries, by those writers, then you don't truly care about diversity or inclusion. But, building off of what I said about norms, when you choose a setting, it is important that you remain consistent with that setting. If you set your story in Japan, or a setting LIKE Japan, then the majority, if not whole, of your cast had better be Japanese. If you have someone who isn't Japanese (someone's who's black or white), then there needs to be an explanation. And some writers just don't have enough room in their story FOR that explanation, so throwing a character who isn't Japanese would be forced. No, not all cast is forced. Writing is a science as well as an art, and all mechanics and elements in a story have to have a place. The characters in The Last Airbender all being Asian isn't forced because it is consistent with the world and culture and philosophies. Toph Beifong being blind isn't forced because it was used to explain why she is an Earth Bending prodigy; her dependency on her other senses gave a stronger connection to the elements than other Earth Bender. But do you wanna know what IS Forced Diversity? Dina, from The Last of Us Part II. The game starts off with someone close to Ellie dying in a brutal way in front of her. The rest of the game is about her exacting revenge. The big problem with this, however, was that they chose to write it so that Dina was with Ellie at the start, which was the WORST decision to be made, as it implied that Dina was a replacement. A good story would have had Ellie on her own to show the impact that the start of the game had on her. But, instead, we see her joking and flirting with her girlfriend, because if we didn't see that consistently throughout the game, it wouldn't have been good representation. The representation CLASHED with the story here. It all ultimately comes down to how things fit together, and Forced Diversity is when the diversity doesn't fit with the rest of the story.

[@irrevenant8724]

@@GameCat16 Japan is a bad example. 98% of Japanese people are ethnically Japanese and most of the rest are Chinese, Korean or Vietnamese. In Japan literally one person in 2500 is white and I wouldn't be surprised if every 2500th character on Japanese TV is white. The numbers in China are similar. (I'm not sure of the demographics of Africa, being 54 different countries and I'm not sure how representative their media already is). "Forced" is basically a synonym for "deliberate". All the characters in the Last Airbender are Asian because the creators chose to make the characters and setting that way. As an invented fantasy setting any of the nations could have had white or black people. Or individual nations could have been more ethnically diverse. But they forced it to be entirely Asian. So that doesn't seem to counter my point that all cast and setting choices are forced. re: Toph, you seem to be implying that there needs to be a story purpose to justify a fictional character being other than fully abled. Why? Do we need a story purpose for a character to be lean or short or any of a billion common physical traits that people commonly have in the real world? Disabilities are just another example of common physical traits and there's no reason a character *shouldn't* have one, or that it should need to have a purpose in story for them to have that. The creator can force a character to have no disability and resemble one segment of the population or you can force the character to have a disability and resemble a different segment of the population. I'm only tangentially familiar with The Last of Us Part II (ditto Part I) but it sounds like your objections have nothing to do with Dina's sexuality. Had Ellie been straight and her started off the game with a boyfriend you would have had the same objection. There seems to be an assumption here that a character is white, male, straight and fully-abled unless/until a creator deliberately forces them to be something else. Why? White, male, straight and fully-abled (WMSF) is just one possibility amongst many. If there's no story purpose for the character to be anything in particular, then why should they be forced to be WMSF rather than something else? re: your last sentence: When does diversity ever *not* fit the rest of the story? If you're talking something like having an Indigenous Australian character in 15th century China that would be an issue. But in any setting where a character could reasonably exist, how can that be any more forced than making them something else?

[@GameCat16]

​@@irrevenant8724 "Japan is a bad example. 98% of Japanese people are ethnically Japanese and most of the rest are Chinese, Korean or Vietnamese. In Japan literally one person in 2500 is white and I wouldn't be surprised if every 2500th character on Japanese TV is white. The numbers in China are similar. (I'm not sure of the demographics of Africa, being 54 different countries and I'm not sure how representative their media already is)." By that logic, equal representation for everyone isn't something we should be demanding. I mean, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think it's safe to say that the number of LGBT characters in all Western Fiction is roughly equivalent to the number of LGBT people in real life. So, if places like Japan or China have already fulfilled their quota, then so have we. ""Forced" is basically a synonym for "deliberate". All the characters in the Last Airbender are Asian because the creators chose to make the characters and setting that way. As an invented fantasy setting any of the nations could have had white or black people. Or individual nations could have been more ethnically diverse. But they forced it to be entirely Asian. So that doesn't seem to counter my point that all cast and setting choices are forced." True. Every decision is deliberate. But there's a difference between a decision being organic and a decision be forced. A story is a lie, by definition, and the writer is asking the audience to believe a lie until it is finished. If there are plot holes in that lie, though, the suspension of disbelief falls. It's the same thing here. When you CHOOSE to write a specific world, you have to be consistent with it and explain all abnormalities. When the writers of Avatar chose to write an Asia based world, the inclusion of Chinese/ Japanese/ Tibetan-like characters was organic, while deliberate, as it was consistent with the world and philosophies that they chose to write. If they had included a black or white character out of nowhere, and just said, "Oh, he's a Fire Nation citizen", that wouldn't have made any sense. A more direct example of Forced Diversity would be the Dragon Prince (which, humorously enough, also contains examples of natural diversity, which I will get to). The human country (can't remember the name) is based heavily off of medieval Europe. Despite this, we have black people all over, even holding positions of authority. If there was a line about how people of different races combined into one country, or that there was some sort of god that made all of them different before placing them together, that would have made sense. But no such line exists. By contrast, the country of Xadia has different types of elves who all look different and all live in their own territories that serve to explain why they look different. Specifically, the Sun Elves and the Moon Elves. The Sun Elves live closer to the sun and are of darker skin than other elves because of it. We don't need any additional lines because the knowledge of what types of elves these are, and their locations in the country, tell us what we need to know. Now, this isn't to say that people of different races SHOULD NEVER live together, but when you choose to write a world a specific way, you owe it to your audience to be consistent with it, and the writers of Dragon Prince CHOSE to write a world based off of a period of history in which mix-raced communities were uncommon, if not rare. "re: Toph, you seem to be implying that there needs to be a story purpose to justify a fictional character being other than fully abled. Why? Do we need a story purpose for a character to be lean or short or any of a billion common physical traits that people commonly have in the real world? Disabilities are just another example of common physical traits and there's no reason a character shouldn't have one, or that it should need to have a purpose in story for them to have that. The creator can force a character to have no disability and resemble one segment of the population or you can force the character to have a disability and resemble a different segment of the population." There does. Building off of what I said above, when you CHOOSE to write a specific setting with a specific group of people, you have to be consistent with it. The writers chose a world in which people, much like in our world, have the ability of sight, with blindness being uncommon. I would have a similar problem if a writer chose to write a world in which blindness was the norm and eye-sight was uncommon, added a character who had this rare ability, then did absolutely nothing with it. And going off your comment about us in reality having a purpose; reality and fiction are two entirely different things. In reality, you can have a day where people sit around and do nothing on their day off. That day could have absolutely no value in any capacity and be forgotten. In fiction, such a day would have to have value SOMEWHERE, or else an editore will tell you to scrap it. Not comparable. "I'm only tangentially familiar with The Last of Us Part II (ditto Part I) but it sounds like your objections have nothing to do with Dina's sexuality. Had Ellie been straight and her started off the game with a boyfriend you would have had the same objection." And you are absolutely correct. I would have the same problem regardless of orientation. The problem is, if Ellie were straight and had a boyfriend, none of the writers on board would have thought to have shoved the boyfriend in our face. They would have kept him offscreen, where he belongs, and focus on the impact that the starting death had on her. But since this was a Lesbian Couple, which they advertised both at E3 and on the back of the box, they had to have the couple in there as often as possible for the sake of Representation. If they hadn't, they would have been criticized for putting in a token gay couple without it being prominent. That's the issue here. The same thing would NEVER have happened if Ellie was straight and had a boyfriend because no one would care enough to prioritize the romance over the story. "There seems to be an assumption here that a character is white, male, straight and fully-abled unless/until a creator deliberately forces them to be something else. Why? White, male, straight and fully-abled (WMSF) is just one possibility amongst many. If there's no story purpose for the character to be anything in particular, then why should they be forced to be WMSF rather than something else?" To start with, look back up at my previous points about settings and norms. You are talking to Western writers. What's the dominant race in most Western countries (particularly the U.S.)? White. In our world, how to we reproduce? The union of men and women, so most people are going top be straight. Right off the bat, if you write a story set in our world, or one much like ours, your default characters are going to be straight (as well as fully-abled). Period. If you set it in the West or medieval Europe (or a place akin to both), the default is going to be white. As for male, that has more to do with the fact that female characters are too politically charged, Kill off a male protagonist and no one will bat an eye. Kill off a female protagonist, and everyone will hate you. But, going back to what I said before, if you want people who are not the norm in our world/ country to be the norm/ default in your story, then you need to write a setting in which they are. That's why Avatar never gets the Forced Diversity criticism. "re: your last sentence: When does diversity ever not fit the rest of the story? If you're talking something like having an Indigenous Australian character in 15th century China that would be an issue. But in any setting where a character could reasonably exist, how can that be any more forced than making them something else?" Again, it ultimately depends on the setting and story and how these things are implemented. If you want to make a lesbian couple a focus in a story about one part of that couple coming to terms with the death of a loved one, right off the bat things are clashing. If you write a medieval European setting and decide to add Asians without explaining it or doing anything, there's a contrast. If you write a world with men and women who reproduce together, then the existence of LGBT people NEEDS to be discussed and explained. In the end, you, as the writer, can choose your setting and how it works. But once you choose it, any Representation you try to implement has to agree with the way you build the world, or it's gonna be Forced.

[@irrevenant8724]

@@GameCat16 You seem to mostly be talking about verisimilitude - the appearance of truth. And if I understand you correctly, you're defining forced diversity (or forced anything else) as inserting something that doesn't fit verisimilitude. It's about whether that decision is "organic" or not. I have a couple of minor objections to that definition, but for the most part I think we're on the same page. (Aside: xkcd has a comic about verisimilitude in period speech at xkcd.com/771/ :) ) A couple of things immediately come to mind about verisimilitude: (1) It's subjective what any given person will find credible, and that often has to do with how familiar they are with the topic as well as their personal and political experience and leanings. (1b) The corollary is that the more something appears on screen, the more people become familiar with it, and the more verisimilitude it has. (2) Stories don't generally represent the norm anyway - they represent what is interesting and exciting - or at the very least they represent the specific story the creator wants to tell. How plausible is it that Clark Kent would be the only Kryptonian out of his entire race to survive the destruction of his planet? How likely is it that our character would be the one atypical hobbit who wants to have adventures? How likely is it for a given character to be a "billionaire playboy genius philanthropist"? And so on. As an audience we know and expect that stories aren't supposed to be a random statistical slice of everyday life - they're there to tell a story. If a viewer has no problem with the improbability of a given character being a billionaire playboy genius philanthropist they should have no problem with the (much smaller) improbability of a given character happening to be gay or have a disability or whatever. To respond to a few of your specific comments: I haven't seen the Dragon Prince yet (it looks cool but the framerate is kinda putting me off. :/) so I'm just going to talk to original fantasy settings in a general sense. Original fantasy settings can be anything the author wants so long as it's internally consistent. "Based on mediaeval Europe" can mean anything from "Pretty much exactly the same as mediaeval Europe only a small percentage of people have lowkey magic abilities" to "We used the map of Europe but basically everything else is just made up" to "Levels of technology are roughly mediaeval level but everything else is original" - and so on. Similarly Avatar basing their setting on mythical Asia doesn't mean they didn't have absolute freedom to change or create any aspect of the setting they wanted. If they wanted some or all of the nations to be more racially diverse, they could easily write the setting that way. And it wouldn't be 'forced diversity' because their original setting would have always been written that way. In The Last of Us part II you indicated your issue was that the quest for vengeance clashed with the idea of her finding someone new so quickly. Without having seen the game, people cope with grief in different ways and I think it's a nice change to show someone in the process of trying to continue with life rather than the tired old "obsessed with nothing but revenge" narrative we've seen a thousand times before. That idea has just as much verisimilitude for me. (Again, this is without me seeing it though - maybe they *did* screw up the implementation). Which touches on one of those objections to the term 'forced diversity' I mentioned earlier. :) When there is diversity in a story and a plot has (what some people see as) flaws then there's a tendency to assume that the problems are *because* of the diversity. For example Doctor Who went downhill immediately after the show cast a female Doctor and many viewers blamed "being overly PC" for the drop in writing quality. But that's also when the show changed showrunners and a much likelier explanation is that the new showrunner just isn't as good a writer. Another example is people assuming that Rey is unusually powerful *because* she's the first female Jedi main protagonist rather than because it fit the story the creator wanted to tell. (Her unusual power levels certainly fit the reveal in RoS but at this point we'll probably never know what JJ's original plans for the character were). Similarly you assume that The Last of Us Part II made a plot choice you didn't like *because* the character is gay. ie. You assume that plot is "forced" because of the character's sexuality. But we don't actually know that the two are connected at all - we don't know that there was any "forcing". That's just a presumption. There are a hundred reasons they could have thought that was a good way to start the game. (Just one that comes to mind is that it's standard part of the hero's journey to establish a character in a safe, normal world at first so they have to make the choice to give something up when they accept the call and go on their adventure). There's an interesting double-standard here too (just riffing in general here, not picking on your example in particular). How many films include a pointless romantic (heterosexual) subplot that distracts from the main thrust of the movie? For the most part no-one rails about that being forced. But if the two characters had been gay then suddenly many, many more people will be complaining about that plot being unnecessary and forced into the movie. And I bet they'd attribute it to the characters being gay too, even though the exact same thing happens onscreen all the time with straight characters. Some people just find diversity weird, even though it's pretty common in real life. That doesn't mean the inclusion of diversity in a story is "forced", it just means that particular person *finds* it forced. It's only forced if a creator genuinely goes "Y'know, I think this inclusion would be bad for the story but I'm going to put it in there anyway". And while some people scream that that's exactly what's happening I suspect it's very rare at a professional level. Ultimately creators don't work to push an agenda, they work to get *paid* - and they get paid by how popular their creations are. Few creators are going to deliberately make creative decisions that reduce the popularity of their story. Playing it safe on that front is why so many protagonists *have* been straight, white, fully-abled males. Nowadays viewers are more aware of how diverse the world is and creators are more able to reflect and explore that diversity without fearing the audience won't handle it. That's not forcing the diversity, it's telling the stories they want to tell without fear of being forced *not* to.

[@Sapphic_Traffic]

Wow really opened my eyes today excited for your novel

[@erinsmith4416]

You always give me a new perspective on....life! Thank you. it's a rare gift to be able to question your own assumptions and bias and learn from the process.

[@Dos2Guys]

I don't think everything has a political aspect. Everything has a PHILOSOPHICAL aspect, and politics are inherently philosophical because they are an extension of how people see or choose to understand the world as it applies to government and society I think this is kinda what you meant, but I don't want to assume

[@LimeyLassen]

Saying a piece of media doesn't have politics is like saying someone's speech doesn't have an accent.

[@irrevenant8724]

One definition of politics from the Cambridge Dictionary is _"the relationships within a group or organization that allow particular people to have power over others"_ (eg. "I don't like to get involved in office politics.") The Macmillan Dictionary adds _"the ideas and activities used by people within a particular group to try to get power"_ and _"the use by someone of particular ideas to try to get what they want"_ Politics isn't just limited to what governments do - it occurs in human relationships from the largest group to the smallest.

[@jessicacarron8117]

Agree with you. Thank you for taking the time to think about this, and then share your thoughts.

[@trolldrool]

Now being cis, male, straight and I guess white (as a kid I used to say my skin was vomit coloured), I probably don't notice the absence of non-white diversity or LGBTAQ+ representation as much as those belonging to those groups. I only notice when a show has a stereotypical/inaccurate portrayal of Tourettes or ADD or OCD, and it frustrates me when it happens, but I have a hard enough time having to deal with that fun combonation in my daily life that I don't miss its complete absence in the media I consume. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I can't relate to wanting inclusion. I also wouldn't consider the absence of neurodivergency a political move, or at least not the same way the absence of LGBTAQ+ representation is. We're at a stage now where enough people know about it, even if they don't understand it, that the inclusion or exclusion of LGBTAQ+ in mainstream media is almost guaranteed to be a deliberate decision. In the case of neurodivergency, I doubt movie makers are even aware enough of our existence to make our absence a deliberate decision. Maybe it is sometimes, but I don't think supporting lead with Tourettes syndrome is a topic that pops up during brainstorming sessions very often.

[@nico2605]

One step at a time, I guess. Representation of neurodivergent (autocorrect doesn't even recognize the word so that says a lot) people is not something you actively crave from what I understand. I'm personally straight, cis, white, neurotypical and a man so I don't have much trouble finding someone like me in media. But I do get a little more invested when I have a character who has a similar personality to mine or is just in any way (outside of what I mentioned) like me. That's nice to have but it's not something I actively miss because I have all the representation in the world when it comes to the stuff I mentioned. But if I were to never even have someone who looked like me in my favourite shows and movies, I imagine it would feel terrible. Take Melissa Fumero from B99 for example. When she found out Stephanie Beatriz was cast she thought she wouldn't get hired because "there's no way they'll hire two latinas". Because for a lot of minorities, token representation with very stereotypical traits is all they have. I can see why you'd crave the representation. In the case of sexuality and gender it also helps normalize a lot of stuff. If most stuff had queer people in them, more people would view as normal and understand it better. But that's just my two cents

[@Alex-ph5ir]

I see what you mean, but I think that something can still be indicative of a political framework even when it's not done deliberately. I agree that in most cases people probably aren't making a deliberate decision to not include neurodivergent representation. But the very fact that these things don't occur to creators is reflective of a politics that doesn't account for neurodiversity. Kind of like Nathaniel's example about their book and the lack of reference to accessibility for physically disabled people - it wasn't deliberate, but was still political. That's not to say that every piece of media needs to have neurodivergent or otherwise disabled characters, but if your political framework includes disability justice and neurodiversity acceptance, then you are much more likely to be considering these things -- whereas if your political framework is actively ableist, or just not actively intersectional, you're very likely to not be thinking about this kind of representation. Both are still related to political frameworks, even if the way those politics manifest in the works isn't deliberate.

[@trolldrool]

@@Alex-ph5ir I see your point. I probably made a mistake in that my argument was in regards to political statements, not the reveal of the political environment of creators who forget the existence of neurodivergency. I don't know if I'm making any sense. I think what I'm trying to say is that I was wrong in my interpretation of political as active rather than passive. With that in mind, I suppose I can see the importance of neurodivergent representation, but I think it would mostly be for neurodivergent children who would benefit from neurodivergency being normalised as they grow up. I already believe that's why representation is important for the LGBTAQ+ so I don't know why I didn't think of it for neurodivergency. I guess I'm just too jaded from living with this bullshit for over 30 years.

[@Alex-ph5ir]

@@trolldrool Thanks for listening! I get what you mean too, and I think you explained the difference well when you characterize it as "political statements" (so more "active) vs "political environment of the creators" (so more "passive"). For me, I'm an autistic woman and only found out at 30, so it would be kind of cool to see a broader range of neurodivergent representation and maybe that would have helped me to figure some stuff out about myself sooner haha. But I also get what you mean about being jaded, and there's always the chance that ND representation will go badly if the creators are relying on stereotypes.

[@josephfernandez8015]

You gave me a great idea for my next D&D NPC. She’s the head mistress of the largest wizard’s guild in the world. She’s also a dark skinned bisexual trans woman who was born paralyzed from the waist down (all five!) She gets around on a specially built enchanted hovering throne and gods forbid if you get in her way.

[@mimnimpetite8681]

Very interesting video! Representation in media is a topic very close to my heart. My dream is to work on children's TV and be able to show kids that diversity is normal. I guess that is a political agenda? I just wish that I had seen more representative on TV as a kid - seeing people more like me on TV as a kid could have been really helpful. I also really want to portray people with mental health issues- I want to show kids that it's normal and okay not be okay. I guess I hadn't really thought about the fact that what I want to do is political.

[@liamheneghan4977]

Just leaving a comment to say I'm loving the purple aesthetic 💜

[@smanso96]

Great video! Also, LOVE your glasses❤️

[@femmefuntime]

Quinton reviews did a video on this topic, framing it around political messages in kid’s cartoons. It’s worth a watch, he makes good points.

[@RunNorthEnt]

I very much enjoyed listening to the views you put forth here. They are similar to many things I have been saying for many yrs.I once said one of the biggest problems I had with the old political correctness is they spent so much time worrying about the labels being used and not so much on the mentality behind those using whatever label as an offensive term. No matter what a person says or does or what stance they take there will always be a # of people that will be offended by it.

[@spoonietimelordy]

Glad you’ve added references to accessibility ^^ a reason more for me to buy your book! Edit: also, I agree with the conclusion!

[@RachelRaeCraft]

Thank you for posting this. We are learning something new every time.

[@Sourcoolness]

"Everything has a political aspect." Even fart jokes?

[@greyladybast]

ESPECIALLY fart jokes

[@biscuitsandbananas3433]

Yes, I refer you to the Aliens of London and World War Three 2 parter in doctor Who where fart jokes are used as a metaphor for politicians talking out of their arse.

[@catrionainglis5483]

Im a bit late to this video. But thank you so much for including disability in this discussion of inclusion and representation. We get left out of so many discussions on this issue. I am a disabled person and I cannot tell you how many times I've read a book or watched a show and thought "huh well I would be dead there" or thought that exact thing about the sheer quantity of stairs everywhere. Thank you.

[@normamcphee8956]

Thank you for your eloquence in making a point that *really* needed making.

[@douglaswolfen7820]

I heard that Joss Whedon was once asked "Why do you keep writing these incredibly strong female characters?" and he said "because you're still asking that question". If including LGBTQ+ characters in your work, or including people of colour, or people with disabilities, seems deliberately political to people, then it's because those characters stand out. It's because they're noticed. Their inclusion seems unusual. The very fact that people notice it, is the proof that we need to keep doing it. We need to keep doing it until it just feels normal.

[@douglaswolfen7820]

@@creed8712 yeah. This does suck. You can't start from some ideal of what a strong female character should be like, and then derive your character from that. They still have to be powerful, and original,, and all of those things that make good TV.

[@matthewbaker5741]

It's a bit heartbreaking to hear you voice such doubts about your ability to affect the conversation. Speaking as a straight, cis, white, able-bodied male, I can testify that your voice is one I am very grateful to hear. Sometimes, we agree completely. Sometimes not. But, in both cases, I learn from you and I pass what I learn on to others. Please don't doubt that this is meaningful and influential. And even if numbers are small, there is no way to know how many you will touch indirectly. Keep fighting the good fight.

[@ThomasGlenVids]

You got me to think about this in a new way. I think I agree. It's got a lot to do with where we are as a society at this point in time as well. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, and the issues of tolerance and inclusion will continue to grow as time passes. Thanks, this will be good to digest for a while.

[@MysticaFaery]

I didn't know what I was expecting going into this video, but I fully agree with your conclusion. :) The points on blindspots feel especially relevant in my life atm, as I am working with inclusion and diversity. In that work my colleagues and I are actively trying to fill each others spots- and as you said - some have more then others. 🤔

[@NafNav32]

I keep an eye on the tonberry when I watch your videos...you never know when they're going to make their move. Another excellent video, by the way.

[@CouncilofGeeks]

Doink!

[@DoctorWhoAdventures]

Really interesting and eye-opening discussion! Awesome video! :D

[@squesh5974]

Completely unrelated but I haven’t been here in a while I just wanna say YOUR HAIR IS SO PRETTY

[@ScrewedTimeLord]

I appreciate vera’s talking about how political correctness is a flawed term because it bugs me so much!! What we call “political correctness” is much closer to intentional thoughtfulness in the words you use to express what you mean. It has nothing to do with being “correct,” it’s about compassion! It’s about choosing to be kind. To be thoughtful, to not assume that your perspective is the only one and working to better understand and account for other perspectives that exist. That’s what I think we need, not whatever Political Correctness is

[@paytonkilmer1920]

Remember folks, when it comes to movies or games, characters are either white, or political. They’re either male, or political. And they’re either straight, or political.

[@filegnaru]

I recently had that same realization! But haven't been really able to fully put it into words. So, thank you!

[@julesenby9286]

Amazing , this is so true. Thank you so much for doing this!! I am gonna share this video everywhere,if that is ok?

[@CouncilofGeeks]

Please do.

[@julesenby9286]

@@CouncilofGeeks Ok 🤩

[@splintert4231]

Right on. I totally agree with you here. At first I was worried, but then you made a great argument. It's funny, when I first heard the term "politically correct," I actually thought it was a term used to mock phony people who might, for instance, say "African American" as an appeaser, but whose actions clearly show the N word is where they are really coming from. Having grown up in San Francisco, I have encountered a lot of hypocrite pseudo lefties who talk a good game, but their behavior and/or little slip-ups, marked them as untrustworthy. And it is always the case that when I'd occasionally point out these things, the phonies would stamp their feet and demand I acknowledge their complete lack of biased behavior or attitudes. Obviously everyone has some degree of prejudice. It's all about how one reacts to having these things pointed out. I've had my own issues, some of them really buried, that shocked me when I realized what I was thinking. OK. Done rambling.

[@Venemofthe888]

i do think its interesting that you mentioned the editor you use noted disabled access. You didnt think about it not because they dont matter its more that you didnt think of it at the time and added it in later. I suppose not everything occurs to the people writing it at the time and it takes somebody else to note things because its not their work and can see potential problems where the author might not straight away.

[@forestgrump4723]

I’m glad you mentioned the thing about including disability friendly areas in your world, I hadn’t thought about it. I should make a point of including some in mine as well. I can’t believe I almost alienated an entire group of people, a rather large group of people just by... not thinking about them. Thank you. I will correct myself.

[@renegarza9]

Love hearing your thoughts on this. Just shared this on Facebook

[@DavidMacDowellBlue]

Wonderful essay. I was at a playwriting meeting a few weeks back. This genuinely good guy wrote a play that included a specific minority, with every single character matching a negative stereotype. Every. Single. One. He teaches politics and representation in media. I had to point things out for him to see what he'd done. Myopia. We have all had it. Me, too. Absolutely, me too.

[@Caio0_057]

Hey, so I just wanted to share a little story: I'm in Highschool, and one of my classmates overheard me talking about lgbtq+ representation in media with my friend. And he said, and I quote: "What's your problem with straight people? 90% of the human population is straight, so if there's only straight couples in films, much more people can relate!!!" Needless to say I hate that guy.

[@Drawoon]

I've heard multiple people talk about this, but nobody has put it so well as you have.

[@wilkobye9533]

Alternative title: the politics of exclusion

[@stevenricks1703]

This was extremely helpful and insightful. I think you’ve touched on something profound.

[@alyssap9233]

The discussion of not including diversity not being seen as political reminds me of the common argument against diversity that diversity should only be included if it is relevant to the story. Creators are expected to justify the inclusion of an lgbtq+ character, but no one asks for there to be a reason a character is Cis or straight. I've always hated that argument.

[@BCSchmerker]

+CouncilofGeeks *Politics can complicate **_and_** uncomplicate matters of expediency in fiction as well as the real world.* Many of my contingency projects for the Byron (CA, USA) Shops revolve around reasonable-width ramps for carts and wheelbarrows, which, when held at reasonably low grade, will accommodate wheelchair users; one exception is a proposal for a two-bay carriagehouse with pits and 2'-0"-gauge railways for creepers and catch tanks (the better for major maintenance on vehicles).

[@animejem]

gosh, i am so grateful for your videos!

[@elaniarkady7351]

It's extremely helpful. I've never heard it explained this way.

[@underthethunder]

Really smart video, loved the analysis

[@kalabak1629]

For me some representation in things is amazing, but sometimes people (jk Rowling for example) only includes these things because they want to build up a reputation, even if it adds nothing to the plot of their creations. Now Dr who for example, I can think of many many many different examples where they don't rub these things in your face but is noticeable enough to get representation

[@kalabak1629]

@@SimonWakefieldUK yeah I am, I'm pretending series 11 and 12 don't exist

[@nico2605]

I don't know if I'd call it political but if inclusion is political then so is the opposite. In both scenarios you're making an active choice to include/not include certain people and if including certain characters outside of what people may consider the norm is political then so is only including characters that they as fitting into that norm. Very good points. Though I personally don't know if I'd consider other people existing and being included as political.

[@teresagrabs488]

Looking great today! Sorry I missed the premiere.

[@gail3766]

Thank you for helping me understand these issues

[@daveliamjohnston]

Looking gorgeous, Vera! Loving that styling!

[@luzcastelo9839]

I love your content, I’m sorry that I don’t really talk here but I’m from Brasil and for me is difficult to express myself in inglês

[@Darth_Nycta_13]

I just like well written characters that are sympathetic and relatable. I do have a problem with liking and creating powerful characters but I try to then give them personality flaws. I also try to be as inclusive as I can unless I don't know enough then I'll research and adjust. I have some OCs and stories. But I am not ready to publish them yet. I may send a link in a reply to one of them

[@GamePackAlpha]

Thank for mentioning the disability. I am now going to add some visible wheelchair access to locations in my comic