Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[mauserr]

This show is going to end up a massive fucking meme.

[Soikona]

This show is going to end up a massive fucking meme.

I dunno, the trailers have been fantastic imo. And the boys, I know different team but still Amazon, was amazing so I have high hopes

[AcidicSyn]

Gotta wait for the folks that'll hate watch, or watch angry YT videos, or have their friends tell them what their opinion should be to get anything new to complain about, tbh.

What are we now, about 3 weeks to go for when it finally airs? I just hope its enjoyable, that's literally all I want from it lol

This. Except my definition of enjoyable pretty much hinges entirely on how much screentime the dwarves get. If I get to see a fully living and breathing Moria (possible for second age) thats instantly good points for me. In that same vein the existance of Durins bane in the trailer makes me worry...considering that wasn't until third age. But maybe its just another balrog, or the same one just pre-Moria sacking.

Erebor would also be third age, but maybe amazon is going to go rule of cool and show morias fall and the longbeard migration to the lonely mountain early for giggles. I'd be mad about the timeline fuckery, but thrilled to see Erebor founded.

[Triceron]

You make a lot of interesting points, so I'd like to go by them point by point (starting where you disagree, of course. Agreement makes terrible discourse).

Agreed. Oh wait-

This is definitely the most optimistic approach to why people would prefer a non-inclusive cast. I've seen many MANY arguing that it's wrong because "dwarves can't be black, they live underground". In my opinion arguments like that hold little water, but I wouldn't want your take to feel lobbed in with them, because it is a genuine point.

I would however challenge it with "we don't know which version people prefer, or wether it makes a difference in the appraisal at all. It hasn't released yet."

That is why I am in full support of the casting choices in Rings of Power. It offers variety that we do not yet have, and I think that helps inform what people like or not like when they get their eyeballs on it.

Certainly, I praise the Peter Jackson movies for many things, but even his adaptations are not consistent across the board. There are many things depicted that I liked in the LOTR but I hated in the Hobbit, and many things I liked in the Hobbit that I hated in LOTR. And for all the things I hate in the Hobbit, there's always the Maple cut.

While I agree the people of the west in middle earth are likely imagened as purely white by Tolkien, it is still a complete fantasy world so the races COULD be different. This is purely an opinion, and to my opinion being a little less faithful here to be more inclusive is a very acceptable trade-off. The difference with The Northman is that Northman actually refers to an historic people. I also believe a poc shouldn't be playing the queen of England in a historical drama.

Understandable, and I would agree to certain extents.

I don't see any problem with Rings of Power adapting the way it's choosing. I also do not see it as any 'shining example of progress', considering we're looking at one major Black Elf and Black Dwarf being portrayed out of all the Elves and Dwarves we've seen. It's inclusive, but (imo) at a very token level. Of course, merely having it opens up the potential for having more in the future, and I figure that's what this is all about. A step towards progression.

And yet it's exactly with your example of 'poc shouldn't be playing the queen of england in a historical drama' that has caused controversy for this very show. Arguably, some people hold the depiction of Elves and Dwarves with the same regard as the depiction of the Queen of England. It's all subjective, after all.

This might surprise you, but I don't disagree. I do not in any way consider the original trilogy to be a negative to inclusivity.

Apparently the creators of this show are not satisfied with "not being a negative" and want it to be "a positive". I don't believe that is a bad or wrong idea. It just prioritizes something different than absolute adherence to Tolkien. Of course that's a shame, and we can disagree on wether that's a worthy trade-off, but here we are.

I agree with the intention, not with the execution.

The abrasive promotion of diversity and feminism makes it a target for controversy. I mean, I'm all in support of their casting and creative choices, but even I can't stomach how they've promoted the show through interviews and spotlights. They prop diversity above everything else, while barely informing what the actual plot of the show would be. I really question the marketting behind this show.

I agree it's not the BEST place, but it is also not a BAD place for a small step. Social change always creates a feeling of some unease, because it's a change in the status quo. That unease inherently creates different camps, it always has in history. Companies "weaponizing" anything would require the companies wanting to harm someone (as per the use of a weapon). I believe Hanlon's razor is at work here, meaning they just want to appeal to as many people as possible, and just fuck it up sometimes.

Hey if the black elf starts throwing rap beats I will agree this is one of the fuckups. A dark elf/dwarf/hobbit being in the series at all though? In my opinion; who cares, and it's important to others.

I guess my own opinion will be a bit conservative in this regard.

The way I see it, the promotion of black actors in this way only makes them targets. I won't make any excuses for the toxic fans or suggest movies should make any appeal to avoid controversy, but I will say that we've already seen the result of this with many other shows and adaptations done with good intentions and poor execution that ended up causing more problems to the actors than give them the recognition of talent that they should deserve. The poor treatment we've seen of the POC actors in the Star Wars sequels comes to mind, both from the studio and from its fans.

And we do have movies like Rogue One and Mandalorian that embrace diversity and are not steeped in controversies. They merely didn't weaponize diversity or bring controversy to themselves in the same way that the Star Wars sequels did.

[AcidicSyn]

I'd like to know how many people here were upset that the new Jake from State Farm is black. Still wearing khakis, though!

If he wasn't wearing khakis, I'd be pissed.

[Biomega]

I am okay with it because casting choices are inherrently going to be exclusionary at some level no matter how you cut it.

I personally do not expect a role like Galadriel was inclusive and auditioned people of color for her role. Nor would this have applied to a majority of the established characters like Elrond, Gil-galad and such. I believe Amazon had to a certain depiction of the characters in mind and cast accordingly.

That's a different thing entirely, though. "They were exclusionary about their casting" is a completely separate argument from "it's okay to be exclusionary". Nobody is saying Amazon did everything right or perfectly or that they weren't being discriminatory somewhere. That was never the debate, and I've never talked about it in any way.

What you're doing here, effectively, is justifying your exclusionary choices by pointing out that someone else was being exclusionary, too.

If your argument that these roles were inclusive and did not exclude people of color, then the burden of proof is on you to show it

When and where have I EVER made an argument ANYTHING LIKE THAT?

Why are you bringing up something I never said, or even came close to saying? Ever? Anywhere?

and prove that Rings of Power is free from exclusion at all levels, per your argument.

I didn't say that, either, IN ANY WAY. It's shocking that you'd claim anything like this.

Are you really just never reading what I say? Like, ever?

So yes, I will argue that I'm okay with 'some levels of exclusion' because I do not equate all casting choices with certain skintones in mind to be a product of racial discrimination (though it can be, in certain cases).

I'm not saying that either (big shocker, you AGAIN didn't understand my argument).

I'm saying that if there ARE NO GOOD REASONS, then we have a problem. If there ARE good reasons, we do not have a problem. How does that turn into "ALL casting choices are a product of discrimination"? In any way, logically or argumentatively?

Why do you completely misrepresent my argument like that?

Exclusion will continue to exist unless we are talking about a work that involves race swapping every role, where skin color is literally treated as a cosmetic as you imply it to be. Something like the Hamilton theatre play where every character is representable by any person of color.

I'm not sure I'd generalize it quite like that, but roughly speaking, sure - the goal is to eliminate any characteristic for which there is no good reason to be a certain way from being an exclusion criterion in the casting process. Skin color tends to be the most prominent one, but it's not the only one. That's a utopian goal, of course, that can only ever be approached asymptotically, but it's about the principle of the thing.

If your argument is that having black actors cast in various roles does not justify excluding them from others, then I'll happily point out that every known white depicted Elf from the PJ films are also being depicted by white actors in Rings of Power.

Which I also don't think is a good thing. So... what's the point here, precisely? That because they did it the same way PJ did, that makes what they did automatically the right thing? Or...?

I do not consider this an example of a show that is free from exclusion.

I don't either.

Regardless of what your personal convictions are, those are good reasons.

I've explained the problems with those reasons. Several times.

One is a circular and tautological argument that isn't sufficient on its own (because it doesn't explain why other details are changed without objection); the other is an appeal to tradition fallacy (i.e. just because we did it one way in the past doesn't mean that what we did was the right thing).

Please explain how you get over those objections.

There is no reason why any of the main Elf characters would be white as we see them now in thr trailers. Your argument literally does not work when applied across the board

That's because somehow, despite me pointing it out almost ten times now, you still aren't representing my argument correctly. This is just a rephrasing of your "all-white cast" nonsense.

My argument IS NOT and HAS NEVER BEEN "I need a reason for this character to be white, otherwise it needs to be non-white", which is what you're implying when you point out that "There is no reason why any of the main elf characters would be white".

That's a distortion YOU invented by somehow trying to turn things around and make it sound as my objection was to "all-white casts". That's not my argument, I've told you many times it's not my argument, and it keeps. coming. back.

I'm beginning to think you're doing that on purpose because that way, you have an actual way of objecting. You're objecting to something I'm not saying. Please stop doing that. Thank you.

Despite what you think Rings of Power is actually doing

And what is it that I think RoP is "actually doing"? Can you perhaps quote somewhere where I talked about what I think RoP is doing?

Or could this just be another invention of yours going on about something I never talked about?

Rings of Power is not an example of an adaptation that is free from exclusion.

No, it is not.

Which, AGAIN (surprise!), is not something I ever said or claimed anywhere in any way.

It's getting a bit weird now, how EVERY PARAGRAPH you write starts with something I never said.

You can make an argument that the plot would be the same even if the actress is different, but I will make a point that Galadriel is literally depicted in the same skin tone and hair color as depicted in both the source material and PJ films, and that a casting choice to stick to the source material would involve exclusion at some level.

*Sigh* You really have NO argument other than "it's not like in the books!", do you?

somehow you are propping this minority of diversity on a pedestal as a shining example of progress and inclusion, and as an example of a show that has been freed from exclusion. It's quite ridiculous.

Sorry I'm doing what where now?

What's ridiculous is you lying to my face like that. That's just rude.

We have literally seen one Black Elf and one Black Dwarf. Any others may be represented merely by a handful of extras. In your own argument, this would not justify casting (potentially) excluding people of color for a majority of other roles.

YES. Quite probably.

Sure. If you can cohesively explain how Amazon's Rings of Power adaptation is relevant to this specific point in American history then I'll consider looking it up.

If you don't think the history of the Southern US in the 1950s is relevant in a discussion about racism and exclusion based on skin color in an American TV production, things are even worse than I thought.

If you're really stubbornly refusing to invest 10 minutes on Wikipedia to get a better understanding of the history of racism for no other reason than to, you know, broaden your general knowledge of a topic that's kind of important in the present day, then kudos, you are not just ignorant you are actively CELEBRATING that ignorance.

[Triceron]

My argument IS NOT and HAS NEVER BEEN "I need a reason for this character to be white, otherwise it needs to be non-white", which is what you're implying when you point out that "There is no reason why any of the main elf characters would be white".

That's a distortion YOU invented by somehow trying to turn things around and make it sound as my objection was to "all-white casts". That's not my argument, I've told you many times it's not my argument, and it keeps. coming. back.

I'm beginning to think you're doing that on purpose because that way, you have an actual way of objecting. You're objecting to something I'm not saying. Please stop doing that. Thank you.

You understand that 'There is no reason to exclude a person of color when there is no good reason to' is not a blanket standard that applies to every casting role, right?

If a role calls for a White Female actress, then the casting will seek out Actresses of White skin tone and cast accordingly. As far as law is concerned, this is not considered racially discriminant. Casting for a 'Brown actress' is not racially discriminant, and would be a casting choice that ultimately excludes all 'non-brown' actors from the role.

If you are arguing that the practices themselves are bad and shouldn't be done, then you're free to have that opinion. Overall, it still has nothing to do with the actual casting decisions in Rings of Power and why it could not also continue to have an all-white cast. I don't have to provide you with any good reason because I'm not beholden to your principles and ideals. We're clear on this, right?

And what is it that I think RoP is "actually doing"? Can you perhaps quote somewhere where I talked about what I think RoP is doing?

Or could this just be another invention of yours going on about something I never talked about?

If you're not talking about RoP then what the fuck is your argument actually about?

We're in a discussion thread about RoP. If you're talking about principles that even RoP itself doesn't meet, then I don't any relevance in arguing your personal 'principles' for being racially inclusive that extend beyond what's actually happening.

No, it is not.

Which, AGAIN (surprise!), is not something I ever said or claimed anywhere in any way.

It's getting a bit weird now, how EVERY PARAGRAPH you write starts with something I never said.

Your arguments imply it. If you want to clarify your argument, feel free to do so, otherwise simply saying 'That's not what I said! You don't understand!' won't suddenly change the paradigm here.

Explain yourself clearly. Make a clear and concise statement. Set the record straight.

*Sigh* You really have NO argument other than "it's not like in the books!", do you?

There doesn't need to be any argument beyond this. Anything else would merely complicate the simple message that should be easily understood.

And you can feel free to disagree if you wish. I'm not obligated to convince you to change your opinion or agree with my reasons. Understand?

YES. Quite probably.

And regardless of what you personally think is justifiable or not, there is nothing actually wrong with Ring of Power's approach. Nor Peter Jackson's approach.

Neither are examples of racially discriminant practices, and both can be justified for casting based on skin tones.

Whether you agree or not is really up to you, so I'll just leave it at that. If you feel bothered by their casting choices... try to get over it.

If you don't think the history of the Southern US in the 1950s is relevant in a discussion about racism and exclusion based on skin color in an American TV production, things are even worse than I thought.

Yes, it's not relevant because what we're talking about right now doesn't actually have anything to do with racism

Racial exclusion is not inherrently racially discriminant.

That is why there are specific racial discrimination laws that protect against such happening, while companies are still free to have choice in casting based on skin color without being deemed racially discriminant or insensitive because there are specific nuances that allow them to. And there is no mandate or shift to define current practices AS being racism. Such as casting a Black actor for MLK; it would not be deemed racially discriminant to all other actors of various skin colors. And such casting can extend to an entire production, without being deemed discriminant (ie, Northman).

Just because you personally perceive it a certain way... doesn't make it true. What we're talking about has no relevance to the racism and segretation in the 1950's. It's actually quite abhorrable that you'd make a direct connection to it. Casting practices are not infringing on the rights and livelyhood of an entire ethnic peoples. Fucking ridiculous.

[Biomega]

You understand that 'There is no reason to exclude a person of color when there is no good reason to' is not a blanket standard that applies to every casting role, right?

I do. That's why I, you know, put "NO GOOD REASON" in there.

I am not objecting to the ones that HAVE a good reason. That's why I put that in there. It's a bit frightening you... didn't notice that before, or something?

If you're not talking about RoP then what the fuck is your argument actually about?

About a general principle. What, you thought I only cared about excluding people in RoP, and gave fuck all about other shows?

What?

We're in a discussion thread about RoP.

That doesn't mean that every point I make ONLY APPLIES TO RoP, or that any general statement I make IS ABOUT RoP SPECIFICALLY.

If and when I talk about RoP SPECIFICALLY, I make sure to mention it.

And by the way: even if you REMOVE the reference to RoP from statements you made like "and prove that Rings of Power is free from exclusion at all levels, per your argument." I still never said ANYTHING REMOTE LIKE THAT, ANYWHERE.

Your arguments imply it.

That doesn't mean you can use it to fabricate a specific statement. If I say "I object to murder on moral grounds" you cannot use that to then go "He could not have murdered Santa Claus because he objects to murder" because the argument ISN'T ABOUT ANYTHING SPECIFIC and you can't ADD SOMETHING SPECIFIC and connect it back to me, even if the argument itself isn't invalidated by it.

Whether or not I agree or disagree with the statement you created isn't the point, it's something I didn't say or talk about, so don't put it out there as though I did.

Explain yourself clearly. Make a clear and concise statement. Set the record straight.

You know I explained the same point ten times to you NUMBERING EACH ONE and you still didn't get it right, though?

There doesn't need to be any argument beyond this.

I explained many times why that argument alone can't be sufficient. IN THAT VERY POST, in fact.

Is there a reason you just, you know, IGNORED THAT?

And regardless of what you personally think is justifiable or not, there is nothing actually wrong with Ring of Power's approach. Nor Peter Jackson's approach.

Okay. Prove it.

Neither are examples of racially discriminant practices, and both can be justified for casting based on skin tones.

Justify it, then. I've asked you, REPEATEDLY, to just BRING ME REASONS.

You've continued, REPEATEDLY, to bring nothing except "it's not like in the books!". When I explained why that can't be sufficient reason on logical grounds (REPEATEDLY) you ignored the explanation (REPEATEDLY).

Is that because you, well, HAVE no way to overcome that objection, perhaps?

If you feel bothered by their casting choices... try to get over it.

And if you feel bothered that your insistence on the justification of exclusion based on skin color sounds racist... try to get over it.

If that's the way you want to play it, that's fine.

Yes, it's not relevant because what we're talking about right now doesn't actually have anything to do with racism

Excluding people based on skin color doesn't have anything to do with racism?

OOOOKAY. Guess I was operating under several false assumptions here.

That is why there are specific racial discrimination laws that protect against such happening

It may shock you, but "it's not racism unless it's illegal" doesn't quite come across as the most convincing position. You may wish to think about that one a bit more before you say it public.

Just because you personally perceive it a certain way... doesn't make it true.

Just because you personally perceive it a certain way... doesn't make it false, either.

You've brought this up several times, in various flavors. It's very puzzling.

[Kumorii]

The abrasive promotion of diversity and feminism makes it a target for controversy. I mean, I'm all in support of their casting and creative choices, but even I can't stomach how they've promoted the show through interviews and spotlights. They prop diversity above everything else, while barely informing what the actual plot of the show would be. I really question the marketting behind this show.

This is the crux tbh. The fact that they went out and said that it wouldn't be influenced by modern politics and then all we hear in interviews is just that. The focus on modern politics. It went from not being influenced to suddenly "it should reflect todays society" and how empowering and important it is with diversity, which is just modern politics.

Which is fine on it's own, but to me they are just trying to deceive people which doesn't exactly give me hope in the show when you say one thing, do another and then on-top of that calling out people for saying "hold on a minute... this is a uno reverse".

The entire thing with being faithful and then use the term "Harfoots" to put hobbits in a time they didn't exist in as a loophole, even though it isn't since Harfoots are a type of hobbit, doesn't really instill hope that they respect the source either. There's so many red flags that this is just taking an existing IP and then do whatever with it. Which is FINE if you are upfront about it instead of deceiving.

The marketing sure is a damn right mess. Which is why people are having fun with it.

[Triceron]

About a general principle. What, you thought I only cared about excluding people in RoP, and gave fuck all about other shows?

Okay. This clarifies a whole bunch. I have been clear that my argument is about RoP, is about Tolkien's fiction. If you are merely talking about principles that apply beyond RoP, and that RoP itself is not bound to satisfying said principles, then you're talking about something well beyond my understanding of your intent.

I respectfully admit a miscontruance of your argument, and apologize if I had made examples that extend beyond your intention. I had been applying it all to Rings of Power assuming we were actually talking about Rings of Power exclusively. I had no idea you were talking about something much broader, and merely applying your personal principles to this for the sake of discussing said principles.

I hope we are on the same page now.

I explained many times why that argument alone can't be sufficient. IN THAT VERY POST, in fact.

Is there a reason you just, you know, IGNORED THAT?

My rebuttal will always remain the same. Whether or not you consider it sufficient or not is not my problem. If you don't think it's a good reason, you can feel free to disagree and move on.

If you asked me (for example) why I hate cats and I say it's because they stink, and you don't think that's a good reason, then I'm not beholden to give you an alternative reason to justify my opinion. Make sense? If I hate cats because they stink, then that's my reasoning. If you don't think it's a good reason, you're free to disagree. Neither party is obligated to meet to an agreement.

Okay. Prove it.

Prove what? My opinion that it's not wrong?

Justify it, then. I've asked you, REPEATEDLY, to just BRING ME REASONS.

If the law that defines racial discrimination is not enough of a reason for you, then I don't know what would be.

Again, I have no obligation to give you alternative reasons than it literally not being an example of racial discrimination as defined by the law. If you want to argue principles beyond that, then I'll say that I have no obligation to adhere to your personal convictions.

You've continued, REPEATEDLY, to bring nothing except "it's not like in the books!". When I explained why that can't be sufficient reason on logical grounds (REPEATEDLY) you ignored the explanation (REPEATEDLY).

Is that because you, well, HAVE no way to overcome that objection, perhaps?

Again, I have no obligation TO overcome your objections. I have no obligation to humor bad faith arguments.

"AHA! You can't overcome my objections, you were wRoNg! GOTCHA!"

And if you feel bothered that your insistence on the justification of exclusion based on skin color sounds racist... try to get over it.

I admit, it did bother me, and that is why I attempted to humor your argument and open up to this discussion.

At this point, I'm fully aware you are merely judging people based on your personal convictions and principles, and I don't have a potion of cure-ignorance to offer you. So feel free to go on about your way. Whether you think I sound racist or not is not something I can change. If you have the opinion that I'm illiterate as well then there's nothing I write here that would change that opinion either.

You have the right to be an asshole if that's how you choose to act.

Excluding people based on skin color doesn't have anything to do with racism?

OOOOKAY. Guess I was operating under several false assumptions here.

You even AGREE that it is not inherrently racism. That is why you have the stipulation of a GOOD REASON.

Casting choices can be justified casting by skin tone if there is a (by your definition) GOOD REASON for it. If we're talking about 1950's segregation, there IS NO GOOD REASON to justify it whatsoever.

These two situations are NOT comparable.

I will repeat: Casting practices are not infringing on the rights and livelyhood of an entire ethnic peoples. Fucking ridiculous.

It may shock you, but "it's not racism unless it's illegal" doesn't quite come across as the most convincing position. You may wish to think about that one a bit more before you say it public.

HAgain, these decisions WOULD be protected under the same laws that I'm talking about, which protect their creative decision to do so. I'm not bringing up the laws as a SINGULAR DEFINING reason why casting based on skin color would not be inherrently racist, but as an example of it SUPPORTING creative decisions to cast based on skin color that are not deemed racially discriminant.

Racial discrimination laws support the (exclusive) casting of a Black Actor in the role of MLK without deeming it racially discriminant (in the eyes of the law) towards people of other skin tones. These laws don't draw a line, but they helps define guidelines which we follow today. And if those guidelines are to be changed then that is another argument altogether. If your principles disagree with the law, then that's a different conversation than one that we have been having thus far. And frankly, it's one that I'm going to avoid. That is literally another rabbit hole that would literally be off-topic in this discussion, in this thread.

Just because you personally perceive it a certain way... doesn't make it false, either.

You've brought this up several times, in various flavors. It's very puzzling.

Well of course it would be puzzling. There's no other way to dealing with paradoxical principles like yours.

[Biomega]

My rebuttal will always remain the same. Whether or not you consider it sufficient or not is not my problem. If you don't think it's a good reason, you can feel free to disagree and move on.

If you are only interested in proffering subjective preferences and not discussing them, why are we talking?

The objections I raised aren't based on preference - I gave specific reasons and explained the fallacy of the internal logic of the statement. That's not "I just think it's wrong"-levels of reasoning.

If your reply is nothing but "I disagree and I don't need to explain why" then that means you're not interested in a discussion. You have a subjective preference you're not interested in examining, to which I can only say "cool story, bro" and move on because you've effectively terminated the discourse.

If you want to actually CONVINCE anyone that your point has merit as an argument, you need to actually defend it. If that's not what interests you, just move on. Everyone has their preferences, and we can't really do anything other than acknowledge them because they're not up for debate.

If you asked me (for example) why I hate cats and I say it's because they stink, and you don't think that's a good reason, then I'm not beholden to give you an alternative reason to justify my opinion.

You're misrepresenting things a bit there. I didn't just go "not a good reason!" - I explained WHY it's not a good reason. You also used a subjective criterion in this analogy - "stink" doesn't just denote the existence of a smell, it makes a value judgement (i.e. bad smell). You've smuggled in a subjective position that's guarded against objective reasoning, but that's NOT what happened in the original example - as evidenced by me giving you objective reasons why the internal logic of your statement was problematic.

That's more like you going "I hate cats" me going "okay why?" and you going "because they have five legs". I then point out that this is demonstrably false, but you go "well let's just agree to disagree, I hate cats and you don't, the end". You simply avoided having to talk about the problem with your REASON and tried to go back to the CLAIM, invoking subjective preference so as to not explain the objection to your justification.

And let's be clear: in that example, you are totally fine to keep hating cats, just like you are fine believing that "it's not like the book" is a good reason to exclude people based on skin color. That's your preference. It won't CONVINCE anyone, though, and people can look at it and go "that's a pretty racist position to have", but that doesn't mean you can't have that position. If you want to JUSTIFY that position, you need to engage with the arguments, and that means responding to objections. If you don't want to justify it, you can just move on and let people think what they think.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too - you can't have a preference you don't need to defend and ALSO expect it to convince people to respect your position. They respect that you HAVE a position, that doesn't mean they have to respect the position ITSELF.

Prove what? My opinion that it's not wrong?

If that's just your opinion as in subjective preference, then you don't need to prove it. I will just go "okay, I guess he thinks that" and move on. Discussion terminated. And if I then also think "I guess that's kinda racist, though" you don't get to object - you've already removed yourself from the debate by asserting this is a preference, not an argument, so you wouldn't have to defend it. You can't have it both ways (see above).

If the law that defines racial discrimination is not enough of a reason for you, then I don't know what would be.

No, laws against discrimination are NOT enough. There's plenty of discrimination that goes on that's entirely legal, and it's STILL WRONG.

If you seriously think that discrimination is only wrong when it's actually illegal, that is a pretty fucked-up stance to have, not gonna lie.

Again, I have no obligation TO overcome your objections. I have no obligation to play into your bad faith arguments.

Same thing. You don't need to defend your positions. But you don't get to not defend them and ALSO expect others to respect them. That's not how discourse works.

We all respect your right to have an opinion. That doesn't mean we have to respect that opinion.

"AHA! You can't overcome my objections, you were wRoNg! GOTCHA!"

Yes, that's kind of how it works. If I make an objection to your argument, and you have no way to overcome it, then... you were wrong. By, uh, definition of how arguments work? IDK why that's somehow funny to you.

You even AGREE that it is not inherrently racism. That is why you have the stipulation of a GOOD REASON.

But you realize, I hope, that adding the word "inherently" there changes the statement? And that saying "it's racism" is very different from "it has something to do with racism", which was WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID?

Why this compulsion to keep changing my statements? You're already quoting them. Can't you just respond to them as is without changing their meaning? It's fine if you paraphrase, but you can't CHANGE THE MEANING by adding qualifiers or making different claims.

as an example of it SUPPORTING creative decisions to cast based on skin color that are not deemed racially discriminant.

And that's my point.

Just because something isn't deemed racial discrimination UNDER THE LAW doesn't mean there's no racial discrimination. Laws have very specific circumstances under which they do and don't apply, and those don't always cover the same areas that public discourse does. And no one here is arguing from a LEGAL standpoint anyway - because of precisely what I said in response, "it's not racism unless it's illegal" is not a good stance to take. Same with morality, by the way. Plenty of immoral things are also illegal; but plenty more are not. And you can't just go "it's not immoral unless it's illegal".

Well of course it would be puzzling. There's no other way to dealing with paradoxical principles like yours.

What paradox are you referring to, specifically?

[DarkAmbient]

My dudes.. what are you doing here.

All of you, plx. … just please stahp these walls of texts and enjoy your time off…

I was hoping to see some fun banter about the lotr series but… well this is not that.

It just never fucking ends...

[Triceron]

If you are only interested in proffering subjective preferences and not discussing them, why are we talking?

What about the subjective preferences haven't being discussed?

I literally am pointing out that we did discuss them, and we both reached disagreement. I think it should end there. Why are we still talking? Because you're still asking me to 'prove my reasons' or whatever.

The objections I raised aren't based on preference - I gave specific reasons and explained the fallacy of the internal logic of the statement. That's not "I just think it's wrong"-levels of reasoning.

If your reply is nothing but "I disagree and I don't need to explain why" then that means you're not interested in a discussion. You have a subjective preference you're not interested in examining, to which I can only say "cool story, bro" and move on because you've effectively terminated the discourse.

It doesn't matter what you base your principles on, they are still an expression of your subjective opinion.

The only way to regard your 'principles' is by discussing them, and choosing to agree or disagree. It doesn't matter if you (even) used scientific fact to reach your conclusion, the nature of the conclusion you reached is still ultimately based on your subjective opinion, because it is not something that can be objectively defined. 'Racial discrimination' is not objectively defineable, we'd agree yes? Racial discrimination will always be in the realm of subjectivity, because the lines are always fluid and prone to change.

If you want to actually CONVINCE anyone that your point has merit as an argument, you need to actually defend it. If that's not what interests you, just move on. Everyone has their preferences, and we can't really do anything other than acknowledge them because they're not up for debate.

I'll just say it's hard to move on when the person on the other side then implies if you can't make the argument you must be a closet racist. But I admit, I took the bait, and here we are.

You are right though, I am okay to move on.

You're misrepresenting things a bit there. I didn't just go "not a good reason!" - I explained WHY it's not a good reason. You also used a subjective criterion in this analogy - "stink" doesn't just denote the existence of a smell, it makes a value judgement (i.e. bad smell). You've smuggled in a subjective position that's guarded against objective reasoning, but that's NOT what happened in the original example - as evidenced by me giving you objective reasons why the internal logic of your statement was problematic.

That's more like you going "I hate cats" me going "okay why?" and you going "because they have five legs". I then point out that this is demonstrably false, but you go "well let's just agree to disagree, I hate cats and you don't, the end". You simply avoided having to talk about the problem with your REASON and tried to go back to the CLAIM, invoking subjective preference so as to not explain the objection to your justification.

And let's be clear: in that example, you are totally fine to keep hating cats, just like you are fine believing that "it's not like the book" is a good reason to exclude people based on skin color. That's your preference. It won't CONVINCE anyone, though, and people can look at it and go "that's a pretty racist position to have", but that doesn't mean you can't have that position. If you want to JUSTIFY that position, you need to engage with the arguments, and that means responding to objections. If you don't want to justify it, you can just move on and let people think what they think.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too - you can't have a preference you don't need to defend and ALSO expect it to convince people to respect your position. They respect that you HAVE a position, that doesn't mean they have to respect the position ITSELF.

"I prefer how the books and Peter Jackson movies depict it" is subjective.
"This is how the books and the Peter Jackson movies depict it" is not subjectively defined. We are talking about something tangible that exists; it is objective and we can point to it with evidence.

The Peter Jackson films depicting Elves and Dwarves with an all-white cast is an objective scenario. It exists. It is not a 'cat with 5 legs' that you can somehow dispute as being non-existent. Its depiction is not 'demonstrably false' merely because you have the opinion that it could have been adapted some other way. The objective fact is this is how it's actually depicted. Make sense?

"That's your preference. It won't CONVINCE anyone, though, and people can look at it and go "that's a pretty racist position to have"

Which was my previous hangup. You are right, and I fell into the trap of trying to defend that point.

People are free to think I'm racist, an asshole, illiterate - whatever they choose. I realize now that it's not worth getting bothered about, as you suggested previously.

People having those opinions does not inherrently make it true, and I'm not defined by the opinions of those people. Just like if someone called me a Nazi sympathizer, I have no obligation to prove to them that I'm not one. It'd just be an insult in ignorance.

If that's just your opinion as in subjective preference, then you don't need to prove it. I will just go "okay, I guess he thinks that" and move on. Discussion terminated. And if I then also think "I guess that's kinda racist, though" you don't get to object - you've already removed yourself from the debate by asserting this is a preference, not an argument, so you wouldn't have to defend it. You can't have it both ways (see above).

Right. If you choose to be an asshole and continue to act like one, that's beyond my control. I am fully aware of this now. Thank you.

No, laws against discrimination are NOT enough. There's plenty of discrimination that goes on that's entirely legal, and it's STILL WRONG.

Then you are arguing principles which I do not agree with, and we can leave it there.

I had a different understanding of the topic of discussion when I initiated with you. Now that I'm aware of what you're talking about, I'll just say we can respectfully agree to disagree, and you can continue to deem me as 'proably a racist' if that pleases you.

If you seriously think that discrimination is only wrong when it's actually illegal, that is a pretty fucked-up stance to have, not gonna lie.

No, I don't think legality is the only way to define what is wrong when. There are plenty of cases where it can be unacceptable beyond the law.

As far as my viewpoints are concerned, RoP and PJ's adaptations are not subject to being products of racial discrimination.

Same thing. You don't need to defend your positions. But you don't get to not defend them and ALSO expect others to respect them. That's not how discourse works.

We all respect your right to have an opinion. That doesn't mean we have to respect that opinion.

Right, and really I shouldn't expect others to have the moral aptitude to be able to distinguish between subjective preference and racial discrimination. Thank you for opening my awareness that there are people who are unable to distinguish betwee the two, and wililngly judge others as racist for merely having an opinion that does not align with their own. I don't often encounter people like this in my discussions, surprisingly.

Yes, that's kind of how it works. If I make an objection to your argument, and you have no way to overcome it, then... you were wrong. By, uh, definition of how arguments work? IDK why that's somehow funny to you.

No, because bad faith arguments are a real thing. Fallacies and paradoxical arguments are examples of arguments that can not be proven 'right' at all, therefore it doesn't make one automatically wrong. "I object to your claim that the world won't end in 2031. Prove it. You can't? You must be wrong! That means I was right and the world WILL end Mwahahahah!"

Argumental fallacies are real, and understanding them may help you understand what arguments to avoid in order to be more reasonable. Because I can say that this entire discussion has been quite unreasonable.

But you realize, I hope, that adding the word "inherently" there changes the statement? And that saying "it's racism" is very different from "it has something to do with racism", which was WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID?

Why this compulsion to keep changing my statements? You're already quoting them. Can't you just respond to them as is without changing their meaning? It's fine if you paraphrase, but you can't CHANGE THE MEANING by adding qualifiers or making different claims.

The civil war also had 'something to do with racism' and would be equally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

And that's my point.

Just because something isn't deemed racial discrimination UNDER THE LAW doesn't mean there's no racial discrimination. Laws have very specific circumstances under which they do and don't apply, and those don't always cover the same areas that public discourse does. And no one here is arguing from a LEGAL standpoint anyway - because of precisely what I said in response, "it's not racism unless it's illegal" is not a good stance to take. Same with morality, by the way. Plenty of immoral things are also illegal; but plenty more are not. And you can't just go "it's not immoral unless it's illegal".

And if there were something that were deemed to be immoral and prone to judgement of being racist, then that's what it would be to you.

If you define a certain act to be racist, and there's no argument that convinces you it would not be, then it is what it is. The only alternative to avoid being judged as 'probably a racist' under your principles would be to abide by your principles and values, and absolutely no one is beholden to following your personal values for the sake of not being judged 'probably a racist'.

Opposing your moral values is something I think I can live with.


----

I think we both agree there's nothing left to discuss, and I'm done contributing to the derailment of this thread.

I think we both have a reasonable assessment of where we both stand, and how we're not going to see eye to eye. Despite the heated argument, I don't bear any ill will nor do I carry any hard feelings. With no disrespect to you or this discussion, I'm willing to set it aside for the sake of letting the thread breathe. Feel free to have the last word.

[davesurfer]

My dudes.. what are you doing here.

All of you, plx. … just please stahp these walls of texts and enjoy your time off…


I was hoping to see some fun banter about the lotr series but… well this is not that.

Ditto. I saw this and hoped to see something about the show not some political discussion. Can’t even enjoy fantasy anymore, what is the problem with the permanently offended people. Sigh

[Biomega]

What about the subjective preferences haven't being discussed?

I literally am pointing out that we did discuss them, and we both reached disagreement.

Then you need to re-read what I said.

You going "I just don't agree, gg no re" when I raise an objection isn't discussion. It's you invoking "opinion" to AVOID having a discussion. That's why I'm saying if you're not interested in discussing things, just SAY so. Just admit all you want is to give your opinion and have other people hear it, without having to explain or defend yourself.

If that's NOT what you want and you ARE interested in actually convincing people your position is justified, you have to defend it. And that includes engaging with objections, not just dodging the discussion with "just my opinion, man".

It doesn't matter what you base your principles on, they are still an expression of your subjective opinion.

No. They're arguments. Open to objections and rebuttals. I give justification for what I'm convinced of, either out of my own initiative or on demand. Things I don't want to or can't justify (and that aren't trivial presuppositions) I usually don't bring into these debates. Because they have no place in a debate.

The only way to regard your 'principles' is by discussing them, and choosing to agree or disagree. It doesn't matter if you (even) used scientific fact to reach your conclusion, the nature of the conclusion you reached is still ultimately based on your subjective opinion

That's just not true. I reach conclusions based on how convincing their justification is. If I have objections to those justifications, I raise them. If I can't find an objection, I accept them. That's how discourse works.

What you're describing isn't discourse. "I like vanilla ice cream, but not chocolate" isn't an argument, it's just a preference. Nothing can be discussed about this. "Racism is bad" is NOT just a preference - everyone can (and should) give justification for why they think so. These either convince someone or they do not, based on the justifications given. That's usually an ongoing discourse. The second you turn "Racism is bad" into "I like vanilla ice cream", you've left the discourse. And you should admit as much.

That doesn't mean all discourse needs to reach a conclusion every time. This is an open-ended process. But "agree to disagree" is not a valid position, it's just a termination of the discourse. And that's very different from "we've reached a point where neither of us can further justify or prove their position", which can happen, too. But you refusing to engage with an objection and just pulling the "opinion" card is not that, either.

'Racial discrimination' is not objectively defineable, we'd agree yes?

"Attitudes and behaviors towards a group or individual caused solely by the fact that group or those individuals display particular racial characteristics". Would you disagree that this is an objective definition of "racial discrimination"?

Or what are you getting at, exactly?

I'll just say it's hard to move on when the person on the other side then implies if you can't make the argument you must be a closet racist.

Nobody said this. You're trying to make this into a general point, when it's a SPECIFIC point.

I'm saying if you can't justify excluding people based on skin color with a good reason, that's being racist. That doesn't mean the same is true for ANY argument. It just means it's true for THIS ONE.

"I prefer how the books and Peter Jackson movies depict it" is subjective.

Yes, this is a subjective preference.

"This is how the books and the Peter Jackson movies depict it" is not subjectively defined. We are talking about something tangible that exists; it is objective and we can point to it with evidence.

That's also correct.

The Peter Jackson films depicting Elves and Dwarves with an all-white cast is an objective scenario. It exists. It is not a 'cat with 5 legs' that you can somehow dispute as being non-existent.

And that's not what I objected to.

I objected to "they should be white because that's how they are in the books". The CLAIM is "they should be white", the REASON is "because that's how they are in the books". I objected to the REASON and pointed out that "because that's how they are in the books" is not sufficient on it's own because it's circular reasoning and a tautology. Either it demands 100% accuracy (which is a practical impossibility in any adaptation) or it's fine with <100% accuracy, in which case the argument is no longer sufficient on its own (because clearly it doesn't apply to some characteristics). That's not subjective opinion. That's the internal logical structure of the statement.

My objection is about the REASON, and you never engaged with it. Instead, you went back to the CLAIM and just went "well that's just what I prefer". That's what I was pointing out here.

People having those opinions does not inherrently make it true, and I'm not defined by the opinions of those people. Just like if someone called me a Nazi sympathizer, I have no obligation to prove to them that I'm not one. It'd just be an insult in ignorance.

Just for completeness, I want to make sure that I tried hard never to call you "a racist" (and if I did, feel free to point out where I did and I will specifically apologize about each time). I only ever called certain statements or arguments racist (or racism). I don't believe in personalized generalizations beyond the trivial technical level (e.g. "you told a lie therefore you are a liar by definition" is technically true but I wouldn't call someone a liar anyway; I'd just call a specific statement a lie so as not to imply that it's habitual).

Then you are arguing principles which I do not agree with, and we can leave it there.

Same warning as before applies, "it's not racism unless it's illegal" is not something most people would be comfortable with. You're free to hold that position, but be aware that it could get you into serious trouble out in the world.

Right, and really I shouldn't expect others to have the moral aptitude to be able to distinguish between subjective preference and racial discrimination.

I don't understand this. Those are very disparate things, where exactly is that distinction coming into play? Are you saying that it's okay to be racially discriminatory as long as it's your subjective preference? Surely not? This needs some explanation.

Thank you for opening my awareness that there are people who are unable to distinguish betwee the two, and wililngly judge others as racist for merely having an opinion that does not align with their own.

AAAHH, I see, you're saying I'm calling your opinion racist just because I don't respect it. So you're just, you know, LYING TO MY FACE. Got it.

No, because bad faith arguments are a real thing.

If you think I'm arguing in bad faith, object to it on those grounds. Show where I was arguing in bad faith, and present your case. If you can't do that, why should I believe it actually was arguing in bad faith? Why should YOU believe it, for that matter?

You can't just go "you're arguing in bad faith, and I don't have to explain why that's just how I feel" again. Subjective preferences have no place in arguments, because they're beyond argumentative discourse. Don't try to use them like arguments.

Because I can say that this entire discussion has been quite unreasonable.

You can, but - once again - you'd have to show where, and why. If you think there's fallacies in my arguments, point them out. I did that for some of your arguments. I explained in detail what fallacy was at work, and why. You can just do the same.

You're very prone to just CLAIMING "this is paradoxical" "this is fallacious" etc. but you have to, you know, actually demonstrate that's the case.

The civil war also had 'something to do with racism' and would be equally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

And if someone in a discussion about racism had no idea what the US Civil War was, I'd tell them to sit down and read about it on Wikipedia exactly the same way. Everyone can be expected to know the basics of that kind of historical event, ESPECIALLY if the discussion topic is more than tangential. Same if someone was in a discussion about, idk, economics and didn't know what the Industrial Revolution was. And so on.

If you define a certain act to be racist, and there's no argument that convinces you it would not be, then it is what it is.

I have never once in my life uttered the words "there's no argument that convinces me". AT BEST it would be "I haven't heard an argument yet that has convinced me", or "I couldn't imagine an argument that would convince me (but that doesn't mean someone else couldn't)". I do not, EVER, engage in absolutes of this kind, and I find it offensive for you to be suggesting I would. I take great pains to be precise and systematic in my arguments, and observe the rules of discourse; I ask no less of others. To intimate that I'm somehow refusing to honestly engage with arguments if they're presented correctly is an outrageous claim.

Opposing your moral values is something I think I can live with.

Clearly. Which is fine. You need to square your positions with yourself above all else, and many people hold many positions I consider untenable. That doesn't mean they're not allowed to hold them; and it doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be disdainful of those positions.

[VMSmith]

Erebor would also be third age, but maybe amazon is going to go rule of cool and show morias fall and the longbeard migration to the lonely mountain early for giggles. I'd be mad about the timeline fuckery, but thrilled to see Erebor founded.

Actually, this touches on my main issue with this series. Legendary events of the past shrouded in the mists of time thrill us specifically because they are mysterious. The Pyramids in Egypt have long been fascinating because of their mysteriousness, the more we learned about them the less interesting and more mundane they became, while still impressive. Darth Vader was amazingly cool when we knew so little of how he came to be the way he was, the prequels ruined our image of him irrevocably. Try imagining Darth Vader now without remembering him also being a brat whining about sand in his asscrack.

Ancient events in Middle Earth are fascinating because we don't know exactly how they happened. By actually showing those events it takes away that mystique and we end up seeing them as just a thing that happened.

I don't want to see legends of the past brought to life, I'd prefer to see what comes afterward.

[Triceron]

Darth Vader was amazingly cool when we knew so little of how he came to be the way he was, the prequels ruined our image of him irrevocably. Try imagining Darth Vader now without remembering him also being a brat whining about sand in his asscrack.
---
I don't want to see legends of the past brought to life, I'd prefer to see what comes afterward.

*cough* Sequel Trilogy *cough*

[VMSmith]

*cough* SEQUEL TRILOGY *cough*

Well, what comes afterward isn't always guaranteed to be good I still prefer that over prequels, messy as the sequels may be, every time.

The only prequel sort of show I've truly enjoyed from top to bottom has been Strange New Worlds. They are doing a phenomenal job with that show.

[Biomega]

Ancient events in Middle Earth are fascinating because we don't know exactly how they happened. By actually showing those events it takes away that mystique and we end up seeing them as just a thing that happened.

IDK, I feel it can go either way depending on the story/subject in question. Your pyramid example I always found the exact opposite - that unraveling the mysteries of the world made the world MORE interesting, not less. But I also agree that NOT knowing Anakin was a horndog with a child-murder fetish kinda did make Darth Vader more impressive as a character.

I'm in two minds about it. Taking all the mystery out of world-building can be a detriment, but how much is too much is still negotiable. Will RoP go too far? Wait and see, I guess. It's a potential pitfall to be sure, how much of a deal it'll actually end up being who can tell. Until we see it.

Personally I've always thought the truly "high" fantasy of the early ages in Tolkien's work was more appealing than the LotR stuff. Valinor, the big wars with legions of balrogs, all that kind of stuff. But maybe it sounds better in the way it's presented written in the Silmarilion etc. and is only going to end up pure CGI schlock on screen.

[Triceron]

Well, what comes afterward isn't always guaranteed to be good I still prefer that over prequels, messy as the sequels may be, every time.

The only prequel sort of show I've truly enjoyed from top to bottom has been Strange New Worlds. They are doing a phenomenal job with that show.

Not sure if you're into Breaking Bad, but Better Call Saul is actually pretty good. I'd recommend it.