Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Triceron]

That's a very bare-bones hypothetical. In the present day? In an American production? You bet your ass people would complain if something was ALL WHITE for no good reason. And they should. If you have no good reason to exclude people of color from your production but do it anyway, holy hell yes that is racist.

Then we're in disagreement here, because you consider any production that lacks diversity as being racist, regardless of whether an individual expressing a certain opinion is actually racist.

And you extend this to being a mandate of all future productions to avoid all-white casts (I don't even know what would consider a 'good reason' to have an all-white cast would be) and any argument against would be considered racist. I disagree with that description of the terminology.

For example, a movie like the Lighthouse (2019) has an all-white cast. There is nothing (inherrently) racist about the choice of the production to have an all-white cast in this day and age. And there is absolutely no objective standard to define what a 'Good reason' is to justify the Lighthouse having an all-white cast. It simply does because the creators chose to.

But this doesn't apply retroactively. Social standards and contexts change over time. You can't really call someone from the 1920s racist for not having a diverse cast in a film. You can call their TIME racist, but you can't really hold people from different eras to contemporary standards any more than you could apply the standards of other eras to the present day.

Fiction is not a reflection reality. Entertainment is not a reflection of reality. I don't think you can apply social standards directly to how we perceive entertainment, because ultimately it is not a reflection of reality.

I understand that modern productions try to abstain from depicting anything racially insensitive, or try to avoid using language or terminology that is insensitive to various groups, or that they're trying to broaden their casting choices where possible to build an environment of inclusion. But it doesn't mean having a creative choice to cast a certain way that excludes all other ethnicities is equal to being 'racist'. That isn't how the terminology works or is applied. I completely disagree with this connotation, because while this modern shift towards inclusion and diversity in casting may be a product of our times, it is a product by choice, and one that not everyone agrees with. Ultimately all art is free to be expressed any way it sees fit. If there were a future PJ production that goes back to depicting an all-white Dwarf cast, it is not subject to being 'no good reason for an all-white cast' and deemed racist. It would be, itself, an adaptation with its own freedom to adapt as it pleases.

This is why there exist so many people who actually push back at the idea that there should not be a production with a mono-ethnic cast for the sake of social/racial insensitivities. Fiction isn't a reflection of real life, and shouldn't be limited by our own social standards.

That's not the same thing, you're smuggling in a category error here. Just because you're biased doesn't mean you're anti-diversity; one is personal, the other is programmatic. Are biased people more likely to ALSO be anti-diversity? Sure. But there's not a simple causality at work here, where one means the other.

I'd argue that many people are blurring the lines and assuming that biases are indications of anti-diversity. Look at some of the blanket statements people made above.

"At the risk of stating the obvious - all those who try to hide their racism behind ''critique'' of ''bad adaptation'', I hope explosive diarrhoea comes to you at the happiest moment of your life."

This literally implies that anyone who has a critique of the adaptation being bad should be assumed to be a hiding their racism. I mean, is there any other way to interpret this statement?

Does them enjoying an all-white cast make them RACIST? That depends on what you mean by "enjoying an all-white cast". Do they enjoy the fact THAT IT IS an all-white cast? Then racist. So, so racist. Do they enjoy the WORK, which just also happens to have an all-white cast? Not necessarily racist, but also not excluded of course. You'd have to quiz them further.

And how would you consider a depiction a certain period of history in a location that would have been all-white? Or a piece of fiction that depicts a society where people are all-white? Are these considered good reasons or bad reasons?

And to bank on your own line of questioning - are the people who are criticizing RoP's creative choices doing so because they only enjoy an All-white cast merely because of the fact it is all-white? With no other motivation to make the argument that it should be represented that way? Because I would argue that the depiction of races in the fiction already outlines an understandable reasoning to have an all-white cast be represented. As we already have with adapations such as the Peter Jackson Movies.

Not in and of itself, no.

But "I prefer the depiction of Dwarves in Peter Jackson's movies than I do in Rings of Power, because the PJ movies didn't have black dwarves"? Absolutely racist, no question.

I completely disagree with that statement. Your conclusion omits any possible reasoning for PJ movies not having Black Dwarves.

If you gave a stipulation of 'All white cast with no good reason' then you imply that there can exist exceptions with good reasons. While here, you give no indication of that at all. You merely blanketly assume that anyone who does not want to see Black Dwarves in an adaptation has no good reason to do so.

And whether you may agree or not, I will say that in the eyes of many people who are against the creative decisions, 'Black Dwarves did not exist in the original fiction' is an understandable and reasonably good reason to disagree with the adaptation's changes. Because that is also how the PJ adaptations depicted Dwarves.

There is no nuance in your conclusion. I think you need to insert that nuance back in to make contextual sense of why people prefer PJ's depiction and would want that extended into other adaptations as well. It's because it's a commonly accepted depiction of the original fiction.

That's why I'm so interested in justifications. Tell me WHY, because otherwise anything can just become a smokescreen for biases - even if you're not aware of it. Heck you should ask YOURSELF why to begin with.

I have been telling you why. What do you think is the importance of pointing out that Black Dwarves didn't exist in the original fiction if not to illustrate a 'good reason' to have an all-white cast? Like I said, I'm justifying the very reason Peter Jackson's depiction of Dwarves has been commonly accepted, and why there is no point of contention with said depiction whereas people do have an issue with Rings of Power. It has nothing to do with the casting of Black actors, and everything to do with how people regard adaptations and depictions of the original fiction.

And you can feel free to disagree with my argument, but it doesn't change my point and exactly why people are literally concerned about this topic at all.

I don't understand why people can't just be mature enough to accept that these changes aren't for everyone and don't automatically make them racist for preferring a certain depiction. Like you said, there's a difference between biases and being anti-diversity. Yet your statement above literally leaves no room to make that distinction.

"I prefer the depiction of Dwarves in Peter Jackson's movies than I do in Rings of Power, because the PJ movies didn't have black dwarves"? Absolutely racist, no question

There is no room to distinguish whether these reasonings are due to certain biases (I want to stick to the original depiction/PJ adaptation) or if it's literally anti-diversity. You're merely stating that PJ's adaptation didn't have Black Dwarves and blanketly pointing at a preference to it as being racist. I don't think you're using a great example here because "PJ movies didn't have Black Dwarves because the original fiction didn't have Black Dwarves" is an understandable non-anti-diversity good reason for PJ to depict his Dwarves the way he did. And it's this same reasoning that some people expect to be applied back to future adaptations of Tolkien's work.

Not literally, obviously. I talked about this - the people who go "you know what I hate black people" aren't the big problem. It's the people who make all sorts of other statements that DISPLAY racism without EXPLICITLY ARTICULATING it.

Have you taken a moment to address these people and ask whether they'd be okay with watching any movies with black actors in it? That might help you understand whether or not they are actually racist. Instead of, you know, merely assuming it based on their arguments.

Not as big as you think.

If the ONLY reason you don't want black people is "they're not in the book", we need to have a very serious talk. Chances are, stuff is going on.

They are in the book though. There are Easterlings and Southron and Haradrim. And they don't all have to be depicted as being evil or Sauron aligned.

Like I said, what RoP is doing is explicitly avoiding the fact that black people already exist in the fiction, and choosing to insert them into races/ethnic cultures that were not described having black people amongst them. And that single point of change is something that not everyone has to agree with, and should not be assumed to be 'racist' or 'anti-diversity' for merely having the opinion of.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I think the only ones here saying that are those pretending to be virtuous because nobody else is saying that.

yes which is why I said people want to say it but don’t want to face the back lash, no one is literally saying it but it’s obvious that it’s the subtext.

And by that logic, then European mythology, authors and artists must also be racist for not painting black Elves, dwarves, halflings, etc.

yes many European authors were racist to a degree due to the times they lived in even if they weren’t actively trying to be So.

Others were just ignorant given the flow of information and lack of personal experience.

That is simply hilariously shallow and inept in this day of all black TV shows, movies, plays and so forth. It isn't ground breaking or special in the least.

just like black people didn't need to use the white water fountains because they had there own?

Trying to hold to “separate but equal” is still very much so racist.

[InfiniteCharger]

yes which is why I said people want to say it but don’t want to face the back lash, no one is literally saying it but it’s obvious that it’s the subtext.

yes many European authors were racist to a degree due to the times they lived in even if they weren’t actively trying to be So.

Others were just ignorant given the flow of information and lack of personal experience.

just like black people didn't need to use the white water fountains because they had there own?

Trying to hold to “separate but equal” is still very much so racist.

There you go again making absurd straw men to pretend something is racist when it isn't.
So all white mythology, tv show, movie or story from Europe is racist. LOL.
Monty Python is Racist. Benny Hill is racist. Dr Who is racist. blah blah blah.......
Which means Europe needs more immigration because there are too many all white towns, companies, pubs, neighborhoods. Can't have that huh?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

There you go again making absurd straw men to pretend something is racist when it isn't.
So all white mythology, tv show, movie or story from Europe is racist. LOL.
Monty Python is Racist. Benny Hill is racist. Dr Who is racist. blah blah blah.......
Which means Europe needs more immigration because there are too many all white towns, companies, pubs, neighborhoods. Can't have that huh?

You say I'm making strawmen and then do it your self.

But no not every thing from Europe is racist. alot of is but alot of it is also just ignorant, or lacking in opportunity, it's a case by case thing in determining which is which.

But yes if benny hill Dr who or Monty python had a "negro's not need apply" policy they were in fact racist.

[Triceron]

You say I'm making strawmen and then do it your self.

But no not every thing from Europe is racist. alot of is but alot of it is also just ignorant, or lacking in opportunity, it's a case by case thing in determining which is which.

But yes if benny hill Dr who or Monty python had a "negro's not need apply" policy they were in fact racist.

Would you consider the Peter Jackson movies merely lacking opportunity or being ignorant in its choice to depict various races of Middle Earth as being all-white? That it isn't a deliberate choice, but as an unfortunate consequence of the times?

And how would you regard the subsequent all-white casting in the Hobbit movies, which were made between 2012-2014?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Would you consider the Peter Jackson movies merely lacking opportunity or being ignorant in its choice to depict various races of Middle Earth as being all-white? That it isn't a deliberate choice, but as an unfortunate consequence of the times?

And how would you regard the subsequent all-white casting in the Hobbit movies, which were made between 2012-2014?

Id probably go with a mix of both.

Id assume that none white prospects were slim to none, and depending on rather he kept track of the other movie adaptation's he might have never even thought to give characters darker shades such as we saw in the 1978 movie with Aragorn being notably darker arguably native American toned.

[Biomega]

Then we're in disagreement here, because you consider any production that lacks diversity as being racist, regardless of whether an individual expressing a certain opinion is actually racist.

You're being specious here. Productions don't just HAPPEN - they're made, BY PEOPLE. The only way a production these days would be all-white is if there's 1. a very good reason for it (like idk, it's about actual Nazis or something) 2. someone somewhere MADE DECISIONS that led to it, in which case they are very much responsible and very much culpable.

You're portraying this as though there were some kind of random force at play that just somehow, without anyone noticing or interfering, conspired to coincidentally make something all-white. That's not how it works.

And you extend this to being a mandate of all future productions to avoid all-white casts (I don't even know what would consider a 'good reason' to have an all-white cast would be) and any argument against would be considered racist. I disagree with that description of the terminology.

I don't know a very good reason for an ALL-WHITE cast, either. It's easiest for smaller productions with few actors (though of course it's also very difficult to be diverse with VERY few actors, I don't think anyone would argue diversity in a 2-person show for example). And you'd need a story in which those people being white MATTERS. Hence my Nazi example above - though it's not the only possibility, of course. But sure: if you HAVE a good reason for restricting things to white people, I'm all for it. There aren't many such good reasons and not many stories where that's even remotely defensible, but it's far from impossible. For sure.

Fiction is not a reflection reality. Entertainment is not a reflection of reality. I don't think you can apply social standards directly to how we perceive entertainment, because ultimately it is not a reflection of reality.

You're mixing up things.

Nobody is saying stories need to reflect reality. The reason people want more diversity isn't so stories look exactly like the real world. It's so we stop discriminating against people based on criteria that shouldn't matter, like skin color. It has nothing to do with trying to make stories match reality, and everything to do with trying to become better human beings. Diversity in cultural production matters because it helps us achieve that goal, by normalizing the irrelevance of things like skin color in areas where it shouldn't matter. Culture informs society, and vice versa.

But it doesn't mean having a creative choice to cast a certain way that excludes all other ethnicities is equal to being 'racist'.

Again, and as I've been saying constantly: if you have a GOOD REASON to restrict casting to certain ethnicities, that's fine. I'm only talking about productions where you DON'T have a good reason.

Casting a black person to play MLK, say, usually has a good reason behind it, because the character is almost inextricably associated with issues of skin color. But for most fictional characters, that's just not the same, and skin color - if it's even mentioned - is little more than a cosmetic detail like many others.

If you're excluding people of a particular skin color for NO good reason? Then that's racist for sure. Almost by definition, I'd say.

because while this modern shift towards inclusion and diversity in casting may be a product of our times, it is a product by choice, and one that not everyone agrees with.

Nobody said everyone agrees with it. I don't even think it's relevant. What matters is do we have good reason to do something, not how popular it is. Many things weren't or aren't popular and we do them anyway because we know there's good reasons to do them; and those reasons are, of course, subject to constant revision and critical examination, and to change if and when it's warranted.

If we only ever did the most popular thing, not only would we end up with a colossal mess on our hands, we'd also be systematically oppressing minority positions just because they're minorities.

You think letting women vote or giving black people civil rights was universally POPULAR at the time? You think that should only have been done if and where it was POPULAR to do so?

Argumentum ad populum is a very prominent logical fallacy.

It would be, itself, an adaptation with its own freedom to adapt as it pleases.

Don't portray this as an issue of freedom, pal.

You're FREE to make any kind of adaptation you wish. And we're FREE to criticize it.

Nobody is saying "you're not allowed to not have black people in this!", we're saying "if you choose to exclude black people, we want to know why - and if you don't have a good reason, we're pretty sure you're a racist".

The audacity of trying to portray this as some kind of issue of FREEDOM as though people were being persecuted just for having innocent beliefs that just happen to exclude black people is staggering, and quite frankly, a little insulting.

I'd argue that many people are blurring the lines and assuming that biases are indications of anti-diversity. Look at some of the blanket statements people made above.

I don't really care. I can't speak for other people. I'm explaining myself as best I can, if other people play it fast and loose and make bad arguments or make good arguments in a bad way, that's on them. Everyone should be careful to express themselves properly in a debate, and observe the principles of reason and logic when they state their positions - the fact that sometimes people don't do that doesn't mean their points don't have merit, it just means some people make their points badly. Which goes for both good points AND bad points.

"At the risk of stating the obvious - all those who try to hide their racism behind ''critique'' of ''bad adaptation'', I hope explosive diarrhoea comes to you at the happiest moment of your life."

This literally implies that anyone who has a critique of the adaptation being bad should be assumed to be a hiding their racism. I mean, is there any other way to interpret this statement?

Yes, the correct way. "ALL THOSE WHO" already makes it very clear that this applies only to a SUBSET of people, and NOT to "anyone", like you claim.

Read better.

And how would you consider a depiction a certain period of history in a location that would have been all-white? Or a piece of fiction that depicts a society where people are all-white? Are these considered good reasons or bad reasons?

That depends on the details.

I don't consider them good reasons IN AND OF THEMSELVES. Just because something is set in, idk, Roman-time Germania doesn't mean all the actors have to be white. Would it be historically accurate to have black warriors in a Germanic tribe? No. Neither would it be accurate to have people exceedingly tall, or of particular hair styles or colors, or with Hollywood-perfect teeth or skin. But somehow we don't care about all the other things and suddenly DO care about skin color? Please.

It's called suspension of disbelief. Fiction operates on it in its entirety.

The same caveat as before applies, of course: if somehow the skin color IS relevant for some narrative reason, things are different. That could or could not be the case in the above example, depending on the particulars of that narrative. I'm talking about the principle of the thing.

And to bank on your own line of questioning - are the people who are criticizing RoP's creative choices doing so because they only enjoy an All-white cast merely because of the fact it is all-white?

I don't know. That depends on the case in question. If they bring good arguments, I'm happy to engage with them. If they're not bringing good arguments but belligerently insisting that everyone must be white anyway, certain conclusions seem to suggest themselves.

Because I would argue that the depiction of races in the fiction already outlines an understandable reasoning to have an all-white cast be represented.

That's a tautology. "They're white in the book therefore they must be white in the film" doesn't hold water on its own, because there's a gazillion details you can pick out that are different from the book but don't matter and nobody is objecting to them. Which means you need MORE than just "it's not like it is in the book", because if that was your ONLY justification, then NO adaptation EVER would be acceptable. And that's clearly not the case.

I completely disagree with that statement. Your conclusion omits any possible reasoning for PJ movies not having Black Dwarves.

No. You just didn't read it properly (again? geez, dude)

It says the reason: "because the PJ movies didn't have black dwarves".

If you have OTHER reasons, then that's not the statement I was talking about. Bring other reasons, and we can discuss those - I only discussed black dwarves being the reason. My whole point is that it's racist IF you DON'T have other (good) reasons.

And whether you may agree or not, I will say that in the eyes of many people who are against the creative decisions, 'Black Dwarves did not exist in the original fiction' is an understandable and reasonably good reason to disagree with the adaptation's changes. Because that is also how the PJ adaptations depicted Dwarves.

Thanks, I guess, for proving once again that my 'the only three reasons people ever really give' still holds true. "It's not like it is in the book!" "Previous films didn't have black people!"

Would you like to add "Black people just don't, uh... fit..." and make it the full trifecta?

I think you need to insert that nuance back in to make contextual sense of why people prefer PJ's depiction and would want that extended into other adaptations as well.

They're free to like whatever they want.

But if they like it specifically BECAUSE IT HAS NO BLACK PEOPLE IN IT, that's, well, racist. Doesn't mean they're not allowed to like it. Just means they're being kinda racist there.

What do you think is the importance of pointing out that Black Dwarves didn't exist in the original fiction if not to illustrate a 'good reason' to have an all-white cast?

I've explained many times why "It's not like the original!" is a circular, tautological argument. You're free to still use it, of course; nothing says you have to use good arguments. Just means people will engage with you accordingly.

And perhaps there's a need here to go a little bit deeper into yourself and find out why, exactly, skin color stands out as the deal breaker for you when it comes to accuracy to the text. I'll leave that to your personal introspection.

And you can feel free to disagree with my argument, but it doesn't change my point and exactly why people are literally concerned about this topic at all.

Nor does it change the fact that "some people don't like it" doesn't really matter to me on its own. I want to know reasons and justifications, not preferences. Preferences are cool and all, have them at your leisure, they just don't really do much in a debate. "I like vanilla ice cream, and I don't like chocolate". Cool. I guess. Now what? There's no engaging with that. And it also doesn't lead to "more people like vanilla than chocolate, therefore let's just stop making chocolate completely" being a remotely reasonable general position.

I don't understand why people can't just be mature enough to accept that these changes aren't for everyone

Oof. It's been a while since I've had an ironygasm.

Have you taken a moment to address these people and ask whether they'd be okay with watching any movies with black actors in it? That might help you understand whether or not they are actually racist. Instead of, you know, merely assuming it based on their arguments.

As a matter of fact, I've done a lot more than that. I've asked for SPECIFIC reasons, and concluded the likelihood of them being racist or not based on those reasons. Not based on the initial statement or position alone, except in egregious cases (some people really don't even try to couch their attitude in distractions).

They are in the book though. There are Easterlings and Southron and Haradrim. And they don't all have to be depicted as being evil or Sauron aligned.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding this? I'm talking about cases where there is an objection based on skin color. Don't be obtuse.

[Triceron]

I don't know a very good reason for an ALL-WHITE cast, either.

Again, and as I've been saying constantly: if you have a GOOD REASON to restrict casting to certain ethnicities, that's fine. I'm only talking about productions where you DON'T have a good reason.

If your argument is that you need a good reason to support having an all-white cast, and yet you can't define what a good reason would be , then you're implying there is an unattainable standard to justify having that opinion.

Like if I point at Peter Jackson's depiction of Dwarves using an all-white cast. Is there a good reason? If we deem there is, then can this reasoning apply to future adaptations of Tolkien's work without being deemed racist? In your argument, there doesn't exist any good reason that you know of. The entire concept, in your own explanation, is unreachable.

From the way this back and forth argument has progressed (or degressed :P) I think we're just going in circles around the fact that you personally regard no good reason for an all white-cast. And from there, you can gerrymander any reasoning to be considered not a good reason.

So really, there's no common ground to how either of us will define the nature of an adaptation and whether a creative choice to cast an all-white cast would ever be deemed non-racist.

By all means of the argument, even Peter Jackson's adaptation can be considered 'racially insensitive' for not having a diverse cast, and merely excused for being a 'product of the times', and deem that any future adaptation that follows in its footsteps would be 'anti-diversity'. And frankly, that will be something I absolutely do not agree with.

Nobody is saying "you're not allowed to not have black people in this!", we're saying "if you choose to exclude black people, we want to know why - and if you don't have a good reason, we're pretty sure you're a racist".

Then that'd be an argument in ignorance. Which is pretty much my whole point here.

You're deeming people to be racist for being unable to meet an unattainable standard of reasoning to support an all-white cast. Because you even admit, you don't know what a good reason would be. We're literally talking about an unattainable standard then, since it's so far beyond a concept that you can even imagine.

They're free to like whatever they want.

But if they like it specifically BECAUSE IT HAS NO BLACK PEOPLE IN IT, that's, well, racist. Doesn't mean they're not allowed to like it. Just means they're being kinda racist there.

It doesn't have any Asian people in it either. Would you consider it racist against Asians? Do you apply this same standard to point at Rings of Power and PJ's movies as being anti-Asian because they do not have any Asians cast in these roles? Because for arguments sake, we're in 2022 and they had the choice to cast Asian actors and there is room for Asian actors, and they chose to exclude them regardless. Per your argument, 'Just means they're being kinda racist there'.

I'm literally using your own argument here and trying to show you how ridiculous it is to imply that it is racist because it is not inclusive to X. It's an absolute fallacy, because I can literally swap X and the argument runs the same. All you're doing is arguing that anyone siding with this particular depiction would be considered racist against X for not including them.

It's quite a ridiculous argument to make.

That's a tautology. "They're white in the book therefore they must be white in the film" doesn't hold water on its own

By your own admittance, no reasoning would suffice considering you don't know what a good reason there would be to justify it. So you're merely disregarding any other possible reasoning as 'not being a good one'.

For example sake, If I said "It's because this is how the books depicted it" and you say 'That's not a good reason' then it doesn't mean I didn't have a reason, it merely means you don't agree with the reasoning. Just because you don't think it's a good reason doesn't make it not a good reason, because you admit you don't even know what a good reason is. You're not an authority on defining what 'Good reason' really means, all you're doing is presenting your own opposing opinion. And if you can't explain what a good reason is, then that's your problem, not mine. I presented a sufficient non-anti-diversity reason to justify my (example) opinion. Whether that reasoning is inherrently racist or not is not defined by your personal standards.

The reasons are there. Just because you choose to dismiss those reasons doesn't mean the argument becomes singularly racially motivated.

Thanks, I guess, for proving once again that my 'the only three reasons people ever really give' still holds true. "It's not like it is in the book!" "Previous films didn't have black people!"

Would you like to add "Black people just don't, uh... fit..." and make it the full trifecta?

But it is not an inherrently racist opinion to have unless you think anyone who enjoyed Peter Jackson's adaptation or the original work who interpret Dwarves as being anything but diverse in skintone as being racist. And sadly, that seems to be the case with your argument.

Oof. It's been a while since I've had an ironygasm.

I'm not the one judging people to be racist on basis that 'they have no good reason to and I don't know what a good reason would be even if I saw one'.

- - - Updated - - -

Id probably go with a mix of both.

Id assume that none white prospects were slim to none, and depending on rather he kept track of the other movie adaptation's he might have never even thought to give characters darker shades such as we saw in the 1978 movie with Aragorn being notably darker arguably native American toned.

I don't think it's ambiguous at all though. I personally don't think he looks 'Native American' at all. At least, I never had that impression when I watched the show as a kid. I don't think it would have entered my mind that a live action adaptation of this cartoon would have a Native American play as Aragorn. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, just that I always seen his depiction as being white, even in this movie. I just took the coloring as 'white people come in many shades' and that's about it.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I don't think it's ambiguous at all though. I personally don't think he looks 'Native American' at all. At least, I never had that impression when I watched the show as a kid. I don't think it would have entered my mind that a live action adaptation of this cartoon would have a Native American play as Aragorn. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, just that I always seen his depiction as being white, even in this movie. I just took the coloring as 'white people come in many shades' and that's about it.

I don't think its ambiguous either, He and the Númenórean's obviously meant to be Native colored and distinct from the others.

[Triceron]

I don't think its ambiguous either, He and the Númenórean's obviously meant to be Native colored and distinct from the others.

Weren't men of Gondor also descendents of the Numenoreans?

[Biomega]

If your argument is that you need a good reason to support having an all-white cast, and yet you can't define what a good reason would be

I've defined what I want it to be: a good reason. The particulars depend on the details of the story in question. I'm happy to just look at it case-by-case. Just because I can't come up with a good reason on the spot doesn't mean that someone else couldn't.

Not that this matters anyway, because I DID give an example. I guess you just conveniently ignored it because it doesn't allow you to make this specious objection. Sneaky sneaky.

Asking for an exhausting definition of all possible reasons is an "unattainable standard". You may recognize that phrase.

Like if I point at Peter Jackson's depiction of Dwarves using an all-white cast. Is this a good reason?

No. I'm sure we've gone over this a few times. I've explained the problems with that kind of argument.

because you can't even fathom one if it were presented to you.

What on earth gave you that idea? Bring one to me, and I'll be happy to discuss it. Why is that such a problem?

and we can gerrymander any reasoning to be considered not a good reason.

How about you, you know, BRING A REASON and we see what happens?

You're very quick to make generalizations. "Oh you didn't accept reason A? GUESS NO REASON IS GOOD ENOUGH, HUH." What nonsense.

By all means of the argument, even Peter Jackson's adaptation can be considered 'racially insensitive' for not having a diverse cast, and merely excused for being a 'product of the times', and deem that any future adaptation that follows in its footsteps would be 'anti-diversity'. And frankly, that will be something I absolutely do not agree with.

I think I've explained why you can't just go from "not diverse" to "anti-diversity". Those are not the same thing. Stop trying to make them that.

And yeah, big shocker: After 20 years, we have different standards for diversity and representation. WHAT A SURPRISE.

Then that'd be an argument in ignorance. Which is pretty much my whole point here.

I'm not sure what an "argument in ignorance" is. I know the argument FROM ignorance, but that doesn't apply to this quote, in any way. Nobody is saying "prove you're not racist, or you are". Excluding people by virtue of their skin color without a good reason is racist by definition. If you say you have a good reason to exclude people based on their skin color, then bring the good reason and we can discuss it. That's all this comes down to.

You're deeming people to be racist for being unable to meet an unattainable standard of reasoning to support an all-white cast.

No. I'm just saying the reasons that you've provided (so far) aren't convincing. I've explained why. Bring other reasons, and we can talk about those.

No matter how much you want this to be true, me rejecting the reason you've brought DOES NOT EQUAL "there could be no possible reason". It just means the reasons you've brought haven't been good enough. Since I have no way to know the total sum of all possible reasons (which is what's ACTUALY the "unattainable standard" here) I can only judge reasons brought before me.

Just because I can't imagine a good reason doesn't mean there is none or there couldn't be one. That, by the way, would be an ACTUAL "argument from ignorance". And never mind the fact that I have in fact GIVEN reasons I would accept, both for casting white people (a film about Nazis) and for casting black people (MLK).

It doesn't have any Asian people in it either. Would you consider it racist against Asians?

You're the only one who comes up with "it doesn't have X in it" arguments. I've only ever argued "they shouldn't exclude people based on skin color", and used "it doesn't have black people in it" only in representations of other people's positions (and largely metonymically for PoC anyway).

But to answer this: yes, absolutely, if someone excludes Asian people for no good reason, they're racist, too. Or bigoted, if you don't consider "Asian" to be a race (verdict's out a bit on that one). And if you exclude gay people for no good reason, that's homophobic. And if you exclude Jewish people for no good reason, that's anti-Semitic. And so on.

You're misrepresenting the argument as though it was a checklist that tried to get every possible race/etc. in there somehow. That's not what people are saying. They don't want people EXCLUDED for no good reason. The end. Nothing more and nothing less than that.

I'm literally using your own argument here

I'd advise you to slap yourself with a rolled-up newspaper for this outrageous lie.

Bad dog. Bad.

It's quite a ridiculous argument to make.

Which is probably why you're trying to pretend this is the argument being made. Easy to make ridiculous arguments sound, well, ridiculous.

Stop it. Read, parse, reflect. And THEN respond. You're skipping a few steps. And this isn't the first time.

If I said "It's because this is how the books depicted it" and you say 'That's not a good reason' then it doesn't mean I didn't have a good reason, it merely means you don't agree with the reasoning.

That's right.

In which case the onus is on both parties to present convincing arguments for their position. I've explained how truthfulness to the text is a tautological argument, and there would need to be justification to single out skin color as a characteristic of import. You've explained that "things that aren't in the text aren't in there" and "Tolkien didn't write things that he didn't write". Oh, and, "PJ didn't change skin color either!", of course.

I'll leave it to you to ponder why those might, perhaps, not be super convincing arguments.

Just because you don't think it's a good reason doesn't make it not a good reason

And just because you think it's a good reason doesn't make it a good reason, either.

If only we had a system of discourse that could help us articulate such conundrums in a constructive manner!

You're not an authority on defining what 'Good reason' really means

No. I'm not an authority on what's racist or not, either. None of us are. This is a debate. We bring arguments, and weight them against each other. That's how it works. Authority doesn't enter into this. Trying to suggest that would even be remotely relevant is disingenuous from the start.

The reasons are there. Just because you choose to dismiss those reasons doesn't mean the argument becomes singularly racially motivated.

That determination is up to everyone who engages with your argument. You bring the reasons why you think your position isn't racist. They/I bring arguments for why they/I think it might be. And then we see from there.

But it is not an inherrently racist opinion to have unless you think anyone who enjoyed Peter Jackson's adaptation or the original work who interpret Dwarves as being anything but diverse in skintone as being racist.

And that's not what I said. Stop rephrasing the actual argument in ways that makes it look ridiculous. Much less so for something from 20 years ago, which I've said repeatedly should not be judged by the same standards as present-day productions.

You have a serious strawman problem, friendo. You've repeatedly and quite egregiously misunderstood positions and misrepresented them - I'm not sure if it was on purpose or simply because you don't know how to properly parse sentences. If you want explanations, I'm sure people will be happy to provide them on request. But you seriously gotta stop with the false rephrasing of statements.

[Triceron]

I've defined what I want it to be: a good reason. The particulars depend on the details of the story in question. I'm happy to just look at it case-by-case. Just because I can't come up with a good reason on the spot doesn't mean that someone else couldn't.
.

Then let's start with the simplest.

Give me a good reason for how an adaptation of an all-white casting of Dwarves would be justifiable and not be considered racist or anti-diversity, like what we see in the Peter Jackson films (including the more recent Hobbit films) or Rankin Bass cartoon depictions.

And just because you think it's a good reason doesn't make it a good reason, either.

If your argument is 'Well as long as there is a good reason' and you argue that 'just because you think its a good reason doesn't mean it is' then by what authority are we deferring to?

If there is no existing authority who can judge what 'good reason' is, then your argument is flawed and prone to fallacy.

I think I've explained why you can't just go from "not diverse" to "anti-diversity". Those are not the same thing. Stop trying to make them that.

Except you've blurred the lines in argument.

Right now, I can use your own words and present an example of 'I think Dwarves should be depicted as being not diverse' and I could argue that (under your own definition above) that this is not the same as an anti-diversity statement. Yet in all the arguments you gave above, you deem this literally to be the same argument, that any depiction of an all-white cast would be deemed racist.

You can say they're not the same, but I can point out that your argument treats them the same.

And yeah, big shocker: After 20 years, we have different standards for diversity and representation. WHAT A SURPRISE.

Hobbit films depicted Dwarves the same way and was made less than 10 years ago. Hell, Battle of 5 Armies depicting all-white Dwarves happens to be the most recent depiction of Dwarves even, and was only 8 years ago. That's hardly 'well before diversity' was an accepted norm.

And let's face it, if Peter Jackson were helming this adaptation and continuing to depict Dwarves in the way of his movies, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Are people really criticizing Peter Jackson's movies for being racist against Black people for not having Black Dwarves in his adaptations?

You're the only one who comes up with "it doesn't have X in it" arguments. I've only ever argued "they shouldn't exclude people based on skin color", and used "it doesn't have black people in it" only in representations of other people's positions (and largely metonymically for PoC anyway).

But to answer this: yes, absolutely, if someone excludes Asian people for no good reason, they're racist, too. Or bigoted, if you don't consider "Asian" to be a race (verdict's out a bit on that one). And if you exclude gay people for no good reason, that's homophobic. And if you exclude Jewish people for no good reason, that's anti-Semitic. And so on.

And without knowing what the reasons are, your argument still assumes that it was done so for the sake of being racist.

Your argument would literally apply that Rings of Power is racist against Asians because it deliberately made a choice not to cast any Asian actors in any of its roles (as far as we've seen). And that there is no good reason for the production to not include Asians in its depiction of Elves/Dwarves/Harfoots etc.

You can say that I'm not using your argument or that it's a lie, but that is exactly how you have presented your arguments. I'm not changing your argument, all I'm doing is making the fallacy obvious when applied to another ethnicity.

Nobody is saying "you're not allowed to not have black Asian people in this!", we're saying "if you choose to exclude black Asian people, we want to know why - and if you don't have a good reason, we're pretty sure you're a racist".

Well Amazon doesn't have a good reason to exclude Asian people in Rings of Power. Does that then mean we're pretty sure they're being racist?

In my opinion, no and no. Amazon doesn't need any reason at all to exclude Asian people in Rings of Power, and regardless of what their choices or reasonings are, it would not regard them as being racist. In my opinion, the argument itself is flawed for making egregious assumptions.

Cuz let's face it, can there even exist a good reason for Amazon to exclude Asians from being cast in Rings of Power

And thus, I pose a second question:

What good reason does Amazon have for not casting Asians in Rings of Power. Does their choice to omit Asian actors make this show racist against Asians?

[Biomega]

Give me a good reason why an adaptation for an all-white casting of Dwarves would be justifiable without being considered racist or anti-diversity

It's not a premise I agree with. I don't have a good reason that would justify that premise.

But that's not how it works. You're reversing the burden of proof.

If YOU want to EXCLUDE people based on their skin color, then YOU need to give a good reason. I don't have to find a reason to justify your actions, YOU do.

That's all I'm saying and all I've ever said. Stop trying to turn this around, and stop trying to pretend I need to know all possible reasons for all possible scenarios or there are none.

If your argument is 'Well as long as there is a good reason' and you argue that 'just because you think its a good reason doesn't mean it is' then by what authority are we deferring to?

None. And I've said already that a notion of ANY authority here is fallacious to begin with.

There is no authority. There's only arguments against arguments.

If there is no existing authority who can judge what 'good reason' is, then your argument is flawed and prone to fallacy.

Why? We have no authority on what "good" is, period. There is no objective morality, and no moral authority either. Everything is a negotiation in discourse.

You want to know the fallacy? Your statement.

Except you've blurred the lines in argument.

Right now, I can use your own words and present an example of 'I think Dwarves should be depicted as being not diverse' and we could agree that this is not an anti-diversity statement, because it is not the same thing.

That's correct. Because one is concrete, and the other is abstract. Just like saying "I'm against murdering this person" is not the same as "I'm anti-murder"; and even though someone who is against murdering a particular person in a particular case is MORE LIKELY to ALSO be against murder, it is not a logical consequence to go from one statement to the other because they're two different categories of statement.

Yet in all the arguments you gave above, you deem this literally to be the same argument, that any depiction of an all-white cast would be deemed racist.

Again, you are misrepresenting things. My point is that excluding people based on skin color for no good reason is racist. And if that all-white cast came about because of exclusion of people of other skin colors for no good reason, then that's racist FOR THAT REASON. If it didn't come about because of exclusion or if it did have a good reason, there's no problem.

But your hypothetical of there being a (contemporary) all-white cast where no one was ever excluded for their skin color without a good reason anywhere at any point just ISN'T REALITY, outside of edge cases like a local school play in All White Falls, Missouri, population 35 (and in those cases, I likely would NOT have a problem).

And without knowing what the reasons are, your argument still assumes that it was done so for the sake of being racist

If you give me a good reason, we're square. If you do not, we might have a problem. It's simple, really.

You're again constructing an illusory hypothetical of some contemporary production taking place that somehow excludes non-white people, but is never questioned on it, has no obvious justification, and doesn't give reasons out of its own accord and just... happens. THAT JUST ISN'T REALITY.

And even if there WAS such a case, I'd ASK for reasons. If they refuse to give any, well... that in itself is telling. It's not conclusive, but if they someone excluded non-white people for no discernible reason, are then asked about a reason and REFUSE to give one, I think we're reasonably certain what's going on. Could we possibly be wrong? Sure. That's an acceptable failure rate, because in the real world, that scenario always ends up racist.

Your argument would literally apply that Rings of Power is racist against Asians because it deliberately made a choice not to cast any Asian actors in any of its roles (as far as we've seen).

Well, "as far as we've seen" is kind of a BIG PROBLEM you can't just handwave away. I make no pronouncements about information I do not have. If it turned out there really wasn't any Asian person to be seen anywhere, that WOULD BE a problem. I agree. And then the questions would need to begin.

But we KNOW there ARE Asian people in this, because we've seen at least part of the cast details. Nazanin Boniadi is of Iranian descent, and Thusitha Jayasundera is from Sri Lanka. And there's bound to be more that we don't have info on yet (or that I simply haven't seen).

So... yeah.

P.S.: I'm not surprised you didn't even, you know, bother to CHECK if this was actually the case. Because you're not really interested in having good information, are you.

[Triceron]

It's not a premise I agree with. I don't have a good reason for this.

But that's not how it works. You're reversing the burden of proof.

If YOU want to EXCLUDE people based on their skin color, then YOU need to give a good reason. I don't have to find a reason to justify your actions, YOU do.

That's all I'm saying and all I've ever said. Stop trying to turn this around, and stop trying to pretend I need to know all possible reasons for all possible scenarios or there are none.

Yet you also say "Just because you think it's a good reason doesn't mean it's a good reason".

I ask you again, by what authority is 'Good reason' being defined? Because all you're implying is you get to judge whether any reason is good or not, while admitting you don't even know what a good reason looks like. So how the fuck can you define any reason at all being good?

All you're implying is anyone can be racist if they can't defend their argument with good reasoning, and further imply that good reasoning doesn't exist at all because you can argue anyone that their 'reason is not good enough'. Without a neutral, unbiased authority to define a good reason, the definition is literally unreachable. And I even asked you to define it in a very specific example, and you can't, meaning it doesn't even exist for that particular topic. This is literally a thinly-veiled excuse to blanketly call anyone racist for even daring to support the notion of a all-white cast.

If you can't even make a case to defend your condition, then you're literally giving me a baseless excuse to render anyone who doesn't abide by your personal convictions to be racist.

Well, "as far as we've seen" is kind of a BIG PROBLEM you can't just handwave away. I make no pronouncements about information I do not have. If it turned out there really wasn't any Asian person to be seen anywhere, that WOULD BE a problem. I agree. And then the questions would need to begin.

But we KNOW there ARE Asian people in this, because we've seen at least part of the cast details. Nazanin Boniadi is of Iranian descent, and Thusitha Jayasundera is from Sri Lanka. And there's bound to be more that we don't have info on yet (or that I simply haven't seen).

So... yeah.

P.S.: I'm not surprised you didn't even, you know, bother to CHECK if this was actually the case. Because you're not really interested in having good information, are you.

So it's just racist against East Asians then, is that it? I don't see any East Asians (or anyone of of East Asian descent) in the cast listings.

Can this argument be applied to being racist against East Asians?

If you give me a good reason, we're square. If you do not, we might have a problem. It's simple, really.

If you can't even give me an example of what a good reason is, then there's no way I can give you one. Make sense?

I can give you a good reason and you can equally dismiss it as not being a good reason. "Good reason" is subject to your standards. I've asked you time and time again to define it, and you can't. You even omitted answering my second question.

So I'll pose it again with more nuance.

What good reason does Amazon have for not casting East Asians in Rings of Power. Does their choice to omit East Asian actors make this show racist against East Asians?

And even if there WAS such a case, I'd ASK for reasons. If they refuse to give any, well... that in itself is telling. It's not conclusive, but if they someone excluded non-white people for no discernible reason, are then asked about a reason and REFUSE to give one, I think we're reasonably certain what's going on. Could we possibly be wrong? Sure. That's an acceptable failure rate, because in the real world, that scenario always ends up racist.

IMO, that's a fucking ridiculous way to assess racism.

[Biomega]

Yet you also say "Just because you think it's a good reason doesn't mean it's a good reason".

I ask you again, by what authority is 'Good reason' being defined?

Dude, you really need to stop with the lightning responses, and READ the post first.

I've said TWICE now that asking for "authority" is fallacious from the get-go. There are no authorities. There's only discourse. You either convince people in the discourse or you don't. There is no objective "good", PERIOD, for anything, anywhere, in any way.

If YOU think you have a good reason, present it. Then the other participants in the discourse can try and figure out if they accept that as a good reason, or not. And then you can respond. That's how it works. There are no authorities anywhere.

Because all you're implying is you get to judge whether any reason is good or not, while admitting you don't even know what a good reason looks like.

Wrong. Again.

First off, by "I", I mean I as a participant in this discourse. If there's two other people having their discourse, THEY need to figure it out.

Secondly, I GAVE YOU TWO GOOD REASONS earlier. I even REPEATED THEM for your benefit. You've IGNORED THEM both times.

What you are saying is that I would need to know ALL good reasons - which is complete stupidity. Bring a reason, and we can discuss if it's a good one or not. I have no exhaustive list of all possible good reasons, and to demand one is to be hilariously uninformed about how arguments work.

So how the fuck can you define any reason at all being good?

I don't. I've repeatedly said "good reason" is as far as I go. The rest is case-by-case.

And in any event, you're STILL getting it backwards - YOU need to figure out the good reason if you want to exclude people (and by "you" I don't mean you personally, I mean whoever is doing the excluding; thought that was obvious, but oh well fool me once and all that).

All you're implying is anyone can be racist if they can't defend their argument with good reasoning

If the argument is "I want to exclude people for their skin color (or other traits that shouldn't matter)", then yeah. Pretty much. Very racist.

and further imply that good reasoning doesn't exist at all because you don't agree with the premise.

I don't agree with the premise OF YOUR EXAMPLE, i.e. I don't agree that there IS a good reason for what you've given in that example. If you think there is, bring it. I can't come up with one, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

It's literally a fucking reason to blanketly call anyone racist for even daring to support the notion of a all-white cast.

Again - and this is for the FOURTH time - my problem is with EXCLUSION. If you exclude people based on skin color, give a good reason. If you can't or won't, chances are it's racist.

YOU keep going back to "all-white cast" problems as if the only thing that mattered was the result and not how it happened. THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT and I have told you so SEVERAL TIMES.

To quote South Park: "Why won't it reeeeeaaaaaad?!"

So it's just racist against East Asians then, is that it? I don't see any East Asians (or anyone of of East Asian descent) in the cast listings.

Can this argument be applied to being racist against East Asians?

Sure it can.

Nobody said RoP is perfect. Or that Hollywood is. Hollywood is still by and large pretty fucking racist, no matter how much they apologize to Sacheen Littlefeather 50 years late. It's a process. You don't end racism over night.

[Triceron]

Dude, you really need to stop with the lightning responses, and READ the post first.

I've said TWICE now that asking for "authority" is fallacious from the get-go. There are no authorities. There's only discourse. You either convince people in the discourse or you don't. There is no objective "good", PERIOD, for anything, anywhere, in any way.

If YOU think you have a good reason, present it. Then the other participants in the discourse can try and figure out if they accept that as a good reason, or not. And then you can respond. That's how it works. There are no authorities anywhere.

That doesn't work when you're literally defining anyone without a good reason as being racist.

Being racist is not a subjective opinion you can use to define of others.

Wrong. Again.

First off, by "I", I mean I as a participant in this discourse. If there's two other people having their discourse, THEY need to figure it out.

Secondly, I GAVE YOU TWO GOOD REASONS earlier. I even REPEATED THEM for your benefit. You've IGNORED THEM both times.

What you are saying is that I would need to know ALL good reasons - which is complete stupidity. Bring a reason, and we can discuss if it's a good one or not. I have no exhaustive list of all possible good reasons, and to demand one is to be hilariously uninformed about how arguments work.

Let me break your logic down for you.

- It's on you to give me a Good reason why you support an all-white cast. If you don't have one, you're probably racist.
- It's on you to convince me that you have a Good reason. Just because you think it's a Good Reason doesn't mean I think it is a Good Reason.
- I am unconvinced and have the right to remain unconvinced that any Good reasons exist to support an all-white cast.

This is a thinly veiled excuse to call people racists for the sake of having a different opinion.

I don't. I've repeatedly said "good reason" is as far as I go. The rest is case-by-case.

Yet 'Sticking to the books' somehow renders one racist.

If the argument is "I want to exclude people for their skin color (or other traits that shouldn't matter)", then yeah. Pretty much. Very racist.

Personally, I haven't seen anyone make this statement here. That they literally want to exclude people because of skin color, and not because, you know, the books and movies literally depicted it this way.

I don't agree with the premise OF YOUR EXAMPLE, i.e. I don't agree that there IS a good reason for what you've given in that example. If you think there is, bring it. I can't come up with one, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

But you agree with me that you could dismiss all reasons and remain unconvinced, yes? Like you aren't beholden to changing your opinion, right?

So does that justify you rendering anyone who doesn't have a sufficient reasoning as being racist? Even if they are not coming at this from a discriminatory means? Merely because you remain unconvinced that the reasoning is 'good'?

Like I said many times, I see this as a thinly veiled excuse to insult others for not conforming to your own opinions, which you have no intention of changing.

Sure it can.

Nobody said RoP is perfect. Or that Hollywood is. Hollywood is still by and large pretty fucking racist, no matter how much they apologize to Sacheen Littlefeather 50 years late. It's a process. You don't end racism over night.

Okay. I understand better where you draw your lines.

We'll never see eye to eye on this, so I'm merely going to agree to disagree. I don't agree with your premise, your argument or even your Marlon Brando example applying to anything regarding Tolkien's work or Amazon's choice in casting. I don't think this is a process towards diversity, because I don't see Amazon or RoP actually addressing any problem. Casting choices are ultimately a creative decision.

I don't see Peter Jackson's casting to be a problem. Seemingly, you do. And that's where we'll fundamentally differ on how a 'solution' would be applied to future adaptations of Tolkien's work, like Rings of Power.

[Biomega]

That doesn't work when you're literally defining anyone without a good reason as being racist.

Would you like me to use another word for people who go "I want to exclude people of certain skin colors for no good reason"? That's racist by definition of the concept. And that's not authoritative either, by the way - it's purely how the current consensus about usage of that word plays out.

If you disagree with the definition of the concept, cool. Try and convince people to use it differently. That's how language evolves.

Let me break your logic down for you.

- It's on you to give me a Good reason why you support an all-white cast. If you don't have one, you're probably racist.

Well, let's just say you mean "a cast that's all-white because of exclusion" since I don't want to bring up your misrepresentation FOR THE FIFTH TIME (I guess I just did. Damn.)

But sure, if I ever was to hold that position and did not have a good reason, it'd be justified to call me racist.

- It's on you to convince me that you have a Good reason. Just because you think it's a Good Reason doesn't mean I think it is a Good Reason.

Right. If I ever thought it was okay to exclude people, I would need to have a good reason if I'm not just doing it because I'm racist. That good reason is subject to evaluation in the discourse.

- I am unconvinced that any Good reasons exist to support an all-white cast.

This is not my position. I said I disagree with the premise OF YOUR EXAMPLE, which was SPECIFICALLY about "an adaptation for an all-white casting of Dwarves". I disagreed with the premise that there was a good reason FOR THAT EXAMPLE.

That doesn't mean I disagree that there could be a good reason IN GENERAL or that ANY "all-white cast" could NEVER have a good reason.

Don't just throw an example at me and then go "oh this doesn't work for you? GUESS NOTHING DOES". That's ludicrously fallacious reasoning.

Also (6th time): stop, stop, STOP trying to make things about "all-white casts". My problem is with exclusion.

We can agree to disagree here

Disagree on what, exactly? That things should be evaluated case-by-case?

I guess I can simply get over it and merely dismiss your own evaluation that 'Sticking to the books' somehow renders one racist.

Wow, that really made my strawman meter JUMP.

I never said this, in any way.

I said that accuracy with respect to the source material is a circular argument that cannot IN ITSELF justify exclusion. The racism comes from the EXCLUSION part, not from the "sticking to the book" part. Sticking to the book isn't racist; excluding people based on skin color when the only reason is that it would be like in the book is.

Personally, I haven't seen anyone make this statement here.

Me neither. I'm simply clarifying what "the argument" would need to be in order for me to agree with your statement. To prevent you from, you know, misrepresenting my position. Again.

But you agree with me that you could dismiss all reasons and remain unconvinced, yes? Like you aren't beholden to changing your opinion, right?

Of course someone can dismiss (or accept) reasons; and someone can (and often: should) change their opinion based on what's presented.

So does that justify you rendering anyone who doesn't have a sufficient reasoning as being racist?

I assume you mean sufficient reasons. But yes - if their position is "I want to exclude people based on their skin color" and they can't provide reasons I would accept as justification to do that, then I would say they're most likely being racist.

Even if they are not coming at this from a discriminatory means? Merely because you remain unconvinced that the reasoning is 'good'?

That's a fallacious premise. By definition exclusion without a good reason IS discriminatory. They can't be excluding people without a good reason but NOT be discriminatory at the same time; that's a logical contradiction, like saying "I'm soaked, but I'm not wet".

[Triceron]

Would you like me to use another word for people who go "I want to exclude people of certain skin colors for no good reason"? That's racist by definition of the concept. And that's not authoritative either, by the way - it's purely how the current consensus about usage of that word plays out.

If you disagree with the definition of the concept, cool. Try and convince people to use it differently. That's how language evolves.

To be honest, that's just semantics. Whether or not you clarify it, your intent and meaning remain the same. This argument is still subject to the same fallacies I illustrated above. We're still lacking an authorative or mutually-agreeable standard, we're still regarding these reasons subjectively, and we're still arbitrarily assigning arguments or people to be racist for not meeting some (seemingly unattainable) Good Reason standard.

Well, let's just say you mean "a cast that's all-white because of exclusion" since I don't want to bring up your misrepresentation FOR THE FIFTH TIME (I guess I just did. Damn.)

But sure, if I ever was to hold that position and did not have a good reason, it'd be justified to call me racist.

Not sure why you wanted to make that distinction. There is no difference whether we're talking about 'all-white cast' or 'all-white cast because of exclusion', either way you define both to be products of discrimination, right?

Right. If I ever thought it was okay to exclude people, I would need to have a good reason if I'm not just doing it because I'm racist. That good reason is subject to evaluation in the discourse.

Would you consider an adaptation to be excluding Black actors if it depicted an all-white Dwarf race while also employing Black actors in other major (non-Dwarf) roles?

Wow, that really made my strawman meter JUMP.

I never said this, in any way.

I said that accuracy with respect to the source material is a circular argument that cannot IN ITSELF justify exclusion. The racism comes from the EXCLUSION part, not from the "sticking to the book" part. Sticking to the book isn't racist; excluding people based on skin color when the only reason is that it would be like in the book is.

And per my argument above - if Black actors are cast in non-Dwarf, non-Elf roles, in roles that make sense for their appearance in the narrative, would it be an acceptable justification to have an all-white casting for Dwarves and Elves?

Also, if a person of color were portraying a significant character in costume or under guise of CGI, does it count towards cast diversity?

Me neither. I'm simply clarifying what "the argument" would need to be in order for me to agree with your statement. To prevent you from, you know, misrepresenting my position. Again.
--
I assume you mean sufficient reasons. But yes - if their position is "I want to exclude people based on their skin color" and they can't provide reasons I would accept as justification to do that, then I would say they're most likely being racist.

So.... the way I see it is no one has actually made those arguments to exclude people based on their skin color (exclusive reasoning), therefore there's no reason to throw around the 'racist' card as though it applies to anyone or their argument in this thread...

Like, it's literally a non-issue because no one here is actually arguing in exclusion to Black actors for the sake of their skin color.

That's a fallacious premise. By definition exclusion without a good reason IS discriminatory. They can't be excluding people without a good reason but NOT be discriminatory at the same time; that's a logical contradiction, like saying "I'm soaked, but I'm not wet".

Not at all.

Like I said with my example of the Lighthouse. Would you call this a racist or discriminatory movie because it has an all-white, non diverse cast?

I would also like to point out that this movie has had little-to-no controversy or criticism over the lack of diversity in the casting, and I have (anecdotally) heard no complaints over the casting choices and its creative choice to be centered on all-white actors.

Another example of a popular, highly acclaimed all-white cast movie that hasn't gained any major racial controversy - the Northman.

And I'll just outright admit that I have no good reason to justify either of these movies having all-white casts, as I don't see there being reason to meet your personal criteria. I can literally point to the fact that both these movies exist, were created in modern times, and are well accepted in high acclaim.

[Xath]

I don't think its ambiguous either, He and the Númenórean's obviously meant to be Native colored and distinct from the others.

Have none of you folks ever heard of a farmer's tan seriously curious.

[Biomega]

This argument is still subject to the same fallacies I illustrated above. We're still lacking an authorative or mutually-agreeable standard, we're still regarding these reasons subjectively

If you HAVE a way to evaluate these things objectively, then by all means, tell us - philosophers have been arguing about objective morality for thousands of years, if you've finally found it, that'd be worth knowing.

I also love how I've pointed out that authority doesn't apply here several times, and you start with it AGAIN. It's like you're not reading what I'm saying at all. You're just waiting for your turn to talk.

Not sure why you wanted to make that distinction. There is no difference whether we're talking about 'all-white cast' or 'all-white cast because of exclusion'

Sure there is. One is about the result, the other is about the process. Which is relevant because, you know, THE PROCESS IS ALL I'VE EVER TALKED ABOUT.

Not that you'd know. It would require reading what I say.

Would you consider an adaptation to be excluding Black actors if it depicted an all-white Dwarf race while also employing Black actors in other major (non-Dwarf) roles?

Doesn't really matter WHERE the exclusion happens, if there is no good reason to exclude people based on skin color, then I wouldn't accept it. This isn't a trade-off situation, where being racist in one area is okay because you're not being racist in another area. It's like saying "what if we keep our drinking fountains color-separated, but let black people sit in the front of the bus?" - one doesn't make the other okay somehow.

It's very strange to me that you'd even bring this up. That's some 1950s Deep South shenanigans.

And per my argument above - if Black actors are cast in non-Dwarf, non-Elf roles, in roles that make sense for their appearance in the narrative, would it be an acceptable reason to have an all-white casting for Dwarves and Elves without being subject to being exclusion?

I don't know what "being subject to being exclusion" means. But see above - there is no trade-off game to try and justify skin-color-based castings for no good reason. Stop it with the separate-but-equal level bullshit.

So.... the way I see it is no one has actually made those arguments to exclude people based on their skin color (exclusive reasoning), therefore there's no reason to throw around the 'racist' card as though it applies to anyone or their argument in this thread...

Who's talking about "throwing around the racist card as though it applies to anyone"? Like, are you TRYING to just turn every argument into something nobody said?

All I'm saying is if you have no good reason to exclude people based on their skin color but want to do it anyway, that's racism, son. Doesn't seem particularly complicated or esoteric to me.

Stop trying to take this and make it into "oh so ANYONE is racist then?".

As for "nobody has made this argument"... Anyone who's ever said "I don't want X to be cast by people of Y skin color" and not had a good reason made a racist argument. By, you know, definition. The fact that THEY thought they HAD a good reason only means THEY don't think it's racist. That's how discourse works. Not sure what the mystery is, there.

Like, it's literally a non-issue because no one here is actually arguing in exclusion to Black actors for the sake of their skin color.

Plenty of people here have said "I want characters that are white in the books to be white in the series", or something to that extent. I'd like to know how you think that would happen WITHOUT excluding non-white actors. Whether or not someone literally used the word "exclude" doesn't matter.

Not at all.

Like I said with my example of the Lighthouse. Would you call this a racist or discriminatory movie because it does not have an all-white, non diverse cast?

I'm sorry, how does this prove that what you said wasn't fallacious? Could you engage with the actual thing you quoted, or something?

I would also like to point out that this movie has had zero controversy or criticism over the lack of diversity in the casting, and I have (anecdotally) heard no complaints over the casting choices and its creative choice to be centered on all-white actors.

Yes. I've also mentioned 2-actor productions as obviously absurd edge cases (because the sample size is too small to talk about diversity).

Which you again didn't read, from the looks of it.