I understand suspension of disbelief, so you don’t need invite me to try it like you’re talking a kid about broccoli.

Haha, ok, I wasn’t trying to be patronising - my suggestion was that you try suspending you disbelief in situations where you otherwise might not. Clearly you know what it is, I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. Jumping ahead a bit to another relevant part of your comment…

Suspension of disbelief only has meaning for an audience that already has knowledge of the material

Where I am suggesting you might suspend your disbelief is exactly that - a situation where you have knowledge that the world you’re seeing is inaccurate. Anyway, I don’t mean to come across as condescending, sorry about that.

Casting directors do not cast “blind” except background crowds, and even then the overall look and feel is as important as paint scheme and set decoration.

Blind casting doesn’t mean you have to have no artistic vision. It just means you aren’t concerned with, for example, the gender or race of the actor. I saw a production of the Little Prince a while ago where the titular prince was played by a woman. Now, given the storyline (which was presented more or less true to the book) I think it’s clear that there was no philosophical motivation behind the casting… She was just small. I’m sure it was a conscious decision to cast someone small, but do you really think they specifically wanted a woman? I doubt it.

I’m talking about serious stories where everything seems to be meticulously recreated except the painful elements of society are being whitewashed for the sake of pleasing modern-day sensibilities

This specific situation I can understand. The reason I was inclined to argue with your original point, and why I jumped to Bridgerton as an example, is that I have usually seen these arguments presented in relation to things just like Bridgerton, where they really have no place… So, do you have an example?

I’d also ask, given your example, what your perspective is on modern Cowboy films still presenting the old west as predominantly white?

I understand suspension of disbelief, so you don’t need invite me to try it like you’re talking a kid about broccoli.

Haha, ok, I wasn’t trying to be patronising - my suggestion was that you try suspending you disbelief in situations where you otherwise might not. Clearly you know what it is, I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. Jumping ahead a bit to another relevant part of your comment…

Suspension of disbelief only has meaning for an audience that already has knowledge of the material

Where I am suggesting you might suspend your disbelief is exactly that - a situation where you have knowledge that the world you’re seeing is inaccurate. Anyway, I don’t mean to come across as condescending, sorry about that.

Casting directors do not cast “blind” except background crowds, and even then the overall look and feel is as important as paint scheme and set decoration.

Blind casting doesn’t mean you have to have no artistic vision. It just means you aren’t concerned with, for example, the gender or race of the actor. I saw a production of the Little Prince a while ago where the titular prince was played by a woman. Now, given the storyline (which was presented more or less true to the book) I think it’s clear that there was no philosophical motivation behind the casting… She was just small. I’m sure it was a conscious decision to cast someone small, but do you really think they specifically wanted a woman? I doubt it.

I’m talking about serious stories where everything seems to be meticulously recreated except the painful elements of society are being whitewashed for the sake of pleasing modern-day sensibilities

This specific situation I can understand. The reason I was inclined to argue with your original point, and why I jumped to Bridgerton as an example, is that I have usually seen these arguments presented in relation to things just like Bridgerton, where they really have no place… So, do you have an example?

Why would you share this thought with the rest of us

Actually they misspelled ‘ware’, they’re talking about who the nation’s biggest hero is afraid of.

Perhaps, or perhaps the casting team had other goals that aren’t so obvious. While it’s true there are purely capitalistic production firms, there are clearly things being made with artistic vision behind them, and sometimes that includes blind casting. Again, I suspect this is more prevalent in theatre, where audiences are more willing to accept, say, a woman playing King Lear, or black actors playing nobles in a historical setting. Because, on stage, you are already suspending lots of that disbelief - you’re not looking into a throne room, you’re looking at a stage - it’s easier to take it a step further.

But while less is asked of you when watching a historical drama on TV, you are nonetheless suspending your disbelief. You know really that cameras couldn’t have filmed this in the Victorian era, that’s not really Henry VIII, and Jesus wasn’t a white guy. The question is what makes it too jarring for you?

I noticed you’re quite focused on the production company’s intent behind the casting. Maybe it’s politically/philosophically motivated, maybe purely capitalist, or maybe artistic… But you can’t really know. And should it even matter to you as the viewer? I understand trying to unpick the artistic decisions behind a piece, but those of the production company? That doesn’t seem like something to bring into your viewing experience - just perhaps conversations like this one on the internet.

I’d invite you to try suspending your disbelief as you might when watching the Passion of the Christ, and see if you’re able to enjoy these films/shows despite the historical inaccuracies.

Jeeeesus fucking Christ. John Oliver is pretty funny but it almost doesn’t feel acceptable to be laughing during some of that. Anyway, glad I didn’t fall for it 😬

I got one which appeared at first to be a wrong number, just someone asking if I was Catherine or something. I politely informed them of their mistake. They kept messaging, already a bit weird, but then started saying I was “a nice man, nothing like other men” and I slapped that block button. Idk where it was going (not even a man lol, sorry love) but I’m confident it would have ended with asking me for money… Eventually.

Nah man, people just love butt stuff. This is not really new, it’s just more visible than ever.

Ya my little bro is the same. He’ll announce some thing he’s learned and it collapses under the barest scrutiny… I only hope that the rest of us are able to teach him to apply that scrutiny himself. It’s pretty scary how kids just accept shit, if you take that into adulthood… Well, I think we see the results all around us in the world.

Fair enough, I have seen the same arguments applied to it is why I used it as an example. I don’t know what shows you are thinking of, but are they misrepresenting things, or are they just using blind casting and asking you to suspend your disbelief? This is something we do without thinking when watching theatre, but it’s a bit more subtle when watching television or films because they go to lengths to make the environment feel more real.

The procedural generation is the issue for me. Everything feels the same, even though it’s random. The animals all do the same stuff, they’re just made of different parts… And the “stuff” that they do is basically just walk around. The planets are just lumpy noise. There are no forests, just evenly distributed trees and plants.

Oh man, frog fractions! Been a long time but that is an experience I will never forget.

I don’t really think this brand of nonsense peddling works for the left. There are already many, many comedians on the left providing left or left leaning takes and not shoveling conspiracy garbage onto their shows… Jon Stewart, John Oliver for example. They’re popular, but they aren’t going to seize the same crowd as Rogan.

That seems like it’s only a good thing! Have fun, save cash, I’m jealous haha!

I want to believe this is true. I hope that things go that way - if America leads a shift in the way the world gets it’s goods that could be a good thing. But I’m not sure that’s what will happen, honestly.

I kinda wish I had. Maybe I still will… 50 hours in I finally got my first escape and I now find I’m struggling to go back to it because it just keeps getting harder lmao. I just wanna tell Dusa how great she is.

Hamburger is body parts, just squashed

While I agree with your first point - corporate pseudo-progressivism is a stain - I don’t really think it’s fair to call it “woke”. In fact, it’s almost the opposite of what woke is supposed to mean. To be “woke” originally meant having “woken up” to the reality of systemic racism… Corpos thoughtlessly stuffing games/films with “diverse” casts are not really respecting that reality. It’s performative. There is an argument that it improved things for actors regardless, but I still don’t think it’s “woke”.

On your second point I have to slightly disagree. Taking Bridgerton as an example - set in something like Victorian England, but a racially diverse one. The Queen is black, there’s a black Duke. I think these things immediately set the story apart from real Victorian England. Ok, perhaps if you know nothing about history it might be confusing, but to me I see those things and immediately one of two things is true:

• We are suspending our disbelief. Just like the pantomime dame, within the world of the play, is a woman and not a man in costume, we can assume that we’re seeing black actors playing characters who would have really been white… Like Queen victoria.
• The world we see is not an accurate representation of history. In this world we might assume that slavery was abolished sooner, or never started, and black people moved not just into the lower but the higher echelons of British society.

Given that it’s fiction, I don’t mind either of these things. I think it’s nice for people who aren’t white to be able to imagine themselves in those stories, even if in the real history things would have been much different. Bridgerton isn’t trying to present a vision of real historical events, it’s primarily a romance. Just like mediaeval fantasy isn’t really medieval, Victorian romance doesn’t need to really be Victorian. We don’t need to see the systemic racism any more than we need to see the cholera or dropsy or whatever.

I will also just briefly shill for Taboo which I just finished - that’s a historical show which incorporates a “realistic” amount of diversity into it’s cast while maintaining (at least what appears to me) a level of historical accuracy. The story is fictional, although it appears around real events… But the world it presents feels genuine. Crucially by contrast to Bridgerton, slavery plays quite an important role in the story - so here it would feel absurd to have a black Queen or Duke.

I’m thinking really about your original comment, you mentioned people saying shit like “men are scum”. I just don’t think it’s helpful and I’m sad that it’s been normalised. I used to say stuff like that, but I just don’t see the difference anymore. I know the power imbalance argument, but even as an impressed minority it just seems like a stupid thing to do… I’ve known and loved many men who are not responsible for the patriarchy, even if they benefit from it.

As the other commenter pointed out - even white men can suffer due to other intersections of identity. Just as women or other less privileged groups can benefit from other aspects…

Anyway, ramble over. I just find it saddening to see men accepting being called “scum” or whatever. Like, no, you aren’t, at least I’d guess if you’ve taken the time to think about this. It’s taking a statistic and trying to extrapolate an individual.

It’s absolutely right to criticise the system that provides dividends for white people; for men; for straight, cis, able, neurotypical, tall, pretty people; and so on and so on… But even though I don’t fit into all those boxes, I don’t think that gives me the right to attack people that do.