Young Writers Society

Home » Literary works » Art » Film

18+ Language Mature Content

Why I Hate FORCED Diversity In Film (Plus Footnotes On The Problem With Progressives)

by yumi


Warning: This work has been rated 18+ for language and mature content.

INTRODUCTION:

A:

1. Hate Is Good:

People often dismiss hate as useless, and claim love will heal the world. I disagree with this view. I think that, not only is hate useful, but in certain situations hate is the only appropriate response to a situation. I think, in certain situations, if you want to unite the world to change it for the better, hate, not love, is most often the appropriate catalyst for doing so. If you want to say or do something that will rouse people to action, say or do something bound to be controversial. Aim to make them hate you, and you will inspire more people to get off their asses and do something then a hundred useless speeches about love and the brotherhood of man. Love, respect, friendship... these things do not unite people as much as a common hatred for something. And, unlike love, hatred is clear, metallic, one-handed and unwavering. People who hate something passionately usually have one specific goal in mind when it comes to the things they hate: to wipe it from the earth. And they will pursue this goal committedly until that goal is achieved. You can possibly be just as driven by love in the same way that you can by hate, but how many people have rashly declared undying love for a person, only to gradually fall out of love with them? Whatever that number is, it is far greater then the number of people who have declared they hate killing, only to realize they don't. Hate is the surer bet. It lasts longer. There are a number of things I hate, yes. Racism. Sexism. Homophobia. If the hatred that I have for these things are defects in my character, so be it, I proudly accept these defects. I refuse to love these things, or even extend a loving hand to anyone who is being racist, sexist, or homophobic. Fuck them, and fuck anyone who says I should "look into my heart and try to love them." Fuck love. You can love them if you choose, but as far as these matter are concerned, they do not deserve mine, and they can't have it.

2. I Hate Political Correctness

I'm sick of political correctness. Instead of being an effective tool against hate speech it just forces decent people to circumvent the truth to avoid sounding racist, sexist or homophobic, while simultaneously making actual racist, sexist, or homophobic people harder to spot, because they aren't as blatantly offensive as they once were. Today, political correctness is nothing more then a shield people use when they are tiered of reality coming along and hurting their feelings.

The problem is that everyone is offended by something. Being politically correct all the time is pointless, because you can't appease everyone.

In certain contexts some words are inappropriate, while in some contexts the same words are not. No one word is offensive on it's own. Not even the word nigger, which is much worse then calling someone black. It's not the words you use that matter, it's the intent behind the words that count. Nigger nigger nigger. Does the use of the seem word offensive to you? It shouldn't be. 

People born in America are AMERICAN. Not African American. The same goes for every other ancestry. If you were born in America, you are not Mexican American, or Asian American, so why should the rule be changed just for one group of people? Why should blacks get special privileges?

From now on, I must always be referred to as Euro American. ...See how stupid that is? It is very common to hear people say, "I'm offended by that" as if it gives them certain rights. It shouldn't. It is nothing more then a whine., and it has no meaning or propose. There is no reason for me to respect that as a phrase. From now on, the next time somebody tells me, "I'm offended by that" unless you are my close friend and I actually care how you feel, my response will be "So fucking what?"

Note To The Note: Some crazy bloggers online now say that "African American" is offensive, too.

B: The following frequently alludes to past political historical events and personalities both directly and indirectly, thus a somewhat compressive knowledge prior "Current Events" and internet culture may be required to understand every word here.

"Politics" properly defined, is simply the process by which decisions are made that effect large numbers of people. Government is a species of politics. "Equality" is politics because there is a real debate going on about the best way for everyone to actually be equal. Unfortunately, many SJW's act as though their position is the only way to attain equality, and that if you oppose them, you must be a racist or a bigot.

Many SJW's dishonestly argue that "equality" isn't politics, implying that his or her political opinions on how to achieve equality is the same thing as equality itself, and that having a different viewpoint is like saying you think women should stay in the kitchen, or something. It isn't, Movie Pundit, and you have many people in your audience who disagree with your political opinions (why there is a gender wage gap, and if we should eradicate it, for example) or just want to talk about movies, not divisive social political issues, because they are sick of being called a racist for having a different point of view.

Most other creatives scare me away, like John Campea does when he makes videos talking about the backlash to The Last Jedi- I'm worried that most of the show is going to involve a 30 minute Campea style rant about how evil those of us are who oppose Social Justice Warriors for such things like confusing Equality of Outcome with Equality of Opportunity, and for saying that because their isn't exactly an equal amount "White People" and minorities being cast in movies made in white majority countries with few minority actors, that this is somehow evidence of "Institutional Racism." He is welcome to his opinion, but I personally just want to talk about movies, and would rather not hear any divisive political opinions, honestly, because I am tired of his disrespect.

I think the new Star Wars movies represent a new low in terms of sacrificing plot and character development for the sake of diversity, and this has resulted in some very poor films indeed. (Although that is far from the only problem with these movies.) Let me say first of all that I do not care about black people or females in stories in general. Lando was black. Who cares? Doesn't matter. What matters is that Lando fits the story. The issue in regards to the newer movies is, it seems like they are casting females in roles not because it fits the story, but because they have some pro-feminist leanings that are taking precedence over the story. Like, they cast females in positions of leadership purely because they want to prove that females can be leaders too! (as if anyone doubted that.) Or they made Rey a girl purely because Luke was a boy, so now it's "the girls turn." I think casting characters in a movie to meet the demands of a political worldview and its incorrect notion of equality is ultimately a disservice to not only the art of film making, but also the audience who just want to be entertained. If you are someone, like Kathleen Kennedy seems to be, who will so disservice both film-making and your audience for your (probably) well-intentioned but misguided need for social justice, then there is probably someone out there better suited for your job.

While I agree with people that it is unreasonable to hate The Last Jedi purely because of its SJW politics, it is also very reasonable to complain about its inclusion in Star Wars, given the fact that previously it was an a-political franchise not driven by an agenda. (It certainly wasn't SJW. Has anyone ever noticed that the druids in the original trilogy are basically slaves, and Chewbacca is a racist stereotype of an Indian savage?)

I would say that if there is anyone saying that just because there is lots of women (and even an Asian!) in The Last Jedi that means the film is "SJW propaganda", that person is a fucking idiot who represents the vast minority of people, and we all should ignore them, instead of giving them the attention they desire and pretending this is a bigger issue than it really is. Or worse, pretending that that small group of individuals, along with everyone else who ever said anything negative online about Identity Politics, are all backwoods cousin fucking racists.

(And spare me the backwards logic about how my noticing that other people have a political agenda and saying I don't want/ like it means that I have an agenda, because my noticing that THEY have an agenda and perhaps being irritated by it is not the same thing as having an agenda myself.)

I will never understand why some people value diversity so much-I understand if you, Movie Pundit, just want more types of stories told from new perspectives, and that makes complete sense to me. What I mean is, I will never understand why some black people get excited about BLACK PANTHER because they're black too, as if the the character being like you somehow trumps the quality of the movie. The whole representation argument is just nonsense to me. I am a cripple, but I have never felt the need to see more cripples in movies. I'm not opposed to it per say, I just don't give a fuck one way or the other. (Unless they tried to make a cripple-centric action movie, because that sounds like a TERRIBLE idea.) Because I don't judge anyone by their color, race, or any attribute they did not pick for themselves.

If I wanted to play the Identity Politics game, I could just as easily make the case that this film is bad for black people. Watch: Wakanda is a racist black ethno-state, that, of course, being populated by BLACK PEOPLE only gained it's wealth and superiority through a freak accident of history... I COULD do that... but I won't, because that's dumb.

This movie is not significant for ANY REASON. It's not even the first black film of the "genre." I don't think Blade was either, but I miss the days of Blade where nobody cared it starred "a black guy" we just loved it because it was a GOOD MOVIE.

To be honest with you, I don't even think true 50/50 diversity in Hollywood of the sort that would make everyone happy is even possible, not for race, gender, or even sexual preference. Do you remember when ScarJo was set to play a transgender, and was forced to back out of the role thanks to the public outrageously demanding that only a transgender person in real life play a transgender on screen?

I think these people are vastly over-estimating the bank-ability and availability of trans actors. I believe truly trans people are less then one percent of the population. Unless presented with contrary evidence, I'm going to assume a similar statistic can be applied to actors who are trans. BUT WAIT! That's not all! Then you need to consider that only about 1% of actors attain any kind of notable success at all. That means that (forgive me for not doing the math but I'm a bi man, and bi men suck at math for the most part, look it up) the number of note worthy trans actors must be astonishingly small.

Besides, casting directors can't pick from any actor in the world. They usually put out casting calls, which an agent then has to submit an actor for. Which means the actor in most cases needs to be somewhat nearby and able to go in and audition locally. And even then, directors like to stick with actors they know and trust anyway...

All these factors make it VERY difficult to find trans actors. I'm sorry this is a difficult reality to accept. But then, the whole point of acting is to pretend to be something you're not anyway, so who cares?

I just wish entertainment would stop their agenda of "forced diversity" and movie pundits would go back to talking about something they are qualified to talk about: movies. (Particularly if all they are going to do is spew partisan talking points and insult anyone who disagrees as a "basement dwelling cousin humper.) Actors and pundits know about as much about politics as my plumber does, and I don't really want to hear about politics from any of them for that reason. It isn't that I feel a plumber can't believe in equality it's just that I paid the man to do a job and I'd like him to do what he's paid for, not show up to my house and while fixing it, deliver a sermon on the gender pay gap! I'd tell that fucker to do his job! Likewise, entertainers, when they are being public entertainers, should be ENTERTAINING me, not being my moral compass and making me want to turn the TV off.

FOOTNOTES

1. False Feminists

At its best, Feminism is the moronic idea that we can make both sexes equal by focusing only on the issues of one of them. At its worst, it is an organized male hate group where its members act as though they are victims of some imagined oppression.

Other then being the world's most effective contraceptive, is Feminism actually useful in any way? Or when two Feminists jump off a cliff, is that just a win for society?

Feminists are largely spoiled, middle-class white girls unaccustomed to concepts like accountability or responsibility, and courage is a rare sight with them.

The Middle East and Western Africa are burning; Iran is raping female civilians and torturing political prisoners; the Pakistani Taliban are shooting young girls in the head for trying to get an education and disfiguring them with acid if their veils are askew — and yet, NOW passed no resolution opposing this.

The new pseudo-feminists are more concerned with racism than with sexism, and disproportionately focused on Western imperialism, colonialism and capitalism than on Islam's long and ongoing history of imperialism, colonialism, anti-black racism, slavery, forced conversion and gender and religious apartheid.

Why?

Some feminists invoke misogyny at every turn, but fail to look in the mirror and see any misandry. This creates some severe hypocrisy around language, which of course is an entire "patriarchal" structure that supposedly privileges men (on the basis of a few conventions which actually do). They seem to take this as a license to dictate how men should speak, but in classic feminist double-standard mode fail to apply the rules to themselves. What we are really seeing is a system that privileges women and their "right" not to be offended by a man.

One common insult form is to compare someone to an animal. Many women do not think twice about "bitch" and use it themselves. Are they expressing self-loathing and internalized misogyny? When feminists call men pigs or dogs aren't they doing the same thing in reverse? Of course they are, even though they may not consider the words "gendered," but they will still complain that misogyny is oppressive and misandry doesn't exist, let alone oppress anyone.

This isn't a case of men being privileged and women being oppressed by language, it's a failure by these feminists and their theories to account for reality and realize we are both in the same boat. Misandry and misogyny are two sides of the same sexism coin. If using a word like "cunt" for example makes one de facto a misogynist, then the use of the word "dick" should make one a misandrist in any reasonable world. The reality is, the word "cunt" is only offensive because women say it is, and "dick" isn't because no one cares if you offend a man.

The feminist secret weapon here is "patriarchy." Under "patriarchy," especially as evidenced by medieval chivalry and Victorian morality, offending a woman's honor is a grave moral offense. That is all that is happening with the feminist language police: they are enforcing "patriarchal" rules about offending women rather than smashing them. They are using sexism to privilege women and control men.

Radical Islam is misogyny personified, and real misogyny doesn't care how you sit on the subway or how you wrap Christmas presents.

Real misogyny shoots you in the head.

What radical Islam does is remind feminists that if patriarchy were a real thing in our culture, if misogyny were a real thing, if men hated women and wanted them chained in basements they would be chained in basements.

In actual fact, Western men are the most indulgent, permissive, tolerant men you will find anywhere on the planet, and in the face of real misogyny, whining feminists end up looking like petulant toddlers tossing expensive toys out of their designer prams complaining they are oppressed.

Malala Yousafzai is an extraordinarily courageous young teenager, who famously fought for the education of women in Taliban controlled Pakistan, even after being shot in the face. She never let herself be dissuaded by terrorist violence, and apparently, wasn't the least bit intimidated by the President of the United States either. When she visited the White House, she allegedly told him "drones fuel terrorism."

Malala is absolutely right about Obama's use of drones being counter-productive weapons in the War On Terror. The U.S had been using "signature strike" drone attacks, a method which targets groups selected through "pattern of life analysis" and has resulted in large, innocent groups attending weddings and funerals being killed. The U.S. also uses a terrorist tactic known as a "double tap" where they hit the same area multiple times-killing any community members or humanitarian workers that may have been trying to help the innocent men, women and children slaughtered by America. The War Crimes America has committed via drone warfare had stolen the lives of, and has led to massive amounts of arguably justified hatred of America in the Middle East, making it easier for groups like the Taliban to gain recruits by promising vengeance for the victims.

I admire Malala a great deal for her apparent colossal strength and moral fiber, and applaud her for using her time with the President to make an important point, even if her words fall on deaf ears. Feminists, this is what a REAL Women's Rights Activist looks like. Not some privileged white bitch who believes getting hit on in the elevator is equal to rape.

2. The Transgender Delusion

The intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.

The transgendered person's disorder is in the person's assumption that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. It is a disorder similar to a "dangerously thin" person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are "overweight. This assumption, that one's gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective "personal truth". The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings spontaneously lose those feelings over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were "satisfied" with the operation but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn't have the surgery.

Misguided doctors who, working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex, administer puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous – even though the drugs stunt the children's growth and risk causing sterility. Such action is child abuse, given that close to 80% of those kids will abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated.

Sex change' is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.

How to deal with a fake "transgender" person without offending them:*

Ask them what it feels like to be a man trapped in a woman's body, or a woman trapped in a man's body. If they say they "don't know" they are lying sacks of shit, and their delusion does not deserve respect.

If they give a detailed answer, listen with empathy. If their answer indicates they are merely unhappy with gender roles, explain the difference between gender roles and the transgender gender delusion,

In the rare instance a person answers other than these, there is a chance that the man or woman are genuinely deluded, and should be treated with empathy and respect, and I personally would absolutely consent to use whatever pronoun they want in a non-political, private, informal (i. e. excluding legal documents) conversations, absent the presence of undue influence or coercion

If undue influence or coercion is present in these private conversations, including any DEMAND that you use a pronoun different from their biological sex determined at birth, tell them you identify as an Apache helicopter and your pronouns are "Majesty" and "Your Royal Highness" and DEMAND they address you as such.

Remember, the transgendered person's disorder is in the person's assumption that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. It is a disorder similar to a "dangerously thin" person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are "overweight".

The idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality, which is the only relevant factor when determining a person's gender. It is unlike an expression of one's homosexuality, which is simply an aberrant and completely understandable personal desire another man to have his ass so thoroughly and awesomely torn apart by Hulk Hogan that the encounter results in a subsequent and prolonged stay in the hospital.

*HOW A PERSON FEELS ABOUT THEIR SEX IS IRRELEVANT AND HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THE QUESTION OF WHAT SEX THEY ACTUALLY ARE*

*Note: If you are willing, or don't give a shit, just offend them-the right to not be offended does not, and indeed, cannot, exist in any truly free society that has ever, or will exist. Full stop.

3. Slavery IS A Choice: The Myth Of Institutional Racism

Kanye did NOT say slavery was a choice... that is a deliberate misinterpretation designed to make his argument easier to rebuff and spread by a hysterical public uninterested in engaging with his actual premise. The general point he was making is that slavery was 400 years ago. There are hardly any racists in America. There is only the fake concept of Institutional Racism, that vague shadowy presence responsible for all societies ills. Your mamma became a prostitute, and after having sex with a million men, gave birth to you, a failed coat-hanger abortion baby who, without parental guidance, grew up in a tribal black community that preaches black solidarity through selling drugs and gang violence, causing you to be imprisoned? Well, that's not YOUR fault! You have no agency! It's RACISM! All because your great-great-great-great grandfather was a slave. You can't do anything about it. And all those conservatives who want to promote changes in the culture that might improve conditions for black people? They are just Racist Apologists, making excuses for the racism.

The ideology Kanye was speaking out against is a cancerous one which casts black people as the eternal oppressed, and the white people and society as the enemy. It promotes and stokes racial enmity in a society that otherwise could have moved beyond such nonsense, and teaches black people a new version or racism which is like the bottom of an an ice-berg: even if you cannot see it, it is always there just beneath the surface. The fact that something is preventing your ship moving forward is evidence enough. Kanye has seen through the mental prison, the ideological, metaphorical iceberg. He understands there is nothing tangible holding the black man back; he is equal under the law, and has been for as long as he has been alive. He knows he is not owed anything else, and that is the liberation he needs to succeed. His boat is populated by all different races of crew he can rely upon to help him steer his ship, and he sails towards his goals. But he looks on sadly at his brothers in their boats, where the black and white crew members just fight among themselves and shoot holes in their own boats in an attempt to kill each other, all because of an argument about what to do about the fictional iceberg. Kanye, full of compassion, shouts to his brothers the obvious truth that the iceberg is not real. For that crime, half his brothers in the other boats think he is crazy, or trying to get them to submit to the iceberg and sink, because they can't understand his message. The rest follow Kanye as he passes, having learned to love and accept their crew and ignore the fictional iceberg, leaving everyone else behind to eventually sink.

...

You know what? Fuck this godamn bullshit where you pretend rich people are above the law, and derive near orgasmic pleasure from the phantom of your imagined oppression coupling with your hatred of the wealthy and society.

Fact: the American justice system will never be perfect, but it can reasonably be argued to be among the best, if not THE best, in the entire world, and yes, you should be fucking grateful for it even as you seek to perfect it.

90% of the time it works. You will always be able to cherry pick some example where it doesn't work, but using that example, or even two or three of them, as evidence of some "epidemic" is just wrong: they alone will NEVER prove what you want them to.

90% of the time, if you spot some grave miscarriage of justice, it's because YOU: A. Don't properly understand the relevant law nor why such laws exist, or B. Don't know half as much about the case as you should or think you do.

The correct response when a judge hands down a decision you don't like is not arrogantly assume you know better then the people in the courtroom who know the law and the actual evidence better then you do. No, it's to fact check the partisan rag you're reading, and try to figure out where you, in your infinite gullibility were led astray.

If you STILL have doubts? Voice them. But don't say a fucking word about Systemic Institutional Systems of oppression or Supreme Court rulings, until you've double checked and triple checked... because, chances are, if little Timmy gets sent to prison, it won't be because he is a poor black unfairly treated. It's because he's a fucking criminal who should be in prison.

BONOUS: The Myth Of "White Washing"

There is no such thing as White Washing, people are just so stupid that they see everything as racist. Example: black people trying to boycott the Oscars because there are not enough black winners. To that, I say "Fuck you!" If you don't win, maybe it is is because you don't deserve to win, not because you're black. What stupid shit.

How many whites get main roles in Japanese movies huh? Where is your complaints about opportunities there? Were you annoyed when Attack on Titan had a full Japanese cast, when the original work points to them being white Europeans? (Only Misaka was Japanese)

When casting a movie, I say just please pick actors who can actually act!


Note: You are not logged in, but you can still leave a comment or review. Before it shows up, a moderator will need to approve your comment (this is only a safeguard against spambots). Leave your email if you would like to be notified when your message is approved.







Is this a review?


  

Comments



User avatar


Points: 292
Reviews: 3

Donate
Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:40 am
Goldfinch2 wrote a review...



Hello!

When I first saw the title of this post, I was scared to look. I think my fear may have been correct. I'm not sure what your intent was by posting this, but I definitely agree with another poster below that this may not be the right platform for this. Personally, I feel everything you stated comes from a limited world view. I mean, using the n-word? Seriously? As a black person this post makes me cringe. While I don't know your background, I suspect that you may not be a minority. Your title states that you would be talking about film and "forced diversity," but you took this strange turn to talk about all the problems you have with black people and trans folks. I feel that you were looking for a place to vent about things you don't fully understand. I can't tell whether you are being willfully ignorant or not, but this is all one big mess. You may be against racism, and homophobia, but you have a long way before you're a genuine ally. I've met far too many people like you, and all I can say is yikes!




User avatar
27 Reviews


Points: 1200
Reviews: 27

Donate
Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:19 pm
View Likes
piyaliarchives says...



Dude, why post such a sensitive and controversial topic on here?
If you submitted this for the intent of getting reviews or feedbacks, I don't know.
But I think Twitter would be a better alternative for this kind of stuff. I don't agree with most of the points here, and it seems like other people too.
Just don't. This only enrages people and starts keyboard wars.




User avatar
205 Reviews


Points: 0
Reviews: 205

Donate
Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:00 am
View Likes
Vil says...



*sigh*

Behold, someone that does not understand how the real world works.




User avatar
141 Reviews


Points: 37042
Reviews: 141

Donate
Thu Dec 31, 2020 7:23 am
View Likes
Hattable says...



bruh.




User avatar
675 Reviews


Points: 18050
Reviews: 675

Donate
Tue Dec 29, 2020 8:38 am
View Likes
SpiritedWolfe wrote a review...



Hi Yumi! Welcome to YWS :)

For all intents and purposes, I will review your work like it is an essay and focus my feedback around your writing. ShadowVyper pointed out a great place for you to explore if you were looking for actual discussion about these topics.

I wanted to start off this review by echoing and reiterating what was already said about the focus of this piece. I also didn't know what the intention of this work was. Are you trying to persuade your reader to view the world in a different way? If so, what way do you want them to view it? Are you trying to inform the reader about what you view as an issue? If so, what exactly is the issue?

The title of this piece implies that you will be discussing diversity in films, but it takes some time before you even begin discussing films. I understand that you might want to discuss some other related issues in your introduction in order to set up some background for your main topic, but you still want to allude to the main topic early on so the reader knows where you are going. While a bit cliché, I've always been told that for writing essays you want to set up the reader by telling them what you're about to tell them, then you tell them, and finish by telling them what you told them. That way you can guide them and effectively convey your purpose to them. What is lacking in this piece is that I don't know what I should have been told by the end.

I would also like to point out that it feels like this piece was written with many sweeping generalizations based on your observations. I think it's even a good idea to include your personal experience, thoughts, and opinions in an essay, but it would also help to include concrete evidence to build the credibility of your argument. Or if your intention is just to inform, then giving concrete examples with credible sources will only enhance the piece.

Another thing that would help is to possibly narrow your focus. You have a lot of thoughts and ideas in this piece, and it comes across as jumbled and difficult to follow. If you narrow it down to a single, more specific idea, then you will likely have an easier time conveying your purpose in a more effective fashion. As ShadowVyper pointed out, this piece will often jump from one idea to another with little transition, and so I don't see the idea development. For instance, in your second section, how did you move from equality to inappropriate words to countries?

Finally, when attempting to convey an idea to a reader, it is best to defer to rhetorical devices and a clear presentation of ideas instead of relying on inflammatory statements like attacks on characters or ideas with swears or otherwise. If this is your intention, then you have every right to include it, but it is unlikely that these sorts of statements will strengthen (and may in fact weaken) your argument. It's important to think about your audience when writing pieces about difficult and controversial topics. If you are writing to sway someone who may have an opposing opinion, then present your ideas with logic and reasoning. If you are writing to consolidate with someone of a similar opinion, then use the same logic and reasoning to reinforce your ideas.

Hope this was helpful to you!
~Wolfe




User avatar
819 Reviews


Points: 30492
Reviews: 819

Donate
Tue Dec 29, 2020 4:24 am
View Likes
ShadowVyper wrote a review...



Heya yumi,

Welcome to YWS! Shady here with a review for you. Let's get started...

I'll be honest with you, I'm having a little bit of trouble uncovering your intent with this work. If you meant for it to be a persuasive essay, you may want to go back and try to find an outline so that you can come up with a clearer structure for the direction you want the essay to go, and then find stronger arguments for the points you want to make. Right now, this reads more like a blog or rant-post than either a persuasive or informative essay.

Another thing I'd encourage you to consider regarding your intent is what you're hoping to gain from saying intentionally inflammatory things. Like, I get your point was that you don't think they should be inflammatory, but I'm assuming you're able to understand that they are inflammatory regardless. And intentionally antagonizing your audience isn't the way to change anyone's opinion.

For example:

In certain contexts some words are inappropriate, while in some contexts the same words are not. No one word is offensive on it's own. Not even the word n*****, which is much worse then calling someone black. It's not the words you use that matter, it's the intent behind the words that count. N***** n***** n*****. Does the use of the seem word offensive to you? It shouldn't be.


You yourself admitted that this word is much worse than calling someone black -- which means that you recognize that certain language has connotations and meanings that are derisive and unacceptable to say. The fact of the matter, whether we like it or not, is that some words do have an intent attached to them. Permanently. The n-word has been used to treat black people absolutely terribly for generations upon generations and has caused a lot of hurt for a lot of people. So, why should we use a word that hurts people, even if we aren't personally hurt by the word? Slurs are slurs because they are intentionally hurtful. Some communities may choose to reclaim certain slurs, but that doesn't make it acceptable for anyone outside of that community to use that sort of language. For example, I know some black people choose to call themselves or one another n*gga, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable for us, as white people, to use that word in any context whatsoever. There is no context where that's okay. Same thing for any other community, too.

(And spare me the backwards logic about how my noticing that other people have a political agenda and saying I don't want/ like it means that I have an agenda, because my noticing that THEY have an agenda and perhaps being irritated by it is not the same thing as having an agenda myself.)


Here's another place where I'm questioning the logic of your arguments.

For example, the definition of "political agenda" that I found is:

A (notional) list of policies to be pursued or political issues to be addressed; a political programme or plan of action, especially of a particular individual or group; (hence) a set of underlying political motives, principles, or ideals.


By this definition, literally everyone has an "agenda" although I know that's not the connotations that you're wanting to be attached to that word (see how that works? Connotations don't go away just by how you use the word). Your underlying political ideals are that you're content with the status quo and don't care about diversity or representation. Someone else's political ideals could be a movement towards equity between various genders or ethnicities. Everyone has something they believe in -- and just because you don't like the "politically correct agenda" doesn't mean you're free from having an agenda of your own. So, this is a factually incorrect argument that you may want to reconsider in any future draft.

~

Okay, so overall summary before we get to the footnotes, I'm going to try to focus on your essay structure itself rather than the arguments you made, since this is a review and not a debate. I stand by what I said about trying to find an outline.

Right now, it feels like your logic is very jumbled and hard to follow. Try to distill each paragraph into a single sentence to sum it up, and I think you'll see what I mean. Your argument kind of jumped around like this:

Hate is the only way to effect change > political correctness is bad > being proud of your heritage is bad > equality in movies is bad > Star Wars was better before it emphasized representation > Black Panther isn't a good film > trans characters shouldn't be played by trans actors. And I'm having a bit of trouble following how you're trying to fit all of this together into a single argument.

The headers you provided with Hate is Good > I Hate Political Correctness > An example of political correctness in films makes more sense, but within each of those subdivisions the arguments are kind of chaotic and hard to follow. It would be a stronger argument if you could find a way to group your ideas more clearly with one another.

Now, regarding the footnote...

This is another prime example of what I mean about this "essay" coming across more as a petulant rant than an actual academic exercise. Footnotes are generally meant to provide additional context for your arguments. Thus, they are supposed to be numbered.

For example, if in your essay you're talking about feminism, you could be like "modern day feminism [1]" and then in the footnote, you should have a [1] then an explanation of how you're defining modern day feminism. As it is, these footnotes don't appear to connect to anything whatsoever. They're just an elongation of your opinion -- they don't provide any additional support.

If they were there to provide corroboration for your arguments, then you should have references to support your claims. For example, when you claim that "90%" of the time the justice system works, it very much seems like you're just plucking a number out of thin air. Where are your sources that estimate that 90%? If you're writing an essay, then you should have sources that show that your statistics are correct.

Overall, my strong disagreement with almost every single point you made aside, I really think you need to come up with a stronger cohesion to bring this all together. I wish you the absolute best in transforming this work into a stronger essay. But for now, it does very much seem more like an opinionated rant than a convincing argument, and I hope that some of the things I've pointed out are helpful to you during your revisions.

~Shady 8)

P.S. If you did intend this to be more of a debatable piece rather than a literary work, I just want to be sure you're aware of the Serious Discussion and Debate forum that we have here on YWS. Read through the rules posted there, but this seems like something that would be suited to there if you'd like some back and forth debates of your ideas and opinions, rather than a review of this as a literary work like you'll get here.

P.P.S. On YWS we are pretty lenient on what we allow to be posted as literary works, but we /do/ insist that the works be rated appropriately. This is because we have some very, very young users on the site, and we want everyone to be aware of what sort of content they'll be reading when they click on a literary work. As such, I've bumped this to an 18+ rating with language and mature content tags. I know you didn't know that so you're not in trouble or anything! Just letting you know why I made these changes, and why they're required.





Prometheus, thief of light, giver of light, bound by the gods, must have been a book.
— Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves