Tober said: You're making this big assumption that there is some basic checklist of black/white/asian etc, that needs to be checked off. Tober: What was my assumption in my first post? You answer my question by referring to my second post. I am curious what assumption I had in the first one. I'm sure on the level of media companies, a lot of them have something just like that. But that isn't the goal that people are pushing towards. Tober: Then why are they? It misses the mark making it essentially useless. What is that goal, you are referring to? What is wrong with it, and what is a strawman requires the same answer: No one is saying that skin color is more important than ethnicity. Tober: Above you said something like on the level of media, companies have checklists. It appears those checklist aim to use skin color as a wide web to catch as many people as possible. In a way these companies view skin color more important in their strategy, because they think it's more efficient. Not saying it is, but apparently they do You're making an argument against something that doesn't particularly exist. I feel like you completely misread my post. Because pretty much everything you're saying in here, agrees with my post. Tober: I mostly agree with myself Especially the last part that generalizing on only superficial character traits actually hurts representation more then it helps. In other words, do it right or don't do it at all. That's essentially the gist of it. |
Assumptions in your first post:
Tober said: DEI is not about diversity and inclusivety. It's about the Mirage of it. |
1.) That people think race is enough. That we can just put in a "black" character and call it a day.
2.) That people are ignoring vastly different cultures.
3.) That people are pretending that Samuel L Jackson is diverse enough, to cover aboriginals and other groups.
4.) That the goal is "checkboxing every bucket".
No one is particularly advocating for these things as the end goal. At worst, they're stepping stones to other things.