Dear White People | Official Trailer
- Thread starter Dabanton
- Start date
- Status
This is what always bums me out about these kinds of discussions. The tone and rhetoric is absolutely having an effect on how others relate to people and it's creating a sharper divide between people(it's hard not to see how this is reflected on a national and global scale). The fact that we've come to a point where people who want to discuss tone are automatically dismissed as trolls or on the other side of some battle line really sucks. At least for myself, when I use the word "toxic" it's not because I want to feel better, it's because I want the discussion to be more constructive, less combative. More discussion than sabre-rattling/fist-waiving. In the context of arguing the validity of a point, tone absolutely has no place in the discussion. In the context of changing hearts and minds tone is nearly as important. I want to talk about these things and I want to be related to like a normal person, not some internet entity that just waved the red flag of tone troll. If this is somehow derailing the true topic then I apologize and I'll gladly snip this. Tone-policing is always irrelevant to most discussions on this board, but I think it's a relevant discussion worth having(maybe in its own thread?).
Either way it looks to be like a really fun movie.
JJDinomite
Banned
Reminds me of that Amazing Atheist video where he is crying and saying "I'm sorry I'm white, I'm sorry I'm male"
Please read the rest of my post.
cubicle47b
Member
I strongly disagree that no one has gotten anything to change by being nice. The way social change happens, as I see it, is that as people get to know and empathize with people different from them, they start to understand and accept them. Gay people used to be a deviant 'other', but as we got to know people who were gay through television, over the internet, and as they came out in real-life, they weren't scary 'others' any more. It took court decisions to make gay marriage legal in certain states, but these decisions wouldn't happen without popular support that came from empathy.
Anger and passion can be useful. They way you treat your opposition says a lot about you, though.
I did and I disagree. Unless you wanted me to address your assertion that anger is anything but counterproductive, which I wholeheartedly disagree with, but that wasn't the point I was trying to address and that's why I didn't address it in the post.
I need to be clear here and say that "tone policing" and the "lol tumblr, sjw" refers to a group of people who put up a front of being earnest and willingness to listen, but aren't actually going to do any such thing. They dive in from one topic to another with this same false front of compassion, but always complaining that the tone is wrong, the message is wrong, the woman/PoC/gay person writing a piece is the "wrong" person, it's not the right time, this isn't the correct example to get the conversation started, there are bigger issues out there, but what about me or my group?!?, or... you get the point. The excuses and bullshit are endless and it's really about derailment to not talk about anything concerning the minority group in question.
This here:
The people I'm talking about never do this and have no intention of ever doing so.
But it actually took gay people coming out, standing there on the front lines in real life, celebrating their pride, voicing and fighting for their concerns and rights. It took them saying that there is nothing wrong who they are and you're just going to have to deal if you have a problem with it in a society that largely did have a problem with them existing and discriminated and committed violence against for who they are. This is what I mean by passionanger and being disruptive. Being "nice" means accepting status quo and complying. Being "nice" means that we probably wouldn't have a gay pride movement to speak of. To actually change something you need to be disruptive, you need to have your voice heard. Anger is a tool to that end. Anger is passion. Anger means you care and if you care other people are more likely too as well.
Holy spoiler alerts. Can we get a warning next time.
If you want to discuss the merits of tone policing in that case we can do so in a thread made for it. We don't have to tone police and then engage in meta discussions on tone policing in every topic concerned oppression and discrimination, telling the marginalized group how they should feel because the way they articulate their points make you feel uncomfortable. That is the derailment.
blame space
Banned
wait are we taking about policing the tone of the thread or policing the tone of the movie trailer?
I would personally embrace a thread made specifically for it and I'll stop here. And for the record, the tone doesn't typically make me feel uncomfortable and the most impassioned people aren't always the ones who are marginalized.
Agree, and agree.
Their "The More You Know (About Black People)" shorts on their YT channel were insufferable and this looks even worse.
Anyone who uses "tumblry" "tumblrism" or any other version of that word as a criticism sounds pretty damn stupid.
This thread pretty much proves the need for a movie like this. But let's face it, people (white in this case) are going to be immediately defensive or dismissive when the feel like they're being criticized or put on the spot, no matter how relevant or necessary the issue is.
This thread pretty much proves the need for a movie like this. But let's face it, people (white in this case) are going to be immediately defensive or dismissive when the feel like they're being criticized or put on the spot, no matter how relevant or necessary the issue is.
cubicle47b
Member
I don't think being nice means accepting the status quo. I think being nice is how you challenge the status quo (or interact with people you strongly disagree with in general).
Shamrock7r
Member
While what you say may apply to certain users in this thread, I think there are legitimate critiques some have pointed out about the trailer that could raise concerns about the quality of the film. This is what I wrote earlier.
Would you agree that it's entirely plausible that someone, like myself, watched the trailer, and was less enthused about the movie not because of the social commentary, but the quality of the film itself?
I was referring to the dumb "tumblr" posts, not the film itself. art can most definitely be heavy handed in how it conveys it's message.
Last I'll say on this; being nice is not what you mean then as you don't change the status quo by being nice. You do it by being disruptive. Recruiting people to your cause or to see your side requires passion.
I take we are speaking in general on tone policing since it was brought up in this thread about this particular movie trailer. the lame "lol tumblr" criticisms was a catalyst for this side discussion. Also saying the movie is heavy handed is potentially a valid criticism of that film mainly it's script. You can say that about films that cover benign subject matters .
stufte
Member
cubicle47b
Member
It's inspired by true events.
edit:
You can be pleasant and stand up for yourself and what you believe in at the same time.
For some, a person standing up for themselves in whatever manner, isn't playing "nice" especially if that implies disrupting the status quo that they're attached to.
Ok this is actually the last I'll say on this please PM me if you want to discuss this further.
All white people? I dont like your tone.
I think this movie looks good. Get it all out there. I think it's funny how often the hair touching thing comes up for instance. Who knew this was a major issue? Not I.
I lol'd at a lot of it, including the assertion that black people cant be racist because racist means ... all that stuff she said. Ive heard the argument before and i think it's good to include everything, even the more out there or controversial opinions. Just like the white guy saying being an educated white guy is the toughest position to be in. Put it all in.
I just hope it doesnt push one particular view over another. But even if it does, nobody says you need to agree with it.
It bothers me, sometimes. I don't disagree that passion and anger are necessary, and I don't think that there are no circumstances in which the expression of anger is worthwhile. But I don't think anger should be a default position, all the time. Just speaker as a moderator, there's little more frustrating than seeing two people get into a bickering argument over a misunderstanding they've had, when if one of them had the sense to stop trying to snap back in thirty seconds or less, reread the conversation, find out where the other person misunderstood them, and make an effort to clarify the misunderstanding, it wouldn't happen. But for some posters there's this apparent notion that trying to make sure you're talking about the same things is somehow tantamount to abject surrender. I feel like the righteous anger sometimes blinds people to seeing that, maybe, you're arguing about nothing.
And I know this is hard to do; I know there are people who know my posting and will think, "Well, it's easy for you to say; you've got a long fuse." But, really, I don't. You should ask some of the other moderators about my curse-laden rants about the latest mendacious dumbass to catch my ire, or that one time I slipped. I just make an effort because I think it's worthwhile, not for the people who complain about tone incessantly but because I think that if you're speaking to the unconverted who are hypothetically willing to learn you need to at least get them to hear what you're saying. If you immediately alienate them, or make them feel you're attacking them personally, there's no chance of it happening.
Filter side-note: You reminded me of a time that one of my posts was put through Gizoogle in PopGAF. Wish I could find it. It may have been in the deleted topic.
cubicle47b
Member
I don't have much to add except that it's something I work on (and occasionally fail at) too.
God Dayumm
Banned
It seems to me that the movie is parodying a lot of things, including those Tumblrs posts, and not endorsing their way of thinking. That part where she goes out of her way to be pedantic with the "weave" line (and still be wrong) kinda gives it away. I don't think there is an angry message in there.
I honestly don't think they meant to have her be "wrong" with the "weave" correction. I predict the movie is going to parody both sides -- the clueless white people and the overreacting Tumblr rage-aholics. But the movie knows, as we do, that the offended parties are correct - just non-constructive in their apoplectic anger over trivialities like how to refer to a weave.
I do hope someone tells her that nouns don't have tenses though because that's annoying the hell out of me. :/
Other predictions: The guy running for class president and the Everybody Hates Chris guy who don't want to acknowledge race at all are going to have to acknowledge race. And the white guy who gets under the radio host girl's skin while talking to her in her bedroom is tooootally going to hook up with her and she'll finally lurve white people after all <3. And many, many white people will have their microaggressions and appropriations called out.
Interesting video with the director. I'm watching it now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KAbb54SuKU&feature=youtu.be&t=4m3s
At 22:30 he says basically that he didn't want the character Sam to do something because "That would make her.. just a racist" and that wasnt interesting. But then literally two minutes later at 23:48 he say he agrees with what Sam said about "Black people can't be racist"
That's my favorite thing in these movies. Literally nobody has all the answers, everyone is confused and conflicting opinions and views. Which only goes to underscore how idiotic the overly PC people are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KAbb54SuKU&feature=youtu.be&t=4m3s
At 22:30 he says basically that he didn't want the character Sam to do something because "That would make her.. just a racist" and that wasnt interesting. But then literally two minutes later at 23:48 he say he agrees with what Sam said about "Black people can't be racist"
That's my favorite thing in these movies. Literally nobody has all the answers, everyone is confused and conflicting opinions and views. Which only goes to underscore how idiotic the overly PC people are.
Looks and sounds like a movie made on YouTube. At first i thought it was a period piece with the color altercations, but no, some creative savant chose that for no good reason.
The dialog is hammy and forced. It looks and sounds like Tumblr helped write it.
By just reading title i thought it was a 2 hour stand up comedy show with Paul Mooney, that would have been great
The dialog is hammy and forced. It looks and sounds like Tumblr helped write it.
By just reading title i thought it was a 2 hour stand up comedy show with Paul Mooney, that would have been great
It's not controversial in my opinion, just wrong. She's making up a unique meaning for the word and then saying under that definition, black people cant be racist. But that happens a lot with different words. Feminist for example means a lot of different things to different people.
Anton Sugar
Member
It's the new Benghazi.
The sociological definition of "racism" isn't something unique that she made up.
Edit: I'm not sure we really need to go down this path, actually. Might drag things even more off course?
Edit 2:
T
U
M
BENGHAZI
L
R
Edit: I'm not sure we really need to go down this path, actually. Might drag things even more off course?
Edit 2:
T
U
M
BENGHAZI
L
R
cubicle47b
Member
Yeah, I think so, even if it is only a semantics argument. Few people would deny that minorities can be racially prejudiced. Few (well, maybe not few) people would deny that institutionalized racism exists. The big argument is over which of these is actually considered racism.
edit: I guess there is an important distinction between institutionalized racism and the sociological definition. Institutional racism doesn't really cover the cultural side.
BeatResetsTheWorld
Banned
This can't seriously be the first time you've heard of that definition of racism...
Yup, agree to disagree! I'll just say I'm open minded and not really hitting the movie for the reference. Like I said earlier I think it's good to have all this stuff in there for people to digest and hash out.
Maybe. They seem to go hand in hand, though. In my anecdotal experience, people who reject the academic definition would also say that perceived discriminatory action by minorities is equivalent to systematic oppression and that "racism is racism,"they favor "equality," etc. Like I've seen folks claim that a black guy wearing whiteface is "just as bad" as blackface and minstrelsy.
TwEE-N-Toast
Banned
You can't be really surprised that it's controversial can you?
A team of people put this together, as a satire, and I'm sure they're as knowledgeable and fully aware as you are that weave as a noun does not have any tense and that their characters are going to say stupid things. People say incorrect shit IRL all the time, especially when they're a bit foaming at the mouth. More than a few complaints here are about the movie's so-called unnatural language, and yet here we have someone fumbling her thoughts like a real person and you're getting hung up on it like a grammar nazi (or a tumblr person).
Are these complaints? It's a movie on race relations. The number of plot options are finite unless they venture off into unforeseen, off-topic territory (e.g. campus mass shooting). You haven't even seen the thing yet; does the potential of what may come already annoy you?
Of course it's controversial to say minorities "can't be racist." It's going to be argued about in the movie -- the guy calling her a racist in the trailer is black.
The definition of "racism" being tied to the context of American culture where black people are minorities is a new construct -- Merriam-Webster doesn't recognize that as a definition, nor does the Oxford English Dictionary; they just define racism as antipathy towards another race. However the American Hertiage dictionary does reference the power dynamic as a second definition, in this entry:
It's not that definition #2 existing is controversial - it makes perfect sense. It's the idea that this would be the ONLY definition that's controversial. Racism is both a synonym for "discrimination," and a feeling someone has. Denying that you're racist because you don't have the power to discriminate, even though you have those feelings, is always going to be controversial.
The definition of "racism" being tied to the context of American culture where black people are minorities is a new construct -- Merriam-Webster doesn't recognize that as a definition, nor does the Oxford English Dictionary; they just define racism as antipathy towards another race. However the American Hertiage dictionary does reference the power dynamic as a second definition, in this entry:
It's not that definition #2 existing is controversial - it makes perfect sense. It's the idea that this would be the ONLY definition that's controversial. Racism is both a synonym for "discrimination," and a feeling someone has. Denying that you're racist because you don't have the power to discriminate, even though you have those feelings, is always going to be controversial.
cubicle47b
Member
It's hard to address this post. I probably did give the general public way too much credit on their knowledge of racism (institutional or otherwise). If something doesn't effect you directly it's easy to be ignorant of it. In this state of ignorance, it is easy to see something like whiteface being just as bad as blackface. It's also easy to see how someone changing the definition of a word to something that 'advantages' them feels unfair or wrong.
PhoenixDark
Banned
How so? It sounds exactly like poorly delivered hashtag activism. As I said earlier, perhaps it's just a case of a bad trailer. I remember thinking Inglorious Bastards looked horrible due to the trailer, and the dialogue sounded forced...but the actual film was great. Maybe that's the case here.
And again, the guy who made the movie implied the lead character Sam could in fact be racist had she acted a certain way. Then minutes later said he agreed that minorities cant be racist... so there you go. Controversial!
That's why the movie is fun though.
Seriously, how mad and defensive are you gonna be, bro? How much nuance are you able to read into the scene where apparently someone speaking in pointed absolutisms is "fumbling?" How many ways are you going to twist what critics have to say in order to try and prove that it's not fair to say it? Are "grammar nazis" really the people who know that nouns aren't verbs? Really?
I'm mad and defensive? I'm saying that a full production staff would have caught this if it wasn't on purpose. In a movie full of people (white, black) saying stupid things to each other in obvious satire, this is the one that sticks out to you as an inexcusable accident? I recall a thread some time ago where someone mentioned how people in television/film speak perfectly all the time -- none of the uhhs, umms and misspoken words, phrases and lingustic mistakes you commonly see IRL. I think that's what the "weave" line is here. This is not an unreasonable observation.
Matt_
World's #1 One Direction Fan: Everyone else in the room can see it, everyone else but you~~~
I'm not sure what I expected when I went into this thread but the film looks hilarious
I see it's already at an amazing 4 stars over on IMDB
I see it's already at an amazing 4 stars over on IMDB
Shamrock7r
Member
Yes. I have read most of your posts in the thread and you have seemed overly defensive/agitated against people that have a different opinion from your own about the trailer.
Thank you for your useless observation. How does that invalidate anything regarding the possibility that a team of professionals in the movie industry deliberately inserted that line into the film as a piece of ironic wit?
edit: I haven't had any issue with dozens of posts in this thread that articulated why they don't like the trailer. You're reaching simply because I'm vocal over a few thread shitters (note: I don't think terrene is such a person).
Shamrock7r
Member
You don't seem like you actually want to have a conversation, but I will reply. I wasn't mentioning a specific post of yours or a specific point about the dialogue/ a line in the movie. I am just pointing out that you were being overly critical, somewhat insulting in the tone of your posts throughout the thread and if you have a rebuttal or point to some of the criticisms, it's hard to take seriously because do sound so angry and insulted.
- Status