kryptonianCodeMonkey

ACAB. All Cops Are Bots-sent-from-the-future-to-kill-John-Connor.

PBS exists. People would make things with no profit motive.

🤣 Do you think the people that produce content for PBS dont get paid?!

Let me ask you this; would you be okay with members of certain terrorist groups making money off movies about 9/11 or other attacks? Are you okay with that song made by the J6 choir being on streaming services?

First of all, you are making a false equivalency. J6 rioters and terrorists are actively criminals and you are asking about them making money off their own personal crimes. It is a little different to be talking about people making shit about people in the past that did bad shit that happens to share their race or culture. You get the right?

But I'm not going to cop out of this question even if it is an unfair exaggerated comparison. My answer? No, idgaf. I care about their crimes and that they get justice for them. I dont care even slightly about their films, songs or whether they are profiting on them. If someone wants to pay to consume that shit, all the power to them. On the scale of things they have done, that doesn't even come close to ranking.

Such a weird fucking question...

Cool. I disagree entirely. I think we should even be encouraging it. Awareness, Cautionary tales, accurate history, these are the only ways we, ideally, prevent recurrence. It will always be better and more personal for the creators to be a part of that culture. But I think those of the perpetrating culture also bare a responsibility to learn and amplify knowledge of the mistakes of the past. And if there is no profit motivation, no one, regardless of culture, will make these stories. That's just the reality we live in. Call it evil if you must, but it is a necessary evil that serves a greater good.

Also, you have a problem specifically with production media profiting from these stories... do you have a problem with a white teacher telling kids about the Underground Railroad? Because they're paid to do that too. How about a black person making a show about America's oppressive history and including stories about Native Americans, Asians, Hispanics and Hawaiians? I just want to know where the line is.

In this particular case, with the film Pocahontas, the problem was the whitewashing, the inaccuracy, and the insulting implications of those inaccuracies. But by your metric, the History channel producing a documentary about Jamestown, or about Columbus, and giving every accurate gritty detail of those cultural clashes, including the raping and pillaging, you are saying it is fundamentally wrong to make such a thing because they are white and profiting off of their work. Right? You're ridiculous.

What are you talking about? How is negative history not part of your cultural history? Would you have them erase that history? How is that not whitewashing? Wars? Colonization? Subjugation? These aren't culturally relevant? Arguably the negative history is more important, especially when it collides with other cultures because that history can be defining for the other culture.

Ah, it is a deduction on federal tax based on paid state and local tax. That makes more sense.

Wait, is congress trying to dictate state and local tax policy? Why? And how would that be allowed. They have power over federal taxes and interstate commerce, not internal tax policies for each state.

Yeah, I'm all for reminding Red States that they are dependent on Blue states when they talk about secession (cuz FAFO), but this is not an imbalance that needs fixed. Like individual costs can be wasteful spending, but wealthier states taking care of poorer states or safer state paying for disaster relief in more vulnerable states is just good sense and how a unified nation should be. It's the same reason wealthy individuals should be more responsible for taking care of the less wealthy or poor individuals too. This is not a game of "fuck you, got mine." We should not be encouraging the hoarding of wealth when others are in need, whether individuals or states. There are plenty of reasons to be angry with red states, but their geography or poverty (the actual poverty itself, not the policies that contribute to it) are not those reasons.

I know. That is what I said was the problem with the movie. You said it was a problem inaccurate or not.

I disagree pretty hard, particularly when the history in question is the first contact between cultures. It is European American history as much as Native American history. It is both of their story to tell. There is obviously a difference in power dynamics between those two parties, but to categorize the entirety of media exhibiting the history wherein those cultures contacted as exploitative or appropriation, just makes no sense. And discouraging that sort of media just lends to even more ignorance than we already have.

Inaccurate, whitewashed, insensetive, malicious, or otherwise disrespectful depictions of cultures and history are a problem. But accurate depictions of history, particularly of or involving your own culture (though I would argue that it doesn't matter the culture if it is accurate and reapectful), are educational, representative, and not something to discourage. And they are not exploitative unless made at the expense of someone else.

Yea, but I dont think that that was for cultural appropriation, but historically inaccuracy as you said and cultural insensitivity.

I want to argue against it but I'm too fat to dispute it.