Diversity always wins. Diversity isn’t going to leave music, or TV, or film no matter how many backlashes and reversals there are.
The “fake geek girls” aren’t going to leave your subculture; the “PC police” aren’t going to stop criticizing it. “Angry black women” aren’t getting off your TV and neither are angry Asian men. The “PC diversity brigade” of science-fiction writers is going to keep winning Hugo and Nebula awards, and someday my wife’s going to be one of them.
Critics like Anita Sarkeesian will keep on pointing out what’s bad in games so we can start looking for ways to make games better. Indie designers like Zoe Quinn and Kellee Santiago will keep pushing the boundaries of gaming at the fringes so that people like Manveer Heir and Rhianna Pratchett have breathing room to explore what mainstream “AAA” games can be.
Reactionaries know they can’t win. Their anger stems from their desperation. Read the #GamerGate tag for a while and realize the obsessive fixation on the “corrupt agenda in the gaming press” is, underneath the anger, fear. For all the damage they do, for all the people they hurt, they’re going to lose. Indeed, to react as they have is to prove that they’ve already lost.
After all, #GamerGate, did you think we’d crumble? Did you think we’d lay down and die?
No, not us. We will survive."
Arthur Chu, Of Gamers, Gates, and Disco Demolition: The Roots of Reactionary Rage (for the Daily beast)
A damn good article about how the very real violence resulting from what we call “culture wars” is yet another case of history repeating itself. Hopefully the determination of those willing to analyze, question, and hold media accountable for the narratives it tells us will ensure that this backlash will once again be the harbinger of social change.
A black male could not offer his hand (to shake hands) with a white male because it implied being socially equal. Obviously, a black male could not offer his hand or any other part of his body to a white woman, because he risked being accused of rape.
Blacks and whites were not supposed to eat together. If they did eat together, whites were to be served first, and some sort of partition was to be placed between them.
Under no circumstance was a black male to offer to light the cigarette of a white female — that gesture implied intimacy.
Blacks were not allowed to show public affection toward one another in public, especially kissing, because it offended whites.
Jim Crow etiquette prescribed that blacks were introduced to whites, never whites to blacks. For example: “Mr. Peters (the white person), this is Charlie (the black person), that I spoke to you about.”
Whites did not use courtesy titles of respect when referring to blacks, for example, Mr., Mrs., Miss., Sir, or Ma’am. Instead, blacks were called by their first names. Blacks had to use courtesy titles when referring to whites, and were not allowed to call them by their first names.
If a black person rode in a car driven by a white person, the black person sat in the back seat, or the back of a truck.
White motorists had the right-of-way at all intersections."
My suburban white friends were so confused that my parents introduced themselves as Mr. and Mrs. and that I always addressed adults that way. They just don’t know. And I don’t know how popular of a trend this was, but some Black folks gave their children honorifics as first names so white people would have no choice but to call them ‘Mister’ or ‘Sir’. Like, I know tangentially of a woman who’s first name is Doctor.
“Blacks were not allowed to show public affection toward one another in public, especially kissing, because it offended whites.”
Can we look at this one right here real close?
POC in intimate relationships showing each other affection *was considered offensive*. I am kinda wondering, given the absence of intra poc relationships in mass media, if it still is considered as such.
PRECISELY WHAT CAUGHT MY EYE. DA FUCK?????????????????
Well looking at this post, yes