{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/13/2018 3:52:22 PM
1
I'm still not getting the "forced" part. Its up to the people who own the IP what color the people in the thing that belongs to them are when they put it on television. Or would you rather have a law or something that states that characters must stay the same as they were originally when they were first developed for an all white audience?
You can't have it both ways. Are you saying that they are changing the people to be diverse in order to sell to diverse audiences and that previously, when all the people were white they were weren't only trying to sell to white people?
English
-
You are kidding, right? All you ever hear is "this board room is too white", or "there aren't enough woman in the office". If a movie isn't "diverse" enough, then it gets lambasted. Ironic, really. Most of these diverse movies end up being crap.
-
Edited by A_mo: 7/13/2018 7:02:13 PMI honestly don't care that much one way or the other what color the people are in movies. What I am trying to understand is why you do. I don't get all the white dudes acting like someone is attacking them because someone suggests that "the board room is too white." It has to be for one of two reasons. Either the board room is white because white people are just better than everyone else or the board room is white because other people weren't allowed. It amazes me the victimhood white guys are showing when all they usually do is tell other people to shut up about their victimhood. Also, I fail to understand your argument about how including different races and sexualities and such causes the movies to suck. Is the blackness lowering the quality of a movie that would have otherwise been good?
