Honestly, I disagree with much of what you said, mostly because I believe a lot in context.
I mention context as a temper, yet you disagree? :D
But if writers were left to their artistic expression, without the pressures and opinions of those around them, very little would be represented.
This post has nothing to do with critique - it is about critiquing everything through a lens of today, generally whichever lens sill see it in the worst possible light in order to generate "drama points" on social media.
What is a societal good? How is it measured?
I mention context as a temper, yet you disagree? :D
You mentioned the past societal context, I'm referring to the specific context of the act. Let me illustrate with an extreme example, because anything else would be so complicated I'd just say it honestly depends for me.
It's commonly stated on the internet that the allies justified the trial and execution of high ranking officials in Nazi Germany by arguing that some acts are just inherently wrong, such that any man would be aware of this fact, regardless of social context. Obviously, these men were convicted of crimes such as genocide, which is an extreme example, but the point is even though it was seemingly acceptable in the society (which is not to say everyone was okay with it), it was still wrong. So when I say I disagree I mean because I don't have the specific example, I can't say i agree, whereas I've agreed with many of your past posts.
This post has nothing to do with critique - it is about critiquing everything through a lens of today, generally whichever lens sill see it in the worst possible light in order to generate "drama points" on social media.
And I am also saying critiquing things from today's lens may or may not be all right, imo, it depends, because some seemingly new lens have always existed. Obviously, there's a great deal of subjectivity involved.
What is a societal good? How is it measured?
To me, it's something that betters the life of at least part of the population without trampling on the rights of orders. This is still a subjective definition tbh, because at one point a man had a right to kill another man if he was sufficiently dishonoured
The measurement, well, that's much harder. In fact, with small acts like representation in film, it's almost impossible to mention. The bigger picture ultimately is whether representation leads to acceptance, less bigotry (represented by lower rates of hate crimes for instances). To make it clear, I'm not necessarily talking about a James Bond movie rn.
I'm sorry for the wall of text. Honestly, I don't know how to make it shorter.
But, wouldn't this leave you in the middle, non-committal? Taking a position of disagreement is taking a position without context, isn't it?
This is an issue, because people claim "their rights" on anything these days. Anything that makes them feel bad, means their rights have been trampled. Do you see what the post is about now? Everyone can make themselves a victim.
But, wouldn't this leave you in the middle, non-committal? Taking a position of disagreement is taking a position without context, isn't it?
Yes, you have a point there. But you have to consider the fact that in the absence of a guarantee, disagreement comes easier. I think so at least.
Anything that makes them feel bad, means their rights have been trampled
That's exactly why I mentioned context. Ultimately, it boils down to what each person believes is a right or not. Depending on what I have in mind,I could completely agree or disagree with everything you said. But because it's safer to not agree without definitive examples. Noncommittal is the safe option.
Some people make ridiculous demands, but a lot of demands people consider ridiculous, I am fine with.
Everyone can make themselves a victim.
The truth is often, you often can't change others,only yourself, which is why "pulling yourself by your bootstraps is often the best option, but that doesn't make you less of a victim