Discuss The Good Fight
Discuss → TV Shows → The Good Fight → General
Anti white bias is a little off-putting
posted by MongoLloydSTAFFMOD on March 5, 2017 at 2:32 PM
Not sure how much longer I can watch this series do to the obvious pro bIack/anti white bias in the writing.
The subtext is undeniably that white people are morally bankrupt, and bIacks are morally superior.
As a series, I'd be all for it if it weren't for their obvious, distasteful agenda.
Reply by attilathefun
on March 6, 2017 at 12:20 AM
I can't agree. True, it comes from another perspective than the usual Hollywood perspective. But I think it is oversimplifying it to say that it is anti-white. The defendant in the third episode was a good, humane, and moral doctor, he was white. Two of our three principal heroines are white. The show is indeed pro-black, that does not make it anti-white at all.
Reply by MongoLloyd
on March 6, 2017 at 1:23 PM
The "villain" in the first episode who elicits hate en masse throughout multiple episodes - white (yes, based on a real white person.)
The evil scheming uncle and mother - all white.
The partners who wanted Diane Lockhart out - all white.
The ex boyfriend who posted nudes of Maia Rindell - white (don't expect to ever see anything similar happen with the bIack characters.)
And where does Diane Lockhart go, after leaving her white law firm? To an all bIack law firm who are written as the morally righteous law firm defending bIacks subjected to beatings by white cops.
The hapless victims of abuse at the hands of the cops - all bIack.
The white night figure who got into "trouble" by bringing in a white attorney - bIack.
Everyone in the bIack law firm is essentially depicted as morally and ethically proper. The one white assistant to Diane Lockhart skirts the law every chance she gets (eavesdropping, posting defamatory stuff online, etc.)
Who comes to the aid of poor little noob white girl attorney Maia Rindell? Three bIack attorneys, while everyone going against her is white, including her mother.
The worst of the worst possible choices for POTUS - white. The one bIack attorney who voted for Trump has to hide the fact and essentially be fearful for his job.
The bIack plaintiff in the eggs case pitted against the white defendant, pouring her guts out in court to him only to met with a "f( )ck you" in response.
The overarching theme here is unmistakably that white people are bad and bIack people are good.
Reply by attilathefun
on March 6, 2017 at 1:35 PM
I can think of countless works of media over the last hundred years that has posited the exact opposite (and not just with black people but with Arabs too) without much uproar but there's one work of fiction that dares go against that grain and it's unacceptable? Black people and Latinos have served as the default gangbanger on countless police procedurals and Arabs and people of middle-eastern descent have served as the default terrorists on many shows. I guess those shows can be considered anti-black and anti-Arab then?
Reply by Imzadi
on March 6, 2017 at 3:13 PM
Your view is certainly very black and white, no pun intended. The series has to been watched in context with what happend at the The Good Wife. Therefore I cannot agree with you at all.
Reply by MongoLloyd
on March 6, 2017 at 6:14 PM
Hardly ONE "work of fiction." I see it nearly everywhere in recent seasons of various episodic shows as well as in movies that have a mixed cast. It's almost unheard of in the past 5 to 10 years or so that bIacks are cast as the bad guys, which actually runs counter to crime statistics regarding violent crime.
Reply by attilathefun
on March 7, 2017 at 9:09 AM
Off the top of my head, one of the bad guys in the first Jack Reacher was black. Samuel L Jackson in Kingsman.
Reply by MongoLloyd
on March 7, 2017 at 12:49 PM
When I say "bad guys" I'm not talking about cartoon depictions of bad guys.
Reply by janar
on March 9, 2017 at 5:55 PM
@MongoLloyd said:
I don't agree with you at all. The subtext of this show is undeniably very similar to the one of "The Good Wife" (TGW) from the same creators, i.e. that not a single character is either good or bad in it's entirety of actions; mirroring the real world much better than any conceptual dualism of heroes and villains in other shows. I guess you've never watched TGW, but from your examples it's undeniably obvious that you watch "The Good Fight" (TGF) very selectively with your own bias. Let me run that down for you:
I suppose you speak of Donald Trump here as the "villain"? From TGW you would know that Diane Lockhart always was a fierce supporter of Hillary Clinton, so it's no surprise she isn't thrilled about Trump being sworn in. The show is situated in Chicago, a city in which 83.7% voted for Clinton last year. So, again, no surprise you'll find a lot of characters in this show who don't like Trump (and if you would know anything about TGW, you would know that Diane's husband Kurt is/was a Sarah Palin supporter and they had some great arguments across the seasons about politics).
But: How is that related to your claim that the writing of TGF is pro black/anti white? As long as I understand people didn't vote against Trump because of his skin tone. So why do you think this point is relevant for your claim? I don't understand the connection you draw here.
From episode 1 of TGF, it should be very clear to you that this part of the show is build after the Madoff investment scandal; I think even Henry Rindell's arrest that Lucca watches on tv mirrors Madoff's arrest in real life (if I'm not mistaken). So there's no surprise to me the writers decided to create those characters as white people, and it's also in tune with the reality that employers and investors in the financial world are mostly white. There's also a hint in episode 1 from Adrian that black people were not invited to invest in Rindell's fonds - because it was white-exclusive (or something like that; I don't remember the exact words). I don't understand why you think the writing is biased towards white people regarding this point?
That Diane's old firm is almost all white is partly because of what happened in TGW. For example, some of the partners like David Lee and Howard Lyman were already name partners in the old firm and had to appear again in TGF as such. Or, early on in season 2, a whole storyline regarding a new black name partner called Derrick Bond (played by Michael Ealy) resulted in a masterfully coup of the other name partners in which he had to leave the firm (and the show). It's also partly because the show runners had serious problems to hire black actors for bigger roles during TGW; for example, there was a lawyer called Dean Levine-Wilkins (played by Taye Diggs) in season 6 who just disappeared when the actor got a new, better job.
I remember that I read from a lot of people that it's unrealistic to have an all white law firm in Chicago - and I'm so happy that the new show took this criticism and made the spin off much more interesting by showing us an "all black" one to contrast those worlds. I think it's a genius move from the writers, and I can't see why this constellation is in any way biased towards white people like you do?
I don't know what you mean here? You think that no black character would ever be shown nude on the show like Maia and humiliated by an ex? Or that no black character would ever be shown posting nude pictures of an ex like Maia's ex did? How is any of this relevant regarding your claim of white bias in the writing? This is a relationship issue between a male jerk character who can't get over the fact that her girlfriend loves another woman - completely unrelated to the color of skin of the characters.
If you mean that this white guy is portrayed in a bad light and pars pro toto that's a bias towards all other white characters: Amy seems someone who is very supportive of Maia so far, and I actually hope she's going to be much more important for Maia than anyone else in the show when it comes to her well-being. And I get a similar vibe from Colin, the character that's played by Justin Bartha und who's obviously the love interest for Lucca in TGF. Amy and Colin are recurring characters and sympathetic white characters, the ex-boyfriend won't come back again (hopefully). So, I don't understand why this ex boyfriend should be relevant for your claim of white bias in the writing?
Okay, this is the point on which I disagree with you the most. It's perfectly clear from episode 1 that Adrian's surprising job offer was Diane's last way out of her bad situation because all her white "friends" dumped her after the scandal in which she lost all her money. It's also explained why it had to be an "all black" law firm and why especially Adrian was willing to hire her - because he and his clients weren't involved in the all-white-fund and he needed Diane's knowledge regarding the police brutally cases. Diane was a pariah in her on white world, so the best choice for her was to take any job offer she could get - I think that's completely understandable from her situation.
But: How on earth do you think that this "all bIack" law firm is "written as the morally righteous law firm"? We are 4 episodes into this show, and you think this firm is morally any better than Diane's old firm? I mean, when Adrian tries to persuade Diane to join his firm he says something like: "You'll be on the right side again!" or something like that. This sentence alone should immediately raise a red flag in your head or ring some alarm bells, because that's some bs out of Adrian's mouth and you, as a viewer, should recognize it.
In fact, the whole episode 2 with the retail guy from the union is a show case of how this firm is morally as corrupt as any other company who wants to make money. All the black lawyers and Maia meet with those workers from the union knowing that they can't and won't really help - it's a nuisance to get the retainer. And when Lucca and Maia try to help Frank (one of those guys), it's all a matter of how much money the firm can make with him for themselves. It actually boils down to a business decision in which two white guys and their computer algorithms decide whether they will invest money to pursue the case - Frank doesn't really matter in this process anymore to them at all (except maybe for Maia and Lucca). And at the end, those two white guys - in an "all black" law firm! - decide to go on with the pre hearing and Frank looses everything (and the white financiers won't invest in the class action anymore).
It puzzles me how you can think that Reddick, Boseman & Kolstad is "written as the morally righteous law firm" after all that! The firm obviously puts their business model before the client to make money (the white union speaker Barry even calls Barbara out on that within the show), and the writers contradict the slogan "all black law firm" with those two white litigation financiers to make clear that this firm is not "all black" when it comes to their finances (episode 3 does the same with the manager Adrian and Barbara meet to speak about money). I don't understand at all how you can think they're morally any better than, for example, Diane's old firm?
Episode 1 makes clear that Reddick, Boseman & Kolstad is spezialized in defending black clients and making or trying to make money with cases of police brutality against black people (clients). That's why the case of episode 1 is about one hapless victim, Tobi Kendall, who was about to steal a car. A white victim of police brutality probably wouldn't be a client of this firm - what's wrong with that from the point of view of the writers of this show?
By "white knight figure" - do you mean Adrian and his "trouble" with Barbara about his job offer to Diane and hiring her? If you mean Adrian, how on earth do you think he's a "white knight figure"? Episode 1 and 2 made clear that hiring her was purposefully done by him because he thinks that Diane can help them in their police brutality cases in the long run. This was a business decision and not some chivalry because they are such good friends. In fact, there's some tension between Diane and Adrian when we as viewers see them at first in episode 1, and it will be interesting to see at which point Adrian might change the course or wants to change his decision. Adrian isn't a saint - dragging Maia and her relation to the ponzi scheme of her parents into court to get rid of a Judge isn't really something I would be proud of - it's pretty shady. So you seeing him as a "white knight figure" is not something I agree with at all.
Adrian, Barbara and Julius are all not "essentially depicted as morally and ethically proper", in my opinion. I think Lucca is the only one so far, and it will be interesting if she can survive with this "attitude". And Marissa is the child of Eli - so eavesdropping and all other kinds of shenanigans are in her genes. No, seriously, Marissa is obviously the go-to comical side kick of the show; you can't take all her actions seriously. The whole storyline around her, Maia and the new investigator Jay is by far the weakest part of TGF in my opinion - but I can't see why this is in any way related to your claim of white bias in the writing.
I don't understand who you actually mean by "three bIack attorneys"? Do you mean Adrian, Julius, Barbara, Lucca, her lawyer Yesha Mancini? And before all those black people who help her, there's foremost Diane, her white godmother, who's still on her side despite loosing all her savings due to Maia's parents, and Amy, her white girlfriend, who stands by her. Actually, Diane is responsible that Maia meets Adrian, Julius, Barbara and Lucca and can work at the new firm, and Amy contacted Yesha to be Maia's lawyer - so this point is completely void when it comes to your claim of white bias.
But how could you miss the brilliant payoff of this side plot in episode 3? The one black attorney, Julius Cain, someone we already know from TGW, is shunned for his political point of view by his own peers/colleagues who are also black, but liberal. So this is not at all a conflict between black/white, this is a conflict of how much your political opinion defines you as a person. It's stupid and irrational that, in a work environment like a law firm, the importance of being a conservative or democratic voter matters at all - but the situation in the US seems to be exactly that right now. And I think the writer of episode 3 made a great approach in showing this absurdity by letting Julius slowly becoming an outsider among "his own people" because of a single vote. And despite that Julius saved all of them a lot of money and secured their jobs - all of those people should be thankful to him that he stood up for his political beliefs. I loved this part of the episode - and again, Trump being white has absolutely nothing to do with people not liking him or even hating him. So I don't understand why you think this example shows white bias (by the way, all those black minor characters at the "all black" firm who shun Julius are also not "essentially depicted as morally and ethically proper" like you claimed before - just saying).
Again, Reddick, Boseman & Kolstad is spezialized in defending black clients, that's why the plaintiff Laura Solano is a black woman. I don't know why the writers decided to have a white couple in court as defendants - does it really matter? This case in episode 4 is so highly emotional, both parties are evenly duped by circumstances that are and were out of their hands and by people they trusted, in my opinion. On one hand, I think the reaction of Mr. Haight is harsh and shocking, but also understandable in his impulsiveness under those circumstances.
On the other hand, no matter how glad I am for Laura to have won this case, I still think it's very naïve of her to go over to the other side immediately after the ruling and hope they could "make up". She should have known that this would result in a harsh rejectionby the other couple, because this would be an understandable human reaction out of emotional frustration.
Anyway - I don't understand why you see any white bias in this regarding the writing, because the skin color doesn't really matter for this case. At least not in the short way it was presented - we don't really know why the Haights were so eager to use this specific egg of Laura? I actually would've loved to see more scenes with them to explain their motives, but those were all cut in the process of filming/editing. It's sad, because Laura obviously defines family and heritage about genetics and wants contact, while the Haights only seem to wish to be left alone on their own with a child they could love. Their difference in how to build/construct a family is obvious and I think it would've made for a much better presentation of the story.
This overarching theme you see in TGF is unmistakably all in your head. You are very selective and pick elements and characters out of context to prove a point, while, at the same time, ignore those elements and characters who contradict your prejudiced view. And that's sad, because this show - like TGW before - actually tries to present disparate aspects of certain matters and opinions to examine them and find ways to overcome stereotypes and prejudices. The creators might not always be successful in doing so, but at least they try. You, on the other hand, don't even seem to try to understand them, otherwise you wouldn't write something like this:
One last word to this:
I don't watch much tv, but I remembered that there were three articles about casting black/diverse people for shows that I read in the past regarding TGW:
Roland Laird: "Television's Evolution of the Major Black Antagonist"
Rohin Guha: "The Good Wife’s Bad Diversity Problem"
Laura Goode: " A Multiplicity of Shadows. The ramifications of allusive casting in prestige TV dramas"
Maybe you're interested in reading them? You might learn a thing or two.
Best wishes,
janar
"Love [...] is the most incredible gift to give and to receive as a human being." - Ellen Page
Reply by MongoLloyd
on March 10, 2017 at 2:52 PM
Why the F are you talking about another series?!?!?! Irrelevant.
What?!?!?! No, Trump wasn't even mentioned in the first episode. Have you seen it?
Uh huh, but why are all the serious "bad guys" white? That's my question. I'm aware of how, but why? I doubt we'll see an episode with a Russell Simmons character who fleeces other bIacks with a prepaid debit card scam.
*Irrelevant. *
I never cited the all bIack law firm as evidence of the subtext of the series being anti-white. I'm sure there are all bIack law firms in the US.
sigh...
Mark my words. A similar thing will not happen to any bIack characters in this series. In that world (that the writers created), bIacks will not be portrayed as anything less than noble, morally, and ethically correct and of the highest level of personal character. Whites will be bad and bIacks will be good.
It's is ONE example out of many of the anti-white agenda with the writing. I provided essentially a list of examples.
Again, I'm aware of the how, but as I keep saying - why? WHY are all the white characters f( )ckups, reprobates, losers, criminals, and morally bankrupt in varying degrees? Where's the back story on the bIack characters? They are all 2 dimensional. We know nothing of the inner life or history of Lucca Quinn, Adrian Boseman, or Barbara Kolstad. The only bIack attorney with any warts is the Trump voter.
WHAT?!?!?!?!?!? Are we watching the same series?
Good gosh, ALL law firms are money making enterprises. Get that? They are ALL equal in that regard. That is not relevant whatsoever.
Are you trolling me or what? Either that, or you completely miss my points. They showed at least 2 of the car thieves and both were more or less portrayed as hapless victims of police brutality. I don't recall much of a discussion about their actual crime, just the police brutality.
You keep giving reasons for the behavior and actions of characters like you're a psychologist, but I'm well aware of cause and effect. My questions are as always WHY, not how. All the white characters are portrayed as sketchy to downright criminal.
sigh...
The big picture shows "whites bad, bIacks good." Period. HOW they got that way is irrelevant. I never said the white characters are not supportive of one another. Yes, Boseman brought Lockhart into an all bIack law firm. That's essentially the point of departure for the whole series. Name ONE of any of the main bIack cast who have any warts? The worst thing I've seen was Lucca faking the British accent on the phone for Boseman, hahaha.
You have an uncanny knack for rationalizing every-single-thing that's biased against whites in this series. Congratulations.
And..? How is THIS detail even remotely relevant?
Yes, it matters, because it supports my assertion that bIacks are portrayed as good and whites are portrayed as evil. Repeatedly.
WHY are you constantly rehashing the intricacies of story lines? Irrelevant. Can you honestly see in actual reality a woman in her position offering to allow a complete stranger to "be part of an as yet unconceived and unborn child's life, etc." It's laughable.
Again, it is yet another example that supports my assertion. Not sure why you're confused by it. You DO understand how arguments are supported, right? With examples?
Reply by janar
on March 11, 2017 at 9:45 AM
@MongoLloyd,
I want to reply to your last point first, because it shows how much we differ in terms of how a good and productive discussion should look like in general. You wrote:
No, actually, I don't think that it is sufficient to support any argument in a discussion by a pile of examples. To be able to know where you're coming from it's necessary for me to understand how you interpret those examples within the context of your own reality, or, in this specific case, within the fictional context of the show we're talking about. I have to go through your thought process, and that's exactly what I tried to do in my earlier post: I took all your 11 examples one by one, compared it to the show and how I interpret it, in order to form my own opinion about your examples and how they support your assertion.
My conclusion, and that's why I don't agree with you at all about your claim of white bias in the writing and why I wrote my first reply to you: All your 11 examples are not supporting your assertion! I already explained why I think this way: You took most of your 11 examples out of the context of reality and/or the fictional world of TGF and it's predecessor TGW; some of them don't reflect the events that happened in the first 4 episodes; some of them can easily be refuted by counter examples; some of them are irrelevant regarding your assertion; a few of them include your own projection into events of future episodes, which can't be argued about; and a few of them are too cryptic for me to decipher their exact meaning.
An ideal reply by you - and to get this discussion going - would've been if you at least answered a few of my questions from my earlier post - but you didn't. That's sad, because there's not much joy to discuss something with someone who is unable to explain her/his point of view. But hey, let me go through your answers real quick:
Two things:
1.) I talk about another show because TGF is a spin off of this other show that ran 7 seasons. Diane is a character that is known by viewers for 7 seasons, the same goes for many other characters. It is not irrelevant at all to know their history - it's actually essential to understand how wrong your assertion is.
2.) It is unfair and misleading of you to quote only half of my original sentence. I wrote in my earlier post:
I put the important part of my sentence in bold. That's the subtext of TGF - and that is conceptually opposed to your assertion. And I was very clear about that in my earlier post, no matter how you try to manipulate my argumentation by cutting my sentence short.
Two things:
1.) Yes, I've seen episode 1, and it starts with Diane watching Donald Trump's inauguration on tv, with two people (including Trump himself) stating his full name in the first 20 seconds of the show. Why do you say he wasn't mentioned?
2.) So, if it wasn't Trump you meant in your first example - which person did you mean? You wrote this person is a "villain" in the first episode, who elicits hate en masse throughout multiple episodes, who is white, and who is based on a real white person. So, who did you mean?
Three things:
1.) I don't agree with you that all serious "bad guys" are white in the show (I already explained why).
2.) Diane's inner circle of people is/was mostly white and the show follows through from what happened in TGW (I already explained why).
3.) I googled Russell Simmons - that would make an interesting episode, actually. Let's wait and see if they come up with something like that? I don't share your doubt.
Not at all irrelevant (I already explained above why).
Two things:
1.) Your third example is: "The partners who wanted Diane Lockhart out - all white." Explain to me why this is "evidence of the subtext of the series being anti-white"? I'm sure there are all white law firms in the US.
2.) Once again, you selectively quote only one part of my original reply (only the second paragraph). In my first paragraph, I was describing why Diane's old firm is "all white" and mentioned several reasons for that. This second paragraph contrasts the first paragraph - and do you see my quotation of "all black"? (I already explained why I think this "all black" is just a slogan within the show).
I marked your words (I already explained why I think this is fundamentally wrong).
Two things:
1.) Again, I think your list of 11 examples doesn't support your assertion at all.
2.) For every example you pick, I could probably give you one that counters your argument. Let me do this in your simplistic view of the show (*):
Your assertion: The show is anti-white.
Your example: The ex boyfriend of Maia is white and portrayed as a shady jerk.
My counter example: Maia's current girlfriend is white and portrayed as a lovely partner.
My assertion: The show isn't anti-white.
(*) Important note: I don't think about characters in this simplistic way like you do. I just did that to meet your expectations here for once. As I already explained: For the creators of TGF (and TGW) it's important to (try to) show all their characters in a way that they're assumed to be both good and bad at the same time (with a few exceptions, maybe), mirroring human beings better than stereotypes we often see in other shows. Which means the ex boyfriend might come back chastened and as lovable as my neighbor's dog, and her current girlfriend can turn into a scheming, career-obsessed monster who makes her life hell. You would know that if you'd watched TGW.
Three things:
1.) "WHY are all the white characters f( )ckups, reprobates, losers, criminals, and morally bankrupt in varying degrees?"
They are not, you exaggerate. I am able to differentiate, and I and other posters here in this thread already gave you examples of white characters that are not matching your assertion.
2.) "Where's the back story on the bIack characters?"
It's slowly building up and I'm actually very interested in both Adrian and Barbara! I don't agree with you at all that they're both 2 dimensional, especially Barbara's resentment against Diane is something very intriguing for me. I really want to know why she's so opposed to Diane? At first I thought it's because she's concerned about the firm being overtaken by Diane, but I think there's much more to it. Their brilliant conversation about kids and work in episode 4 gave me the idea that Barbara looks up to Diana in some way, and I have a feeling that there's a mystery to unfold about her from her past (maybe a kid she abandoned due to her job, or a violent husband/parents). I'm definitely looking forward to learn more about her - that last sigh in the conversation was promising.
I already wrote about Adrian and him being not a "white knight" in my earlier post, so I skip that here. Lucca is a bit different because her story was tightly connected to Alicia in season 7 of TGW and the writers didn't really found a way to ground her character in something that defines her as her own person. She might get there with her love interest Colin, but I'm not really that interested in this, to be honest. And the Trump voter, Julius Cain - if you haven't seen him in TGW, you actually know nothing about him and his warts ...
I actually ask myself the same thing!
Lately I read the following urban expression in a comment: "Whataboutism". Is that what you just did, deflecting an argument with a relativization?
Anyway, your assertion in your original post was that the subtext of the show is undeniably that white people are morally bankrupt, and that blacks are morally superior. So if we speak in moral terms, I think it's shady of any lawyer despite the tone of her/his skin to pretend to preserve the interests of a client when - in fact - she/he only wants to make money. If you think that's "normal" in the country you live in, than both white and black lawyers are equally morally corrupt in my eyes. I wouldn't take such things as lightly as you do in my real life, and I know from TGW that exactly those grey areas of moral corruption are a favourite subject of the creators and part of the character's day-to-day struggle in the job. Neglecting and ignoring those moral deficiencies of the characters the way you do is missing out on a lot of what makes this show so good (and what made TGW great at most times).
Three things:
1.) "Are you trolling me or what?" - I actually ask myself the same thing about you, your original post, and your whole way of discussing things!
2.) No, they didn't show "at least 2 of the car thieves that both were more or less portrayed as hapless victims of police brutality". The first video, the one presented by Adrian Boseman, showed one man, Toby Kendall (played by Leopold Manswell), who was beaten by 3 white cops. He was the only victim of police brutality. The second man, Mister Hunter (played by John Clarence Stewart), wasn't a victim - he shot the first video on his cell phone while the cops were beating Toby Kendall. Mister Hunter was a witness, not a victim.
3.) If you "don't recall much of a discussion about their actual crime", you didn't understand a very important thing in this case: Diane's whole strategy was to connect both Toby and Mister Hunter as friends who were about to steal a car during that night. She was arguing that Mister Hunter was a complice in the theft to get this video out of evidence, or at least to question the motives of why he supposedly deleted footage at the beginning. The big question of the case was: Did Toby provoke the beating in any form or did the cops just beat him up unprovoked? Diane tried everything to put their crime into the foreground to win the case by insisting and insinuating that Toby did something illegal and the beating by the cops was justified.
As to why Toby is a black character? Again, because the firm mostly represents black clients (already explained in my earlier post).
No, they are not - see above. And again, when interpreting characters of tv shows like TGF it is necessary for me to try to understand the actions they take, the emotions they go through, the decisions they make, and the motives they follow when doing something. This is not psychology, this is trying to understand what I watch (in literary studies, it's called hermeneutics). This always includes the why, but I take my time to think things through and challenge my own ideals, opinions, assertions and suspicions about what I see. You obviously don't do that, otherwise you wouldn't speak of "cause and effect" when it comes to human interactions (and you wouldn't make such an assertion about this show).
Two things:
1.) Your assertion isn't supported by you stating: "Period." I need better examples than the 11 you already gave, because those don't convince me at all of your claim that this show is anti-white and pro-black.
2.) See above regarding black people with warts, and accompanied by my note that this show is trying to present every character as both with good and bad character traits.
Thanks! Perhaps that's because I can see past my own prejudices and am not stuck in my own judgemental head like you?
Wait for it, at the end of the next sentence you quote I ask: "Does it really matter?" This detail, the skin tone, isn't remotely relevant for this case - and your assertion!
So you're saying the choice of casting a character supports your assertion no matter how you interpret what's happening with this character and how you think whether she/he's good or bad. This is completely absurd in my opinion - without interpretation, you can't even say if someone is good/bad.
Two things:
1.) What you call "constantly rehashing the intricacies of story lines" is me telling you how I interpret the events of the show. All viewers watch with their own eyes and thoughts - and for me, in a discussion like this one, it's really fundamental to try to understand each other's point of view. That's why I ask(ed) so many questions to you, and that's why I try to explain to you how I interpret the show. I would love to hear from you how you watch those scenes, but you are obviously trapped in your own prejudices and are not able to give your interpretation.
2.) No, it's hard to imagine a woman like Laura Solano in reality. That's why I wrote it's naïve of her to go over to the other side immediately after the ruling and hope they could "make up" - she should've known better. I mentioned this because I wanted to explain to you that the conflict between Mr. & Mrs. Haight vs. Laura isn't one that is in any way determined by their tone of skin. So this last of your 11 examples is also void regarding your assertion of white bias in the writing of this show.
I think that's all I have to say. Puh, that was a lot ...
Best wishes,
janar
"Love [...] is the most incredible gift to give and to receive as a human being." - Ellen Page
Reply by Imzadi
on March 11, 2017 at 4:03 PM
@janar72: Thank you, that was a very thoughtful and thorough analysis. I couldn't agree more, but wouldn't be able to express it as well as you did.
Reply by janar
on March 12, 2017 at 5:31 PM
@Imzadi said:
Thanks for your comment! It took me several hours to write it, actually, and it's lovely to know that someone read it!
Best wishes,
janar
"Love [...] is the most incredible gift to give and to receive as a human being." - Ellen Page
Reply by working_girl
on March 21, 2017 at 3:11 PM
Hey, MongolLloyd, last episode was all about you, wasn't it? Thank goodness there's an Ignore button here too. Bye bye!