So this is just based on me playing a twitter leftie who was saying the race swapped Newton was ok because it was for entertainment not historical purposes.
So for this I prosed two possible people (intentional choices) for which it would or would not be appropriate to race swap: Genghis Khan and Shaka Zulu
He said khan played by a white man would be ok, but not Zulu, and claimed it was because Zulus legacy and conflict was racial. This of course was not true but is part of the “evil whites of history” programming.
So then I poised him the question of why Khan, who engaged in ethnic genocide, slavery, and subjugation was acceptable to be portrayed as white, but Zulu who warred with the British could not be? Wouldn’t it be just as racial for an Asian who conquered whites as whites who conquered blacks?
This of course ended in error 404 “it’s not the same” which is the end result I expected, but was still entertained to watch the squirming of the cognitive dissonance when you pluck the worm into plain light.
"it's just entertainment"
Propaganda is propaganda, and propaganda works.
"it's just children stories"
Children stories are often lessons encapsulated in entertainment, and offer a foundation for morals and ethics. If you look at Children stories from long ago - Winnie the Pooh, Calvin and Hobbes, Hans Cristen Anderson - the entire point is that they're teaching intrinsic lessons to children by showing them cause and effect, or leaving them with questions that they themselves have to answer. Hence, if you're trying to sell children stories that are wildly at-odds with society, you're attacking the basics of morality and ethics as taught to small children. Stop grooming.
"you're racist"
Don't care.
"why are you triggered"
If it's important enough for you to bring up, it's important enough to push back, otherwise you wouldn't be doing it.
"lol rentfree"
Shut up, Kafka.
They forgot to include "Number of blacks killed by cops". Liberals think that blacks are being massacred by the thousands when in reality its only like a dozen or so a year.
Yeap. There's another link I had from pew research that I seem to have misplaced that went into all that and more - including the percentage spread of how many people think the population of ethnic minorities are and whatnot - but I can't find it again, and my searching has turned up nothing.
Backups, people. Learn from my mistake and always backup this shit.
Even I, someone who loves to debate so much my username refers to the man that popularised the dialectic, will say don't bother trying to argue with the kind of leftists that support race swapping, they're a lost cause.
It's a fetish, they love the idea of some brown men coming in and taking all their ancestors cultural and scientific achievements in a weird cuckoldry way. They'll say anything to not admit that it's the case but that is what it is.
"haha niggers steal everything" and watch them seethe
Ah, yes. The famous greek philosopher, Soctates...
As always, the reason to engage these lost causes in debate is for the audience watching it, not to convert or convince the idiot of anything.
Zulu also was very cruel and brutal to the neighboring tribes. Not sure if he had slaves. I have an idea for a Shaka Zulu played by a blonde haired blue eyed Nordic woman
Oh Zulu and Khan both get the “noble savage” kid gloves when talked about. Zulus “colonized” the region the British wanted before the British “colonized” it.
I actually learned about that from Sowell when he was talking about land conquest across the world, but only the west gets criticism for it.
I have also heard the argument that you can’t race swap black panther because his race is part of the story. I seem to remember reading Little Mermaid and it was very descriptive about her skin tone. Or the garbage show Anne Boyelin
So race swap him with an Asian guy then?
*Shaka shows up during the nuclear age
"I demand the secret of WHEEL!"
Really? Never heard that
Didn’t his brothers assassinate him too?
Shit they bitched and moaned about a white dude playing the main in Prince of Persia (despite him looking tanned enough to pass imo).
Its never about entertainment or history. It's about appropriating culture and making sure it only goes one direction.
These people just can't be reasoned with. Not that I'm saying not to do it in order to make them ridiculous.
That said, many on the left regard Genghis Khan positively.
It’s the noble savage trope in real time. Non white “colonists” and conquerors have all their negative traits washed away and positives exemplified while white “colonists” and conquerors are held under a microscope while all the positives they brought are sold as evils.
Traits that are part of the DNA of a huge chunk of people living today kek. That man loved the ladies
Another good counter is “Why don’t they touch Ann Frank? How about Schindler’s List? How about a black Robert E Lee?”
If race swapping white people is OK, then so is race swapping blacks, indians, and hispanics. This is the standard they want, so they get to live with it. Fuck them if they cannot handle it.
By engaging with the argument at all, you give it legitimacy and thereby concede they are correct in a amount to have the discussion even if they are wrong.
Also Khan was played by fucking John Wayne in a movie already once which went over exactly as well then as it would now. It also is likely responsible for his cancer and most of the crew's cancer due to being filmed around a bunch of radiation.
I just point out that it's propaganda to justify anti-white (you can sub a specific white ethnicity there if you aren't American) policies IRL.
Something I find interesting is that they HAVE to race swap, because they've made the stories and history of everyone else off limits.
Think about it. Any display of an ethnic nationality other than white (or gag white-passing) is immediately labeled a racist stereotype and offensive, doubly so if it's a historical representation of a native culture. It makes everything that's not a safe "current year" narrative downright radioactive. And if you try to steep everything in a fantasy setting, they'll declare everything be "coded." Everything must have a real-life analogue that must be apologized for.
It's just another cog in the homogenization machine.
These arguments don't work on leftists, brother.
To us, swapping one race for another race and comparing separate but similar fact patterns is a fair exercise (and an exercise in fairness). Leftists don't see it like that. Analogous situations involving race swaps for us are not equivalent to leftists, because leftists do not actually believe white = black = brown = Asian = Jew etc. Leftists put blacks ahead of whites, therefore black =/= white, but black > white.
As soon as that kind of perspective is in play, pointing out hypocrisy or double standards or different outcomes in identical-but-race-swapped situations is meaningless.
Not to be a doomer about this, but many have tried. All have failed.
You can dismantle every single argument they have.
You can destroy each of the tenets of their culty religion in front of their faces, with factual evidence.
They won't believe you and they won't stop thinking that way.
They're indoctrinated into the cult. It's too late for many of them.
Those that have not been fully indoctrinated yet may still have a shot.
But it's a snowball's chance in hell for the rest.
Even entertaining their arguments is a losing prospect.
"If it's OK for a white guy to be race-swapped for entertainment purposes, then it's OK to make the Jesus of Faith white for faith-based purposes, The Historical Jesus can still be a little brown mensch, but that's not who the movies are out to depict."
I don't think Ghengis Khan should be "white". In the grand scheme of human genomic expression, isn't he on the Asian branch?