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.
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.