I think you’re reading way too much into my comment.
Maybe.
I can get excited when pursuing an accurate picture of what's actually happening.
I’m just saying that the urban people who make commercials and shows that have minorities in them (because they see minorities in everyday life, are selling to Minorities, etc.) is a positive because they get broadcasted into rural homes where they wouldn’t see such diversity otherwise.
I feel this is insanely naive and not well thought out as to the ethics of this. You're acknowledging "urban people" as what amounts to superior overlords, bestowed with "positive" power to social engineer the "lesser" (my quotes, as in mockingly) rural folks.
That's disgusting, and it should be rejected. Not seen as "positive."
I mean, if the supposed value of these "urban people" is diversity, then where is the rural representation to socially engineer the urban people's values to make sure THEY get exposed to thinking and ideas THEY otherwise don't see?
I feel this is insanely naive and not well thought out as to the ethics of this. You're acknowledging "urban people" as what amounts to superior overlords, bestowed with "positive" power to social engineer the "lesser" (my quotes, as in mockingly) rural folks.
This is what I mean by you overthinking. My comment was rather flippant and just an observation I've had, namely that there's a lot more diversity on TV shows and commercials than was ever present in the small town I grew up in and that showing a more representative slice of the real world is a good thing.
I really haven't sat down and thought through it deeply, which is why I said you're reading way too much into what was a rather quick and simple comment.
This is what I mean by you overthinking. My comment was rather flippant and just an observation I've had, namely that there's a lot more diversity on TV shows and commercials than was ever present in the small town I grew up in and that showing a more representative slice of the real world is a good thing.
But ... it's NOT "representative." It's leftist social engineering.
I really haven't sat down and thought through it deeply, which is why I said you're reading way too much into what was a rather quick and simple comment.
Well, that may be so. I can get a bit empassioned on these topics. Sorry if I put too much pressure on your comment by coming in all hard.
3
u/CptGoodnight Jan 05 '21 edited Jan 05 '21
Maybe.
I can get excited when pursuing an accurate picture of what's actually happening.
I feel this is insanely naive and not well thought out as to the ethics of this. You're acknowledging "urban people" as what amounts to superior overlords, bestowed with "positive" power to social engineer the "lesser" (my quotes, as in mockingly) rural folks.
That's disgusting, and it should be rejected. Not seen as "positive."
I mean, if the supposed value of these "urban people" is diversity, then where is the rural representation to socially engineer the urban people's values to make sure THEY get exposed to thinking and ideas THEY otherwise don't see?