He does push back but I think part of the issue is that he’s often not smart or knowledgeable enough to know when to do so. Case in point in the video above when the guy says he was unable to find out what’s covered by ‘protected classes.’ That’s clearly bullshit. Protected classes are defined by the federal government and are listed on multiple government websites, to say nothing of Wikipedia.
I don’t think that at all. Humans like groups, we like bubbles of other people who are similar, easy to identify with and easy to understand.
Racism isn’t a difficult sell, pointing at the “other”, singling it out, blaming it for problems, is easy and it works. it provides an easy answer and an easy target.
Combine that with nationalism, a flag to wave and an imagined history to celebrate and you’ve got something that a lot of people are drawn to. Getting them to draw back takes work. It takes a continued awareness, education and confrontation.
Western society is complacent about this and lazy about the effort needed.
Extreme ideologies are out there, under the surface, waiting to pop up at the earliest opportunity.
That does stand out to me when I watch his podcasts or excerpts. Like Jim points out, I think he is more concerned about not looking too dumb when interviewing a smart guest. Also, I doubt he’s really done or has time to do serious preparation for the interviews. So, he’s going to be reluctant to question some things like when Jordan Peterson claims no one wants to debate him publicly.
However, he’s not promoting any radical ideas and he’s certainly not the primary introduction most people get to these ideas. Youtube, Facebook, Google all use algorithms to actively respond to passive viewing habits so as soon as a person views a few videos or sites on a certain topic, they are going to find more videos and links waiting for them next time. The people behind these sites also actively know how to promote that as well.
Debated whether to put this here or in the DC Television Thread:
See, the problem I have is we cannot have “hate crimes” on the books (some of which are very specific about Naziism and KKK specifically) while allowing the same groups to exist, gather, and even have a spokesman as POTUS. (Yes, I do think he’s that bad.) The only reason such crimes are allowed is twofold; inadequate police enforcement (for whatever reason(s) , and collusion from authority.
Batman has always been from the rich establishment. His cover is that no-one thinks Bruce Wayne would do this.
So if we’re talking about that being a fundamental part of his character, the question is; has the establishment in America changed? Can we see a third or fourth generation billionaire who isn’t white?
If so, then Batman can be any ethnicity.
Of course, if Bruce doesn’t need to be that sort of a guy, then he can be anyone.
But is he still Batman if he’s not Bruce Wayne, the prince of Gotham?
Yeah, but a whole lot more of the Paul Pope version.
There have been opportunities for legacy characters to be Latino, Asian, African, Polish, female and so on. However, what interested me is not only are Batman and all the other heroes of Gotham City white in the comics, but the majority of the criminals are white as well.
Would we have the same opinion of Batman if he was going around beating the crap out of poor black kids or Mexican drug dealers in mostly non-white neighborhoods?
I remember the question coming up around the time they were casting Tony Stark too.
I remember thinking at the time that Stark was a character they could easily cast with a black actor (I even was quite fond of the idea of DB Woodside being cast in the role), and I don’t think there is any reason why the character couldn’t be played by a non-white actor.
I agree it’s slightly different for Bruce Wayne, as he’s ‘old money’ and there are historical/timeframe issues that go along with that. But the more time goes on the more likely it becomes, I think.
Another generation and he’d still be the Bruce we know. Doing it now would be more aspirational.
But if someone wants to reinvent him a bit, it’s probably worth exploring in a comic, or (as the article says) in a TV show.
Having said that, if Will Smith, at the height of his fame, had lobbied to play Bruce, they’d probably have seriously considered it.
I think if you make Bruce Wayne black then everything ends up being about his skin color as it’s a definitive difference. I understand the desire for more diversity in entertainment but think it’s misguided to rescast long established characters. Just create a character who’s Batman like who’s also black. We saw a black Batman with Supreme Power.
Millar does this nicely in the upcoming Prodigy. The lead is black but it made no difference at all to the script. He could have been anything. He could have been a she. Didn’t matter. I prefer that kind of writing.
I don’t know - I can see how that might be true initially, but I think that it wouldn’t take long before the novelty wore off and you were just telling Batman stories with a black actor. A bit like The Doctor becoming a woman. The fuss would be outside the Batman movies, not in the stories themselves.
To be honest though I think Bond is a more likely imminent candidate than Batman for ‘colourblind’ casting. I think part of the regular mooting of Idris Elba is probably partly to test public perception of that possibility. With the right actor I think it would be fine, and wouldn’t overshadow the stories being told.
That one’s easy…
Batman? No, he can be any(one) color under the cowl.
Bruce Wayne? Yes, it’s part of his identity.
Same goes for Spider-man, for exemple. I have no issue with a black Spider-man as long as it ain’t black Peter Parker… and look at how much better it is to have a Miles Morales and a Mig O’Hara, instead of black/latino PP.
Didn’t someone write a story about a black Bruce Wayne, heir to a family fortune based on funeral homes?
I’m sure I read that years ago…
ugh… I had thankfully managed to forget those… so thanks for remindind me…
Yeah, it was an Elseworlds proposal written by Dwayne McDuffie (RIP).
The Doctor I think is more flexible - it’s in the character for the Doctor to become many different people.
I think a trick was missed by not making James Bond a code name, assigned to a different secret agent during each era. I’m still not sure Jane Bond would be much of a success.
Sherlock is an interesting character, could he be a she, or could he be of a different ethnicity (or nationality for that matter).
It can be argued that any fictional character could be interpreted as something new (could the Joker be a woman, could Superman be played an Asian). It all feels like silly games though. Recasting feels like a current fad in lieu of creating good new roles for diverse casts.
Yeah, Doctor Who is whole different thing, where it’s built into the character that he/she becomes an entirely new person every few years.
Aside from being a really interesting idea on its own — in a Moorcocky Eternal Champiob sort of way — it’s a brilliant way to handle recasting. They can bring in any new actor and nobody can complain that the new person doesn’t look or act enough like the previous one.
That’s always the feeling I’ve gotten from Rogan, that he’s a libertarian (ie, a “republican without religion”), which, is, in and of itself, kind of a broad ideological spectrum, even though most of them lean pretty far right. A lot of self-identified libertarians are just down-the-line right-wingers, while others can tend to be hedonistic and anti-authoritarian, though when push comes to shove, they usually side with republicans and conservatives.
But I honestly don’t know much about Rogan, other than he’s a comedian who hosted Fear Factor. I don’t listen to his podcast, or any podcast for that matter, becaus I don’t want to waste two hours of my listening to something when I could read the same content in under five minutes.