Your Villain Is Served - Middle Aged White Man

[Duty]

When visiting an activism meeting last year I was struck by the organiser's shameless usage of the phrase "middle age white men" as being the source of the world's ills. Given the context of the fact the villains in virtually every film/series of the last....er...25? Years have been overwhelmingly middle age white men, perhaps that organiser's ageist, racist, sexist views are understandable...to a degree (which they doubtless lacked, by my reckoning)...but no, not really...surely...thoughts AF?

[Apollo]

When visiting an activism meeting last year I was struck by the organiser's shameless usage of the phrase "middle age white men" as being the source of the world's ills. Given the context of the fact the villains in virtually every film/series of the last....er...25? Years have been overwhelmingly middle age white men, perhaps that organiser's ageist, racist, sexist views are understandable...to a degree (which they doubtless lacked, by my reckoning)...but no, not really...surely...thoughts AF?

I think one day we will run out of social classifications and start saying the villain—this will carry on for a while till we’ll realize we need to be even more categorically more politically correct and we will start calling the villain “a human”.

[Duty]

I'm sorry Apollo, but I can discern no coherent meaning from your post 

[onlinebiker]

The Rules (this year)

1. If you make an assessment of someone based on skin color - you are racist.

2. If you make an assessment of someone based on their genitalia - you are sexist.

3. If you make an assessment of someone based on the number of years they have lived - you are ageist.

4. Unless it's a middle aged white male. Then he simply fits the profile.


....


Stay tuned for revisions.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I'm sorry Apollo, but I can discern no coherent meaning from your post 

I think what Apollo means is todays term or classification being "Middle aged white man evil" will simply be parsed down (Due to expediency or more likely humanity's natural indolence) to just "Villain" to describe the causes of the world's evils.

[Fake Messiah]

When visiting an activism meeting last year I was struck by the organiser's shameless usage of the phrase "middle age white men" as being the source of the world's ills. Given the context of the fact the villains in virtually every film/series of the last....er...25? Years have been overwhelmingly middle age white men, perhaps that organiser's ageist, racist, sexist views are understandable...to a degree (which they doubtless lacked, by my reckoning)...but no, not really...surely...thoughts AF?

I don't know about TV shows I mean the currently most popular TV show, The Mandalorian, features a black middle aged man as a villain.

But you know how it is: it is usually the privileged middle aged white men who run everything from religion, presidency, Senate, Congress, army, the Fortune 500; the wizards behind Hollywood and five-hundred-channel TV... so when the shit hits the fan people start asking if perhaps diversity would fix things.

[Apollo]

When 9/11 happened they started looking for Muslim men at airports. Someone pointed out there are billions of Muslim men in the world so you shouldn’t racially profile—then there were some black and white convert muslim perpetrators too in subsequent terrorist attempts.

So western folks got down to patting everyone on the airport without distinction—which is totally fine but no one asked the question, even though there are billions of Muslim men in the world, there are really very few on any given airport in US—so you don’t need to consider a billion but rather few dozen every day—so perhaps little bit racial or religious profiling is ok?

Then a lot of gun violence related incidents happened in US and the white man terrorism appeared on the scene. But there is a problem with that narrative that some liberals mindlessly accepted: Muslims killed because of their religion—whites didn’t kill because of their whiteness —yes, many did kill because of racial issues (NC church shooting for example) so in many cases it’s justified to use the term but on its own in all other cases it’s just a term to appease far left woke liberal. When majority of people in a country are white, chances are violence is going to be committed mostly by those whites unless something like 9/11 happens.

So the terrorism and violence having to so with race or religion needs to be called out as such but when you just say white man violence you’re bunching up even violence that has nothing to do with race at all. So this whit man villain only makes sense in racially motivated crimes but at the same time the term itself encapsulates pretty much every white man in the country.

This is like going to a Muslim majority country and calling all violence there islamic terrorism while only fraction of it will be motivated by religion.

[Rev. Rye]

But you know how it is: it is usually the privileged middle aged white men who run everything from religion, presidency, Senate, Congress, army, the Fortune 500; the wizards behind Hollywood and five-hundred-channel TV... so when the shit hits the fan people start asking if perhaps diversity would fix things.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head there. The reason people vilify middle-aged white men is because they’re the ones in power pretty much everywhere (well, everywhere white people are in charge, anyway.)

That said, I doubt diversity will fix things. It’s nice, I suppose, but, frankly, it’s not their age or their gender or their melanin content that’s the problem; it’s their power. While I do think these factors may affect how they fuck people over, I’ve never been fully convinced that if we had enough people in power to cover all the identity bases, the bad parts would somehow all just cancel each other out; we’re all the same species, breathing the same toxic air, raised in similarly fucked-up cultural superstructures that are all but ensuring that society becomes a behavioral sink, and partaking in the same fundamentally ethically-fraught exercise as before. How different will it really be?

[Apollo]

When visiting an activism meeting last year I was struck by the organiser's shameless usage of the phrase "middle age white men" as being the source of the world's ills. Given the context of the fact the villains in virtually every film/series of the last....er...25? Years have been overwhelmingly middle age white men, perhaps that organiser's ageist, racist, sexist views are understandable...to a degree (which they doubtless lacked, by my reckoning)...but no, not really...surely...thoughts AF?

I don't know about TV shows I mean the currently most popular TV show, The Mandalorian, features a black middle aged man as a villain.

But you know how it is: it is usually the privileged middle aged white men who run everything from religion, presidency, Senate, Congress, army, the Fortune 500; the wizards behind Hollywood and five-hundred-channel TV... so when the shit hits the fan people start asking if perhaps diversity would fix things.

No shit. White man is the predominant force in the world vis a vis western civilization—but too many problems with this term though—not the least that it should be “white people” and not “white man”.

When you have progressed enough to the point where you’re are the most advanced civilization in the world then of course you’d have a bit of say is pretty much all major affairs of the world that catches attention. It would be same if brown or black or yellow or orange or green or purple people would be in that position—you’d see purple everywhere—so this doesn’t really mean shit.

Question is, how much the supreme power has helped to make life of rest of the denizens of the world better or worse? The answer to that question is that world has only improved thanks to scientific humanism of past few centuries emerging from western hemisphere of the earth.

Data tells us in terms of poverty, life expectancy, quality of life, education, women empowerment, violence, healthcare, food production, and many many other metrics that world has improved a lot in past few centuries.

[Duty]

When visiting an activism meeting last year I was struck by the organiser's shameless usage of the phrase "middle age white men" as being the source of the world's ills. Given the context of the fact the villains in virtually every film/series of the last....er...25? Years have been overwhelmingly middle age white men, perhaps that organiser's ageist, racist, sexist views are understandable...to a degree (which they doubtless lacked, by my reckoning)...but no, not really...surely...thoughts AF?

I don't know about TV shows I mean the currently most popular TV show, The Mandalorian, features a black middle aged man as a villain.

I think a lot can happen in a year and "Hollywood" is getting better on this...in a way. Case in point - in (2020) series 2 of "His Dark Materials" - a TV show from Britain based on the...anthemic...trilogy of books by Philip Pullman, the (villainous) character Lord Boreal is played by a black looking man. When I viewed this depiction it just didn't sit right...I simply couldn't view the man as being villainous. Incompetent, shallow and naïve, yes (and aren't we all?) but villainous, as he very clearly was in the books? Nope, not at all. Such and thus I have been conditioned through the culture methinks - black looking people are incapable of crime/villainy.

ETA: perhaps my viewing the character in HDM character in that way was due to that actor's, and the director's too, inability/reluctance to play a black looking man as a true blue baddy.