Resolved: Disney Should Include Greater Social Diversity
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Full Resolution is as follows...
Resolved: Disney Movies and Shows Should Include Greater Social Diversity (representation of people of color, women, LGBT+ community, etc.)
No semantic arguments allowed.
Burden of proof is shared.
Framework
Representation in media is when a wide and diverse cast of characters is shown. For most mainstream entertainment the main protagonists are usually straight and white. Children will think that these characters are the "default" or perhaps even stronger/privileged. As a result, this perpetuates the racial divide that we still have in the United States. Sometimes it even goes beyond a lack of representation and villainizes the groups. For a long period, we saw the LGBT community as lecherous. We queer-coded many villains in films with stereotypical gay traits. Disney has several: Scar, Jaffar, and Ursula, who did not conform to the standards of beauty for women. The separation of villain and hero implants ideas of gender roles on children [1]. Therefore, for the sake of the future of their development, it is necessary to represent all groups of people in Disney films.
I. Inadequate representation, profit vs equality
As for minorities, African Americans and Hispanic protagonists are much less common than their white counterparts. Things like Black face and whitewashing were common for the industry with films such as The Conquer (1956) in which the white actor John Wayne played the Mongolian leader Genghis khan or in 1965’s Othello in which Laurence Olivier was covered in dark makeup reminiscent of minstrel shows. More recent examples include Jake Gyllenhaal playing a Persian prince in The Prince of Persia.
There have been steps taken to decreasing this divide. After the Stonewall Riot in which the police raided a gay bar in New York resulting in the patrons fighting back against officers, the LGBT+ community fought for more accurate representation in the media [2]. Sows like The Ellen Show gave insight into the coming out process and in 1991 The Roc had the first gay wedding show on television. These were monumental events in changing the perception of the LGBT+ community to a mainstream audience and helped people understand that they were not the evil group that some painted them as. That is why major studios need to push for good representation to help people overcome their biases.
According to Bizvibe the top four film studios in the US are Universal, Warner Bros., Columbia, and Disney [3]. These studios and the franchises they have control over have an enormous amount of influence over mainstream entertainment especially Disney. These studios must lead the charge for good representation in their films. However, Disney has not been as inclusive as you would want people to believe.
For example, Disney owns Marvel's studios. The Cinematic Universe has been building over the course of twelve years. Yet it wasn’t until last year that a woman had the main lead in one of their movies with Captain Marvel (2019). This reaffirms that many films still show more importance to men over women [1]. As for LGBT+ representation, the MCU has only had one instance of showing any kind of gay relationship. In Avengers: Endgame (2019) we see a nameless man talk about losing his partner and going on a date for the first time since he died. This character's short presentation was a poor attempt at representation for the largest box office movie of all time.
Many of the creators at Disney push for representation in the films that they create. The aforementioned gay character in Avengers: Endgame was played by one of the film's directors Joe Russo. However, the studio itself has displayed putting its financial interests over those of less represented groups. For example, in the latest entry into the Star Wars film franchise Rise of Skywalker (2019), we saw the first representation of LGBT+ in the films. Another quick shot of two women kissing in celebration at the end of the film was cut from the film when released in Singapore [4]. The country still criminalizes homosexuality and places harsher ratings on films that display it. Disney infers that profits will come before representation. But it seems absurd that equality is less important than mere profits -- it would infer that we could justify oppression of minorities so long as the majority does not notice and benefits from it.
We have a systemic bias against women, people of color, and the LGBT+. Because of this whether production studios intentionally or not this means that there is an advantage to being white when creators are fighting for a chance to bring their ideas to life. This same bias is seen in the management of studios. Often, white men decide whether to greenlight a production or not. These biases affect all of us whether it’s a conscious decision or not. That’s why it's important to be aware of the inherent biases that we all possess and to seek out new voices and stories to be told.
II. Underrepresentation of Women
The way that we see the world is shocking compared to real-life statistics. Male characters outweigh female characters three to one and the % of women with jobs is a 20% difference. Most shocking is that women only made up 17 percent of people in crowd scenes [5]. If that’s just the statistic for women imagine the discrepancies compared to LGBT+ and people of color. The world is full of perspectives and stories and mainstream entertainment is not showing them.
Disney has made a stride for more representation over the past few years than others. In their tv shows like Amphibia, we see a much greater diverse cast of characters than we’ve seen in past children’s shows with the main character Anne Boonchuy being the first Thai-American lead in an animated series. Another one of its shows The Owl house has its lead, Luz Noceda, being the first bisexual protagonist in a children’s show. This is entire because the show’s creator, Danna Terrace is Bi and wanted to create a character that was also bi. These positive examples of representation are wonderful to see from such an influential studio especially since it is directed at a younger audience. However, this progressive attitude has not carried over to their main line of Disney films. Admittedly, Disney's representation of women and people of color in films has grown, such as Frozen and Moana. However, the same cannot be said for the LGBT+ community. None of the films across Disney’s long history has had an explicitly gay main character. They have tiptoed around the issue but has never been explicit on the issue.
Representation is crucial for developing children. Entertainment's views affect how children view stereotypes, the careers that they can pursue, and the way that they feel about their appearance [1]. These ideas do not match the reality of the world that we live in. The better we represent the real world, the more knowledge we have to change it.
Data shows that more unique films that don’t conform to genre typical narrative arcs are better received by both general audiences and film critics [6]. Word of mouth is one of the most effective marketing strategies available to companies and people tend to talk about good and unique films. This could be very advantageous to studios and could be beneficial to both society and profits. That is why I propose Disney set up several programs with the intent of focusing on the stories from creators that are women, people of color, and the LGBT+ community to have a more diverse and equal entertainment industry.
1. wnywomensfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/08/16.-Watching-Gender-How-Stereotypes-in-Movies-and-on-TV-Impact-Kids-Development.pdf
2.go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA530045247&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00097101&p=LitRC&sw=w
3. bizvibe.com/blog/top-movie-production-companies
4. theverge.com/2019/12/24/21036427/star-wars-disney-rise-of-skywalker-singapore-kiss-ban
5. mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/addressing-unconscious-bias
6. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-018-1168-7
"When most type of characters are relatively equally shown, that is when the equality in representation is displayed."
- Gender: Is PRO willing to concede that gender is binary in order to divide roles between men and women equally? Or do we have to include the dozens of genders that are now out there as well. (PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING QUESTION IN YOUR RESPONSE) How many genders should be represented "relatively equally?"
- Sexuality: Should roles be divided between heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals (around 33% of each)? Or should we also include pansexuals, graysexuals, and non-libidoist asexuals "relatively equally?"
- Ethnicity: Do we only base identifying characteristics on skin color, or do we also include national heritage? What about groups in multiple countries that share an ethnic heritage? Should Disney represent all ethnicities, nationalities, and skin colors of the world "relatively equally?" How is this measured?
"Con has decided to ask two simple questions that only address small worries, rather than the overarching argument."
- What Changes [Should Disney Make]?
- Why Should Disney Make These Changes?
Representation in media is when a wide and diverse cast of characters is shown. For most mainstream entertainment the main protagonists are usually straight and white. Children will think that these characters are the "default" or perhaps even stronger/privileged. As a result, this perpetuates the racial divide that we still have in the United States. Sometimes it even goes beyond a lack of representation and villainizes the groups. For a long period, we saw the LGBT community as lecherous. We queer-coded many villains in films with stereotypical gay traits. Disney has several: Scar, Jaffar, and Ursula, who did not conform to the standards of beauty for women. The separation of villain and hero implants ideas of gender roles on children [1]. Therefore, for the sake of the future of their development, it is necessary to represent all groups of people in Disney films.
Con returns with his "reductio ad absurdum" argument. He claims that the plan will never work because it is far too arbitrary and may perpetuate equality in an opposing manner. He is worried that my greater representation of minorities will lead to the problem of having to represent absolutely everyone and every group. But I argue that the examples he gave are simply absurd. Of course, it would be silly to have the next Disney movie to have a cisgender black woman who is asexual, merely for the "Greater representation". But the steel man would be merely to represent minor races, LGBT in general, and women more in the Disney movies. Sure, adding the cisgender black woman would fulfill my burden, but "woman main character" alone is already fighting against gender inequality. So long as we are fixing some inequality in the structure, does it matter how absurdly generic or how specific it gets? Does it matter to split it equally between homosexual, bisexual, etc? Con's "issue" is a nonissue.
Con repeats that we have no moral obligation to help enforce equality as a standard in the US, despite my claim that Disney is meant to support a child's thinking, and that the classical films all add onto values such as altruism, virtue, and kindness, all of which Con would claim that has no "obligation" to do. And he has also not upheld his thinking. He infers that Disney follows egoistic moral ethics by only following the financial gain, but also ignores the current pattern where it may gain further critical acclaim by including a diverse cast of characters. He has not provided any moral obligation for his case as well. Why is Disney obligated to follow the money? Why should Disney ignore the inequality that stems from the underrepresentation of colored people and women? It seems far more absurd for a moral obligation to support the con case than mine. So in the end, my net benefit framework should be taken over his moral framework, because "moral obligation to support the status quo" seems even more insane than a moral obligation to support the ideals of equality and rights. Notice how Con FAILED to negate my "right to work" argument that is loosely related to Disney's case. He has FAILED to address how minimum wage is not necessarily a moral issue, yet the net benefits analysis can successfully allow the government to implement a minimum wage. Similarly, the net benefit to fighting racism and receiving greater public support outweighs the seeming impossibility to "include greater social diversity".
Con asks two absurd questions that undermine his credibility and his entire case. I will answer them here.
My point about how Disney should decide whether or not to include certain groups like pedophiles went unaddressed. Should Disney include such categories as pedophiles when deciding what groups to represent, why or why not?
I believe I addressed this in my statement with how the group of people that represented is a significant amount of the population and enhances our natural rights to express ourselves without harming others. Notice how I continuously supported human dignity and respect, both of which Con seems to disprove. We disregard pedophiles due to their inherent harm, their sexual assault on children, so on and so forth. We even consider it a mental sickness. Is Con saying that homosexuals innately harms others? Is he also being racist and agreeing with the idea that "blacks commit more crime"? Does he think that transgender must be cured, otherwise, they will rape children? By comparing the minorities to the pedophiles, Con's arguments are sexist and racist. He believes that minorities are inherently harmful and should be punished, regardless of their actual actions. Indeed, he compares a loving relationship between two agreeing adults, to preying on an innocent child. We can dismiss Con's entire argument based on this alone!
It was asserted that children are negatively impacted by seeing their identifying characteristics in villains. Should Disney get rid of villains altogether, or should they have a list of groups that are acceptable to demonize by portraying them as villains?
Another absurd question. Villains should be judged upon their actions, not upon their looks or what group of people they are in. If their design included all kinds of persons, whether white, black, grey, blue, then clearly this would be fairer, rather than every villain looking "queer"/"homosexual".
Conclusion: On a larger picture, Con supports the structural racism and problems in the US. He thinks the implementation will have problems with representing precise groups of people, but misses out on the bigger symbolism that women represent sexism, blacks represent racism, and the LGBT group represents a love that is considered by many to be "unnatural" and hence condemned. Regardless of whom we choose to represent, so long as we are fighting the problem, I do not think that it would be absurd to throw in a cisgender black woman into the mix of Disney films. Also, moral obligation is not a significant issue in this debate -- I have Kant's categorical imperative to back me up, while Con's case increases injustice, as he supports inequality and unjustified oppression of minorities. And remember that con dropped my claim that the diverse cast would increase Disney's financial gains, rather than lower them. For these reasons, vote for Pro.
- What Changes [Should Disney Make]?
- Why Should Disney Make These Changes?
"We queer-coded many villains in films with stereotypical gay traits...The separation of villain and hero implants ideas of gender roles on children.""Villains should be judged upon their actions, not upon their looks or what group of people they are in."
"[Con] thinks the implementation will have problems with representing precise groups of people, but misses out on the bigger symbolism that...the LGBT group represents a love that is considered by many to be 'unnatural' and hence condemned.""We disregard pedophiles due to their inherent harm, their sexual assault on children, so on and so forth. We even consider it a mental sickness."
"When most type of characters are relatively equally shown, that is when the equality in representation is displayed.""So long as we are fixing some inequality in the structure, does it matter how absurdly generic or how specific it gets? Does it matter to split it equally between homosexual, bisexual, etc?...I could forcibly impose a seemingly insane idea of 100% homosexual lesbian black women in Disney films, and Con could not spot a single flaw other than his 'moral obligation' theory."
"Why should Disney ignore the inequality that stems from the underrepresentation of colored people and women?""Also, moral obligation is not a significant issue in this debate"
"Con claims that [my plan] perpetuates inequality in the opposite direction, but we still have racism and sexism overall in the country, if only vastly reduced in the entertainment industry. To compensate for heavy bias for white men, it seems only natural to me that we would balance this out by heavily favoring minorities in other industries or ideas."
"Therefore, for the sake of the future of [childrens'] development, it is necessary to represent all groups of people in Disney films.""He is worried that my greater representation of minorities will lead to the problem of having to represent absolutely everyone and every group."
"We have a systemic bias against women, people of color, and the LGBT+...These biases affect all of us whether it’s a conscious decision or not."
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UtjAL094HxlA9_q3WAWO1ZUc_h6x1txdavnQhDh_QGs/edit?usp=sharing
Pro is definitely impassioned! However... In essence, harms and benefits should be shown more clearly.
Con counters the preamble brilliantly with an appeal to absurdity, highlighted with the rhetorical question: "Should Disney seek to properly represent Siberian transgender pansexual 37-year-old first-generation immigrant bank tellers in California?"
I. Inadequate representation, profit vs equality
This was missing the why. As a reader, I was literally asking why Disney should include the Star Wars kiss in a country which would punish them for it. I am not trying to be too harsh, but in most writings this would all be fine, but in a debate the truth of the conclusion taken for granted.
Con's defense echoes this, as much as I feel he misunderstands pro (he seems to think pro was arguing here that Disney would make more money in Singapore if they had same sex kissing, when pro actually argued here they should sacrifice profits to show these kisses... later he argued that such things would be good for marketing).
Pro echoes his earlier sentiments.
II. Underrepresentation of Women
The Captain Marvel point really should have been in here. I'm kind of getting it, /think of the children/, but again it's arguing from the perspective that the conclusion has already been proven.
Con pulls demonization of traits on villains to show how representation can be bad (really could have used a source on the history of this).
Pro does a bit of a strawman (err, strawperson), implying con would like certain groups of people to be barred from appearing in Disney movies... He used a rhetorical device related to the absurdity of this, but argued directly against it.
Pro ends up giving a mild concession that Disney should not seek full diversity ('Of course, it would be silly to have the next Disney movie to have a cisgender black woman who is asexual, merely for the "Greater representation".') and their current efforts are already fighting against issues of inequality via having Captain Marvel at all.
The Unidentifiable Problem
Con drills down on criteria for implementation, showing the problem of vagueness. This is a powerful counter to proposals on the How. Which he follows through with precise questions (which before were really rhetorical, so I don't see why he acts like direct answers should have already been given). Pro chose not to respond to the explicit questions.
Conclusion:
Pro seems to hedge his bets on the resolution being weakly defined, yet as con points out, he fails to show the why and how. Instead pro relies on the zietist to carry him instead of the strength of the proposal. When you want something to change, you really need to show benefit in excess of harm.
Sources:
Lean toward pro, but not by enough to take it. His R1 felt like the opening to a school paper, sourcing every claim; but in a debate this falls flat to me as it's largely common knowledge stuff. That example of the kiss was a good one to source, that Disney is a movie studio feels like source spam. Had there been any more source utilization after R1, sources would probably go to pro.
S&G:
Not damning, but a small thing con could improve in future, is being careful with adding special characters to quotes. "relatively equally?" should have been "relatively equally"? It was not originally a question, so even while being used as one, the content inside the quotation marks do not change (other basic punctuation can).
Pro of course should have continued to use section headings. It felt a little bit like someone else wrote his R1.
Conduct:
Pro took a hit here in declaring con sexist and racist for showing that not all groups should be represented (saying we don't need pedo superheroes, isn't comparing black superheroes to pedos). I personally do a bit of a tilt on these points, if pro was winning arguments I would definitely be penalizing him on conduct, as is, I'll leave it within the tied range.
Arguments: this element of voting was actually the only element that had measurable qualities by which to judge this debate for a clear winner given that the other three either had little on which to judge, or were too bland by both opponents to draw out a clear winner. That said, while Pro offered a resolution capable of a supporting argument, Pro's argument fell short when challenged by Con to offer measurable features of argument. Pro argued Disney should represent a wider scope of variant social groupings of people, but Pro fails to demonstrate, as Con challenged, to define his keywords of the Resolution; representation, and diversity. Pro even limits his argument by declaring "no semantic arguments," that is, definitions are not to be argued. Definitions; lack thereof, is Pro's failure. Con's rebuttal that "representation" may include such factors as requiring that Disney consider "...if a male child sees a male villain, it will hinder his development according to this hypothesis. Should we get rid of villains altogether, or should Disney have a list of groups that are acceptable to demonize by portraying them as villains?" This question is repeated several times by Con, using different parameters of social groups Pro suggests be considered for "representation" without adequate defense of his argument to quantify his argument. This quote from Con's argument also presents some of the vague features of Pro'a argument, such as by suggesting that child development is hindered by lack of more social representation in cinema. Child development is not the point of the debate. Nor is structural racism, financial concerns, or other social issues Pro mentions. Con's rebuttal held throughout all rounds. Con wins the points.
Sources: Mere count of sources is not a valid sourcing decision for voting. As such, even though Pro has sources [only in R1], and neither opponent for the balance of rounds, all 6 pro sources speak to issues not relevant to the Resolution [except one, explained below] just as Pro's arguments do not support the Resolution, and are, therefore, unreliable. Pro's second source comes closest to being a reliable source, but it focuses only on the LGBT community, and [as much as could be read of the source - it is necessary to have a library access to complete the read, apparently] there is no argument containing how the resolution would be accomplished other than the general assessment that films should have more representation, without defining "more" - which is Con's strongest argument. Pro's sources address: child development, LGBT, a list of movie production studios, a ban in Singapore of a Star Wars film, business interests, and narrative arcs -- none of which but one comes at all close to meeting the need of sourcing Pro's argument. As failed sources, this feature is a tie.
S&G: tie
Conduct: tie
Undefeatable could of won this if he just bit the bullet on the 13% representation. He could of just said "yeah, 13% of characters should be black" depending on the time period and setting of the Disney movie too of course. Then fruit inspectors entire vagueness argument falls apart and he has no sources to deem this hard or expensive to do.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3 (3 points awarded to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Yeah, I'd say this is one of those times when digging down into a source could've helped. Like I said in my RFD, I don't think the specificity of the case was the bigger problem, though making it a little more specific might have helped. It's mainly an issue of just finding the impact and beating it into us. I think the framework could absolutely have functioned that way, and if there had been a little more impact analysis and some statements regarding Disney's particular role and responsibility, I would've found it a lot harder to buy the argument that their financial incentives should always outweigh.
thanks for the vote. I'm a bit salty that my friend's help ironically caused me to become less focused and more about the intrinsic values which were incredibly vague. If they wanted to prove that it was moral to include the social diversity, ironically I think my case could be more fitting. But even though they framed their case as a suggestion letter to Disney, they ironically lacked the "precisely why" and more of appealing to the companies' love for freedom and equality in the first place. My friend assumes that voters will be Disney lovers and accept the same ideals as they. Or, if I allotted 15,000 characters and casually threw in my own usual "expert analysis" where I swept over what source 1 covered as a back up plan to introduce the importance of my friend's argument, I may have had a better chance. But I guess now you can see why I often go in depth on expert sources to tell people why my source is credible and why it matters.
I appreciate the votes and extended feedback. Even if the votes hadn't gone in my direction, I know it takes time to analyze debates and it seems like you all put in a good amount of effort doing so.
Someone remind me to finish my RFD for this tomorrow. I’m liable to forget.
Should be able to get a vote up on this soon.
nice vote. I think the difference between Und.'s usual style and his friend's research is that Und. tends to stack analysis and impact together in a way that is very hard to refute. But his friend used an ideological style that failed to show **precisely** what people actually gain, other than partially resolving racism, but is problematic when put to reducto ad absurdum. Und. seemed to understand that the equality picture is very hard to actually find impacts of, which is why he argued partially for Deontology. Tough resolution.
I don't normally put that much time into a vote during my work week, but something about this one held my attention... And for too long, I have to run!
wanna try voting on this one? I think Undefeatable wants some more specific feedback on why he lost... if he lost XD
"They have tiptoed around the issue but has never been explicit on the issue."
My mind immediately went to Beauty and the Beast, but they did cast Belle as a woman due to censorship, so you've still got a good point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNHgfVzj7Tc
damn. I guess I should think twice before adopting my friend's argument (someone else helped me research this topic and I found it rather tricky to dispel his sources)
re: your #12, racism was not relevant to the debate. And, in the future, you're better off giving definitions and strike the "no semantic arguments allowed." offering definitions dispels semantic argument. As instigator, definitions are your forte to use. In my vote, both concerns killed your effort.
Robots almost had. They starred in Wall-e.
that's a little crazy. Not sure robots are on that level quite yet.
How about we have robots acting and starring in disney movies? What about dishwashers and bottles, and iron bars as well as bumper cars??
Before I start, my claims that you were racist and such were done tongue in cheek as a logical conclusion to your own claims. I do not actually believe you are those things and you would do well to stop slandering me with such titles without being able to back them up. You are the one who said you don't even know how to support that racism is a moral issue as my worldview easily allows.
I had two separate but similar claims:
1) "...that Disney has no obligation to make any changes to their current activities or trajectory in order to increase social diversity in movie roles."
My argument that the plan is inconsistent and incoherent are the basis for why Disney has no obligation to implement these particular changes. This does not mean that Disney has NO moral obligations, but those come from God. Without God, they would have no moral obligations.
2) "... I do not believe PRO has any moral grounds to prove that Disney has an obligation to do something that potentially benefits society at the cost of financial loss."
This claim is that YOU have no basis to assert that Disney must implement your plan, or any plan for that matter. Even if it did somehow fight racism, you have no moral grounds to say Disney should do this. I do believe Disney has the same moral obligations that God gives to all people, and they are subject to their Creator. You have no such basis.
anyways. Very very crazy debate. Throw in some feedback, I don't know how to support that racism is a moral issue so... not my forte.
did you just try to pull a 180 on me in the last round? Through the whole debate, you claim there is no moral obligation, and your questions infer that you are racist, sexist, and transphobe -- comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. Then, you finally admit that it is absurd to say that Racism and Sexism are not moral issues, in order to break down my Utilitarian net benefit analysis. It seems confusing to me. Either there is no moral issue, despite equality and human dignity being something YOU claimed to support in the end, or there is a moral issue, but it somehow doesn't overcome Disney's "selfish desires", despite the net impact displayed and the patterns to show more minorities I displayed in the beginning. It's difficult for me to support libertarianism because it widely depends on impacts, but I personally also think it's still absurd that Disney should continue being selfish at the cost of inequality. That's why I brought up the reverse arguments.
That is certainly an interesting approach. But it does at least help clarify your argument.
It does seem confusing, but your argument kind of defeats itself, and even if moral did matter somehow matter I stated Kant's beliefs. I wasn't too sure how exactly to push the impact analysis framework so I upheld both sides just in case.
But here is what your argument said:
"Also, moral obligation is not a significant issue in this debate -- I have Kant's categorical imperative to back me up"
Perhaps my desire for consistency is a bit rigid, but it seems inconsistent to appeal to a falsehood to support an argument. I guess I'm just wondering how you justify doing so unless you're trying to falsify someone else's framework and using their worldview against them. But in this case I don't hold to a Kantian ethic
well, you didn't think that net benefit would work (utilitarianism is a moral obligation, but you denied it). I think human respect and dignity follows Disney's message better than "the means justify the ends"
Well I find it interesting that you felt it necessary to appeal to a form of objective morality, a system that you believe is false, in order to support your argument rather than the more subjective utilitarianism. Why not appeal to what you actually believe to be true instead of what is false?
no, I am a utilitarian LOL
Out of curiosity, do you hold to Kantian ethics, particularly the idea of the Categorical Imperative? Do you believe that to be what is true?
How tf are women "diverse?"
No worries, I will address your intended meaning of only including movies
oops. I accidentally also type in Shows in the description lol, cuz I was researching it. Well, hopefully I made my point about movies alone to outweigh the cons, hah.