And the upcoming Sky1 sitcom "Carter's Get Rich" will be another to add to the list.
https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/carters_get_rich/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sparks Moran: "It was dusk. I could tell 'cause the sun had gone down"
Why is it annoying? Why does it make a difference?
share>>Why is it annoying? Why does it make a difference?
Because you can't get a more egregious example of the token black than HIM. What is he doing there? Her ex is white and his new partner is white. That actually fits the last census. White British are least likely to be in a non-white relationship (4%). So when just about every show has to have a couple within that 4% it becomes patronizing and racist in its own right. The TV companies are running scared of having a white cast. Quotas are inimical to art.
I do t think they're scared st all!
The U.K. Is becoming more openly racist it seems, so this is great.
I haven't particularly noticed loads of mixed race couples on tv? In fact same race couples still seem to be the norm.
But going back to this particular programme/ the thing about it is, they aren't trying to make any kind of 'issue' or 'point' out of it. It's not mentioned as a plot point. It just is. And it just is in RL too! There are mixed race couples in the world, so why not in tv?
>>The U.K. Is becoming more openly racist it seems, so this is great.
But is it great? Ask yourself why HIM doesn't have three black middle class characters and one white partner.
>>I haven't particularly noticed loads of mixed race couples on tv?
Marcella. The Level (two for the price of one.) Paranoid. The A Word. Line of Duty. The list is endless. Hence "trope."
The only thing more annoying than the interracial couple annoying trope is the interracial cop couple annoying trope. You can set your watch to it.
>>they aren't trying to make any kind of 'issue' or 'point' out of it.
Token black in a support the whites role is their insidious point.
Because you can't get a more egregious example of the token black than HIM. What is he doing there? Her ex is white and his new partner is white. That actually fits the last census. White British are least likely to be in a non-white relationship (4%). So when just about every show has to have a couple within that 4% it becomes patronizing and racist in its own right. The TV companies are running scared of having a white cast. Quotas are inimical to art.
>>So you're saying - in a programme with three permutations of adult couples with three white characters and one black - that 1/3 = 4%
Straw Man.
>>By dint of that, clearly not all fiction has to align with the finer points of the statistically average.
Didn't say it did. They can write in a three headed dragon for all I care. I still reserve the right to be annoyed by the interracial couple annoying trope as they fight off the dragon.
>>Additionally, I'd wager that far far far fewer than 4% of relationships portrayed on British television are white-interracial, if you wish to talk about the industry as a whole.
Your conjecture is irrelevant. The rest of your post is the usual Ad Hominem.
Straw Man.
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem.
shareYeah, still not actually ad hominem.
An ad hominem is when one ducks the argument and attacks the arguer. You made a raft of peculiar, garbled, claims, which I approached and rebutted - I even allowed for extra incoherence and argued it two ways. And then I called you stupid.
That's not ad hominem. Or even a straw man.
In fact, merely calling everything 'ad hominem' is, in itself, an ad hominem - you duck the response and attack the respondent.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means
You damned the source by attacking my thinking, not the position I was holding.
I do not call "everything" Ad hominem and correctly identifying a logical fallacy is not Ad hominem.
>>It's hardly 'ad hominem' (or a straw man) to point that out.
Irrelevant as the cited quote is the "Ad Hominem" being addressed, not any other argument put forward previously.
>>When you simply say "Ad Hominem" - and nothing else - in response to a point, it really is an ad hominem- more specifically, a sub-category of 'argument from fallacy'.
No, it is not a logical fallacy to point out a logical fallacy. It is a logical and reasonable action which addresses the argument and not the person. It is not necessary to elaborate nor does failure to do so make it a logical fallacy. Your comment is, in any case, Tu quoque.
Hilarious to think this is your life.
~.~
There were three of us in this marriage
http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/
I happen to be the product of an interracial marriage, how disappointing that my entire existence and family is reduced to nothing but a mere 'annoying trope'.
I understand it's painful when you realise the entire world isn't made up of perfect white families, but unfortunately it is what it is. Perhaps just learn to deal with it?
[deleted]
But at least you realise how annoying you people are, most of your kind are ignorant to this fact. High five...
shareMaybe it wouldn't annoy you so much if you stopped thinking of them as interracial. I just see a couple. does it bother you as much if half the couple were German? or Canadian? or Irish ...or is it just the color that bothers you? or maybe you just think modern British actors of color should be relegated to 'certain historical roles'? I think if it bothers you so much, you should read a book, there you can imagine what shade everyone should be without pushing your narrow views on others.😖
shareYet more Ad Hominem. Anyone care to play the ball, not the man?
share