#quicksjesses

In order to understand how banning an FC equates to taking a stand, it is important to remember that banning an FC does not directly address issues of discrimination unless there is clear and incontrovertible proof that an actor is homophobic, transphobic, racist, etc - only then would an FC ban send a clear message that certain conduct is not tolerated.

We would also highlight another important principle of law that is overlooked in the modern day world - the law requires that people are innocent until proven guilty. This is why the legal process is rigorous and demands a clear process of submission of evidence, allowing both sides to present their side of matters, and for professionals to consider the issue. This is important because it is easy to launch allegations at people, including malicious ones, but an allegation itself is not proof of an offence.

This ask has assumed that these actors are problematic enough to warrant banning, which requires a more in-depth consideration of the specific issues and allegations concerning them.

Taking the example of Chris Pratt first - the allegation against him was made by one person, but this has essentially been taken as fact. In response, Pratt issued a public statement setting out his position, excerpts of which may be read here [x]

The article also lends further context to the original allegation.

In particular, Pratt's response stated, "We need less hate in this world, not more. I am a man who believes that everyone is entitled to love who they want free from the judgement of their fellow man." which reads as LGBTQ supportive.

To ban someone regardless of their personal beliefs, even where there is a clear statement in support of LGBTQ rights, does more damage than good.

Realistically, a vast majority of Christian churches are still on the record as being anti-LGBTQ. There are other religions which are or which have members that are anti-LGBTQ. If we start banning FCs on the basis of membership or affiliation with an organisation, taking this further – should we ban everyone who voted for Trump? Everyone who is a Republican? Everyone who is an in way shape or form associated with an organisation, state, or country that is shown to be intolerant?

As LGBT rights activists and advocates in the real world, a major problem that we face nowadays is witchhunting and policing from within the community. This disrupts the very work that advocates and allies are trying to do.

To use hearsay to wrongfully accuse someone is in itself extremely harmful - it alienates potential allies, it causes infighting, it requires time and effort to resolve - time and effort which is far better spent doing actual, concrete advocacy. Furthermore, it creates a wedge between us and fractures allies, which is the very effect that opponents are aiming to cause.

Furthermore, banning FCs is an all or nothing, zero sum game. There is no grey about it. There is no “this person is an ally but has made some mistakes" nuance to it. As such, bans come with a cost that needs to be considered in making a decision whether to utilise them.

For instance, in the case of RDJ, the issues of black face and yellow face are not issues of racism when taken in their broader context that goes beyond just "an actor played the role of a person of colour". In the first place, it was clear in both instances that he was playing a role within a role. Tropic Thunder was clearly stated to be a satire - a mockery at the ridiculousness of the very lengths that actors will go to in method acting. Furthermore, if there is harm (however unintended), the fault arguably lies with the scriptwriters, the producers, and the director rather than the actor. On the other hand, RDJ has done the LGB community a service by being active in gay roles even before this became mainstream. In this situation, and others like this, an FC ban not only doesn’t achieves nothing for persons of colour, it downplays and even destroys the good that he has done for the LGB community (and that is speaking as a person of colour personally).

Finally, in the case of Benedict Cumberbatch, many of the allegations about him are accusations that have erupted into full blown witchhunts. Some of those quotes, taken without further context, are troublesome. But again, taken within their intended context, they take on completely different meanings.

To truly progress from simple mudslinging to actually being an effective ally, it is necessary to move beyond just cherry picking lines from interview quotes. Unfortunately, far too many people are not willing to invest the time and research into understanding an issue before going straight to the accusation stage, making it difficult to decipher what is actually the truth.

Banning an FC is not the same as denying an actor a job or firing them. It does not hold them accountable. It does not send any message to them. It barely sends any message to the RP community when grey and remote and unproven allegations are pulled up to use against a person. Rather, it ends up in a mess where most if not all FCs are banned – which is a natural consequence when we use the ban stick against any tiny perceived slight.

Society itself is evolving and learning. Things that were tolerated ten years ago are not tolerable now. Is there transphobia in early Marvel films? Yes there is. Should we ban all the actors who appeared in them? Should we ban all Marvel films written by those teams? That wouldn’t help gender nonconforming people today. Actors too, are people, and they are learning along with the rest of us. In fact, we need to recognise that the entirety of Hollywood and perhaps the entire film industry globally is homophobic, transphobic, sexist and racist. Majority of the world out there is as such. Even within the ally community, allies still require time and opportunities to learn how to be better allies.

The solution, therefore, doesn’t lie in banning everyone and dismantling Hollywood. Speaking as a professional – the times that we see real change is when we sit down and engage in dialogue and education, not in drawing lines in the sand.

Are there FCs that we would ban? Yes – examples include 1) situations where there has been a conviction and no sign of change, 2) where there is clear evidence of e.g. homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism etc on public record in the actor’s own capacity (and not saying lines that are written by a script writer), and which are verifiable by independent sources, and again, where the actor has not provided a retraction or apology and/or 3) where is clear consensus between the players and the admin team that an actor is problematic and should not be tolerated. We would state for the record that the named examples in this ask do not fall within any of these categories.

In addition, we have asked, and continue to ask, that regardless of personal opinions, players be respectful of the persons they are talking about. Corruption of a person’s name in the context of making allegations about their personal character is disrespectful, because it is construed as mockery rather than a joke in good fun. It is entirely possible to have a civil discourse about the flaws of a person without resorting to mockery. Again, true change does not come through name calling and putting others down - it comes from raising up the ones who have been sidelined by society.