Overcoming Us vs. Them

"Hey brown people. You're not being completely ignored by our society. When we have to make decisions based on arbitrary characteristics like race, we prefer to occasional choose people you might be able to relate to on the bases of colour, rather than trying to appeal to some obviously incorrect notion that we should only relate to 'the average UK citizen' (which doesn't exist)."

Or maybe those actors just worked best? Or maybe they drew straws. Either way, there's no reason to believe that the skin colour of the actors on your screen is some kind of manipulation/propaganda against you. That's an irrational leap.

>Am I one of the bad guys to recognise the colour of the skin?

No. You're one of the bad guys for failing to recognize that the colour of the skin is an arbitrary choice and thus not relevant. The only thing about a person you should consider relevant is their ability to make good decisions.

The BBC will not occupy any moral high ground by using only white actors. (Which is what you're saying they should do, on account of some frankly stupid appeal to 'averages.' The 'average' UK citizen is riddled with disease and missing most of their limbs. So maybe don't try to tacitly substitute 'average' for 'ideal/typical/most common'. And why does the BBC has any obligation to represent any of these anyway?)

Maybe that's a harsh-seeming way of putting it, but that's the logical alternative you imply by using crappy metrics.

That's perfectly reasonable.

I was still focused on the "Us vs. Them" attitude, which doesn't apply here.

If you haven't met or interacted with someone, but you choose to categorize that person in the "Them" group, that is unreasonable.

It can be tricky when individuals seem to put themselves in your "Them" group. When that happens, it's probably a good idea to stop, and take care to define what "Them" entails, and how that individual fits there. If you don't, that person may be unjustly labeled by you, and you by them.

When we label each other, and create meta-groups to dislike, that creates a divide that isn't helpful for either side, because each side is mischaracterized, and all nuance is ignored.

> until they abandon such choices

My advice is to be careful not to judge others solely by the things you dislike about them. The details you focus on are not the entirety of their character.

If someone only finds friendship in a group that promotes ideas that you are opposed to, that person is likely to promote those ideas. If you befriend that person, you can begin on common ground, and work together toward ideas that you agree to be worthwhile. That person will thereby have less focus on the idea you don't like.

None of us is perfect, and we can certainly all find faults in one another. If we all reject others for the faults we find in them, we will all be rejected.

For example, I recognize that Nazis are people too, but that doesn't mean that I want to support them in our society.

If we can determine that Nazis are bad due to their toxic culture, then that shows that certain cultures are bad. Where do we draw the line? How do we determine what cultures are good and what aren't?

Given that most of our online interactions are completely text-based, what cues are we using to determine if someone is Us or Them? Do the same emotion-first impulses apply when our entire perception of another person's identity is based on the content of their written words?