Comment by jonathankoren | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonathankoren | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> But Christianity isn’t the default, secular is the default. When there are identifiably Christian characters, they are often some cringey stereotype (the religious clique in “Easy A”, for

You seem to believe that in your face conservative white evangelical Protestants are the only Christians. This speaks more to your own biases than society’s.

Every poll of Americans and religions shows Christianity as by far the most popular choice. There is simply no way to square your idea that nonreligious is the default when over 70% of Americans identify as Christian.[0]

As for representation, I have no way verifying this, but I suspect there are more Roman Catholic characters in American film and television than conservative white evangelicals Protestants. If for no other reason than mass, iconography, and religious tchotchkes photography well. Hell, Catholics have the entire horror genre on lock. WEPs have what? Footloose?

[0] https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

> You seem to believe that in your face conservative white evangelical Protestants are the only Christians. This speaks more to your own biases than society’s.

I grew up Catholic, went to Catholic school, "Hail Mary, full of grace, the lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus", etc but carry on.

> Every poll of Americans and religions shows Christianity as by far the most popular choice.

More popular choice of what? Music? Films? Television?

> There is simply no way to square your idea that nonreligious is the default when over 70% of Americans identify as Christian.

Sure there is. The simplest conceivable explanation is that Hollywood doesn't represent a cross-section of the United States; that Hollywood skews more secular, and that those biases are what get represented in film. I suspect it's a bit more complex than that; I think the fact that the upper classes in general skew secular has a fair bit to do with it (not only the people who create the content, but also the people for whom the content is created). However, that's harder for me to defend.

> As for representation, I have no way verifying this, but I suspect there are more Roman Catholic characters in American film and television than conservative white evangelicals Protestants. If for no other reason than mass, iconography, and religious tchotchkes photography well. Hell, Catholics have the entire horror genre on lock. WEPs have what? Footloose?

I don't doubt this. I'm really not sure why you're framing this as a Catholic vs Protestant thing. I get the feeling you think I'm using "Christian" to mean "white evangelical protestant", but for the life of me I can't figure out why.

> Every poll of Americans and religions shows Christianity as by far the most popular choice. More popular choice of what? Music? Films? Television?

Of AMERICANS. I even gave you a link. Do the minimum amount of work.

> I don't doubt this. I'm really not sure why you're framing this as a Catholic vs Protestant thing. I get the feeling you think I'm using "Christian" to mean "white evangelical protestant", but for the life of me I can't figure out why

Because all the examples you give are coded that way. You could have used any of numerous examples of explicitly observing Christians in media that aren’t WEPs, but that’s not what you went with

> Every poll of Americans and religions shows Christianity as by far the most popular choice. There is simply no way to square your idea that nonreligious is the default when over 70% of Americans identify as Christian.[0]

GP is talking about representation in film. That's what this whole subthread is about.

When you're the default, you have representation in all media, even without it being explicitly stated, because the audience already assumes it. Why? Because there's no reason to believe that the character is anything except the most common case in society. Some would even describe being the most common case and not having to explicitly be called out for representation as privileged.

> When you're the default, you have representation in all media

Not true.

> there's no reason to believe that the character is anything except the most common case in society

Not true.

You are simply throwing out baseless assertions.

I’m going to go out on a limb, and guess you’re a straight white male from a middle class or upper middle class background, raised in a home that celebrates Christian high holidays, and have no major disabilities.

I can tell this, because you’ve never considered what representation means to you.

You crow about how being the default isn’t representation, but you have nothing to back that statement up except your hurt feelings, because it doesn’t even hold up to even a cursorily examination of popular culture, or history as it’s commonly taught.

> I’m going to go out on a limb, and guess

Wrong. Looks like your psychic powers need a lot of work.

But thanks for further weakening your "case" with more baseless assertions.

Furthermore, I checked your profile and it looks like this describes your background. Ironic.

> I can tell this, because you’ve never considered what representation means to you.

1. This is a non-sequitur.

2. This is just some brazen projection on your part, as your comments in this discussion make clear. You're the one who comically equated population statistics with arts & media representation, which proves you haven't given much thought to the matter at all.

> how being the default isn’t representation

The point is that it isn't the default in film. Maybe take a deep breath and try reading the thread again?

> you have nothing to back that statement up except your hurt feelings, because it doesn’t even hold up to even a cursorily examination

More brazen projection on your part, given that you've been utterly unable to substantiate any of your baseless claims, despite being prompted multiple (!) times to do so, not just by me.

> it doesn’t even hold up to even a cursorily examination of popular culture, or history

Oh boy. Are you really going to claim that arts & media representation has always reflected population statistics? Your claims just keep getting more bizarre.

I do love how you’re just talking in circles. You must think of yourself as very smart, but your refusal to actually engage in the discussion shows you’re just a proudly ignorant troll trying to culture war to stoke a sense of victimization.

I’d wish you’d luck, but I honestly don’t care about irrelevant people.

More name-calling?

I accept your concession.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com