But to me that just reads as a power play. 'We're not willing to do any more so shut up about it or face the consequences.'
Being told to let something go is a classic move by wrongdoers. Remember when we all had to let Classic Dom's eyesight testing trip to Barnard castle go?
Being told the case is closed does not mean the person who brought the case was actually in the wrong. It means no one is in power is willing to listen to them any more.
I disagree. This was an independent third party investigation approved by Fisher, they spoke to over 80 people, and yet nothing has come out of it except Fisher's initial vague accusations. Even in the article where Fisher somewhat elaborated on his accusations, a word that kept coming from his mouth was how he was "informed" of something happening, so he never actually witnessed these things he was accusing Whedon of, he was just "informed" of them, that in itself does not make for reliable evidence. The crux of the whole matter seems to be that Whedon changed the role of Fisher's character in the film which Fisher was unhappy about then wouldn't change the script as Fisher demanded.
What more can WB do if they've had the investigation and found no wrong doing? They can't fire people just because Fisher demands it because his feelings are hurt.
WB have gone woke. They're owned by AT&T who are killing DC comics big time with their wokeness. Do you really think they'd pass up the opportunity to show off their woke credentials by not condemning racism from a straight white guy, particularly if they had no intention of working with him again? It's the lack of "Look how we defend black people and punish wrong doers" from WB that suggests they've got nothing to use. To claim Whedon is a racist would get them sued for slander/libel by Whedon because it damages his reputation.
Cummings' excuse was completely pathetic "I was worried about my eyesight for driving so I decided to drive to check it was okay for driving". Cummings ended up leaving though in the end and it did do damage to the public's willingness to stay home so the public didn't let it go. The difference with that is that there was hard evidence.
In Whedon's case I'm not so sure. The man's creative, clever and has a vision - a vision he can't always get across. When people don't get his point he gets defensive - and sarcastic (as he did when people - including Marsters - couldn't fully understand the context in which Spike gets a soul).
Whedon can be unprofessional, he has history of it and nobody is disputing that, however this case isn't about whether or not he was unprofessional but about whether or not he was racist. Given that Fisher's "evidence" consists of "I was "informed" this happened by a third party even though I didn't witness it myself", that is not good solid evidence to claim racism on Whedon's part.
So...take the skin lightening or darkening episode (for instance). I can understand how, because of colourism, a person of colour would be sensitive to this (and rightly so. It was a contentious issue in the black community that affects light skinned people as well as those with dark skin). I can also understand how a white person could misconstrue this as a PoC being "over-sensitive" to race...particularly if the reason for make-up was purely pragmatic. I can also imagine how one wrong (or snide) word could tip the very delicate balance. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the whole situation was based on a genuine misunderstanding that's more to do with white privilege (white people don't generally have to consider skin tone - although at one time it was a marker of class) than capital R racism and no-one's entirely wrong or right.
Firstly, the only one who gets to decide whether or not to be offended by this alleged skin lightening/darkening thing is the actor who skin was lightened/darkened. The whole practice of getting offended on behalf of others needs to stop. For all anyone knows, the post production crew could've reached out to the actor out of courtesy about how they needed to lighten/darken their skin tone for whatever reason and they may have been totally okay with it if it was a genuine issue eg a lighting issue during a night scene where they're slightly difficult to make out against the darkness. However because Fisher was "informed" that this skin tone change had happened without the full information as to why, he decided to get offended by it and claim racism.
Secondly, this whole "white privilege" narrative needs to stop. It's basically used as a way to invalidate a person's opinion and cast them in a negative light on the basis of skin colour. In the olden days, such discrimination would be called racism, nowadays "racism" is thinking that all races should be treated equally rather than one particular race being given special treatment. "Anti-racist" does not mean non-racist, it's the same as how "anti-clockwise" does not mean non-clockwise. The hands are still moving, just in the opposite direction.
Come on now. No one paying the tiniest bit of attention to the US or UK over the years can come to that conclusion. They could just as soon be elected president as be black listed.
There are certain things you just don't lie about (even as a politician). Pretending to be a victim of a serious issue such as racism or domestic violence is one of them as it makes a mockery of genuine victims.
