Yeah I'm serious

 Over time, I have entered into a variety of arguments. Tis true, tis a pity, tis a pity, tis true. But arguments often develop because I apply critical thinking to positions and demand consistency, clarity or self-awareness and people don't like that stuff. What occasionally happens is that I, having looked at an opposing viewpoint, point out logical flaws and, even if I don't necessarily believe in the opposing side, assume it in order to force my sparring partner to more fully articulate his position.

This usually leads to the other person accusing me of being obtuse. Obtuse is a fancy word for "you don't accept the rectitude of my position even though you know you should because you pretend not to understand it." Truth is, though, that I understand it all too well and see that it isn't fully right. Or maybe, the truth is that, having looked at the position critically, I really don't understand it, either in its form or application.

Either way, I get accused of being argumentative and this seems to absolve my opponent from having to explore and explain the distinctions and specifics which would distinguish his position from any other and allow it to be right.

I'm in the midst of one of those arguments right now. And the fact is, I don't know exactly how I feel about the issue at hand. I do know that, on its face, the opposing position has problems.

Is it acceptable for a non-Jewish actor to play a Jew. I know, I have discussed this before. It is worth thinking about. Is it different from a white actor playing a non-white? Does the role matter? The method of associating the character with the ethnic group? The intent of the work as a whole? The actual content of the lines or actions of the actor? Was either Soul Man or White Chicks offensive? What about Olivier's Othello? Am I annoyed at Pacino's Shylock? What about Tom Hanks' Israeli on SNL (Jon Lovitz is Jewish) or Eddie Murphy's "White Like Me"? Peggy Lee in The Lady and the Tramp? Or Peter Sellers (among others) as Charlie Chan? Freeman Gosden and Charles Correll?

Which sub-demographic has the right to protect its presentation in media? Is that limited to some antiquated understanding of race? What about geography, gender, religion, political ideology or hair color? Does self-identification mitigate or does that actually inflame? Can only certain groups be offended while others have to accept being mis-represented for some point of equity or social critique? Is rage the province of only some?

People tell me "it's different" and I say, "how?" They say, "you know" and I say, "no, I don't." Then they call me obtuse but I really don't know how it is different. I want a clearly articulated difference that would excuse a non-Jewish actor playing a Jew in a Shakespearean play but still condemn a non-black actor playing a black role in a Shakespearean play in 2022. Then I want to see if that same distinction would help me differentiate when applied to every case of ethnic/racial (etc) appropriation. If, at any point, the answer is just "well, not that, but that's different" then I demand that whoever says that goes back, tweaks the definition so that it can be applied consistently and starts over.

Otherwise, I will stick to my ("argumentative") guns and insist, "if you can't explain to me how it is different, then what right do you have to insist that it is different?"

But remember -- this doesn't mean that I don't, deep down, accept that it is different. I'm just admitting that I'm uncomfortable with a dogmatic position and I would rather close scrutiny and analysis than blindly following.

------10 minutes later-------

I'm working on distinctions, just to help out.

First, we have 2 categories:

1. In which actors play a role in which a defining feature of that role is membership in a group and the actor is not a member. So the actor has to affect and adopt mannerisms, appearances or accoutrements that identify him as a member of a group. Think much of the cast of A Stranger Among Us. Those were actors playing Jews, so they adopt a look to come of as Jews.

2. In which characters, themselves, are trying to pass as another group so the actor adopts the various bits because that's what his character has to do (Mrs. Doubtfire, Gene Wilder in Silver Streak). The actor and role are not of that group and (false) group identification is part of the plot. 

I still don't know which one is worse, and this distinction clearly doesn't clarify the acceptability of some and not others. It also doesn't account for the history and other variables.