According to the “nothing about us without us” principle of intersectionality, it is verboten to present racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia, classism, etc without being a member of the victim group.
As a result, creators not allowed to have their *villains* have such traits unless the writer/producer themselves are in the victim group. For example, the left forced Chinese-American writer Amélie Wen Zhao to withdraw her debut fantasy novel containing slavery because, even though Chinese immigrants experienced racism, they were not actually enslaved.
The only evil which remains a fair target for all? Wealth. Nevermind that virtually none of the writers have any experience with how wealth is created. Capitalists oppress everyone, and therefore, and therefore it is always safe to portray them as evil.
The intersectional concept of “nothing about us without us” was first identified as “polylogism” by Ludwig von Mises in “Theory and History.” Polylogism is the belief that different groups of people reason in fundamentally different ways. This concept has two popular sources:
Karl Marx taught that thought is determined by the thinker’s class position. There is no such thing as truth, only ideology.
The Nazis adapted classist polylogism into racialist polylogism. They believed that thought was determined by “blood and race” – hence the rejection of Einstein’s theory of relativity as “Jewish physics.” For example, US Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor engaged in racialist polylogism when she said that a “wise Latina” would follow different legal principles than a white male.
Polylogism implies a rejection of the very concept of fiction: fiction requires the author to empathize with characters who are unlike him. Even if the protagonist is auto-biographical, other characters cannot all be the author’s clones. Yet this is precisely what the left demands: while it talks about empathy and understanding, they ultimately reject any such possibility.