Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A Thread About Sexist Tropes

1101113151622

Posts

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?

    It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.

    Because there is a slippery slope with a few fine lines involved.

    1. Criticism of media to make others aware of potential negative tropes. The problem is that potential negative tropes can be very subjective and the actual negative effects are hard to define.
    2. Supporting perceived positive tropes in media. Depending on the level of support given to positive tropes, this can turn into de facto censorship of peceived negative tropes.
    3. Once something gets labeled as badwrong, certain groups of people take it on themselves to rid the world of it. For a great example of this, see smoking. While rational people may agree that smoking should be allowed, there is still a strong push toward virtual prohibition.

    Name me a single piece of general media, wherein no harm actually occurs to anyone, that has been banned in the U.S.

    Cause I can name tons of media that is frowned upon far, far worse than the romantic comedy dreck that gets pushed out every year and yet is under no threat of being banned.
    Note the words "de facto" in #2. As for #3, just because people have thus far failed at banning things in the US does not mean they haven't tried.

    So name the de facto bans then.

    Any video game rated AO. Any movie rated NC 17. Which, I might add, disproportionately affects pro-woman and pro-minority views of sexuality.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated

    Despite what someone briefly skimming my posts in this forum and making a +/- check in their mind might believe, I want to see more females in better roles in video games, and I want to be able to play a protagonist with my same sexuality outside of a very few entries. What I do take exception to is the unsubstantiated claims of substantial negative influence on society, when really, it's the other way around. When prominent religious organizations take orphans hostage to hurt gay people and largely get away with it, it's not the fact that too many FPS protagonists are straight that is having an undue negative effect on society.

    It can also work the other way around. Lets say the US government decides that "porn is unhealthy"(PIU) should be promoted, and thus they give an organization money to make and promote media with a with that ideal. So now you have an organization that can buy up air time, internet bandwidth, ad spots, etc, which can drive up prices for everyone else. All of the for profit porn producers are paying taxes, some of which goes to support PIU, and they are paying higher prices for services like bandwidth and ad spots. You are basically directly hitting their bottom line. Now if we reduce that to the absurd, at some point, you can give the PIU organizaton enough money that they can literally buy up all of the ad spots and/or drive up bandwidth prices to the point that that it actually puts the porn companies out of business. That would be an extreme form of de facto censorship. We didn't ban it, we just made it unprofitable.

    But this is literally what happens regardless. Ideas get propagated no matter what.

    Like both the above posts run in to the problem that they are defining censorship so broadly that it applies to all expression.

    Again, I am trying to explain why myself and others are wary about groups of people up and deciding that A is good and B is bad. There is a lot of ground in between constructive critique and outright banning. While the people deciding that A is good and B is bad maybe rational and/or against censorship, the people who follow after them may not be.

    But then you are wary of people expressing opinions.

    Again, a statement so broad as to be either stupid or meaningless.

    I am wary of people expressing opinions as broad generalizations or to put it another way, all generalizatons are false.

    All neo-Nazis have abhorrent views.

    Hey, what the hell, let's make this even broader a generalization: white supremacists do too.

    The thing that's funny about what you wrote is that "all generalizations are false" is an incredibly broad generalization. Which is why I think you should probably rethink your incredibly broad definition of censorship, which may in turn cause you to appreciate what I created the thread for: calling out tropes which are potentially toxic to our culture.

    joshofalltrades on
    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    QuidAngelHedgieCambiataprogramjunkieKristmas KthulhushrykeArdol
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    The problem is that people don't always consciously absorb all the messages the media sends out.

    For example, look at prejudice against black people in China. There aren't that many black people in China, yet prejudiced beliefs against black people is very widespread and can get pretty vicious. A lot of that is due to western media's influence in China. The Chinese government has even taken some actions to correct the problem by having game/variety/interview shows on state run networks get more black guests.

    And no, it's not just a matter of Chinese people being prejudiced against people who are different since white people are respected in China, which is also thanks in part to western media.

    South Korea did a similar project with North Korean refugees.

  • Andy JoeAndy Joe The AdirondacksRegistered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Andy Joe was warned for this.
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    Elki on
    XBL: Stealth Crane PSN: ajpet12 3DS: 1160-9999-5810 NNID: StealthCrane
    Pokemon Moon Name: Moon
    CambiataSicariiKid PresentableArdol
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    I disagree with Frankiedarling on the matter of whether criticism is functional censorship, but can we please take a less aggressive tack with others in the thread? I would hate to see it locked because there's a lot of value in discussing the things we take for granted in our media.

    joshofalltrades on
    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    QuidFrankiedarlingKristmas KthulhuSicarii
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    So, here's a thing I want to talk about, since people want to talk about "evidence" and how tropes and shit actually affect people and make hay about like "Well, it's just fiction, maaaaaaaaaan"

    Alright, so, Manic Pixie Dream Girl. Got talked a lot about in this thread. Well-defined. Went over what was what, where it was subverted, how it was a bad trope, etc.

    Let me tell you a little story. This isn't going to be a fun story. This is going to be a "Jesus Christ, Pony D:" story by the end of it, and I'm fuckin' sorry ahead of time for that, but I'm makin' a point here so this omelette is going to involve some egg-breakin'.

    Some years ago I met a girl. I had met this girl a month and some odd after I had come out of a year-long relationship that had meant a lot to me, and I had only had some fleeting attempts at like, one-night stands in that intervening period. So my heart was a little... fresh, shall we say.

    I met this girl and we started dating and she, in a lot of really comprehensive ways, pretty much was the Manic Pixie Dream Girl made flesh. She was a quirky, strange person who was full of weird idiosyncracies that didn't quite gel with conventional society. She had odd choices in fashion, music, food, hobbies, that sort of added to this entire element of herself. She also, as I got to know her more, was a fan of the kind of media that defined this trope, and in general as I started to get closer to her after the first six months of us dating I started to realize that in a lot of ways the twee sort of identity she had built up around herself wasn't just me identifying with her like some kind of character out of a quirky indie film with folksy music... this was actually an identity she had kind of intentionally built for herself in the same sense that some geeks start intentionally modelling themselves after what media tells them a geek should look and act like, whether consciously or not.

    And I didn't know how much of it was a conscious decision on her part or not, because as I got to know her, I also came to realize she was mentally ill. She was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and bipolar disorder, for starters, although that didn't really explain the depths of her idiosyncratic behavior or social oddities or anything like that. She was being treated for these mental illnesses and she was aware of them, she took medication and she actually was rather educated about mental illness. As someone who struggles with mental illness myself (I have bipolar disorder and personality disorder not-otherwise-specified, and some kind of difficult to diagnose not-quite-autism atypical neurology) it was something her and I kind of connected over, really. Eventually, I did realize that a lot of her "quirkiness" and shit was how she dealt with her life and how she formed her identity, that like many insecure and anxious people she pulled her self-identity from the media she consumed and created it out of that (and as a result, would get very defensive of harsh criticism of it).

    This was someone who essentially self-identified with the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope and as we got closer to each other saw herself as my Manic Pixie Dream Girl. Which, you know, some kinds of dudes would think was great. Then we moved in together...

    And this was where the wheels, for various reasons, started to fall off our relationship. Things happened in the time we moved in together. The sort of fantastical, whimsical elements of our relationship gave way to domestic realities, which she couldn't deal with. She couldn't deal with sharing a space or a bed with me on the regular. She became belligerent, aggressive, at times verbally and physically abusive. Our sex life evaporated. I had a stroke, due to unrelated health problems, and she was unable to deal with the aftermath of that and actually ditched me to go live at her parents for a week around Christmas after I returned home from the hospital.

    Our relationship during my stroke recovery got progressively worse, because I was no longer the person she had conceived of when we moved in together and she couldn't handle who I had became and was becoming, and the abuse increased. Her own life was falling apart; she was graduating from school that year and had no idea what to do with her life after that, including whether or not I was a part of it. Her parents had always promised her a month long trip to Paris after graduation, and they were going to fulfill that promise, and I wasn't a part of that trip. So, despite the fact that I was still recovering from my stroke and not on disability assistance and suicidally depressed, she left for France for a month. During that month, I tried to kill myself (twice), and I realized this had to end. So, when she came back, I broke up with her. That was it. She was okay... at first. Then she had a meltdown, shattered a mirror, cut herself terribly, and slashed me in the face when I tried to stop her. I called the ambulance and they took her off, and that was the last I saw of her. She was taken to a mental health ward, and the last I heard about her, she was diagnosed with Asperger's, something she should have been diagnosed with a long time ago and not when she was 24 (the fact that women are criminally under-diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders and are instead considered "anxious" or "quirky" is another rant for another time)

    So, what does this have to do with anything? Am I blaming the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope for this horrible relationship or the fact that a mentally ill person was fucking atrocious to me? No.

    But here's the problem: This woman went her entire adult life up to this point being considered "quirky" when she was mentally ill (and mentally ill in a way that she was not being correctly diagnosed, at that). She had a whole array of behaviors, some of them really troublesome, that in any other person (especially a guy) would've been considered really disconcerting and cause for further analysis and confrontation and comment. I didn't notice it, and what I did notice, I dismissed, because like many people I had been fed a diet of cultural tropes and media notions that taught me this constellation of behaviors would be okay in this goofy little pixie of a woman. That they might even be desirable! She had internalized a lot of these behaviors as well, and she had built her own identity in this fashion as a way to normalize the things she was feeling that were signs that she needed help.

    Essentially, what I'm getting at is this: The Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope is harmful in part because someone who actually is like that, in real life? Is quite possibly seriously mentally ill. And in a way that isn't funny or endearing or twee or cute, but actually really dangerous to themselves and/or others on a long enough timeline.

    This goes for a lot of bullshit tropes like this. A lot of people hate The Big Bang Theory because it's essentially a minstrel show for nerds, but Sheldon in particular is a troublesome character because if a real person acted like Sheldon they'd be autistic and not someone whose behavior you should think is funny or be laughing at or think is adorable or should just be freely accommodating like they're some quirky character.

    A lot of the sexist tropes in media are bad not because "They'll turn men into rapist monsters!" but because they subtly, insidiously, change and distort how you start to classify and view not only other people, but yourselves as well, in ways that are actually very minor but turn exponential when they cause you to overlook things or act differently than you would have had you not had that trope in your brain in the first place. Women internalize sexist tropes in media, whether they want to or not, whether they know they are or not. They can't fucking help it. Like I said earlier, culture is not something you are above, culture is something you swim in, and sometimes you don't realize you are even in the water till you realize you are drowning.

    AngelHedgieAndy JoejoshofalltradesQuidCambiataL Ron HowardEncJeedanAtomikashrykeceresWashKid PresentableLeitnerArdol
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.

    Apparently, though I am yet to be convinced of it. It's still just nebulous claims of harm used as justification to promote the removal of said harm all disguised as some sort of "simple criticism". It's the same old thing, from everyone who was outraged about something, ever. Plus, you don't agree with my premise that art is essentially sacrosanct and should not be suppressed (yes, suppressed, that's what's being advocated as evidenced by the motion of proving harm through to removing harm) under pretty much any circumstance. If it's legal to make it, I support it, and I think our disagreement really stems from there.


    These claims aren't nebulous. We have a study right here showing media influencing culture.

    And this whole time you've been criticizing other people's posts. Does this mean you want the government to censor them? Of course not. So stop insisting that's what others want. It's dishonest.

    You're the only one taking about the government, mate. But we are essentially both doing the same thing and it's not criticizing. We are attempting to find evidence of harm and from there are trying to prevent said harm. I think my causation link is much more direct and far more provable.

  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    It's an interesting point, but it's neither an overwhelming consensus, nor is it precisely applicable here. Going from being barbarians to part of the modern world is less than directly applicable to, to use a non-comic example, female RPG characters wearing bikini armor (which is terrible and people who like it should feel bad. If you're going to use eye candy, at the very least justify it in universe, you sexist hack fucks),

    It's also worth noting that media may have likely contained a substantial amount of the sexist tropes mentioned in this thread.

    No kindly keep your goalposts where they were. Media influences culture. Culture influences people. There is not some upper limit where this ceases to be true..

    Earth's gravity and Saturn's gravity are pulling on both of us right now. Which one is more relevant? Which one can safely be disregard?

    Access to media which could reasonably be called infrastructure development could absolutely be a different thing than worrying about minutiae like physically implausible poses.

    It wasn't exposure to a new media that changed things. It was exposure to different ideas by that media. So please demonstrate what makes your culture so different that it's unaffected by media if you want to claim it isn't affected.

    The responsibility to refute claims that American romcoms make people more sexist is not on the people claiming that introduction of cable to rural India is not sufficient, comprehensive proof of that claim.

    Do violent video games, which routinely feature and laud violence being done by the player themselves, encourage violent crime in society?
    Does our society have a widespread problem wherein people are unaware of violence when it happens, excuse or rationalize away violence when it happens, try to suggest that violence is normal or an unavoidable consequence of our biology? Does our society feature a lack of media that portrays nonviolence in a positive light, or violence in a negative one? Do we assume that the violence displayed in our media is a normal aspect of everyday life?

    I bolded all the parts I'd say yes to, particularly when it comes to violence that intersects with racism and sexism. Over in the NFL scandal thread we're talking about people who are like, "Hey, sometimes you gotta beat your kid until he bleeds. That's just good parenting."
    I agree, but this is generally not the sort of violence that is presented (positively, anyway) in media.

    Very few people will see someone get shot in the head and say, oh that person wasn't shot. But they will deny things are sexist because those things are presented as normal.

    We have plenty of exposure to things that state or suggest or assume that shooting people is bad, but far less exposure to things that do the same for sexist behavior. Even if sexist behaviors are not explicitly endorsed, they're often assumed to be fine. Which, in a way, might be more harmful because people might not think about it as much.

    Surfpossum on
    icon.png facebookIcon.png tumblrIcon.png
    is this how nations are born
    Harry DresdenKristmas Kthulhu
  • Alinius133Alinius133 Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    The problem is that people don't always consciously absorb all the messages the media sends out.

    For example, look at prejudice against black people in China. There aren't that many black people in China, yet prejudiced beliefs against black people is very widespread and can get pretty vicious. A lot of that is due to western media's influence in China. The Chinese government has even taken some actions to correct the problem by having game/variety/interview shows on state run networks get more black guests.

    And no, it's not just a matter of Chinese people being prejudiced against people who are different since white people are respected in China, which is also thanks in part to western media.

    I think that is a very good point. One thing I would like to dissect is that the media influence is strongest in a vacuum. Do you think that the media influence would have been as strong if a third of China was black? I think it is likely that the media influence was stronger because people in China don't have actual people to interact with. With that in mind, how many people grow up with little to no interaction with women? What percentage of Americans interact with actual gay people on a reqular basis vs what percentage gets their information from media?

    Alinius133 on
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.

    Apparently, though I am yet to be convinced of it. It's still just nebulous claims of harm used as justification to promote the removal of said harm all disguised as some sort of "simple criticism". It's the same old thing, from everyone who was outraged about something, ever. Plus, you don't agree with my premise that art is essentially sacrosanct and should not be suppressed (yes, suppressed, that's what's being advocated as evidenced by the motion of proving harm through to removing harm) under pretty much any circumstance. If it's legal to make it, I support it, and I think our disagreement really stems from there.


    These claims aren't nebulous. We have a study right here showing media influencing culture.

    And this whole time you've been criticizing other people's posts. Does this mean you want the government to censor them? Of course not. So stop insisting that's what others want. It's dishonest.

    You're the only one taking about the government, mate. But we are essentially both doing the same thing and it's not criticizing. We are attempting to find evidence of harm and from there are trying to prevent said harm. I think my causation link is much more direct and far more provable.

    You haven't shown any causation.

    You've gone from "You're against the overall sexist portrayal of people that permeates every form of media" to "You want to censor people."

    Yet no one has argued for censorship. Instead of addressing people's actual statements you're insisting you know what they really mean and want. It's insulting and disrespectful.

    CambiataFCD
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    I mean if you're going to call "generally try to avoid sexist media, support more positive media, and talk about the topic when it comes up like now" an attempt at censorship then your idea of what constitutes censorship is nonsensical.

    Quid on
    PonySurfpossumAngelHedgiejoshofalltradesSo It GoesAndy JoeEncprogramjunkieKristmas KthulhushrykeceresHacksawThorn413Kid PresentableArdolFCD
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.

    Apparently, though I am yet to be convinced of it. It's still just nebulous claims of harm used as justification to promote the removal of said harm all disguised as some sort of "simple criticism". It's the same old thing, from everyone who was outraged about something, ever. Plus, you don't agree with my premise that art is essentially sacrosanct and should not be suppressed (yes, suppressed, that's what's being advocated as evidenced by the motion of proving harm through to removing harm) under pretty much any circumstance. If it's legal to make it, I support it, and I think our disagreement really stems from there.


    These claims aren't nebulous. We have a study right here showing media influencing culture.

    And this whole time you've been criticizing other people's posts. Does this mean you want the government to censor them? Of course not. So stop insisting that's what others want. It's dishonest.

    You're the only one taking about the government, mate. But we are essentially both doing the same thing and it's not criticizing. We are attempting to find evidence of harm and from there are trying to prevent said harm. I think my causation link is much more direct and far more provable.

    The core problem with your argument is that you assume that J. Random Creator is owed my support for creating. And thus, if someone argues that their work is bad, and I in turn withdraw my support, they have thus been harmed.

    Sorry, but I owe no creator any support. And because of that, my declining to support any given piece of work is not a harm.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    CambiataEncKristmas KthulhuArdolFCD
  • KingofMadCowsKingofMadCows Registered User regular
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    The problem is that people don't always consciously absorb all the messages the media sends out.

    For example, look at prejudice against black people in China. There aren't that many black people in China, yet prejudiced beliefs against black people is very widespread and can get pretty vicious. A lot of that is due to western media's influence in China. The Chinese government has even taken some actions to correct the problem by having game/variety/interview shows on state run networks get more black guests.

    And no, it's not just a matter of Chinese people being prejudiced against people who are different since white people are respected in China, which is also thanks in part to western media.

    I think that is a very good point. One thing I would like to dissect is that the media influence is strongest in a vacuum. Do you think that the media influence would have been as strong if a third of China was black? I think it is likely that the media influence was stronger because people in China don't have actual people to interact with. With that in mind, how many people grow up with little to no interaction with women? What percentage of Americans interact with actual gay people on a reqular basis vs what percentage gets their information from media?

    But there are plenty of vacuums in terms of the types of people we all interact with. Everyone has interacted with women but that doesn't mean they've interacted a lot with women who are outside their own culture. So when the media negatively portrays women with lifestyle or culture different from those you're used to, you'll still unconsciously absorb those prejudices.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.

    Apparently, though I am yet to be convinced of it. It's still just nebulous claims of harm used as justification to promote the removal of said harm all disguised as some sort of "simple criticism". It's the same old thing, from everyone who was outraged about something, ever. Plus, you don't agree with my premise that art is essentially sacrosanct and should not be suppressed (yes, suppressed, that's what's being advocated as evidenced by the motion of proving harm through to removing harm) under pretty much any circumstance. If it's legal to make it, I support it, and I think our disagreement really stems from there.


    These claims aren't nebulous. We have a study right here showing media influencing culture.

    And this whole time you've been criticizing other people's posts. Does this mean you want the government to censor them? Of course not. So stop insisting that's what others want. It's dishonest.

    You're the only one taking about the government, mate. But we are essentially both doing the same thing and it's not criticizing. We are attempting to find evidence of harm and from there are trying to prevent said harm. I think my causation link is much more direct and far more provable.

    You haven't shown any causation.

    You've gone from "You're against the overall sexist portrayal of people that permeates every form of media" to "You want to censor people."

    Yet no one has argued for censorship. Instead of addressing people's actual statements you're insisting you know what they really mean and want. It's insulting and disrespectful.

    Actually, there has been one person arguing for censorship - @Frankiedarling‌ himself. Which is what makes his argument so offensive to me.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    I look at it this way.

    There's no way in hell I would let my kids watch South Park. Even if I was sitting with them the entire time and explaining things to them, putting the sexual content into context, and telling them not to say that word at school.

    As a parent, I am controlling what they watch. But that's the obvious stuff. How do you sit with a child and explain to them that the guy just got raped on Wedding Crashers and that no matter what the TV is telling them, that wasn't an okay thing to do?

    I'm not saying all media should conform to something a child can watch. But if you wouldn't let your 3-year-old watch The Human Centipede, unsupervised or not, you might want to ask yourself why. And if the answer you arrive at is that people actually are affected by media to a certain extent...

    Well, I don't know why we would necessarily think that ceases at a certain age. Becomes less likely or slows down, maybe, but how many people do you know who don't even give that Wedding Crashers rape scene a second thought?

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    ceres
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Pony wrote: »
    So, here's a thing I want to talk about, since people want to talk about "evidence" and how tropes and shit actually affect people and make hay about like "Well, it's just fiction, maaaaaaaaaan"

    Alright, so, Manic Pixie Dream Girl. Got talked a lot about in this thread. Well-defined. Went over what was what, where it was subverted, how it was a bad trope, etc.
    Let me tell you a little story. This isn't going to be a fun story. This is going to be a "Jesus Christ, Pony D:" story by the end of it, and I'm fuckin' sorry ahead of time for that, but I'm makin' a point here so this omelette is going to involve some egg-breakin'.

    Some years ago I met a girl. I had met this girl a month and some odd after I had come out of a year-long relationship that had meant a lot to me, and I had only had some fleeting attempts at like, one-night stands in that intervening period. So my heart was a little... fresh, shall we say.

    I met this girl and we started dating and she, in a lot of really comprehensive ways, pretty much was the Manic Pixie Dream Girl made flesh. She was a quirky, strange person who was full of weird idiosyncracies that didn't quite gel with conventional society. She had odd choices in fashion, music, food, hobbies, that sort of added to this entire element of herself. She also, as I got to know her more, was a fan of the kind of media that defined this trope, and in general as I started to get closer to her after the first six months of us dating I started to realize that in a lot of ways the twee sort of identity she had built up around herself wasn't just me identifying with her like some kind of character out of a quirky indie film with folksy music... this was actually an identity she had kind of intentionally built for herself in the same sense that some geeks start intentionally modelling themselves after what media tells them a geek should look and act like, whether consciously or not.

    And I didn't know how much of it was a conscious decision on her part or not, because as I got to know her, I also came to realize she was mentally ill. She was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and bipolar disorder, for starters, although that didn't really explain the depths of her idiosyncratic behavior or social oddities or anything like that. She was being treated for these mental illnesses and she was aware of them, she took medication and she actually was rather educated about mental illness. As someone who struggles with mental illness myself (I have bipolar disorder and personality disorder not-otherwise-specified, and some kind of difficult to diagnose not-quite-autism atypical neurology) it was something her and I kind of connected over, really. Eventually, I did realize that a lot of her "quirkiness" and shit was how she dealt with her life and how she formed her identity, that like many insecure and anxious people she pulled her self-identity from the media she consumed and created it out of that (and as a result, would get very defensive of harsh criticism of it).

    This was someone who essentially self-identified with the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope and as we got closer to each other saw herself as my Manic Pixie Dream Girl. Which, you know, some kinds of dudes would think was great. Then we moved in together...

    And this was where the wheels, for various reasons, started to fall off our relationship. Things happened in the time we moved in together. The sort of fantastical, whimsical elements of our relationship gave way to domestic realities, which she couldn't deal with. She couldn't deal with sharing a space or a bed with me on the regular. She became belligerent, aggressive, at times verbally and physically abusive. Our sex life evaporated. I had a stroke, due to unrelated health problems, and she was unable to deal with the aftermath of that and actually ditched me to go live at her parents for a week around Christmas after I returned home from the hospital.

    Our relationship during my stroke recovery got progressively worse, because I was no longer the person she had conceived of when we moved in together and she couldn't handle who I had became and was becoming, and the abuse increased. Her own life was falling apart; she was graduating from school that year and had no idea what to do with her life after that, including whether or not I was a part of it. Her parents had always promised her a month long trip to Paris after graduation, and they were going to fulfill that promise, and I wasn't a part of that trip. So, despite the fact that I was still recovering from my stroke and not on disability assistance and suicidally depressed, she left for France for a month. During that month, I tried to kill myself (twice), and I realized this had to end. So, when she came back, I broke up with her. That was it. She was okay... at first. Then she had a meltdown, shattered a mirror, cut herself terribly, and slashed me in the face when I tried to stop her. I called the ambulance and they took her off, and that was the last I saw of her. She was taken to a mental health ward, and the last I heard about her, she was diagnosed with Asperger's, something she should have been diagnosed with a long time ago and not when she was 24 (the fact that women are criminally under-diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders and are instead considered "anxious" or "quirky" is another rant for another time)

    So, what does this have to do with anything? Am I blaming the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope for this horrible relationship or the fact that a mentally ill person was fucking atrocious to me? No.

    But here's the problem: This woman went her entire adult life up to this point being considered "quirky" when she was mentally ill (and mentally ill in a way that she was not being correctly diagnosed, at that). She had a whole array of behaviors, some of them really troublesome, that in any other person (especially a guy) would've been considered really disconcerting and cause for further analysis and confrontation and comment. I didn't notice it, and what I did notice, I dismissed, because like many people I had been fed a diet of cultural tropes and media notions that taught me this constellation of behaviors would be okay in this goofy little pixie of a woman. That they might even be desirable! She had internalized a lot of these behaviors as well, and she had built her own identity in this fashion as a way to normalize the things she was feeling that were signs that she needed help.

    Essentially, what I'm getting at is this: The Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope is harmful in part because someone who actually is like that, in real life? Is quite possibly seriously mentally ill. And in a way that isn't funny or endearing or twee or cute, but actually really dangerous to themselves and/or others on a long enough timeline.
    This goes for a lot of bullshit tropes like this. A lot of people hate The Big Bang Theory because it's essentially a minstrel show for nerds, but Sheldon in particular is a troublesome character because if a real person acted like Sheldon they'd be autistic and not someone whose behavior you should think is funny or be laughing at or think is adorable or should just be freely accommodating like they're some quirky character.

    A lot of the sexist tropes in media are bad not because "They'll turn men into rapist monsters!" but because they subtly, insidiously, change and distort how you start to classify and view not only other people, but yourselves as well, in ways that are actually very minor but turn exponential when they cause you to overlook things or act differently than you would have had you not had that trope in your brain in the first place. Women internalize sexist tropes in media, whether they want to or not, whether they know they are or not. They can't fucking help it. Like I said earlier, culture is not something you are above, culture is something you swim in, and sometimes you don't realize you are even in the water till you realize you are drowning.

    The flip side of that though is that we shouldn't be demeaning or vilifying people with disorders either. I could just as easily claim that things like MPDG and Sheldon are good things in that they promote the idea that just because someone has a particular idiosyncratic behavior from a mental disorder doesn't mean they aren't real people that can be loved. Obviously you wouldn't want to promote self destructive or harmful behaviors, but promoting the idea that the weirdness born from disorders like aspergers doesn't have to be a bad thing seems like a laudable goal.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    I wanted to mention the show The Fall in this thread, because I was turned on to it by someone who loves it because of the way the main character does not follow tropes.

    The lead is a female detective (Gillian Anderson with an English accent!) and she is called in to another department to help with a stalled murder investigation. It's quickly revealed that this is a serial killer situation.

    I think the show has received some backlash for being "too feminist" because a lot of the things about the show are from a clearly different perspective that is usual, and in particular the main character says a lot of things that challenge the status quo.

    For instance just going on memory: (Spoilers here for season one and a little bit of The Killing season 2)
    - She does not have an abusive, messed up past, which I'm not sure is definitely a trope, but was clearly on display in another similar show, The Killing, in which the main detective works herself to madness and reveals she has deep seated abandonment issues in her own past. We see Stella writing in a dream diary after waking up, briefly we glimpse that she writes "Driving with Daddy..." Other than this, there are no big reveals that the reason she's so good at her job and works so hard is that she has a flaw from her past driving her. She's not avenging a fallen partner or child. She's not on the brink of collapsing into alcoholism. She doesn't have daddy issues. or whatever. I appreciated this. She's just a fucking good detective. There is some talk with another female character (yay Bechdel test passed) about how they sort of "double" themselves, to create a work self and a home self, to compartmentalize the bad shit they have to deal with. Stella comments that lots of people do this, she does it, and even so does the serial killer.

    - She seeks casual sex from a male partner and refuses to apologize for it. Stella sees a hunky detective while driving to the hotel and asks to be introduced. She gives him her room number and he shows up later for sex. He then becomes a bit clingy afterwards which annoys her since she really just wanted the sex and nothing else. Later, this detective is gunned down outside his home, it is revealed to the viewer that he was married and had a kid. Stella is obviously upset by this, and also goes to her supervisor to reveal that she spent the night with the guy. But she doesn't apologize. She instead, points out to another investigator, that the real reason he's uncomfortable is that she initiated and has casual sex and feels that this is very normal. "Man fucks women, it's okay, woman fucks man, it makes you uncomfortable" she basically says to the guy. Other characters insinuate that Stella should feel very bad, because he's dead, because he was married - she points out he certainly didn't tell her that - because she had sex with him on a night one of the victims was being killed. She pretty much refuses to feel bad for things completely out of her control or feel ashamed for having casual sex.

    - She chides the PR department for releasing a statement calling the victims of the serial killer "innocent victims" because it irks her - these were professional, accomplished women. She feels this plays into the "virgin/whore" dichotomy and prefers they use a different phrase that avoids casting the victims as angels.

    I dunno I'm probably missing some stuff here but that's just stuff I can remember that I liked. Watch the show! it's quite good, if you can stomach a serial killer show that gives you the serial killer POV as well as the police. Which makes me want to point out - I wish we could have more cool detective shows that didn't involve serial violence against women as the main premise, but that seems to be the go-to heavy cop procedural theme unfortunately.

    So It Goes on
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    It's an interesting point, but it's neither an overwhelming consensus, nor is it precisely applicable here. Going from being barbarians to part of the modern world is less than directly applicable to, to use a non-comic example, female RPG characters wearing bikini armor (which is terrible and people who like it should feel bad. If you're going to use eye candy, at the very least justify it in universe, you sexist hack fucks),

    It's also worth noting that media may have likely contained a substantial amount of the sexist tropes mentioned in this thread.

    No kindly keep your goalposts where they were. Media influences culture. Culture influences people. There is not some upper limit where this ceases to be true..

    Earth's gravity and Saturn's gravity are pulling on both of us right now. Which one is more relevant? Which one can safely be disregard?

    Access to media which could reasonably be called infrastructure development could absolutely be a different thing than worrying about minutiae like physically implausible poses.

    It wasn't exposure to a new media that changed things. It was exposure to different ideas by that media. So please demonstrate what makes your culture so different that it's unaffected by media if you want to claim it isn't affected.

    The responsibility to refute claims that American romcoms make people more sexist is not on the people claiming that introduction of cable to rural India is not sufficient, comprehensive proof of that claim.

    Do violent video games, which routinely feature and laud violence being done by the player themselves, encourage violent crime in society?
    Does our society have a widespread problem wherein people are unaware of violence when it happens, excuse or rationalize away violence when it happens, try to suggest that violence is normal or an unavoidable consequence of our biology? Does our society feature a lack of media that portrays nonviolence in a positive light, or violence in a negative one? Do we assume that the violence displayed in our media is a normal aspect of everyday life?

    I bolded all the parts I'd say yes to, particularly when it comes to violence that intersects with racism and sexism. Over in the NFL scandal thread we're talking about people who are like, "Hey, sometimes you gotta beat your kid until he bleeds. That's just good parenting."
    I agree, but this is generally not the sort of violence that is presented (positively, anyway) in media.

    I disagree. For example, this thread has discussed tangentially some examples of violence being positively portrayed in terms of how sexist it was, but it was also, you know, violent. For example, female-on-male rape, or female-on-male physical violence, which is often played for laughs or romantically. I've seen revenge murder, self-defense murder, and bar fights portrayed as examples of positive behavior. When we're talking about violence in media, we're not just talking about James Bond shooting people; we're also talking about male characters physically fighting romantic rivals or "defending their girl's honor" with their fists. We're talking about movies that make light of home defense (the Home Alone series) and video games that have the hero killing endless bad guys without any hint of remorse or PTSD (like the Uncharted series).
    Very few people will see someone get shot in the head and say, oh that person wasn't shot. But they will deny things are sexist because those things are presented as normal.

    Yes, this is one of the things I didn't bold, because you're right. But people will rationalize violence all the time (she was asking for it, it was an accident, he was just angry, the victim was black, the victim had a toy gun, etc).
    We have plenty of exposure to things that state or suggest or assume that shooting people is bad, but far less exposure to things that do the same for sexist behavior. Even if sexist behaviors are not explicitly endorsed, they're often assumed to be fine. Which, in a way, might be more harmful because people might not think about it as much.

    I would say we are about as solid as a society on "don't murder" as we are on "don't violently rape a stranger." But the ethos of using violence to solve problems or demonstrate masculinity is in some ways as subtle and universal as gender discrimination.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
    Kristmas KthulhuApothe0sis
  • Andy JoeAndy Joe The AdirondacksRegistered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly, disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    Andy Joe on
    XBL: Stealth Crane PSN: ajpet12 3DS: 1160-9999-5810 NNID: StealthCrane
    Pokemon Moon Name: Moon
    CambiataAngelHedgiePotatoNinjaKristmas KthulhushrykeArdol
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Channeling Zoidberg and telling someone "your art is bad and you should feel bad" is not, and will never be suppression.

    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    So, the suppression of art is a bad thing. I believe that, and I suppose you do as well - even given different definitions of suppression. I won't put words into your mouth, but I believe that art is one of our most powerful forms of speech; those who can ban it are often the establishment that has the most prestige to lose from art denigrating it. I don't know why you care so much about its suppression, given that you think it's something that doesn't matters - well, I guess just did put a couple of words in your mouth, but feel free to take them out.

    Do you believe art to be simultaneously sacrosanct and unimportant? I'm not sure I can square your vehement support for art with my perceived view that you think it's all words in the wind. Why do you care if art is suppressed or not?

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    Andy Joe
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • BogartBogart I Will Cure You Registered User, Moderator mod
    The Fall is a pretty great TV show and Anderson is amazing in it. The second series is starting soon.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    More importantly, if you are entitled to your own opinions, so is everyone else.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Cambiata
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    AngelHedgieQuidKristmas KthulhuThorn413
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    And "this idea is sexist" is an evaluation of the merit in that idea.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    CambiataAndy Joe
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Nothing is too censory for me

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    If I spray-paint a dick on the exterior wall of my house and call it art, I don't have any reason to think my neighbors wouldn't call me an asshole.

    I've lost any will to argue with Frankie on this farther as no cognitive argument will change his mind and the combativeness over the last two pages has turned from reasonable discourse to close to name calling. Hopefully the lurkers and others in this thread discussing the topic will be able to learn something for the exchange of ideas, though!

    Enc on
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    I mean if you're going to call "generally try to avoid sexist media, support more positive media, and talk about the topic when it comes up like now" an attempt at censorship then your idea of what constitutes censorship is nonsensical.

    On the inverse, it calls into question the type of media one might generally enjoy otherwise.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    And "this idea is sexist" is an evaluation of the merit in that idea.

    Able to be mitigated or accentuated by other factors, just like any property

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    I feel like I may have gotten bottom of the page'd on this (or maybe everybody just ignored me, thread has been moving fast)... Isn't the desired end result of this kind of behavior that Wonder Woman no longer be drawn in this style? And if so, do you see how that can feel like censorship to people who like it when Wonder Woman is drawn in that style? Technicalities about the definition of censorship aside, what this kind of criticism is saying to those fans is, "What you like is wrong, and I will work to create a world in which the thing you like does not exist." If you have no sympathy for that viewpoint, all I can say is, imagine if people spent this much time deriding your favorite genre or mode of artistic expression.

    I'm not arguing that you're obligated to make or not make certain purchases, or say or not say certain things. Just that people on this side of the argument are kind of hiding behind the fact that this isn't censorship. It's not censorship, but it's still a concerted effort to alter the media landscape in a preferred direction by pressuring creators to alter or cease their self-expression. Those who disagree with your direction are going to be upset with this, and it's okay if your reaction is "well, fuck those guys," but you should be aware that that is in fact what you're saying.

    (Kind of a general "you" there. Not picking on you, SIG.)

    ACsTqqK.jpg
    JuliusApothe0sis
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?

    Calling out a depiction as sexist or part of a sexist tradition of art in comics is not equivalent of morally judging the artist. They should not "feel bad" ideally they should educate themselves and recognize the sexist ideas or images represented in their art, and if they truly educate themselves, work to avoid those in the future. The goal of calling these things out is to get the artist (or the audience) to RECOGNIZE some shit is going on. See: Pony's post.

    AtomikajoshofalltradesKristmas KthulhuThorn413Andy Joe
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    I feel like I may have gotten bottom of the page'd on this (or maybe everybody just ignored me, thread has been moving fast)... Isn't the desired end result of this kind of behavior that Wonder Woman no longer be drawn in this style? And if so, do you see how that can feel like censorship to people who like it when Wonder Woman is drawn in that style? Technicalities about the definition of censorship aside, what this kind of criticism is saying to those fans is, "What you like is wrong, and I will work to create a world in which the thing you like does not exist." If you have no sympathy for that viewpoint, all I can say is, imagine if people spent this much time deriding your favorite genre or mode of artistic expression.

    I'm not arguing that you're obligated to make or not make certain purchases, or say or not say certain things. Just that people on this side of the argument are kind of hiding behind the fact that this isn't censorship. It's not censorship, but it's still a concerted effort to alter the media landscape in a preferred direction by pressuring creators to alter or cease their self-expression. Those who disagree with your direction are going to be upset with this, and it's okay if your reaction is "well, fuck those guys," but you should be aware that that is in fact what you're saying.

    (Kind of a general "you" there. Not picking on you, SIG.)

    There's no such thing as abject morality, I suppose, but sexual objectification tends to get frowned upon in progressive circles. Ergo, if the consistent progressive consensus is making well-articulated arguments for or against the proliferation of certain types of imagery and representation, I think the discourse is less "well, fuck those guys," and more, "those guys are wrong, here's why, and at the very least people should be cognizant of these facts if they choose to continue their patronage."

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?

    Calling out a depiction as sexist or part of a sexist tradition of art in comics is not equivalent of morally judging the artist. They should not "feel bad" ideally they should educate themselves and recognize the sexist ideas or images represented in their art, and if they truly educate themselves, work to avoid those in the future. The goal of calling these things out is to get the artist (or the audience) to RECOGNIZE some shit is going on. See: Pony's post.

    Or they can just shrug their shoulders knowing that the right way to depict a human being doesn't really exist. That's also a possibility.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Astaereth wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    I feel like I may have gotten bottom of the page'd on this (or maybe everybody just ignored me, thread has been moving fast)... Isn't the desired end result of this kind of behavior that Wonder Woman no longer be drawn in this style? And if so, do you see how that can feel like censorship to people who like it when Wonder Woman is drawn in that style? Technicalities about the definition of censorship aside, what this kind of criticism is saying to those fans is, "What you like is wrong, and I will work to create a world in which the thing you like does not exist." If you have no sympathy for that viewpoint, all I can say is, imagine if people spent this much time deriding your favorite genre or mode of artistic expression.

    I'm not arguing that you're obligated to make or not make certain purchases, or say or not say certain things. Just that people on this side of the argument are kind of hiding behind the fact that this isn't censorship. It's not censorship, but it's still a concerted effort to alter the media landscape in a preferred direction by pressuring creators to alter or cease their self-expression. Those who disagree with your direction are going to be upset with this, and it's okay if your reaction is "well, fuck those guys," but you should be aware that that is in fact what you're saying.

    (Kind of a general "you" there. Not picking on you, SIG.)

    It's a concerted effort by me the consumer to tell the producer of the art/comic what I would prefer to consume. If someone wants to call that censorship they can go ahead, I guess. But it's not. I'm not advocating that art never be drawn. I'm advocating that we promote NEW traditions of art, that give options of non boob and ass women, different body types, etc. That are less sexist. Part of that may be removing promotion or support from sexist depictions, yes. That's my prerogative as a consumer or critic of the art.

    So It Goes on
    kimeKristmas Kthulhu
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?

    I'm reminded of something that came to mind when the whole Sodastream fiasco happened. During the discussion, there were a few people who were pointing out that they really didn't care about the politics of the matter, and that wasn't something they considered in evaluating the product.

    Pondering that, I came to a conclusion: you can say that you don't care about the social aspect of some work, but you need to own that decision, ramifications and all.

    So you can say "I don't care if X is sexist". But if you do, you have to accept that others will look on that decision and form their own opinions. And if you don't like the repercussions of them doing so, then it's on your head, not theirs.

    The problem is that many people aren't willing to own that decision.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    JihadJesus
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?

    Calling out a depiction as sexist or part of a sexist tradition of art in comics is not equivalent of morally judging the artist. They should not "feel bad" ideally they should educate themselves and recognize the sexist ideas or images represented in their art, and if they truly educate themselves, work to avoid those in the future. The goal of calling these things out is to get the artist (or the audience) to RECOGNIZE some shit is going on. See: Pony's post.

    Or they can just shrug their shoulders knowing that the right way to depict a human being doesn't really exist. That's also a possibility.

    I don't know whether or not there's a 'right way' to depict a human being.

    But I know without a doubt that there's definitely a wrong way.

    Dinosaurs were made up by the CIA to discourage time travel.
    ElvenshaeCambiataAndy JoeAngelHedgieKristmas KthulhushrykeArdol
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?

    Calling out a depiction as sexist or part of a sexist tradition of art in comics is not equivalent of morally judging the artist. They should not "feel bad" ideally they should educate themselves and recognize the sexist ideas or images represented in their art, and if they truly educate themselves, work to avoid those in the future. The goal of calling these things out is to get the artist (or the audience) to RECOGNIZE some shit is going on. See: Pony's post.

    Or they can just shrug their shoulders knowing that the right way to depict a human being doesn't really exist. That's also a possibility.

    I don't know whether or not there's a 'right way' to depict a human being.

    But I know without a doubt that there's definitely a wrong way.

    Rob Liefeld could probably have started his own art movement

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?

    Calling out a depiction as sexist or part of a sexist tradition of art in comics is not equivalent of morally judging the artist. They should not "feel bad" ideally they should educate themselves and recognize the sexist ideas or images represented in their art, and if they truly educate themselves, work to avoid those in the future. The goal of calling these things out is to get the artist (or the audience) to RECOGNIZE some shit is going on. See: Pony's post.

    Or they can just shrug their shoulders knowing that the right way to depict a human being doesn't really exist. That's also a possibility.

    Here's the thing: if you prefer certain expressions of the human form, then for you that is the "right way." Everyone has a "right way," or multiple versions thereof, whether you're conscious of this or not (and most are not, I'd wager).

    The trick is acknowledging this and gaining that self-awareness, and then deconstructing your preferences, and then ultimately deciding on whether or not these preferences line up with your stated moral beliefs.



    For example, Jim Lee is without contestation a talented artist. I do not prefer his style, however, because I do not think that he understands the narrative role of character design.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Well h
    Andy Joe wrote: »
    Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.

    It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.

    Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.

    There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.

    No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.

    Please allow me to elaborate:

    "Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.

    censorship is a red herring. The limitation of an expression of ideas due to anything other than the merit of the idea is a better fish to fry.

    The idea of wonder woman looking like a contorted unrealistic woman designed to display boobs and butt is stupid and sexist, and I would prefer if they used another artist that did not depict her that way.

    Which is why I'm buying all the Chiang books and will not be buying the future books by the new guy.

    Is this okay? Or too censory for ya?

    Do you think this differs from a person who has never/will never by comic books chastising someone who wants to by the future books for buying sexist comics as if it was a moral wrong? Or chastising the author for creating the sexist comic as if they are amoral for doing so? Should those people (the author/customer) feel bad for what they have done?

    Calling out a depiction as sexist or part of a sexist tradition of art in comics is not equivalent of morally judging the artist. They should not "feel bad" ideally they should educate themselves and recognize the sexist ideas or images represented in their art, and if they truly educate themselves, work to avoid those in the future. The goal of calling these things out is to get the artist (or the audience) to RECOGNIZE some shit is going on. See: Pony's post.

    Or they can just shrug their shoulders knowing that the right way to depict a human being doesn't really exist. That's also a possibility.

    Here's the thing: if you prefer certain expressions of the human form, then for you that is the "right way." Everyone has a "right way," or multiple versions thereof, whether you're conscious of this or not (and most are not, I'd wager).

    The trick is acknowledging this and gaining that self-awareness, and then deconstructing your preferences, and then ultimately deciding on whether or not these preferences line up with your stated moral beliefs.



    For example, Jim Lee is without contestation a talented artist. I do not prefer his style, however, because I do not think that he understands the narrative role of character design.

    Individual tastes pair with individual rationality, and being unable to reconcile them using a single strict method allows art freedom from progressivism - art does not get better over time, merely different as each era explores itself in a unique way. If I prefer art someone else deems inferior, it cannot be automatically assumed that I have a lower understanding of my preferences or how they reflect on my beliefs. It may be true, but it also may not.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This discussion has been closed.