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

11617181921

Posts

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    If anything I feel like the emotional story about your upbringing and painting me as a gatekeeper of feminism is a little perverse given the above and the context in which the exchange occurred - it seems to me that your modus operandi is to fall upon an emotive appeal coupled with a maximally uncharitable interpretation of your interlocutors as a shaming tactic.

    Perhaps you would care to respond to any of the rest of us that have addressed your argument without personal anecdote then?

    My phone typing speed is not that of SpaceKungFuMan's, alas. I did however, respond to each person in order.

    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • Alinius133Alinius133 Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    While I mostly agree with you here, I would point out one sweeping generalization that you are making. Mainly that if I don't see a problem, I must be speaking from ignorance. I can see what someone sees as a problem, understand where they are coming from, and still not agree that it is a problem. To extend your thought experiment. If a restaurant doesn't serve a certain race because that race has a significantly higher chance to having food allergies to the type of food being served, would you still consider that to be wrong?

    The bolded part of your post is stated nearly word for word in my post under "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)." Specifically:
    Enc wrote: »
    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."


    Concerning the italicized portion of your post: Yes, it is wrong. It still is racism. It (not serving a specific ethnicity because of a genetic trend towards an allergy) also isn't a thing that exists unless being used as cover for actual racism.

    I know that such a thing does not exist, but I am speaking as a pure hypothetical. If the owners reason for not serving was purely a matter of saving lives and had nothing to do with racism, would it still be wrong to refuse service?
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Yes? Especially if it also coincided with a history of segregation. It'd be similar to saying that McDonalds should be able to refuse to serve blacks due to a much higher risk of diabetes.
    Or am I missing the point, and in there's some equivalent of public safety in 'sexist' media that would justify having a much narrower portrayal of women?

    If it coincided with other things I think that would give you evidence of malice. My point is that the actual motive matters in both sexism and racism.

    Alinius133 on
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Just in terms of armor in general, lack of neck protection bugs the heck out of me. I mean having neck protection but going with a bare midriff is dumb as fuck too, but seeing someone who is supposed to be doing swordfighting on the regular who has a bare neck is one of my pet peeves.

    While I can't speak to the overall historical accuracy of the costuming in Branaugh's Henry V, I always liked that his Henry is never in the field without some form of gorget:

    BranaghHenryV.jpg

    Elvenshae
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades This is the water, and this is the well Drink full, and descendRegistered User regular
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    While I mostly agree with you here, I would point out one sweeping generalization that you are making. Mainly that if I don't see a problem, I must be speaking from ignorance. I can see what someone sees as a problem, understand where they are coming from, and still not agree that it is a problem. To extend your thought experiment. If a restaurant doesn't serve a certain race because that race has a significantly higher chance to having food allergies to the type of food being served, would you still consider that to be wrong?

    The bolded part of your post is stated nearly word for word in my post under "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)." Specifically:
    Enc wrote: »
    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."


    Concerning the italicized portion of your post: Yes, it is wrong. It still is racism. It (not serving a specific ethnicity because of a genetic trend towards an allergy) also isn't a thing that exists unless being used as cover for actual racism.

    I know that such a thing does not exist, but I am speaking as a pure hypothetical. If the owners reason for not serving was purely a matter of saving lives and had nothing to do with racism, would it still be wrong to refuse service?

    Yes

    Can we not have this discussion

    The horse is the white of the eyes, and dark within.
    EncHarry DresdenSo It GoesshrykeGnizmoKristmas KthulhuAegeri
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I believe armor was even in its time a fantasy and am glad people have come to their senses and focused on light clothing that maximized flexibility and functionality

    You're joking right? Historically, armor saved lives often. It was a major advancement in military technology. Plate armor and the like was rendered obsolete with the invention of gunpowder, but for its time the difference between a sword or an arrow piercing your soft fleshy bits or a piece of metal deflecting it was life or death.

    That's a side discussion though. When you're building a fantasy world where women fought alongside men in medieval-styled battles, you want to strike an appropriate balance between style (clearly-gendered) and realism, unless of course you're making a grindhouse style exploitation film or parody.

    Discussion about the dubious and needlessly traditional warfare tactics of the Medieval period aside, the most flagrant examples of unrealistic armor are in representations of unrealistic battle, with magic and superpowers and whatever. I haven't seen many suspiciously armored women in Medieval Times or the Renaissance Faire, but I have seen them in Diablo and Prince of Persia where stopping time is an effective battle tactic. The majority of works (I am having a real hard time finding a period piece that actually tries that uses this form of armor) that employ creative and impractical armor are themselves parodies and exploitation works of the age of chivalry. The armor exists because it looks cool, and not really for any other reason.

    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.
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    While I mostly agree with you here, I would point out one sweeping generalization that you are making. Mainly that if I don't see a problem, I must be speaking from ignorance. I can see what someone sees as a problem, understand where they are coming from, and still not agree that it is a problem. To extend your thought experiment. If a restaurant doesn't serve a certain race because that race has a significantly higher chance to having food allergies to the type of food being served, would you still consider that to be wrong?

    The bolded part of your post is stated nearly word for word in my post under "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)." Specifically:
    Enc wrote: »
    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."


    Concerning the italicized portion of your post: Yes, it is wrong. It still is racism. It (not serving a specific ethnicity because of a genetic trend towards an allergy) also isn't a thing that exists unless being used as cover for actual racism.

    I know that such a thing does not exist, but I am speaking as a pure hypothetical. If the owners reason for not serving was purely a matter of saving lives and had nothing to do with racism, would it still be wrong to refuse service?

    Yes

    Can we not have this discussion

    I googled it

    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.
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    If it coincided with other things I think that would give you evidence of malice. My point is that the actual motive matters in both sexism and racism.

    They don't really, though. In fact motive matters least when talking about sexism or racism. Because sometimes the motive is genuinely, though misguidedly, good!

    Like, "we have to keep women out of this job because they might get hurt!" for example of a "good" motive for a bad action.

    It's one of the reasons that whatever someone is deep in their heart doesn't matter at all in these converstations, and it never should matter.

    I think Jay Smooth said it best, so I'm just going to post his video if that's alright:

    VanguardHarry Dresden
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades This is the water, and this is the well Drink full, and descendRegistered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Just in terms of armor in general, lack of neck protection bugs the heck out of me. I mean having neck protection but going with a bare midriff is dumb as fuck too, but seeing someone who is supposed to be doing swordfighting on the regular who has a bare neck is one of my pet peeves.

    While I can't speak to the overall historical accuracy of the costuming in Branaugh's Henry V, I always liked that his Henry is never in the field without some form of gorget:

    BranaghHenryV.jpg

    While true, I think this is done (for females) out of a careful balancing between gendering the armor-wearer and realism. Obviously going into battle in full plate with no helmet on just screams "Hit me in the face", but the second article I posted back on the prior page makes a point that I agree with. Leaving the face bare for sex appeal and leaving the rest to our imagination strikes an appropriate balance, and I can suspend my disbelief somewhat.

    Depending on the game, if there's an option to make a helmet invisible, I'll occasionally take it. I like knowing there's a lady in there, and seeing the rest of her appropriately armored lets me suspend my disbelief somewhat while still allowing me to strongly identify with the character instead of the coat of plates she's wearing.

    The horse is the white of the eyes, and dark within.
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    This would be a strong case in point of the sloppy characterisations against which I rail - I did not at any point accuse anyone of being "against me" nor of conspiring or colluding, nor did I make any statements about evil (in fact given I referred to the critical side as "fellow travellers" I would suggest I implied quite the opposite of considering anyone evil). My statements were specifically about the quality of argument and quantity of snark.

    I'm not responding to the rest of your comments because they're not directly referring to anything I have said and if they are aimed at me are done so under false apprehension - I don't need a lesson in empathy, I am well aware that perceptions differ but don't agree in the subject oriented relativity you propose (and contend that is not in keeping with the general position of the thread) and my dissent is not born of ignorance or a lack of understanding - I understand the arguments and conclusions just fine, I just do not think they succeed.

    Admittedly, using "evil agenda" is hyperbolic. But the fact your post lumped all discussion in this thread into a single voice of dissent against you (and then had the wonky thesis to call dozens of people's opinions as inconsistent in being a single entity) is literally the bolded line that topic addressed. Most of what you are choosing to ignore in my post is discussing just that, along with the basic understanding of what it means to have a problem and what the threshold of proof someone needs to feel they have a concern (in short: the only threshold is to feel that way).

    From how I understand your posts you seem to fall under the "there isn't a problem" group with the thought experiment being something like: Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, and unless someone makes a specific argument meeting my personal goalposts of proof I refuse to acknowledge that his position or point is worthwhile."

    This is problematic because no matter how much other people bend over backwards to appease your personal goalposts you can always move them and, even if you don't, the next person will likely have even more elaborate goalposts as their benchmark of proof. The purpose of the empathy discussion is to point out how silly this argument is given the context of this thread. We aren't looking to pass legislation or specific action. We are discussing concerns we perceive in media. If we were attempting legislation some goalposts (legal ones) would absolutely need to be met, but we have repeatedly stated in this thread that, while the purposes of folk in here vary, legislating against artists or forcing them to change what they want to do isn't one of them.

    Meeting your goalposts isn't really something I'm interested in doing. If you don't see the intrinsic value of looking at all media with a critical eye and being aware of potential problems those media can create then I doubt anyone will change your mind. And that's ok! You can have whatever perspective on this world you wish to fabricate for yourself. Just try to be self aware enough to understand that your perspective is not the universal one (there isn't such a thing) and other people can have legitimate problems with something, and have just as much right to speak about those problems as you do to ignore or respond to them. Suppression here only happens when you deny someone else their voice to speak on a problem, which is what happens when you attempt to deny critical voices on a subject license to speak. You don't have to listen to those voices. You can speak back against them. They can, in turn, speak back against you.

    But that argument could be avoided entirely if you took a moment or two to understand why they are concerned and acknowledge that they have a legitimate feeling that way, even if you don't agree with it.

    Guns make you stupid. Better to fight your wars with duct tape. Duct tape makes you smart.

    I make Encounter Maps for Pathfinder and D&D! Check them out here: https://falleron.com/
    Harry DresdenAegeri
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Just in terms of armor in general, lack of neck protection bugs the heck out of me. I mean having neck protection but going with a bare midriff is dumb as fuck too, but seeing someone who is supposed to be doing swordfighting on the regular who has a bare neck is one of my pet peeves.

    While I can't speak to the overall historical accuracy of the costuming in Branaugh's Henry V, I always liked that his Henry is never in the field without some form of gorget:

    BranaghHenryV.jpg

    While true, I think this is done (for females) out of a careful balancing between gendering the armor-wearer and realism. Obviously going into battle in full plate with no helmet on just screams "Hit me in the face", but the second article I posted back on the prior page makes a point that I agree with. Leaving the face bare for sex appeal and leaving the rest to our imagination strikes an appropriate balance, and I can suspend my disbelief somewhat.

    Depending on the game, if there's an option to make a helmet invisible, I'll occasionally take it. I like knowing there's a lady in there, and seeing the rest of her appropriately armored lets me suspend my disbelief somewhat while still allowing me to strongly identify with the character instead of the coat of plates she's wearing.

    This is exactly the reason why Sword Sisters were a big waste of time in Mount and Blade

    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.
  • VanguardVanguard The worst part about being young is thinking nothing, nothing ever comesRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Yeah, that video is pretty much required viewing for any discussion about any ism.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades This is the water, and this is the well Drink full, and descendRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Just in terms of armor in general, lack of neck protection bugs the heck out of me. I mean having neck protection but going with a bare midriff is dumb as fuck too, but seeing someone who is supposed to be doing swordfighting on the regular who has a bare neck is one of my pet peeves.

    While I can't speak to the overall historical accuracy of the costuming in Branaugh's Henry V, I always liked that his Henry is never in the field without some form of gorget:

    BranaghHenryV.jpg

    While true, I think this is done (for females) out of a careful balancing between gendering the armor-wearer and realism. Obviously going into battle in full plate with no helmet on just screams "Hit me in the face", but the second article I posted back on the prior page makes a point that I agree with. Leaving the face bare for sex appeal and leaving the rest to our imagination strikes an appropriate balance, and I can suspend my disbelief somewhat.

    Depending on the game, if there's an option to make a helmet invisible, I'll occasionally take it. I like knowing there's a lady in there, and seeing the rest of her appropriately armored lets me suspend my disbelief somewhat while still allowing me to strongly identify with the character instead of the coat of plates she's wearing.

    This is exactly the reason why Sword Sisters were a big waste of time in Mount and Blade

    Weren't they the most powerful non-hero units though?

    The horse is the white of the eyes, and dark within.
  • Alinius133Alinius133 Registered User regular
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Yes? Especially if it also coincided with a history of segregation. It'd be similar to saying that McDonalds should be able to refuse to serve blacks due to a much higher risk of diabetes.
    Or am I missing the point, and in there's some equivalent of public safety in 'sexist' media that would justify having a much narrower portrayal of women?
    Paladin wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    While I mostly agree with you here, I would point out one sweeping generalization that you are making. Mainly that if I don't see a problem, I must be speaking from ignorance. I can see what someone sees as a problem, understand where they are coming from, and still not agree that it is a problem. To extend your thought experiment. If a restaurant doesn't serve a certain race because that race has a significantly higher chance to having food allergies to the type of food being served, would you still consider that to be wrong?

    The bolded part of your post is stated nearly word for word in my post under "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)." Specifically:
    Enc wrote: »
    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."


    Concerning the italicized portion of your post: Yes, it is wrong. It still is racism. It (not serving a specific ethnicity because of a genetic trend towards an allergy) also isn't a thing that exists unless being used as cover for actual racism.

    I know that such a thing does not exist, but I am speaking as a pure hypothetical. If the owners reason for not serving was purely a matter of saving lives and had nothing to do with racism, would it still be wrong to refuse service?

    Yes

    Can we not have this discussion

    I googled it

    Not really. That is the discussion of whether it is legal. My question is about the moral implications.

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Just in terms of armor in general, lack of neck protection bugs the heck out of me. I mean having neck protection but going with a bare midriff is dumb as fuck too, but seeing someone who is supposed to be doing swordfighting on the regular who has a bare neck is one of my pet peeves.

    While I can't speak to the overall historical accuracy of the costuming in Branaugh's Henry V, I always liked that his Henry is never in the field without some form of gorget:

    BranaghHenryV.jpg

    While true, I think this is done (for females) out of a careful balancing between gendering the armor-wearer and realism. Obviously going into battle in full plate with no helmet on just screams "Hit me in the face", but the second article I posted back on the prior page makes a point that I agree with. Leaving the face bare for sex appeal and leaving the rest to our imagination strikes an appropriate balance, and I can suspend my disbelief somewhat.

    Depending on the game, if there's an option to make a helmet invisible, I'll occasionally take it. I like knowing there's a lady in there, and seeing the rest of her appropriately armored lets me suspend my disbelief somewhat while still allowing me to strongly identify with the character instead of the coat of plates she's wearing.

    The origins of modern boob plate have their roots in early fantasy pulp, also. A good example of a few artists trying to meet a corporate sex appeal quotient for their publishers (and especially TOR and TSR from the late 70s through late 90s) eventually causing something like boob plate to be so requisite in book covers that using anything else was considered risky for selling a publication. These things build over time.

    It can go the other way too, which is why you see the rash of "hooded bow-woman assassin" covers start to replace it from early-2000s to present. Those characters existed before that, and in similar numbers, but were rarely depicted as such on covers until TOR/TSR started actively pursuing a female audience.

    Guns make you stupid. Better to fight your wars with duct tape. Duct tape makes you smart.

    I make Encounter Maps for Pathfinder and D&D! Check them out here: https://falleron.com/
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Just in terms of armor in general, lack of neck protection bugs the heck out of me. I mean having neck protection but going with a bare midriff is dumb as fuck too, but seeing someone who is supposed to be doing swordfighting on the regular who has a bare neck is one of my pet peeves.

    While I can't speak to the overall historical accuracy of the costuming in Branaugh's Henry V, I always liked that his Henry is never in the field without some form of gorget:

    BranaghHenryV.jpg

    While true, I think this is done (for females) out of a careful balancing between gendering the armor-wearer and realism. Obviously going into battle in full plate with no helmet on just screams "Hit me in the face", but the second article I posted back on the prior page makes a point that I agree with. Leaving the face bare for sex appeal and leaving the rest to our imagination strikes an appropriate balance, and I can suspend my disbelief somewhat.

    Depending on the game, if there's an option to make a helmet invisible, I'll occasionally take it. I like knowing there's a lady in there, and seeing the rest of her appropriately armored lets me suspend my disbelief somewhat while still allowing me to strongly identify with the character instead of the coat of plates she's wearing.

    This is exactly the reason why Sword Sisters were a big waste of time in Mount and Blade

    Weren't they the most powerful non-hero units though?

    They were as expensive as Swadian Sargeants and about as combat effective, EXCEPT that they were exceptionally harder to find and train and they could be killed by a peasant with a lucky rock to the face

    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.
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Just in terms of armor in general, lack of neck protection bugs the heck out of me. I mean having neck protection but going with a bare midriff is dumb as fuck too, but seeing someone who is supposed to be doing swordfighting on the regular who has a bare neck is one of my pet peeves.

    While I can't speak to the overall historical accuracy of the costuming in Branaugh's Henry V, I always liked that his Henry is never in the field without some form of gorget:

    BranaghHenryV.jpg

    While true, I think this is done (for females) out of a careful balancing between gendering the armor-wearer and realism. Obviously going into battle in full plate with no helmet on just screams "Hit me in the face", but the second article I posted back on the prior page makes a point that I agree with. Leaving the face bare for sex appeal and leaving the rest to our imagination strikes an appropriate balance, and I can suspend my disbelief somewhat.

    Depending on the game, if there's an option to make a helmet invisible, I'll occasionally take it. I like knowing there's a lady in there, and seeing the rest of her appropriately armored lets me suspend my disbelief somewhat while still allowing me to strongly identify with the character instead of the coat of plates she's wearing.

    Well yeah, I agree with "invisible helmet" and usually choose that option myself. Although sometimes I do go with a helmet depending on the situation. That's a tradition in gaming, theater, movies, etc that I give a pass to, because the face is usually needed to attain empathy with the character. It has a legitimate reason for existing in theatrical tradition.

    EncjoshofalltradesKamarKanaPLA
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Yes? Especially if it also coincided with a history of segregation. It'd be similar to saying that McDonalds should be able to refuse to serve blacks due to a much higher risk of diabetes.
    Or am I missing the point, and in there's some equivalent of public safety in 'sexist' media that would justify having a much narrower portrayal of women?
    Paladin wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    While I mostly agree with you here, I would point out one sweeping generalization that you are making. Mainly that if I don't see a problem, I must be speaking from ignorance. I can see what someone sees as a problem, understand where they are coming from, and still not agree that it is a problem. To extend your thought experiment. If a restaurant doesn't serve a certain race because that race has a significantly higher chance to having food allergies to the type of food being served, would you still consider that to be wrong?

    The bolded part of your post is stated nearly word for word in my post under "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)." Specifically:
    Enc wrote: »
    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."


    Concerning the italicized portion of your post: Yes, it is wrong. It still is racism. It (not serving a specific ethnicity because of a genetic trend towards an allergy) also isn't a thing that exists unless being used as cover for actual racism.

    I know that such a thing does not exist, but I am speaking as a pure hypothetical. If the owners reason for not serving was purely a matter of saving lives and had nothing to do with racism, would it still be wrong to refuse service?

    Yes

    Can we not have this discussion

    I googled it

    Not really. That is the discussion of whether it is legal. My question is about the moral implications.

    The moral implications here are essentially "white man's burden," specifically the fallacy that you know best over someone else based upon race and that you can act as the kindly, protective parent to them. It robs agency from those you are "sheltering," and anything that robs agency is inherently racist in context.

    Guns make you stupid. Better to fight your wars with duct tape. Duct tape makes you smart.

    I make Encounter Maps for Pathfinder and D&D! Check them out here: https://falleron.com/
    CambiataJuliusHarry DresdenKristmas Kthulhujoshofalltrades
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades This is the water, and this is the well Drink full, and descendRegistered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Just in terms of armor in general, lack of neck protection bugs the heck out of me. I mean having neck protection but going with a bare midriff is dumb as fuck too, but seeing someone who is supposed to be doing swordfighting on the regular who has a bare neck is one of my pet peeves.

    While I can't speak to the overall historical accuracy of the costuming in Branaugh's Henry V, I always liked that his Henry is never in the field without some form of gorget:

    BranaghHenryV.jpg

    While true, I think this is done (for females) out of a careful balancing between gendering the armor-wearer and realism. Obviously going into battle in full plate with no helmet on just screams "Hit me in the face", but the second article I posted back on the prior page makes a point that I agree with. Leaving the face bare for sex appeal and leaving the rest to our imagination strikes an appropriate balance, and I can suspend my disbelief somewhat.

    Depending on the game, if there's an option to make a helmet invisible, I'll occasionally take it. I like knowing there's a lady in there, and seeing the rest of her appropriately armored lets me suspend my disbelief somewhat while still allowing me to strongly identify with the character instead of the coat of plates she's wearing.

    The origins of modern boob plate have their roots in early fantasy pulp, also. A good example of a few artists trying to meet a corporate sex appeal quotient for their publishers (and especially TOR and TSR from the late 70s through late 90s) eventually causing something like boob plate to be so requisite in book covers that using anything else was considered risky for selling a publication. These things build over time.

    It can go the other way too, which is why you see the rash of "hooded bow-woman assassin" covers start to replace it from early-2000s to present. Those characters existed before that, and in similar numbers, but were rarely depicted as such on covers until TOR/TSR started actively pursuing a female audience.

    While clearly not exclusively responsible, I think the pulpy hyper-sexualization on covers and corporate meddling in the genre really contributed to the creation of the sci-fi/fantasy ghetto. For a long while it seemed like if you didn't create something recognizably Tolkien-esque and/or appealing to the stereotype of the lonely basement-dwelling nerd, you couldn't get published.

    Like, so many damsels on the covers of books. It even weirded me out as a kid.

    Stuff like this:

    beacon_mating_cry.jpg

    doesn't immediately scream sci-fi, but a quick bit of research shows it deals with aliens and stuff.

    Here's another one that's really problematic, I'm going to link it because it's kind of NSFW.

    The horse is the white of the eyes, and dark within.
    Harry Dresden
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    If it coincided with other things I think that would give you evidence of malice. My point is that the actual motive matters in both sexism and racism.

    You don't have to be sexist or racist to contribute to a racist or sexist environment. It's casual sexism/racism, which is a thing. It's harder to stamp out than full blown racism/sexism since people overlook their own thought processes because they don't think can't be racist or sexist without the obvious signs. Which is why it's crucial for people to be self aware of their actions and how they are effected by and/or effecting the people around them.

    Harry Dresden on
    CambiataKristmas KthulhuMuddypawsMagic Pink
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    This would be a strong case in point of the sloppy characterisations against which I rail - I did not at any point accuse anyone of being "against me" nor of conspiring or colluding, nor did I make any statements about evil (in fact given I referred to the critical side as "fellow travellers" I would suggest I implied quite the opposite of considering anyone evil). My statements were specifically about the quality of argument and quantity of snark.

    I'm not responding to the rest of your comments because they're not directly referring to anything I have said and if they are aimed at me are done so under false apprehension - I don't need a lesson in empathy, I am well aware that perceptions differ but don't agree in the subject oriented relativity you propose (and contend that is not in keeping with the general position of the thread) and my dissent is not born of ignorance or a lack of understanding - I understand the arguments and conclusions just fine, I just do not think they succeed.

    Admittedly, using "evil agenda" is hyperbolic. But the fact your post lumped all discussion in this thread into a single voice of dissent against you (and then had the wonky thesis to call dozens of people's opinions as inconsistent in being a single entity) is literally the bolded line that topic addressed. Most of what you are choosing to ignore in my post is discussing just that, along with the basic understanding of what it means to have a problem and what the threshold of proof someone needs to feel they have a concern (in short: the only threshold is to feel that way).

    From how I understand your posts you seem to fall under the "there isn't a problem" group with the thought experiment being something like: Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, and unless someone makes a specific argument meeting my personal goalposts of proof I refuse to acknowledge that his position or point is worthwhile."

    This is problematic because no matter how much other people bend over backwards to appease your personal goalposts you can always move them and, even if you don't, the next person will likely have even more elaborate goalposts as their benchmark of proof. The purpose of the empathy discussion is to point out how silly this argument is given the context of this thread. We aren't looking to pass legislation or specific action. We are discussing concerns we perceive in media. If we were attempting legislation some goalposts (legal ones) would absolutely need to be met, but we have repeatedly stated in this thread that, while the purposes of folk in here vary, legislating against artists or forcing them to change what they want to do isn't one of them.

    Meeting your goalposts isn't really something I'm interested in doing. If you don't see the intrinsic value of looking at all media with a critical eye and being aware of potential problems those media can create then I doubt anyone will change your mind. And that's ok! You can have whatever perspective on this world you wish to fabricate for yourself. Just try to be self aware enough to understand that your perspective is not the universal one (there isn't such a thing) and other people can have legitimate problems with something, and have just as much right to speak about those problems as you do to ignore or respond to them. Suppression here only happens when you deny someone else their voice to speak on a problem, which is what happens when you attempt to deny critical voices on a subject license to speak. You don't have to listen to those voices. You can speak back against them. They can, in turn, speak back against you.

    But that argument could be avoided entirely if you took a moment or two to understand why they are concerned and acknowledge that they have a legitimate feeling that way, even if you don't agree with it.

    I have only the time to point out, once again, that I neither expressed nor believe that anyone is against me, acting against me, or otherwise surreptiously attacking me through carefully manufactured false arguments.

    It is 100% clear to me that the object of the arguments and thus what everyone is against is sexism, actual or misconstrued, within media. In addition, I do not construct my identity around the media I do or do not consume so do not mistake a criticism of comics, games, movies et al as a criticism of me.

    Lastly, I don't think the thread is a single entity, insofar as I perceive a diversity of views with which I disagree, I think them all misconstrued where they are mutually exclusive and born of similarly flawed premise, logic or conclusion where they are similar.

    I don't believe I ever questioned the value of critically examining media, art or other content. I have disagreed with the examinations provided (and do, in general). Likewise, it is entirely possible to acknowledge and even understand the position of another without thinking it legitimate - I am forced to wonder if your repeated misreadings and incorrect attributions of my statements and mental states are born of the diagonal dilemma that your closing maxim presents. It would obligate you to acknowledge that my position that the concerns as presented are or may not be legitimate is itself a legitimate position.


    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
    _J_Frankiedarling
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    If it coincided with other things I think that would give you evidence of malice. My point is that the actual motive matters in both sexism and racism.

    You don't have to be sexist or racist to contribute to a racist or sexist environment. It's casual sexism/racism, which is a thing. It's harder to stamp out than full blown racism/sexism since people overlook their own thought processes because they don't think can't be racist or sexist without the obvious signs. Which is why it's crucial for people to be self aware of their actions and how they are effected by and/or effecting the people around them.

    I think you can call casual sexism and racism as evidence as personal sexism and racism and get away with it

    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.
  • Alinius133Alinius133 Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Yes? Especially if it also coincided with a history of segregation. It'd be similar to saying that McDonalds should be able to refuse to serve blacks due to a much higher risk of diabetes.
    Or am I missing the point, and in there's some equivalent of public safety in 'sexist' media that would justify having a much narrower portrayal of women?
    Paladin wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    While I mostly agree with you here, I would point out one sweeping generalization that you are making. Mainly that if I don't see a problem, I must be speaking from ignorance. I can see what someone sees as a problem, understand where they are coming from, and still not agree that it is a problem. To extend your thought experiment. If a restaurant doesn't serve a certain race because that race has a significantly higher chance to having food allergies to the type of food being served, would you still consider that to be wrong?

    The bolded part of your post is stated nearly word for word in my post under "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)." Specifically:
    Enc wrote: »
    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."


    Concerning the italicized portion of your post: Yes, it is wrong. It still is racism. It (not serving a specific ethnicity because of a genetic trend towards an allergy) also isn't a thing that exists unless being used as cover for actual racism.

    I know that such a thing does not exist, but I am speaking as a pure hypothetical. If the owners reason for not serving was purely a matter of saving lives and had nothing to do with racism, would it still be wrong to refuse service?

    Yes

    Can we not have this discussion

    I googled it

    Not really. That is the discussion of whether it is legal. My question is about the moral implications.

    The moral implications here are essentially "white man's burden," specifically the fallacy that you know best over someone else based upon race and that you can act as the kindly, protective parent to them. It robs agency from those you are "sheltering," and anything that robs agency is inherently racist in context.

    Feeding someone food that is potentially poisonous -> Ok. Not giving it to them, robs them of agency -> Not Ok.

    I feel like I am being told that I am morally required to knowingly feed someone lethal poison, because not doing it might hurt their feelings.

    Alinius133 on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades This is the water, and this is the well Drink full, and descendRegistered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Yes? Especially if it also coincided with a history of segregation. It'd be similar to saying that McDonalds should be able to refuse to serve blacks due to a much higher risk of diabetes.
    Or am I missing the point, and in there's some equivalent of public safety in 'sexist' media that would justify having a much narrower portrayal of women?
    Paladin wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    While I mostly agree with you here, I would point out one sweeping generalization that you are making. Mainly that if I don't see a problem, I must be speaking from ignorance. I can see what someone sees as a problem, understand where they are coming from, and still not agree that it is a problem. To extend your thought experiment. If a restaurant doesn't serve a certain race because that race has a significantly higher chance to having food allergies to the type of food being served, would you still consider that to be wrong?

    The bolded part of your post is stated nearly word for word in my post under "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)." Specifically:
    Enc wrote: »
    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."


    Concerning the italicized portion of your post: Yes, it is wrong. It still is racism. It (not serving a specific ethnicity because of a genetic trend towards an allergy) also isn't a thing that exists unless being used as cover for actual racism.

    I know that such a thing does not exist, but I am speaking as a pure hypothetical. If the owners reason for not serving was purely a matter of saving lives and had nothing to do with racism, would it still be wrong to refuse service?

    Yes

    Can we not have this discussion

    I googled it

    Not really. That is the discussion of whether it is legal. My question is about the moral implications.

    The moral implications here are essentially "white man's burden," specifically the fallacy that you know best over someone else based upon race and that you can act as the kindly, protective parent to them. It robs agency from those you are "sheltering," and anything that robs agency is inherently racist in context.

    Feeding someone food that is potentially poisonous -> Ok. Not giving it to them, robs them of agency -> Not Ok.

    I feel like I am being told that I am morally required to knowingly feed someone lethal poison, because not doing it might hurt their feelings.

    You've also created an insane and impossible scenario in order to construct your point, which might say something about it.

    joshofalltrades on
    The horse is the white of the eyes, and dark within.
    SurfpossumCambiatacB557KanaKristmas KthulhuQuidiTunesIsEvilprogramjunkieMagic PinkKid Presentablechrishallett83Aegeri
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Oh, and I am not attempting to ward off some suppression via criticism - I don't think that's a risk nor even a coherent concern.

    And you have no idea how self aware I am or am not, nor the degree to which I introspect upon myself, my positions or that which I consume. Given its inherent subjectivity, neither can I judge whether it is a little, a lot or in between. But I would request that you follow Hume's maxim "of that which you cannot know you should not speak".

    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
    _J_
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Just in terms of armor in general, lack of neck protection bugs the heck out of me. I mean having neck protection but going with a bare midriff is dumb as fuck too, but seeing someone who is supposed to be doing swordfighting on the regular who has a bare neck is one of my pet peeves.

    While I can't speak to the overall historical accuracy of the costuming in Branaugh's Henry V, I always liked that his Henry is never in the field without some form of gorget:

    BranaghHenryV.jpg

    While true, I think this is done (for females) out of a careful balancing between gendering the armor-wearer and realism. Obviously going into battle in full plate with no helmet on just screams "Hit me in the face", but the second article I posted back on the prior page makes a point that I agree with. Leaving the face bare for sex appeal and leaving the rest to our imagination strikes an appropriate balance, and I can suspend my disbelief somewhat.

    Depending on the game, if there's an option to make a helmet invisible, I'll occasionally take it. I like knowing there's a lady in there, and seeing the rest of her appropriately armored lets me suspend my disbelief somewhat while still allowing me to strongly identify with the character instead of the coat of plates she's wearing.

    The origins of modern boob plate have their roots in early fantasy pulp, also. A good example of a few artists trying to meet a corporate sex appeal quotient for their publishers (and especially TOR and TSR from the late 70s through late 90s) eventually causing something like boob plate to be so requisite in book covers that using anything else was considered risky for selling a publication. These things build over time.

    It can go the other way too, which is why you see the rash of "hooded bow-woman assassin" covers start to replace it from early-2000s to present. Those characters existed before that, and in similar numbers, but were rarely depicted as such on covers until TOR/TSR started actively pursuing a female audience.

    While clearly not exclusively responsible, I think the pulpy hyper-sexualization on covers and corporate meddling in the genre really contributed to the creation of the sci-fi/fantasy ghetto. For a long while it seemed like if you didn't create something recognizably Tolkien-esque and/or appealing to the stereotype of the lonely basement-dwelling nerd, you couldn't get published.

    Like, so many damsels on the covers of books. It even weirded me out as a kid.

    Stuff like this:

    beacon_mating_cry.jpg

    doesn't immediately scream sci-fi, but a quick bit of research shows it deals with aliens and stuff.

    Here's another one that's really problematic, I'm going to link it because it's kind of NSFW.

    My old boss and mentor used to teach a class about early film movie covers, and the differences between dramas/crime stories and science fiction pulp. One of the main differences were the degree in which women were dressed. Sci-Fi almost always had a woman being either directly assaulted by the bad of the film (be it a spooky guy/giant beatle/robot) or being drug around by her arm by the hero, whereas most dramas of the time had the man and woman holding each other on equal terms (consensual embrace), both leads standing solo, or just faces floating around a setting backdrop.

    The message was pretty clear: in drama the actors and actresses themselves sold the story. Interesting people in a place. In sci-fi the message was "woman needs rescuing from fantastical problem!" That doesn't mean that women were treated better in one over the other, they were generally not treated great in anything beyond musicals (which were remarkably progressive for the time, especially in the 50s and 60s), but the spirit of the advertising is interesting to see.

    Guns make you stupid. Better to fight your wars with duct tape. Duct tape makes you smart.

    I make Encounter Maps for Pathfinder and D&D! Check them out here: https://falleron.com/
    Elvenshae
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades This is the water, and this is the well Drink full, and descendRegistered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Just in terms of armor in general, lack of neck protection bugs the heck out of me. I mean having neck protection but going with a bare midriff is dumb as fuck too, but seeing someone who is supposed to be doing swordfighting on the regular who has a bare neck is one of my pet peeves.

    While I can't speak to the overall historical accuracy of the costuming in Branaugh's Henry V, I always liked that his Henry is never in the field without some form of gorget:

    BranaghHenryV.jpg

    While true, I think this is done (for females) out of a careful balancing between gendering the armor-wearer and realism. Obviously going into battle in full plate with no helmet on just screams "Hit me in the face", but the second article I posted back on the prior page makes a point that I agree with. Leaving the face bare for sex appeal and leaving the rest to our imagination strikes an appropriate balance, and I can suspend my disbelief somewhat.

    Depending on the game, if there's an option to make a helmet invisible, I'll occasionally take it. I like knowing there's a lady in there, and seeing the rest of her appropriately armored lets me suspend my disbelief somewhat while still allowing me to strongly identify with the character instead of the coat of plates she's wearing.

    Well yeah, I agree with "invisible helmet" and usually choose that option myself. Although sometimes I do go with a helmet depending on the situation. That's a tradition in gaming, theater, movies, etc that I give a pass to, because the face is usually needed to attain empathy with the character. It has a legitimate reason for existing in theatrical tradition.

    I really liked the way that Mass Effect did it (I can't remember if it was 2 or 3 that started it) where you'd be wearing your helmet in battle situations, but strike up a conversation with someone and the helmet was gone.

    I spent a lot of time making a FemShep that didn't conform to a common standard of beauty but was still appealing to look at for 150 hours, and I wanted to see it.

    The horse is the white of the eyes, and dark within.
    Magic Pink
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I don't know what the reason for gender inequality in crowd scenes could be, but I can damn sure tell you it's not because somebody is actively pulling women out of the crowd. Extras are typically not vetted and positioned intentionally by the top level creatives; they're "wrangled" as a group by a casting or production assistant whose job it is to determine that they conform to a standard in terms of dress and behavior. That person is not going to disqualify people on any basis other than wardrobe and not doing what they're told. It's entirely possible that men are self-selecting for this specific type of work, because of the low pay, low glamor, intermittent nature of the gig. Or there's some other reason. But I would be surprised to find out that something overtly sexist was going on.

    It doesn't have to be overt to be sexist. In fact, some of the nastiest and most pernicious bigotry is essentially unconscious replication.

    Example:
    Cambiata wrote: »
    I'm still trying to find the actual studies, but I did find this quote from Geena Davis (someone who has, after all, made a concerted effort to have these issues studied) in an NPR interview:
    DAVIS: My theory is that since all anybody has seen, when they are growing up, is this big imbalance - that the movies that they've watched are about, let's say, 5 to 1, as far as female presence is concerned - that's what starts to look normal. And let's think about - in different segments of society, 17 percent of cardiac surgeons are women; 17 percent of tenured professors are women. It just goes on and on. And isn't that strange that that's also the percentage of women in crowd scenes in movies? What if we're actually training people to see that ratio as normal so that when you're an adult, you don't notice?

    LYDEN: I wonder what the impact is of all of this lack of female representation.

    DAVIS: We just heard a fascinating and disturbing study, where they looked at the ratio of men and women in groups. And they found that if there's 17 percent women, the men in the group think it's 50-50. And if there's 33 percent women, the men perceive that as there being more women in the room than men.

    LYDEN: Oh, my goodness.

    DAVIS: So is it possible that 17 percent women has become so comfortable, and so normal, that that's just sort of unconsciously expected?

    LYDEN: Why else, Geena Davis, do these kinds of disparities matter?

    DAVIS: What we're, in effect, doing is training children to see that women and girls are less important than men and boys. We're training them to perceive that women take up only 17 percent of the space in the world. And if you add on top of that, that so many female characters are sexualized - even in things that are aimed at little kids - that's having an enormous impact as well.

    (emphasis mine)

    Or the scads of studies on how people rate resumes that are the same except for the name and so on.

    So if crowds are indeed biased towards penii, there's good reason to think there's some sort of sex-based filtering going on during the process based on some sort of sexist construction.


    This is one of the big examples of the problem with sexist tropes in fact. The way they fix harmful patterns of behaviour into culture that replicate themselves without conscious effort.

    AngelHedgiejoshofalltradesCambiataKristmas Kthulhu
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    If it coincided with other things I think that would give you evidence of malice. My point is that the actual motive matters in both sexism and racism.

    They don't really, though. In fact motive matters least when talking about sexism or racism. Because sometimes the motive is genuinely, though misguidedly, good!

    Like, "we have to keep women out of this job because they might get hurt!" for example of a "good" motive for a bad action.

    It's one of the reasons that whatever someone is deep in their heart doesn't matter at all in these converstations, and it never should matter.

    I think Jay Smooth said it best, so I'm just going to post his video if that's alright:


    Except that isn't a "good" motive whatsoever, and illustrates why the "focus on sexist actions" argument is flawed.

    Think about it - all things being equal, what justification is there to be concerned about the safety of a woman in a position, but not the men in the same place? Start unpacking what's going on there, and you start to find that what seemed like a good reason actually was filled with a good amount of benevolent sexism. If you want to treat people equally, you have to do so from the bedrock.

    Too many times, addressing sexist actions alone comes off as treating symptoms alone - you're fixing the immediate problem, yes; but you're doing nothing to correct the underlying environment that caused it.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Alinius133
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Yes? Especially if it also coincided with a history of segregation. It'd be similar to saying that McDonalds should be able to refuse to serve blacks due to a much higher risk of diabetes.
    Or am I missing the point, and in there's some equivalent of public safety in 'sexist' media that would justify having a much narrower portrayal of women?
    Paladin wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    While I mostly agree with you here, I would point out one sweeping generalization that you are making. Mainly that if I don't see a problem, I must be speaking from ignorance. I can see what someone sees as a problem, understand where they are coming from, and still not agree that it is a problem. To extend your thought experiment. If a restaurant doesn't serve a certain race because that race has a significantly higher chance to having food allergies to the type of food being served, would you still consider that to be wrong?

    The bolded part of your post is stated nearly word for word in my post under "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)." Specifically:
    Enc wrote: »
    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."


    Concerning the italicized portion of your post: Yes, it is wrong. It still is racism. It (not serving a specific ethnicity because of a genetic trend towards an allergy) also isn't a thing that exists unless being used as cover for actual racism.

    I know that such a thing does not exist, but I am speaking as a pure hypothetical. If the owners reason for not serving was purely a matter of saving lives and had nothing to do with racism, would it still be wrong to refuse service?

    Yes

    Can we not have this discussion

    I googled it

    Not really. That is the discussion of whether it is legal. My question is about the moral implications.

    The moral implications here are essentially "white man's burden," specifically the fallacy that you know best over someone else based upon race and that you can act as the kindly, protective parent to them. It robs agency from those you are "sheltering," and anything that robs agency is inherently racist in context.

    Feeding someone food that is potentially poisonous -> Ok. Not giving it to them, robs them of agency -> Not Ok.

    I feel like I am being told that I am morally required to knowingly feed someone lethal poison, because not doing it might hurt their feelings.

    But that isn't what is happening here. You aren't refusing to sell food that could be poison to anyone with that illness, only the people you feel are more likely to have it based on race (meaning people of that race who don't have that illness are also being denied based upon a presumption about their race and their race alone). If this were a real concern you would ask each and every one of your customers if they had that illness and inform those that do that your food contains something that could be potentially poisonous to them.

    Guns make you stupid. Better to fight your wars with duct tape. Duct tape makes you smart.

    I make Encounter Maps for Pathfinder and D&D! Check them out here: https://falleron.com/
    SurfpossumCambiata
  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Yes? Especially if it also coincided with a history of segregation. It'd be similar to saying that McDonalds should be able to refuse to serve blacks due to a much higher risk of diabetes.
    Or am I missing the point, and in there's some equivalent of public safety in 'sexist' media that would justify having a much narrower portrayal of women?
    Paladin wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    While I mostly agree with you here, I would point out one sweeping generalization that you are making. Mainly that if I don't see a problem, I must be speaking from ignorance. I can see what someone sees as a problem, understand where they are coming from, and still not agree that it is a problem. To extend your thought experiment. If a restaurant doesn't serve a certain race because that race has a significantly higher chance to having food allergies to the type of food being served, would you still consider that to be wrong?

    The bolded part of your post is stated nearly word for word in my post under "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)." Specifically:
    Enc wrote: »
    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."


    Concerning the italicized portion of your post: Yes, it is wrong. It still is racism. It (not serving a specific ethnicity because of a genetic trend towards an allergy) also isn't a thing that exists unless being used as cover for actual racism.

    I know that such a thing does not exist, but I am speaking as a pure hypothetical. If the owners reason for not serving was purely a matter of saving lives and had nothing to do with racism, would it still be wrong to refuse service?

    Yes

    Can we not have this discussion

    I googled it

    Not really. That is the discussion of whether it is legal. My question is about the moral implications.

    The moral implications here are essentially "white man's burden," specifically the fallacy that you know best over someone else based upon race and that you can act as the kindly, protective parent to them. It robs agency from those you are "sheltering," and anything that robs agency is inherently racist in context.

    Feeding someone food that is potentially poisonous -> Ok. Not giving it to them, robs them of agency -> Not Ok.

    I feel like I am being told that I am morally required to knowingly feed someone lethal poison, because not doing it might hurt their feelings.

    Hey man, this food you ordered has X in it, you cool with that?

    Yeah, I'm cool.

    Okay then.


    Lilnoobs on
    SurfpossumCambiata
  • VanguardVanguard The worst part about being young is thinking nothing, nothing ever comesRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2014
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Oh, and I am not attempting to ward off some suppression via criticism - I don't think that's a risk nor even a coherent concern.

    And you have no idea how self aware I am or am not, nor the degree to which I introspect upon myself, my positions or that which I consume. Given its inherent subjectivity, neither can I judge whether it is a little, a lot or in between. But I would request that you follow Hume's maxim "of that which you cannot know you should not speak".

    Were you following Hume's maxim when you said you had the same motivations as everyone else in this thread?

    Vanguard on
    TinklesEnc
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Oh, and I am not attempting to ward off some suppression via criticism - I don't think that's a risk nor even a coherent concern.

    And you have no idea how self aware I am or am not, nor the degree to which I introspect upon myself, my positions or that which I consume. Given its inherent subjectivity, neither can I judge whether it is a little, a lot or in between. But I would request that you follow Hume's maxim "of that which you cannot know you should not speak".

    Well true enough, there's only one thing I know about you for sure.

    You are INORDINATELY afraid that large boobies are in danger. As a large boobied woman, I thank you for your concern and, um, think it's misplaced. Like massively misplaced. Like this is the equivalent of worrying that white people are dying out or that redheads will no longer exist in the year 2183.

    AngelHedgieSo It Goesjoshofalltrades
  • Alinius133Alinius133 Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Yes? Especially if it also coincided with a history of segregation. It'd be similar to saying that McDonalds should be able to refuse to serve blacks due to a much higher risk of diabetes.
    Or am I missing the point, and in there's some equivalent of public safety in 'sexist' media that would justify having a much narrower portrayal of women?
    Paladin wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    While I mostly agree with you here, I would point out one sweeping generalization that you are making. Mainly that if I don't see a problem, I must be speaking from ignorance. I can see what someone sees as a problem, understand where they are coming from, and still not agree that it is a problem. To extend your thought experiment. If a restaurant doesn't serve a certain race because that race has a significantly higher chance to having food allergies to the type of food being served, would you still consider that to be wrong?

    The bolded part of your post is stated nearly word for word in my post under "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)." Specifically:
    Enc wrote: »
    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."


    Concerning the italicized portion of your post: Yes, it is wrong. It still is racism. It (not serving a specific ethnicity because of a genetic trend towards an allergy) also isn't a thing that exists unless being used as cover for actual racism.

    I know that such a thing does not exist, but I am speaking as a pure hypothetical. If the owners reason for not serving was purely a matter of saving lives and had nothing to do with racism, would it still be wrong to refuse service?

    Yes

    Can we not have this discussion

    I googled it

    Not really. That is the discussion of whether it is legal. My question is about the moral implications.

    The moral implications here are essentially "white man's burden," specifically the fallacy that you know best over someone else based upon race and that you can act as the kindly, protective parent to them. It robs agency from those you are "sheltering," and anything that robs agency is inherently racist in context.

    Feeding someone food that is potentially poisonous -> Ok. Not giving it to them, robs them of agency -> Not Ok.

    I feel like I am being told that I am morally required to knowingly feed someone lethal poison, because not doing it might hurt their feelings.

    You've also created an insane and impossible scenario in order to construct your point, which might say something about it.

    Reduction to the absurd.

    I simply cannot see how the elimination of racial bias is always more important than preserving human life.

    A more likely scenario that is relevant to the thread.
    1. I am waiting for a bus, there is a woman next to me. She is on her cell phone.
    2. The bus is coming in fast, and way to close to the curb, but she does not see it.
    3. I grab her and pull her out of the way.

    It was sexist and wrong for me to try and protect her and rob her of her agency?
    I would have done the exact same thing for any other person regardless of gender, and yet her perception of my sexism overrides my motives?

    Alinius133 on
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Yes? Especially if it also coincided with a history of segregation. It'd be similar to saying that McDonalds should be able to refuse to serve blacks due to a much higher risk of diabetes.
    Or am I missing the point, and in there's some equivalent of public safety in 'sexist' media that would justify having a much narrower portrayal of women?
    Paladin wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    While I mostly agree with you here, I would point out one sweeping generalization that you are making. Mainly that if I don't see a problem, I must be speaking from ignorance. I can see what someone sees as a problem, understand where they are coming from, and still not agree that it is a problem. To extend your thought experiment. If a restaurant doesn't serve a certain race because that race has a significantly higher chance to having food allergies to the type of food being served, would you still consider that to be wrong?

    The bolded part of your post is stated nearly word for word in my post under "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)." Specifically:
    Enc wrote: »
    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."


    Concerning the italicized portion of your post: Yes, it is wrong. It still is racism. It (not serving a specific ethnicity because of a genetic trend towards an allergy) also isn't a thing that exists unless being used as cover for actual racism.

    I know that such a thing does not exist, but I am speaking as a pure hypothetical. If the owners reason for not serving was purely a matter of saving lives and had nothing to do with racism, would it still be wrong to refuse service?

    Yes

    Can we not have this discussion

    I googled it

    Not really. That is the discussion of whether it is legal. My question is about the moral implications.

    The moral implications here are essentially "white man's burden," specifically the fallacy that you know best over someone else based upon race and that you can act as the kindly, protective parent to them. It robs agency from those you are "sheltering," and anything that robs agency is inherently racist in context.

    I think that kind of response hurts your movement as a whole. And not like "Ouch a splinter" hurts but "Hey is that an arrow sticking out of my chest?" kind of hurt.

    It's alienating a huge chunk of your audience that might otherwise be receptive to the message by demonizing white men. People are allowed to disagree without being sexist, or racist, or whatever other -ist you may want to add to that. It's the type of message that only resonates with people that already agree with you and alienates those that do not.

    Is that the intention?

    Going to brass tacks, I'm an artist. I have a career, a house, bills, a dog and cats, etc. etc. Trust me when I say I know the struggle regarding what you want to make versus what your clients want to have, and the many permutations thereof. It's not often an easy trick to pull off.

    Anyway, I'm pretty much always going to come down on the side of artists in the artists versus PC critics debate, but I do consider the question often. What it often comes down to for me is that:

    Harm is never demonstrated in a satisfactory way when disparaging art. Being offended is not harm. In fact, it's often *the point* in a great deal of art.

    Statistics are almost never honest. I see a stat that at first brush looks convincing, and then dig into it and find out the data was manipulated and presented in such a way as to make it complete bunk.

    Hypocrisy. Shaming, inappropriate value judgement, harassment, group think, all of these are obvious and available in spades on the critical side while demonizing those same things and using the arguments against those acts as a shield for the criticism itself. Then the debate starts spiraling around those things when first principles of the debate are left untouched.

    Steam and CFN: Enexemander
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Oh, and I am not attempting to ward off some suppression via criticism - I don't think that's a risk nor even a coherent concern.

    And you have no idea how self aware I am or am not, nor the degree to which I introspect upon myself, my positions or that which I consume. Given its inherent subjectivity, neither can I judge whether it is a little, a lot or in between. But I would request that you follow Hume's maxim "of that which you cannot know you should not speak".

    Then no one should speak of anything ever about anything, right?

    Ok, you first.

    Guns make you stupid. Better to fight your wars with duct tape. Duct tape makes you smart.

    I make Encounter Maps for Pathfinder and D&D! Check them out here: https://falleron.com/
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades This is the water, and this is the well Drink full, and descendRegistered User regular
    Something like this:

    planet-194203spring.jpg

    ...used to be incredibly commonplace.

    We have improved somewhat (it's debatable how much, exactly) but at least we don't see helpless and ridiculously-clad damsels being rescued from the bug-eyed monsters on the covers of a shit-ton of media anymore.

    I would like to hear from people who think criticism of such things are misplaced. Is it bad that this is less common now? How do you think this happened?

    The horse is the white of the eyes, and dark within.
    EncKristmas Kthulhu
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    edited September 2014
    Derrick wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Yes? Especially if it also coincided with a history of segregation. It'd be similar to saying that McDonalds should be able to refuse to serve blacks due to a much higher risk of diabetes.
    Or am I missing the point, and in there's some equivalent of public safety in 'sexist' media that would justify having a much narrower portrayal of women?
    Paladin wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    On Cambiata's point, it's important to remember when making these sweeping generalizations that everyone in the thread that disagrees with your point are on some kind of unified agenda of evil against you that the entire thesis of this is warped. Doubly so when making statements like:
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    suffice to say I think the arguments and positions of the critics within the thread are inconsistent, incoherent or otherwise fail and I think that a lot of the behaviour within the thread by the aforesaid critics is self righteous bullying toward the dissenters. Mostly though I am quite averse to bad arguments and useless definitions and I think the critical side relies upon both.

    There are multiple people here with multiple backgrounds and perspectives. Cambiata's stance on abortion is inconsistent with some people's definition of "feminism," but that doesn't mean she can't advance the cause of equality towards women because these terms are not defined by one group and are not subject to some sort of purity test in order to make a position valid. It also doesn't mean that Cambiata and someone who think abortion should be done can't agree and still have a valid point on another topic just because one item of the discussion has dissonance.

    Some people in this thread, such as myself, think that looking at media with a critical eye is important to ensure you are an informed consumer and are aware of what you are taking in for what it really is, with awareness both the good and bad parts of it. And that's all. Others here may seek to impact change towards unfair or destructive cultural norms, and feel informing the general public about a very real, and generally ignored, problem. Those positions are not at odds in identifying the concern, but how they use it varies.

    The difference between "self righteous bullying" and what I feel is happening in this thread is primarily rooted in narcissism (specifically refusal to accept there are other views beyond your own). The same way that one of the posters a few pages back said "there isn't a problem" and someone else said "well, whatever you choose to believe you are wrong here." He was wrong not because he didn't perceive a problem, but that he refused that there could be one. Which is a very important distinction to make in this and other social issues debates. You may see no worries, concerns, issues, and completely like the media you are getting. That's entirely fine and understandable. But that doesn't mean the media you are consuming isn't problematic to other people, or actively contributing to problems other people face in their daily lives.

    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."

    "I don't personally see a problem" is a valid position, but it is a position of ignorance. You don't understand the problem and/or you choose to ignore the discussion here which seeks to explain the problem from the perspectives of the people who do actually have one. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me and I don't care to think outside of my own experience."

    "There isn't a problem" is not a valid position, because by default you can only assert your own perspective and, in doing so with this degree of authority, you are essentially stating anyone with a problem is wrong and should change. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, while being of a race that is allowed I don't see the problem because it doesn't effect me, therefore he is wrong and things are as they should be."

    What is important in discussions like this is if you can see that ~someone~ has a problem and try to understand what that someone thinks the problem is important. You may not agree (and that's fine!), but understanding others is the root to being a productive member of society. Pony and others have brought up the point of shutting down discussion and criticism as "suppression" is essentially a means to silence the other side. By reviewing something critically people are not stopping someone from doing that action. The person generating art can still do whatever they want and ignore the criticism. By stopping criticism you are silencing the observer and actually are suppressing discussion.

    While I mostly agree with you here, I would point out one sweeping generalization that you are making. Mainly that if I don't see a problem, I must be speaking from ignorance. I can see what someone sees as a problem, understand where they are coming from, and still not agree that it is a problem. To extend your thought experiment. If a restaurant doesn't serve a certain race because that race has a significantly higher chance to having food allergies to the type of food being served, would you still consider that to be wrong?

    The bolded part of your post is stated nearly word for word in my post under "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)." Specifically:
    Enc wrote: »
    "There is a problem (or someone has a problem)" is a valid position because you have a problem with something. If you are negatively affected by something you can identify that there is a concern. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you that the problem is serious or that there is a driving need for change, but there should be a general consensus from others that you perceive a problem to exist and that it is important to the person who is asserting this. Understaning this is basic empathy. Thought experiment: "That guy over there feels it is a problem when we don't serve food to people of a specific race, as I am white it doesn't effect me, but by putting myself in that person's shoes I can sort of see where he is coming from."


    Concerning the italicized portion of your post: Yes, it is wrong. It still is racism. It (not serving a specific ethnicity because of a genetic trend towards an allergy) also isn't a thing that exists unless being used as cover for actual racism.

    I know that such a thing does not exist, but I am speaking as a pure hypothetical. If the owners reason for not serving was purely a matter of saving lives and had nothing to do with racism, would it still be wrong to refuse service?

    Yes

    Can we not have this discussion

    I googled it

    Not really. That is the discussion of whether it is legal. My question is about the moral implications.

    The moral implications here are essentially "white man's burden," specifically the fallacy that you know best over someone else based upon race and that you can act as the kindly, protective parent to them. It robs agency from those you are "sheltering," and anything that robs agency is inherently racist in context.

    I think that kind of response hurts your movement as a whole. And not like "Ouch a splinter" hurts but "Hey is that an arrow sticking out of my chest?" kind of hurt.

    It's alienating a huge chunk of your audience that might otherwise be receptive to the message by demonizing white men. People are allowed to disagree without being sexist, or racist, or whatever other -ist you may want to add to that. It's the type of message that only resonates with people that already agree with you and alienates those that do not.

    Is that the intention?

    Going to brass tacks, I'm an artist. I have a career, a house, bills, a dog and cats, etc. etc. Trust me when I say I know the struggle regarding what you want to make versus what your clients want to have, and the many permutations thereof. It's not often an easy trick to pull off.

    Anyway, I'm pretty much always going to come down on the side of artists in the artists versus PC critics debate, but I do consider the question often. What it often comes down to for me is that:

    Harm is never demonstrated in a satisfactory way when disparaging art. Being offended is not harm. In fact, it's often *the point* in a great deal of art.

    Statistics are almost never honest. I see a stat that at first brush looks convincing, and then dig into it and find out the data was manipulated and presented in such a way as to make it complete bunk.

    Hypocrisy. Shaming, inappropriate value judgement, harassment, group think, all of these are obvious and available in spades on the critical side while demonizing those same things and using the arguments against those acts as a shield for the criticism itself. Then the debate starts spiraling around those things when first principles of the debate are left untouched.

    "White man's burden" is a specific term referring to a specific thing in race relations, and not really relevant to the discussion of harmful female tropes in and of itself (though situationally I suppose it could be). The post I was responding to was proposing instituting Jim Crow laws based upon the belief that stopping an entire race from eating something harmful to a small percentage of it was a legitimate line of inquiry. No one is demonizing white men (at least, not in the past 10 or so pages I've been part of), the term itself literally comes from a poem of the same name discussing the problem at hand.

    200px-0,320,24,184-The_more_you_know.gif

    Enc on
    Guns make you stupid. Better to fight your wars with duct tape. Duct tape makes you smart.

    I make Encounter Maps for Pathfinder and D&D! Check them out here: https://falleron.com/
    Harry DresdenjoshofalltradesCambiataMagic PinkAegeri
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Something like this:

    planet-194203spring.jpg

    ...used to be incredibly commonplace.

    We have improved somewhat (it's debatable how much, exactly) but at least we don't see helpless and ridiculously-clad damsels being rescued from the bug-eyed monsters on the covers of a shit-ton of media anymore.

    I would like to hear from people who think criticism of such things are misplaced. Is it bad that this is less common now? How do you think this happened?

    review_Ripley_aliens_2.jpg

    We also used to be willing to explore the meaning behind our attitudes toward sexuality, but we seem to be on a robot kick now

    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.
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    I think what some people in this thread are missing, and what some are repeatedly trying to get across, is that most sexism in media probably doesn't exist because some mustache twirling villain decided that 'this show/movie/game/comic could really use more sexism. Put more sexism in there!'. Most occurrences of sexism happen because the person behind it didn't realize it was sexist. Numerous factors up to that point have shaped their worldview in such a way that it literally just didn't occur to them.

    That's why having the discussion and bringing it to people's attention is so important. If someone said/did something sexist because of a lack of realization, then there is no problem with pointing it out to them. If they really didn't know, and are willing to take a different perspective into consideration, then it's really not a judgement about them as a person. I'm sure I've said sexist things in the past, and I welcome being called out on it when it happens, because I don't want to be sexist.

    EncVanguardjoshofalltradesCambiataHarry DresdenSurfpossumFlying CouchSo It GoesV1mArdolKristmas KthulhuPsycohedshrykeAegeri
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades This is the water, and this is the well Drink full, and descendRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Something like this:

    planet-194203spring.jpg

    ...used to be incredibly commonplace.

    We have improved somewhat (it's debatable how much, exactly) but at least we don't see helpless and ridiculously-clad damsels being rescued from the bug-eyed monsters on the covers of a shit-ton of media anymore.

    I would like to hear from people who think criticism of such things are misplaced. Is it bad that this is less common now? How do you think this happened?

    review_Ripley_aliens_2.jpg

    We also used to be willing to explore the meaning behind our attitudes toward sexuality, but we seem to be on a robot kick now

    Ripley was not a fucking damsel

    The horse is the white of the eyes, and dark within.
    Harry DresdenKristmas KthulhuPsycohedshrykeprogramjunkieMagic PinkZomroAegeri
This discussion has been closed.