Options

[PA Comic] Wednesday, May 6, 2015 - The Wisdom Of Crowds

2»

Posts

  • Options
    fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell #BLMRegistered User regular
    the "twitter method" of criticism is...something to be criticized for sure. internet mobs are crappy and not very helpful, no matter the underlying cause.

    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
  • Options
    Ivan HungerIvan Hunger Registered User regular
    That's the Culture War for you.

    Any work of art that does not promote a socially constructive agenda, as determined by the fickle and inconsistent hivemind of the internet, supports the opposing agenda by default, and is therefore an acceptable target for aggression.

    Artists aren't allowed to create realistic or flawed protagonists anymore, because all art is assumed to be some form of propaganda, regardless of whether or not it's actually intended as such.

    this is entirely unsupported by logic or pretty much anything

    if an artist has made the decision to publish her or his work publicly, for public consumption, this does not make the work immune or unassailable from criticism. to even claim such is absurd. art doesn't happen in a vacuum. it's the culmination of both the artist and how the audience sees and reacts to the work. doesn't matter if the work happens to be a summer blockbuster, a PA strip, the Illiad, or whatever.

    Absolutely. You know what else isn't immune to criticism?

    Criticism.

    So if I see someone criticizing a work of art with poor arguments, such as failing to meet some arbitrary quota of socially constructive messaging that all artists are apparently now morally obligated to adhere to, I will tell them about the problems I have with their criticism.

    Just as you told me about the problems you have with my post.

    And just as I'm telling you right now about the problems I have with your post.

  • Options
    EnlongEnlong Registered User regular
    Yay! We all have problems! (Wasn't that an avenue Q song?)

  • Options
    LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    Enlong wrote: »
    Skull2185 wrote: »
    People didn't like Avengers 2?

    ...is that possible? I mean it's not as good as the first one, but it's still a good blockbuster.

    From what I understand, certain people took issue with how Black Widow was portrayed.
    Apparently she was a baby-crazy damsel in distress in the movie. Even though she was on of the most badass ass-kickingest people in the film

    I thought Age of Ultron was way better than the first one. Super pumped for Infinity War, but that's three years away :( Civil War should be good, but I don't want to see Cap and Iron Man fight... I'm also worried they're going to kill off Steve and have Bucky replace him like in the comics. A friend told me Civil War is the last movie on Chris Evans' contract. Not sure where he heard that, but it's worrisome!

    My info's secondhand, but apparently she has a line where she tells Bruce (the Hulk) that she's also a monster
    because she was forcibly sterilized

    Might be that I've been misinformed, but if true... Wow, that's some pretty terrible writing.

    That's not what she says at all.
    She says she's a monster because she was raised from childhood to be an assassin, and while she might not be big and mean and scary like the Hulk, she is equally as dangerous, and her only talent in this world is murder. That is what makes her a monster.

    The sterility part is because the people who trained her and brainwashed her wanted to remove motherhood from the equation, so that she would not have any emotional ties to anything in this world. The sterilization was done to her to keep her focused on murder.

  • Options
    beeftruckbeeftruck Registered User regular
    edited January 2022
    You'd have to be cuh-rayzee to think there's anything to see here!

    beeftruck on
  • Options
    fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell #BLMRegistered User regular
    Absolutely. You know what else isn't immune to criticism?

    Criticism.

    So if I see someone criticizing a work of art with poor arguments, such as failing to meet some arbitrary quota of socially constructive messaging that all artists are apparently now morally obligated to adhere to, I will tell them about the problems I have with their criticism.

    Just as you told me about the problems you have with my post.

    And just as I'm telling you right now about the problems I have with your post.

    so, you're agreeing with me? ok cool, because for a second there, your initial post was doing some weird absolutist strawman thing claiming that artists were no longer allowed to do things.
    beeftruck wrote: »
    *furious handwaving*

    oh hells not you.

    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
  • Options
    PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    Enlong wrote: »
    I'd say the monsters are the ones that did all that shit to a child, moreso than the person that child became.

    That's not the point. The point is that the child isn't fine. The child thinks it's a monster.
    The people who did it aren't the ones telling the story and feeling bad about it.

  • Options
    DistecDistec Registered User regular
    edited May 2015
    so, you're agreeing with me? ok cool, because for a second there, your initial post was doing some weird absolutist strawman thing claiming that artists were no longer allowed to do things.

    He really didn't. I'm reading his post again and I'm not seeing it. Probably because you're getting hung up on the word "allowed" there. It should be a given that artists can make what they want and are susceptible to the same criticism as anyone else. But it is clear, now and in the past, that there will always be groups of people who will find any given content to be unacceptable and will shriek until its covered up, put out of business, or changed. The merits of their arguments will always have to be debated

    Speaking of strawmen (it's funny that some people here think GG is secretly responsible and feminists would never talk trash), I think it's arguing in bad faith when somebody says "Well, nobody's trying to stop you or make it illegal." Nobody thinks the President is going to ban GTA or whatever. Arguments about censorship or what's "allowed" aren't often being framed in terms of the law. But I think these same pressures can exist in an entirely social context. Look at how batshit insane and destructive Twitter/Social Media shaming can be, and that doesn't require a lifted finger from any authority figure.

    In this case, I would hope people have better things to do than get riled up over poor, poor Black Widow was treated in an effin' comic book summer blockbuster, unless something was just right out.

    Distec on
  • Options
    Ivan HungerIvan Hunger Registered User regular
    Absolutely. You know what else isn't immune to criticism?

    Criticism.

    So if I see someone criticizing a work of art with poor arguments, such as failing to meet some arbitrary quota of socially constructive messaging that all artists are apparently now morally obligated to adhere to, I will tell them about the problems I have with their criticism.

    Just as you told me about the problems you have with my post.

    And just as I'm telling you right now about the problems I have with your post.

    so, you're agreeing with me? ok cool, because for a second there, your initial post was doing some weird absolutist strawman thing claiming that artists were no longer allowed to do things.

    Oh, I agree with you that absolutism is a terrible thing.

    Such as, for example, responding to someone as though they were arguing that no art should be criticized by anyone ever, when they were actually just arguing that artists shouldn't be harassed because their work isn't entirely devoted to pushing the internet's approved ideology.

    That's exactly the kind of hyperbolic reasoning we should avoid.

  • Options
    EnlongEnlong Registered User regular
    Ah. The sarcastic-agreement stage.

    From here, it's only a few steps to dictionary-quoting.

  • Options
    Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User, Moderator mod
    Enlong wrote: »
    Ah. The sarcastic-agreement stage.

    From here, it's only a few steps to dictionary-quoting.
    Wake me up when we get to car analogies. :) Those are my fav.

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • Options
    Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited May 2015
    beeftruck wrote: »
    But but but Penny Arcade, Joss Whedon only delete. his Twitter account because he wanted some quiet time and "not reading it" wasn't quiet enough for some reason. Then in the same interview, for reasons that I can only assume are totally coincidental, made multiple comments about how certain groups that I won't mention viciously turn on their own, especially for failures to pass certain "litmus tests".

    You'd have to be cuh-rayzee to think there's anything to see here!

    While all that's true (even Jezebel admitted that), you can find extremist factions in any group, no matter how noble the stated goal of the larger organizations, and the existence of extremism doesn't invalidate the instances where said organizations are correct (although some organizations may have a greater proportion of extremists than others).

    People online throw around death threats and inflict harassment all the time for the most ridiculous reasons. I forget the details, but I remember hearing some developer announced a PSP port for his game and shortly thereafter received an e-mail describing how the author (who apparently hated the PSP) planned to disembowel the developer's daughter. For me personally, receiving death threats is irrelevant in regards to the legitimacy of a group's claims, and some individuals sending such threats doesn't harm claims to legitimacy from the larger group.

    Hexmage-PA on
  • Options
    fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell #BLMRegistered User regular
    edited May 2015
    Enlong wrote: »
    Ah. The sarcastic-agreement stage.

    From here, it's only a few steps to dictionary-quoting.

    eh, i'm disengaging. Ivan Hunger, Distec, and beeftruck are all the same folks who show up in the forums solely for certain topics, and nothing else. the conversation is going into territory that has been rehashed to death.

    it's kind of like when you keep putting in generic parts to fix a car engine when you really should've just gone OEM the whole time :P

    fightinfilipino on
    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
  • Options
    DistecDistec Registered User regular
    I can admit that I'm spurred to comment only on certain issues here. I hope that's alright, as long as I'm not being an asshole to anybody.

  • Options
    Ivan HungerIvan Hunger Registered User regular
    I'm actually quite active on the video game forum. I'm admittedly more of a lurker on the comic forum, unless I have a question about Ring Wraiths.

  • Options
    TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    Absolutely. You know what else isn't immune to criticism?

    Criticism.

    So if I see someone criticizing a work of art with poor arguments, such as failing to meet some arbitrary quota of socially constructive messaging that all artists are apparently now morally obligated to adhere to, I will tell them about the problems I have with their criticism.

    Just as you told me about the problems you have with my post.

    And just as I'm telling you right now about the problems I have with your post.

    so, you're agreeing with me? ok cool, because for a second there, your initial post was doing some weird absolutist strawman thing claiming that artists were no longer allowed to do things.

    Oh, I agree with you that absolutism is a terrible thing.

    Such as, for example, responding to someone as though they were arguing that no art should be criticized by anyone ever, when they were actually just arguing that artists shouldn't be harassed because their work isn't entirely devoted to pushing the internet's approved ideology.

    That's exactly the kind of hyperbolic reasoning we should avoid.
    I've highlighted what is probably the most problematic part of your phrasing.

    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    wormspeakerwormspeaker Objectively Terrible Registered User regular
    I wonder if Joss gets a disproportionate amount of shit for his field? I guess his demographic is nerds and nerds are more likely to be dicks on the internet about something.

    I don't know man, have you ever been around a sports nut when their team loses? ... or when their team wins?

  • Options
    wormspeakerwormspeaker Objectively Terrible Registered User regular
    In regards to Jerry's news post: No man is more righteous than the convert and no man is more sinful than the fallen zealot.

  • Options
    fortyforty Registered User regular
    Main problem with Avengers is the same one that all Marvel movies have so far suffered from. Its called wimpy villain syndrome. The most intense and closely matched fight of the entire movie was hulkbuster ironman vs hulk. Every other fight between an avenger and ultron carried minimal suspense.
    I wouldn't say they've all suffered from it. In the first Iron Man, the Iron Monger was basically shown to be superior to the Iron Man suit (even if it was because Tony was stuck with an inferior power source), and it was only through cleverness and Pepper's help that Tony was able to defeat him.

    Now before the final battle, the villains were definitely wimpy since Iron Man basically steamrolled everything up to that point.

  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    I think people here are forgetting that Joss has said in multiple interviews recently that he has managed to get himself in major trouble by calling the recent Jurassic World trailer "sexist". It's actually my theory that he's taking a break off twitter due to some pressure over that and some heat from studios due to it. He had an article about a week back over the thing, where he was practically grovelingly apologetic about the entire situation, which is definitely not like the way he acts on twitter and such, which is entirely belligerent "these are my opinions, suck it everyone" style.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    GaslightGaslight Registered User regular
    Absolutely. You know what else isn't immune to criticism?

    Criticism.

    So if I see someone criticizing a work of art with poor arguments, such as failing to meet some arbitrary quota of socially constructive messaging that all artists are apparently now morally obligated to adhere to, I will tell them about the problems I have with their criticism.

    Just as you told me about the problems you have with my post.

    And just as I'm telling you right now about the problems I have with your post.

    so, you're agreeing with me? ok cool, because for a second there, your initial post was doing some weird absolutist strawman thing claiming that artists were no longer allowed to do things.

    Oh, I agree with you that absolutism is a terrible thing.

    Such as, for example, responding to someone as though they were arguing that no art should be criticized by anyone ever, when they were actually just arguing that artists shouldn't be harassed because their work isn't entirely devoted to pushing the internet's approved ideology.

    That's exactly the kind of hyperbolic reasoning we should avoid.
    I've highlighted what is probably the most problematic part of your phrasing.

    Your choice of the word "problematic" is unintentionally perfect.

  • Options
    fortyforty Registered User regular
    I'm curious what's up with Mike's kid's school's teachers' walk out (ULTRA POSSESSIVE COMBO!).

  • Options
    Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I think people here are forgetting that Joss has said in multiple interviews recently that he has managed to get himself in major trouble by calling the recent Jurassic World trailer "sexist". It's actually my theory that he's taking a break off twitter due to some pressure over that and some heat from studios due to it. He had an article about a week back over the thing, where he was practically grovelingly apologetic about the entire situation, which is definitely not like the way he acts on twitter and such, which is entirely belligerent "these are my opinions, suck it everyone" style.

    I'd think it's probably this. Whedon has admitted he's gotten hate on Twitter over Black Widow's portrayal in AoU, but he acts like he's used to this sort of thing and seems to think of it less as a monolithic group turning on him and more as just another instance of conflict between certain factions within the larger whole, some of which have apparently always hated his guts.

  • Options
    Milamber_29Milamber_29 Registered User regular
    Guys, Guys, fightinfilipino, Ivan Hunger lets get back on course here.

    The point I was making is that in an attempt to make sure that what is depicted in movies is fair and representative of both genders and social norms. And in order to reduce the unrealistic promotion of archaic family and home standards people are actually starting to go in the other direction.

    My criticism of their criticism is that in their attempts to even the playing field they are now actually starting to push things towards a DIFFERENT ideal standard. Where every father is a strong single dad making it under hard circumstances and every woman is a strong independent lady who doesn't need a man and isn't concerned with her own biology.

    now i know that makes me sound like one of those antiSJW nutjobs who think that all art should be as it is no matter who it offends. and i can tell you Im not i like many of us actually somewhere in the middle with social issues ....cause the world aint black and white you know.

    But in this case i think we won. socially its just as acceptable to have 2 dads or mum and dad or mums a soldier and dad likes crochet in movies and no one really cares. great thats a good thing. but is not good to then say hey 30-60% of people are wrong to want the kind of nuclear family and that strong women dont give a fk about their biology or family.

    you are ALLOWED to show both. so step of avengers on this one. pick on it for something else and focus your attention to raging against skaldic games for that horrendous game they tried to bring out. its a better use of your energy

  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Didn't a mod say on the previous page that we were not going to do this?

  • Options
    darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    Didn't a mod say on the previous page that we were not going to do this?

    I was kind of hoping that "the guy himself said directly with his uninterpreted words that it wasn't some feminist assault" would bring a halt to any further attempts at discussion.

    forumsig.png
  • Options
    Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited May 2015
    To change course a bit, couldn't it be argued that there might be a chance for social good to arise from negative actions? For example, over in the Baltimore riots thread some posters are suggesting that none of the officers would have been charged if not for the riots and threats of future violence.

    Given that publicly recognized artists have a greater capacity to influence the general public than the average person (whether they mean to or not), could online harassment motivated by social justice concerns be seen as a kind of Information Age version of rioting that might similarly pressure artists into avoiding the creation of potentially socially destructive works? Does the prevention of subjective and potential objective harm in a large group justify inflicting subjective harm on the individual who might otherwise be unintentionally responsible for the suffering of many?

    Hexmage-PA on
  • Options
    NarbusNarbus Registered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    To change course a bit, couldn't it be argued that there might be a chance for social good to arise from negative actions? For example, over in the Baltimore riots thread some posters are suggesting that none of the officers would have been charged if not for the riots and threats of future violence.

    Given that publicly recognized artists have a greater capacity to influence the general public than the average person (whether they mean to or not), could online harassment motivated by social justice concerns be seen as a kind of Information Age version of rioting that might similarly pressure artists into avoiding the creation of potentially socially destructive works? Does the prevention of subjective and potential objective harm in a large group justify inflicting subjective harm on the individual who might otherwise be unintentionally responsible for the suffering of many?

    The anonymity of any one individual in a mob, coupled with the anonymity and ease of access of the internet, means that the causes the internet "riots" over won't always be a social good. See Justine Sacco, who told a pretty dumb joke to her 170 twitter followers and then got to watch as the mob destroyed her life.

    The Baltimore riots ended up with people in a position of power using that power to affect real change. The officers who arrested Freddie Gray are all charged, and the Baltimore PD is likely going to be subject to a massive overhaul. The Civil Rights movement, the Stonewall Riots, the L.A. Riots, they were all directed at a broken system that needed to be fixed, with an end goal of getting that system fixed. Internet mobbing can be directed at individuals who you don't agree with, with the end goal of getting them to shut up already.

    They're not really comparable at all.

  • Options
    TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu PIGEON Registered User regular
    Tube wrote: »
    I pre-emptively forbid this thread from being about either feminism or gamergate.
    you+have+no+power+here.jpg

  • Options
    TubeTube Registered User admin
    geth, kick @TychoCelchuuu from the thread

  • Options
    GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative Tube. @TychoCelchuuu banned from this thread.

  • Options
    Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    It is heavily implied that
    The person in the hood she has to shoot is someone she knows.

    And she doesn't shoot at first.

    Then she shoots him anyway later.

    And she only brings up kids when banner does, saying he can't have kids. She says, in essence, "I can't have kids either, and all the things I have done make me a bigger monster than you." I mean, her 'deepest fear' that the witch plays on is her graduation ceremony, shooting the man in the hood. And the line from the previous movie about all that red in her ledger? She is a fucking monster because holy shit the things she did are worse than anything banner COULD do or HAS done as the Hulk.

    Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
  • Options
    November FifthNovember Fifth Registered User regular
    At this point, I am wondering if the Black Widow character was a bit too dark for use in the film based MCU. I'm not sure the Wasp would've worked, but I think Maria Hill's character could've been expanded to serve a similar role.

    Maybe Widow could've had her own Netflix series similar to Daredevil.

  • Options
    Milamber_29Milamber_29 Registered User regular
    @Hexmage-PA
    I think the difference is that a riot is anonymous rage pointed in a defuse general direction. Ie. baltimore is a riot, they are pissed at the cops but they are taking it out on the city or cops in general. Its a group against a group and even when its not group vs group its group vs a single person they cant GET to so they outlet their anger in a general way.

    contrast this with a twitter assault. Its much closer to a linch mob. Its a group against an individual and they have direct access to do damage to that individual. Its like what could have happened if the cops had just dropped the offending men into the center of the baltimore riots and and you can imagine what the crowd would have done to them. they may not even have lived. and it would no longer be a riot.

  • Options
    fortyforty Registered User regular
    At this point, I am wondering if the Black Widow character was a bit too dark for use in the film based MCU.
    Nah.

  • Options
    H3KnucklesH3Knuckles But we decide which is right and which is an illusion.Registered User regular
    @Narbus, I just wanted to say, that article was a super-interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

    If you're curious about my icon; it's an update of the early Lego Castle theme's "Black Falcons" faction.
    camo_sig2-400.png
Sign In or Register to comment.