I found it absurd when Fukuyama said it, and I still do: the future of the world is not in being like the US.
Well, what exactly, besides holding on to some traces of their old (backwards in the view of you and others) culture and the fact that they are still one people instead of a nation set to become comprised of immigrants of a foreign culture, would possibly make them unlike the US? The fact that they speak a different language? That is rather superficial in of itself.
not white
Is that one of your criteria for what makes a good country? I don't think Japan needs to worry too much about that one, in any event.
I found it absurd when Fukuyama said it, and I still do: the future of the world is not in being like the US.
Well, what exactly, besides holding on to some traces of their old (backwards in the view of you and others) culture and the fact that they are still one people instead of a nation set to become comprised of immigrants of a foreign culture, would possibly make them unlike the US? The fact that they speak a different language? That is rather superficial in of itself.
not white
Is that one of your criteria for what makes a good country? I don't think Japan needs to worry too much about that one, in any event.
Wow. Every single sentence you wrote there is either untrue or a deliberate misrepresentation.
Wow. Every single sentence you wrote there is either untrue or a deliberate misrepresentation.
I do not think so at all.
What someone with Fukuyama's view would hold is that all nations would progress towards the same end goal, the liberal state represented by the USA. This is the progressive, linear view of history.
The "end of history" as it were, would be characterized by representative democracy, radical egalitarianism, consumer capitalism, etc.
Now, traditional cultures such as the Japanese are not rooted in the first two, and the third, as in America, is also somewhat corrosive, though it can always tailor itself to the circumstances. The racism and misogyny you decry is the Japanese culture. Firstly, their love for their own people and heritage, and wish to keep it from being overwhelmed by more numerous foreign groups. And secondly, the family, which is the basis of all traditional society. These can replaced....yes, by becoming more like what the USA represents. You'll still have all the beautiful old buildings, of course, which will stand as tombs, like they do in Europe.
If your culture is not identified by ethnicity (because that would be racist), it would have to be identified instead by ideals. If a country has the exact same core ideals as another any differences are bound to be superficial. If it is not identified by its traditional roles for men and women, then by who's? Someone else's. This is the end of "progression", as, if that is your goal, there must be a destination. At that point, the culture's stances on those ideals will be basically how they are being discussed here. "Like the USA, but more backwards" or "More progressive than the USA", as many like to use Europe as an example. Japan can already be described as "like the USA, but....", with the 2 primary differences being those discussed here.
edit: I suppose they'll probably never be quite as fat or quite as stupid, as long as it remains ethnically Japanese, US is number 1, afterall. But who knows.
DisruptorX2 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
. . . and the sort of extreme suspicion of misogyny ascribed to Catholicism at this board. I think I remember Atomic Ross speaking about it a bit during the last thread about the Catholic Church...
In all honesty, if it sounded authoritative it was probably Thanatos that said it. I mean, I'm a raging anti-dogmatic, but Thanatos makes it seem like somewhere someone is offering Ph.D.s in Negative Religious History. Dude can cite precedence for days.
Personally, I feel that traditional Catholic imperatives towards women and their expected conduct is not too unlike, in machination, the gender roles of the antebellum South, where women were marginalized by a (conscious or not) argument that they were SO special they needed men to do everything for them. But then Catholicism also trips over itself by not offering clear explanations as to why women can't serve in the clergy, or why they can't use birth control, etc, etc.
It seems that a large portion of Abrahamic faiths (and subsequent denominations) go out of their way to make "special considerations" for women that are really just backhanded ways of oppression, a la, "Oh, you're just too beautiful to wear makeup/cut your hair/wear attractive clothing/let anyone see you under your burqa/get a job."
A good thing to always consider and worthy of response.
You know, I actually thought about this one for a while. It is more that the sort of programming I am inclined to watch is already of a type. I am not going to suddenly watch wrestling just because it displays a simplistic idea of masculinity, but such things do exist.
Instead of that, I am confined to wonder why I just sat through a film promoting some sort of vaguely hippie-like free love position after sitting through The Beast with a Billion Backs, and then wishing it had at least been funny.
I cannot quite understand how someone would not see the connection with media and leftist thought, though. One follows the other. I was watching Barnie Miller not that long ago, and was basically checking off the (mostly still, to this day) progressive issues as they appeared. They all pop up. Issues of race, homosexuality, gender roles. I'm sure someone here can go back and watch that old show and find something to be offended by.
"Leftist" and "progressive" are far from synonymous, though I can see how that mistake would occur when both are filtered through a staunchly conservative POV.
I cannot quite understand how someone would not see the connection with media and leftist thought, though. One follows the other. I was watching Barnie Miller not that long ago, and was basically checking off the (mostly still, to this day) progressive issues as they appeared. They all pop up. Issues of race, homosexuality, gender roles. I'm sure someone here can go back and watch that old show and find something to be offended by.
"Leftist" and "progressive" are far from synonymous, though I can see how that mistake would occur when both are filtered through a staunchly conservative POV.
"Left-wing" is probably more accurate in the common modern vernacular.
It's not like TV is constantly advocating Marxism.
. . . and the sort of extreme suspicion of misogyny ascribed to Catholicism at this board. I think I remember Atomic Ross speaking about it a bit during the last thread about the Catholic Church...
In all honesty, if it sounded authoritative it was probably Thanatos that said it. I mean, I'm a raging anti-dogmatic, but Thanatos makes it seem like somewhere someone is offering Ph.D.s in Negative Religious History. Dude can cite precedence for days.
Could have been Thanatos. It was a while ago. All I remember was it ended with a mod informing everyone in the thread they should have been embarrassed for themselves.
Synthesis on
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
I think Misogyny is less a religious thing and more a patriarchal social structure thing.
As for America being a shining beacon and an example to follow in terms of liberty and freedom and rights? Well, when America gets a judicial and penal system reform and stops being the country with the highest imprisonment rate, I might change my mind, but America doesn't seem like an objective or even someone other countries should try to "catch up to".
I think Misogyny is less a religious thing and more a patriarchal social structure thing.
As for America being a shining beacon and an example to follow in terms of liberty and freedom and rights? Well, when America gets a judicial and penal system reform and stops being the country with the highest imprisonment rate, I might change my mind, but America doesn't seem like an objective or even someone other countries should try to "catch up to".
Don't get caught in playing the cultural relativism game. It's basically an argument of, "How can you criticize my apples when your oranges are so bitter?"
The US certainly isn't the most progressive nation on the planet, but it's up there, and it's certainly the most progressive major power.
Atomika on
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
You're right on the point that it's a major power, but it's really not that progressive. Then again, this would depend on how you define "progressive", i guess. Anyway, my point is that the United States aren't the best place to live, especially if you're homosexual, black, Hispanic, a woman and/or a Muslim.
the...bwah? So you you've got a hate-on for Aaron Sorkin, I can live with that, but if you think that mainstream media, excepting maybe the highbrow HBO-serial-entertainment end of it, is overtly politically leftie then all I can say is you've got a really weird definition of what constitutes leftist thought
I guess that is just my love of hyperbole getting the better of me. Fringe was probably the wrong adjective to use.
Ironically, I generally like HBO, because it is quality. Their series generally have something to say, sure. The commentaries, for example on Rome, explain their desire to portray Roman ethics as completely distinct from Christian (and thus, secular-modern) as well as briefly commenting on the generally negative depiction of Brutus and the republican or optimate faction. Do I fully agree with these stances? No, and I can see why they wish to portray as they do. But I can certainly still appreciate the effort that went into the creation, nothing about it offends me. I am getting somewhat off topic, though.
I mean, to be fair, I think that when it comes to cultures that we really look up to, Rome is one of the most messed up cultures. Their class lines were insane--Cicero was excluded from the political class for most of his life because his great grandfather wasn't well off--they were crazy when it came to violently murdering, raping, and pillaging any civilization that got in their way, and the political class had no problem with continuing this problem by making those issues into this murderous form of entertainment.
Early Christianity was definitely an improvement over Roman ethics.
You're right on the point that it's a major power, but it's really not that progressive. Then again, this would depend on how you define "progressive", i guess. Anyway, my point is that the United States aren't the best place to live, especially if you're homosexual, black, Hispanic, a woman and/or a Muslim.
I don't know, most places I can think would involve some kind of trade off. And I don't think any place is better on all of those counts.
Also, it varies state by state, which is an advantage of just how big the US is. Practically anyone can find some corner of it that is really great for them.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
You're right on the point that it's a major power, but it's really not that progressive. Then again, this would depend on how you define "progressive", i guess. Anyway, my point is that the United States aren't the best place to live, especially if you're homosexual, black, Hispanic, a woman and/or a Muslim.
The US is a huge country and your statement is highly debatable if one considers large parts of the coasts and midwest.
You're right on the point that it's a major power, but it's really not that progressive. Then again, this would depend on how you define "progressive", i guess. Anyway, my point is that the United States aren't the best place to live, especially if you're homosexual, black, Hispanic, a woman and/or a Muslim.
The US is a huge country and your statement is highly debatable if one considers large parts of the coasts and midwest.
Or pretty much any major city. 21stCentury's statement seems remarkably lacking in actual objective fact. The only grain of truth is that our political system is designed as such (some, including myself would argue faultily so) to maintain the political power of a rural minority, and that rural minority usually holds retrograde views regarding rights.
DoctorArch on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
you guys honestly believe the United States of America is the best place to live in?
With the eroding middle class, the poor wealth distribution (I comparison to many countries such as Canada or Sweden), the insanely high imprisonment rate per capita (highest in the world by a wide margin), the poor funding for education (This is debatable, I assume it's not poor everywhere), the lack of universal healthcare depriving some people of care.
I don't know, i live in Canada and I think the lower crime rate (again, this is per capita), the fact we weren't hit nearly as hard by the housing crisis, the wealth distribution being a bit more egalitarian (though nowhere near as fair as in some countries, like Sweden), and the amount of social services (I'm getting a full college education without needing to take a huge loan or work ridiculous hours) make it seem like i have a pretty nice life. Not sure i'd have a better life were I born in the US.
you guys honestly believe the United States of America is the best place to live in?
With the eroding middle class, the poor wealth distribution (I comparison to many countries such as Canada or Sweden), the insanely high imprisonment rate per capita (highest in the world by a wide margin), the poor funding for education (This is debatable, I assume it's not poor everywhere), the lack of universal healthcare depriving some people of care.
How is this at all related to a conversation about progressivism? And who is arguing that the US is "the best?"
Again, you're playing the relativist, and that's just a pointless waste of time. The US' trailing in certain aspects to, you know, whoever you think it doing it better with similar constraints, doesn't in any way negate the widespread misogyny throughout Asia.
You're right on the point that it's a major power, but it's really not that progressive. Then again, this would depend on how you define "progressive", i guess. Anyway, my point is that the United States aren't the best place to live, especially if you're homosexual, black, Hispanic, a woman and/or a Muslim.
I don't know, most places I can think would involve some kind of trade off. And I don't think any place is better on all of those counts.
Also, it varies state by state, which is an advantage of just how big the US is. Practically anyone can find some corner of it that is really great for them.
The rate of incarceration of black men in the United States is, quite frankly, pretty mindblowing. In 2006, about 5% of the black male population was currently in jail--never mind how many people had been in jail at some point (according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice). That, frankly, is fucked up, no matter how otherwise egalitarian the United States might be for those other groups disadvantaged by the status quo.
Synthesis on
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
Wow 21stCentury, it's always quite fun to see a strawman and goal-post shifting almost in the same sentence.
Not gonna argue further because Atomic Ross is right, we're going besides the point, but where and how did I use a strawman and a goal-post shifting? i might have my definitions wrong or maybe I didn't express myself correctly. Maybe you're right, but I need you to point it out. I certainly didn't mean to make a fallacious argument.
Think about the really, really terrible stuff that is out there. Birth of a Nation, The Turner Diaries, etc. Is there a legitimate reason to consume that sort of thing for the entertainment value? Are the works of H.P. Lovecraft rendered unworthy due to their author's xenophobic views? Does it matter if those views are only indirectly implied (or not broached directly at all) rather than incorporated into the core of the work?
It can, for a couple of reasons:
- Breaking the fourth wall. Shoving the creator's prejudice into the viewer/reader's lap is just a reminder that you're not experiencing a 'real' thing, and makes it harder to suspend disbelief. It's as if the author/artist/whatever is sitting next to you saying "Chicks, amirite?" or expecting you to share the view that anyone of a particular skin color is idiotic. How am I supposed to believe in a world where everyone is male except for the one female present to fuck the protagonist? That's not what reality looks like.
- Killing any sympathy for the characters. If you don't like these people, why care about what happens to them next? (And I'm not talking about the anti-hero, but about a character who is such an asshole, you frankly don't give a shit whether he recovers the Gem of Gwhagluu or whatever.)
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
It was another anecdote, a lot more recent than that, but also your fixation of my mention of it is a derailment. I'm not willing to let you misdirect attention away from your appalling racism. Let's talk about that. What do you think your chinese workmates would say to you if they saw what you were writing here? I bet they'd be super into you. Maybe they'd throw you a party, with nice red firecrackers and lanterns, but not those freaky wonton things.
And the jewish name thing, are you nuts? There's already a stereotype that the scary scary jews control the media on top of ye olde run of the mill anti-semitism to deal with in the US. I can see wanting a separate name for use in public. Lets add to that the fact that a huge number of actors (yes, even white folk!) use names different to their birthnames for reasons of a) personal branding, b) the requirement to have a unique moniker for SAG membership and c) plain ol' boring privacy.
And then of course there's the little fact that many children of immigrants grew up with an anglicised surname, because US immigration officials had a habit of 'fixing' immigrant surnames without asking the people involved first. Many of those who didn't receive this little welcome gift from the state eventually simplified their names for the benefit of the rubes they'd moved in with, who couldn't cope with learning how to pronounce their real names and got all het up about words like Nguyen.
Jesus christ on a cracker you just don't know any damn thing, do you.
Well, he is from Texas.
I say this because he's already said that "stereotypes exist for a reason," so he can't do a damn thing. This is almost like stealing from a drug dealer.
You're right on the point that it's a major power, but it's really not that progressive. Then again, this would depend on how you define "progressive", i guess. Anyway, my point is that the United States aren't the best place to live, especially if you're homosexual, black, Hispanic, a woman and/or a Muslim.
The US is a huge country and your statement is highly debatable if one considers large parts of the coasts and midwest.
I know, off topic, but I can't help but point out the following: one of the main drawcards of the US was supposed to be its freedom for everyone, everywhere. It was supposed to be an egalitarian and positive place wherever you went, not just within your own little self-imposed ghettos. So maybe stop posting things like the above as though they're a win, and not a capitulation to the less awesome parts of human nature?
I think that it's dishonest to compare the US to Canada, considering that Canada is pretty close to the best on all metrics. I think that the US has considerably less racism than most countries, if only because a lot of other countries haven't actually experienced actually being a heterogeneous country. It's really easy to be tolerant of people when they aren't TAKIN YUR JERBS, etc. Not saying that American bigotry is excused, but it comes out of actually being exposed to the Other, and because of that, the tolerance in American society is more...real, I guess? Because while we still have this ridiculous fear of Muslims, it's not true of, say, blacks.
This isn't as true in Europe, and even though Europe looks down its nose at America because of our 'racist' society, I would argue that European society is way more racist, from the way that they deal with minorities within their borders
You're right on the point that it's a major power, but it's really not that progressive. Then again, this would depend on how you define "progressive", i guess. Anyway, my point is that the United States aren't the best place to live, especially if you're homosexual, black, Hispanic, a woman and/or a Muslim.
The US is a huge country and your statement is highly debatable if one considers large parts of the coasts and midwest.
I know, off topic, but I can't help but point out the following: one of the main drawcards of the US was supposed to be its freedom for everyone, everywhere. It was supposed to be an egalitarian and positive place wherever you went, not just within your own little self-imposed ghettos. So maybe stop posting things like the above as though they're a win, and not a capitulation to the less awesome parts of human nature?
I think the people who believe that believe the US is the best country in the world
People who don't believe that would probably want to ask what "best" means
override367 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Wow 21stCentury, it's always quite fun to see a strawman and goal-post shifting almost in the same sentence.
Not gonna argue further because Atomic Ross is right, we're going besides the point, but where and how did I use a strawman and a goal-post shifting? i might have my definitions wrong or maybe I didn't express myself correctly. Maybe you're right, but I need you to point it out. I certainly didn't mean to make a fallacious argument.
You shifted the goalposts by conflating the argument, "Japanese culture is fairly misogynistic," to a relativist argument about US prison statistics.
What you could have said, and would have stayed on-topic, was something like, "What makes the US' approach to gender roles better than Japan?"
You would have been answered by study after study asserting the truth of such a thing, but at least it would have been pertinent to the same argument.
A good thing to always consider and worthy of response.
You know, I actually thought about this one for a while. It is more that the sort of programming I am inclined to watch is already of a type. I am not going to suddenly watch wrestling just because it displays a simplistic idea of masculinity, but such things do exist.
Instead of that, I am confined to wonder why I just sat through a film promoting some sort of vaguely hippie-like free love position after sitting through The Beast with a Billion Backs, and then wishing it had at least been funny.
The problem with your approach is that it's rather single minded, In terms of how you're perceiving a largely amorphous entity like mainstream culture.
I mean, there simply wouldn't be as much money to be made by catering to fringe leftists in film and television mainstream. Out of western nations, America in particular is a far from leftist country, so I can't see how you could make these errors.
There's of course certain products in entertainment that have heavier bias like say Star Trek on the left, or Fox News on the right, but those are hardly representative of the whole. So when you say that you don't watch television or films anymore because they're all leftist, then it comes across as somewhat ignorant and just odd in terms of decision making.
I don't know, I guess I just don't get people who view culture through a singular lens.
Lucid on
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
You shifted the goalposts by conflating the argument, "Japanese culture is fairly misogynistic," to a relativist argument about US prison statistics.
What you could have said, and would have stayed on-topic, was something like, "What makes the US' approach to gender roles better than Japan?"
You would have been answered by study after study asserting the truth of such a thing, but at least it would have been pertinent to the same argument.
I don't think that's "shifting the goalposts". Shifting the goalpost would be if i said "Japanese culture isn't misogynistic, if it were, there'd be more rapes" and then you could show statistics and then i would say "That doesn't prove anything, because X".
I certainly did post a bit off-topic with the relativism, but I never intended to link US prison statistics to Misogyny in japanese culture, nor is this thread solely about misogyny is Japanese culture.
This thread is about messages in the entertainment industry, more specifically ideological messages... Right? That's what I think "'ism/'obia and Entertainment: How much is too much" might mean.
honestly don't know how much bias is too much bias, but it is everywhere. You don't need to look very hard when examining American culture to see military worship, the idea of violence as a means to reach favorable ends, etc. To all those who claim Hollywood has a liberal bias? Well, It also has a pro-war bias, since a lot of movies were funded thanks to the Pentagon. Top Gun and Red Dawn are some famous examples. They're movies that were meant to make a pro-war message appealing to young people. They were pretty close to propaganda. It's a fact that if you want to make a movie that portrays war, the armed forces, etc. in a negative light, you'll have to do it without the Pentagon's blessing, and that means less funding, no equipment and, well, possibly some controversy from groups that find anti-war messages "unpatriotic".
I'd say that's where i draw the line, when entertainment crosses over to propaganda, when it only serves to deliver a message that is harmful in some way. (For example, Top Gun's message that war is hip.)
You shifted the goalposts by conflating the argument, "Japanese culture is fairly misogynistic," to a relativist argument about US prison statistics.
What you could have said, and would have stayed on-topic, was something like, "What makes the US' approach to gender roles better than Japan?"
You would have been answered by study after study asserting the truth of such a thing, but at least it would have been pertinent to the same argument.
I don't think that's "shifting the goalposts". Shifting the goalpost would be if i said "Japanese culture isn't misogynistic, if it were, there'd be more rapes" and then you could show statistics and then i would say "That doesn't prove anything, because X".
I certainly did post a bit off-topic with the relativism, but I never intended to link US prison statistics to Misogyny in japanese culture, nor is this thread solely about misogyny is Japanese culture.
This thread is about messages in the entertainment industry, more specifically ideological messages... Right? That's what I think "'ism/'obia and Entertainment: How much is too much" might mean.
honestly don't know how much bias is too much bias, but it is everywhere. You don't need to look very hard when examining American culture to see military worship, the idea of violence as a means to reach favorable ends, etc. To all those who claim Hollywood has a liberal bias? Well, It also has a pro-war bias, since a lot of movies were funded thanks to the Pentagon. Top Gun and Red Dawn are some famous examples. They're movies that were meant to make a pro-war message appealing to young people. They were pretty close to propaganda. It's a fact that if you want to make a movie that portrays war, the armed forces, etc. in a negative light, you'll have to do it without the Pentagon's blessing, and that means less funding, no equipment and, well, possibly some controversy from groups that find anti-war messages "unpatriotic".
I'd say that's where i draw the line, when entertainment crosses over to propaganda, when it only serves to deliver a message that is harmful in some way. (For example, Top Gun's message that war is hip.)
I thought Top Gun was about how we should repeal DADT.
I love Doug TenNapel's work. I think his art is brilliant and his storytelling is exemplary. He's possibly the most under-rated name working in graphic art today, despite having a 20-year career and creating one of the most recognizable characters of the mid-1990s, Earthworm Jim. If you haven't checked out any of his work, do so, and start with gems like Creature Tech, Iron West, or Earthboy Jacobus. The balance of warmth and humanity he brings with edge and often grimness reads like the best work ever done in the heyday of Disney with a style remniscient of Watterson's Calvin & Hobbes. Suffice to say, I'm a big fan.
That said, the guy is a total asshole. A far-right, soapboxing evangelical, his blogs ramble on with judgment after judgment against anything from single mothers to gays to pre-marital sex. And it's hard to reconcile that with his work, as his work really isn't all that preachy and rarely makes any effort to remark upon any aspect of traditional conservative values, other than a vague appreciation for loving, intact familial units.
I feel bad when I put money in this guy's pocket. But I still do it.
This is kind of how I feel about Alan Moore -- or more specifically, how I feel about New Crazy-ass Mystic Alan Moore.
Hamurabi on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I love Doug TenNapel's work. I think his art is brilliant and his storytelling is exemplary. He's possibly the most under-rated name working in graphic art today, despite having a 20-year career and creating one of the most recognizable characters of the mid-1990s, Earthworm Jim. If you haven't checked out any of his work, do so, and start with gems like Creature Tech, Iron West, or Earthboy Jacobus. The balance of warmth and humanity he brings with edge and often grimness reads like the best work ever done in the heyday of Disney with a style remniscient of Watterson's Calvin & Hobbes. Suffice to say, I'm a big fan.
That said, the guy is a total asshole. A far-right, soapboxing evangelical, his blogs ramble on with judgment after judgment against anything from single mothers to gays to pre-marital sex. And it's hard to reconcile that with his work, as his work really isn't all that preachy and rarely makes any effort to remark upon any aspect of traditional conservative values, other than a vague appreciation for loving, intact familial units.
I feel bad when I put money in this guy's pocket. But I still do it.
This is kind of how I feel about Alan Moore -- or more specifically, how I feel about New Crazy-ass Mystic Alan Moore.
Really? An old pothead who hangs out in his house hurting no-one offends your sensibilities that much?
Yours must be the most incredible, rarefied human life that has ever been lived.
You're right on the point that it's a major power, but it's really not that progressive. Then again, this would depend on how you define "progressive", i guess. Anyway, my point is that the United States aren't the best place to live, especially if you're homosexual, black, Hispanic, a woman and/or a Muslim.
The US is a huge country and your statement is highly debatable if one considers large parts of the coasts and midwest.
I know, off topic, but I can't help but point out the following: one of the main drawcards of the US was supposed to be its freedom for everyone, everywhere. It was supposed to be an egalitarian and positive place wherever you went, not just within your own little self-imposed ghettos. So maybe stop posting things like the above as though they're a win, and not a capitulation to the less awesome parts of human nature?
It also supposed to federalist and give significant power to states and local governments thus allowing for a wide range of approaches and preferences.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
You're right on the point that it's a major power, but it's really not that progressive. Then again, this would depend on how you define "progressive", i guess. Anyway, my point is that the United States aren't the best place to live, especially if you're homosexual, black, Hispanic, a woman and/or a Muslim.
The US is a huge country and your statement is highly debatable if one considers large parts of the coasts and midwest.
I know, off topic, but I can't help but point out the following: one of the main drawcards of the US was supposed to be its freedom for everyone, everywhere. It was supposed to be an egalitarian and positive place wherever you went, not just within your own little self-imposed ghettos. So maybe stop posting things like the above as though they're a win, and not a capitulation to the less awesome parts of human nature?
It also supposed to federalist and give significant power to states and local governments thus allowing for a wide range of approaches and preferences.
It's just hilarious that she mentions freedom for everyone, everywhere and then wants us to what, change how people think by law? In the US we're so free that racists and bigots are allowed to say and believe whatever they want and the government only intercedes when they want to infringe on the rights of those they hate. Is it perfect? No, the process to correct injustices is admittedly slow and in the meantime there are victims. But ultimately everyone in the United States is equal before the law and has the opportunity to make an excellent life for themselves. It is egalitarian and positive, and frankly what other country are you even going to compare it to? Completey ignoring the minorities even among whites the US is far from homogenous, having been formed from a wide variety of religions and nationalities.
I mean, no offense, but those "little self-imposed ghettos" would have more people, and diversity, than all of Australia. It'd be a fairer comparison to contrast the US vs. the EU, and if someone said "if you're not comfortable living in Spain then move to the Netherlands" would you jump all over them?
You're right on the point that it's a major power, but it's really not that progressive. Then again, this would depend on how you define "progressive", i guess. Anyway, my point is that the United States aren't the best place to live, especially if you're homosexual, black, Hispanic, a woman and/or a Muslim.
The US is a huge country and your statement is highly debatable if one considers large parts of the coasts and midwest.
I know, off topic, but I can't help but point out the following: one of the main drawcards of the US was supposed to be its freedom for everyone, everywhere. It was supposed to be an egalitarian and positive place wherever you went, not just within your own little self-imposed ghettos. So maybe stop posting things like the above as though they're a win, and not a capitulation to the less awesome parts of human nature?
Where did you read about this "drawcard"? I'm not debating--or interested in debating--some PR bullshit, and I don't think I made any statements with respect to to human nature, winning or capitulating. I'm saying that many parts of the US are extremely nice places to live for people who are homosexual, black, Hispanic, female, and/or Muslim, and that assessments of America that don't take this into account are missing something important.
you guys honestly believe the United States of America is the best place to live in?
With the eroding middle class, the poor wealth distribution (I comparison to many countries such as Canada or Sweden), the insanely high imprisonment rate per capita (highest in the world by a wide margin), the poor funding for education (This is debatable, I assume it's not poor everywhere), the lack of universal healthcare depriving some people of care.
I don't know, i live in Canada and I think the lower crime rate (again, this is per capita), the fact we weren't hit nearly as hard by the housing crisis, the wealth distribution being a bit more egalitarian (though nowhere near as fair as in some countries, like Sweden), and the amount of social services (I'm getting a full college education without needing to take a huge loan or work ridiculous hours) make it seem like i have a pretty nice life. Not sure i'd have a better life were I born in the US.
I think that certain parts of America could make a strong case for being the best place for people to live. I think other places in America are perfectly awful.
You're right on the point that it's a major power, but it's really not that progressive. Then again, this would depend on how you define "progressive", i guess. Anyway, my point is that the United States aren't the best place to live, especially if you're homosexual, black, Hispanic, a woman and/or a Muslim.
The US is a huge country and your statement is highly debatable if one considers large parts of the coasts and midwest.
I know, off topic, but I can't help but point out the following: one of the main drawcards of the US was supposed to be its freedom for everyone, everywhere. It was supposed to be an egalitarian and positive place wherever you went, not just within your own little self-imposed ghettos. So maybe stop posting things like the above as though they're a win, and not a capitulation to the less awesome parts of human nature?
Where did you read about this "drawcard"? I'm not debating--or interested in debating--some PR bullshit, and I don't think I made any statements with respect to to human nature, winning or capitulating. I'm saying that many parts of the US are extremely nice places to live for people who are homosexual, black, Hispanic, female, and/or Muslim, and that assessments of America that don't take this into account are missing something important.
I dunno, unless I'm missing something, your statement was reasonable and accurate. The Cat, if I'm reading correctly, was referring to how much the United States resembles its original "intent." Which is sort of a whole other discussion.
You shifted the goalposts by conflating the argument, "Japanese culture is fairly misogynistic," to a relativist argument about US prison statistics.
What you could have said, and would have stayed on-topic, was something like, "What makes the US' approach to gender roles better than Japan?"
You would have been answered by study after study asserting the truth of such a thing, but at least it would have been pertinent to the same argument.
I don't think that's "shifting the goalposts". Shifting the goalpost would be if i said "Japanese culture isn't misogynistic, if it were, there'd be more rapes" and then you could show statistics and then i would say "That doesn't prove anything, because X".
I certainly did post a bit off-topic with the relativism, but I never intended to link US prison statistics to Misogyny in japanese culture, nor is this thread solely about misogyny is Japanese culture.
This thread is about messages in the entertainment industry, more specifically ideological messages... Right? That's what I think "'ism/'obia and Entertainment: How much is too much" might mean.
honestly don't know how much bias is too much bias, but it is everywhere. You don't need to look very hard when examining American culture to see military worship, the idea of violence as a means to reach favorable ends, etc. To all those who claim Hollywood has a liberal bias? Well, It also has a pro-war bias, since a lot of movies were funded thanks to the Pentagon. Top Gun and Red Dawn are some famous examples. They're movies that were meant to make a pro-war message appealing to young people. They were pretty close to propaganda. It's a fact that if you want to make a movie that portrays war, the armed forces, etc. in a negative light, you'll have to do it without the Pentagon's blessing, and that means less funding, no equipment and, well, possibly some controversy from groups that find anti-war messages "unpatriotic".
I'd say that's where i draw the line, when entertainment crosses over to propaganda, when it only serves to deliver a message that is harmful in some way. (For example, Top Gun's message that war is hip.)
I thought Top Gun was about how we should repeal DADT.
It's about both those things. And how awesome aircraft carriers the cost of which individually could cure cancer multiple times over are.
It's about lots of things! What of it?!
Honestly, though, I'd say Red Dawn is flat-out propaganda. To my knowledge, there's no rule that says propaganda can't entertain some people. The film has a very specific message--namely, communists are not just evil and brown, but they're going to invade our country any second now and destroy everything, just like how we saw fit to invade Russia during its revolution and make everything worse...oh wait....and it doesn't waver from that. The only area of debate, I guess, would be whether or not propaganda requires direct intent, rather than partial intent.
This is kind of how I feel about Alan Moore -- or more specifically, how I feel about New Crazy-ass Mystic Alan Moore.
Really? An old pothead who hangs out in his house hurting no-one offends your sensibilities that much?
Yours must be the most incredible, rarefied human life that has ever been lived.
Whoa whoa.
This is a pretty far-out conclusion you've jumped to. I'm not "offended" by latter-day Alan Moore. Just kind of weirded out by the crazy shit he talks about now. Doesn't hurt my love for his older work in any way, though.
Posts
Well, what exactly, besides holding on to some traces of their old (backwards in the view of you and others) culture and the fact that they are still one people instead of a nation set to become comprised of immigrants of a foreign culture, would possibly make them unlike the US? The fact that they speak a different language? That is rather superficial in of itself.
Is that one of your criteria for what makes a good country? I don't think Japan needs to worry too much about that one, in any event.
Wow. Every single sentence you wrote there is either untrue or a deliberate misrepresentation.
I do not think so at all.
What someone with Fukuyama's view would hold is that all nations would progress towards the same end goal, the liberal state represented by the USA. This is the progressive, linear view of history.
The "end of history" as it were, would be characterized by representative democracy, radical egalitarianism, consumer capitalism, etc.
Now, traditional cultures such as the Japanese are not rooted in the first two, and the third, as in America, is also somewhat corrosive, though it can always tailor itself to the circumstances. The racism and misogyny you decry is the Japanese culture. Firstly, their love for their own people and heritage, and wish to keep it from being overwhelmed by more numerous foreign groups. And secondly, the family, which is the basis of all traditional society. These can replaced....yes, by becoming more like what the USA represents. You'll still have all the beautiful old buildings, of course, which will stand as tombs, like they do in Europe.
If your culture is not identified by ethnicity (because that would be racist), it would have to be identified instead by ideals. If a country has the exact same core ideals as another any differences are bound to be superficial. If it is not identified by its traditional roles for men and women, then by who's? Someone else's. This is the end of "progression", as, if that is your goal, there must be a destination. At that point, the culture's stances on those ideals will be basically how they are being discussed here. "Like the USA, but more backwards" or "More progressive than the USA", as many like to use Europe as an example. Japan can already be described as "like the USA, but....", with the 2 primary differences being those discussed here.
edit: I suppose they'll probably never be quite as fat or quite as stupid, as long as it remains ethnically Japanese, US is number 1, afterall. But who knows.
In all honesty, if it sounded authoritative it was probably Thanatos that said it. I mean, I'm a raging anti-dogmatic, but Thanatos makes it seem like somewhere someone is offering Ph.D.s in Negative Religious History. Dude can cite precedence for days.
Personally, I feel that traditional Catholic imperatives towards women and their expected conduct is not too unlike, in machination, the gender roles of the antebellum South, where women were marginalized by a (conscious or not) argument that they were SO special they needed men to do everything for them. But then Catholicism also trips over itself by not offering clear explanations as to why women can't serve in the clergy, or why they can't use birth control, etc, etc.
It seems that a large portion of Abrahamic faiths (and subsequent denominations) go out of their way to make "special considerations" for women that are really just backhanded ways of oppression, a la, "Oh, you're just too beautiful to wear makeup/cut your hair/wear attractive clothing/let anyone see you under your burqa/get a job."
That's not a relativist thing, that's just raw sexism.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
A good thing to always consider and worthy of response.
You know, I actually thought about this one for a while. It is more that the sort of programming I am inclined to watch is already of a type. I am not going to suddenly watch wrestling just because it displays a simplistic idea of masculinity, but such things do exist.
Instead of that, I am confined to wonder why I just sat through a film promoting some sort of vaguely hippie-like free love position after sitting through The Beast with a Billion Backs, and then wishing it had at least been funny.
"Leftist" and "progressive" are far from synonymous, though I can see how that mistake would occur when both are filtered through a staunchly conservative POV.
"Left-wing" is probably more accurate in the common modern vernacular.
It's not like TV is constantly advocating Marxism.
Could have been Thanatos. It was a while ago. All I remember was it ended with a mod informing everyone in the thread they should have been embarrassed for themselves.
As for America being a shining beacon and an example to follow in terms of liberty and freedom and rights? Well, when America gets a judicial and penal system reform and stops being the country with the highest imprisonment rate, I might change my mind, but America doesn't seem like an objective or even someone other countries should try to "catch up to".
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Don't get caught in playing the cultural relativism game. It's basically an argument of, "How can you criticize my apples when your oranges are so bitter?"
The US certainly isn't the most progressive nation on the planet, but it's up there, and it's certainly the most progressive major power.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I mean, to be fair, I think that when it comes to cultures that we really look up to, Rome is one of the most messed up cultures. Their class lines were insane--Cicero was excluded from the political class for most of his life because his great grandfather wasn't well off--they were crazy when it came to violently murdering, raping, and pillaging any civilization that got in their way, and the political class had no problem with continuing this problem by making those issues into this murderous form of entertainment.
Early Christianity was definitely an improvement over Roman ethics.
I don't know, most places I can think would involve some kind of trade off. And I don't think any place is better on all of those counts.
Also, it varies state by state, which is an advantage of just how big the US is. Practically anyone can find some corner of it that is really great for them.
The US is a huge country and your statement is highly debatable if one considers large parts of the coasts and midwest.
Or pretty much any major city. 21stCentury's statement seems remarkably lacking in actual objective fact. The only grain of truth is that our political system is designed as such (some, including myself would argue faultily so) to maintain the political power of a rural minority, and that rural minority usually holds retrograde views regarding rights.
With the eroding middle class, the poor wealth distribution (I comparison to many countries such as Canada or Sweden), the insanely high imprisonment rate per capita (highest in the world by a wide margin), the poor funding for education (This is debatable, I assume it's not poor everywhere), the lack of universal healthcare depriving some people of care.
I don't know, i live in Canada and I think the lower crime rate (again, this is per capita), the fact we weren't hit nearly as hard by the housing crisis, the wealth distribution being a bit more egalitarian (though nowhere near as fair as in some countries, like Sweden), and the amount of social services (I'm getting a full college education without needing to take a huge loan or work ridiculous hours) make it seem like i have a pretty nice life. Not sure i'd have a better life were I born in the US.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
How is this at all related to a conversation about progressivism? And who is arguing that the US is "the best?"
Again, you're playing the relativist, and that's just a pointless waste of time. The US' trailing in certain aspects to, you know, whoever you think it doing it better with similar constraints, doesn't in any way negate the widespread misogyny throughout Asia.
Please stop arguing this.
The rate of incarceration of black men in the United States is, quite frankly, pretty mindblowing. In 2006, about 5% of the black male population was currently in jail--never mind how many people had been in jail at some point (according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice). That, frankly, is fucked up, no matter how otherwise egalitarian the United States might be for those other groups disadvantaged by the status quo.
Not gonna argue further because Atomic Ross is right, we're going besides the point, but where and how did I use a strawman and a goal-post shifting? i might have my definitions wrong or maybe I didn't express myself correctly. Maybe you're right, but I need you to point it out. I certainly didn't mean to make a fallacious argument.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
It can, for a couple of reasons:
- Breaking the fourth wall. Shoving the creator's prejudice into the viewer/reader's lap is just a reminder that you're not experiencing a 'real' thing, and makes it harder to suspend disbelief. It's as if the author/artist/whatever is sitting next to you saying "Chicks, amirite?" or expecting you to share the view that anyone of a particular skin color is idiotic. How am I supposed to believe in a world where everyone is male except for the one female present to fuck the protagonist? That's not what reality looks like.
- Killing any sympathy for the characters. If you don't like these people, why care about what happens to them next? (And I'm not talking about the anti-hero, but about a character who is such an asshole, you frankly don't give a shit whether he recovers the Gem of Gwhagluu or whatever.)
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Well, he is from Texas.
I say this because he's already said that "stereotypes exist for a reason," so he can't do a damn thing. This is almost like stealing from a drug dealer.
I know, off topic, but I can't help but point out the following: one of the main drawcards of the US was supposed to be its freedom for everyone, everywhere. It was supposed to be an egalitarian and positive place wherever you went, not just within your own little self-imposed ghettos. So maybe stop posting things like the above as though they're a win, and not a capitulation to the less awesome parts of human nature?
This isn't as true in Europe, and even though Europe looks down its nose at America because of our 'racist' society, I would argue that European society is way more racist, from the way that they deal with minorities within their borders
I should have thought this post out a bit more.
I think the people who believe that believe the US is the best country in the world
People who don't believe that would probably want to ask what "best" means
You shifted the goalposts by conflating the argument, "Japanese culture is fairly misogynistic," to a relativist argument about US prison statistics.
What you could have said, and would have stayed on-topic, was something like, "What makes the US' approach to gender roles better than Japan?"
You would have been answered by study after study asserting the truth of such a thing, but at least it would have been pertinent to the same argument.
I mean, there simply wouldn't be as much money to be made by catering to fringe leftists in film and television mainstream. Out of western nations, America in particular is a far from leftist country, so I can't see how you could make these errors.
There's of course certain products in entertainment that have heavier bias like say Star Trek on the left, or Fox News on the right, but those are hardly representative of the whole. So when you say that you don't watch television or films anymore because they're all leftist, then it comes across as somewhat ignorant and just odd in terms of decision making.
I don't know, I guess I just don't get people who view culture through a singular lens.
I don't think that's "shifting the goalposts". Shifting the goalpost would be if i said "Japanese culture isn't misogynistic, if it were, there'd be more rapes" and then you could show statistics and then i would say "That doesn't prove anything, because X".
I certainly did post a bit off-topic with the relativism, but I never intended to link US prison statistics to Misogyny in japanese culture, nor is this thread solely about misogyny is Japanese culture.
This thread is about messages in the entertainment industry, more specifically ideological messages... Right? That's what I think "'ism/'obia and Entertainment: How much is too much" might mean.
honestly don't know how much bias is too much bias, but it is everywhere. You don't need to look very hard when examining American culture to see military worship, the idea of violence as a means to reach favorable ends, etc. To all those who claim Hollywood has a liberal bias? Well, It also has a pro-war bias, since a lot of movies were funded thanks to the Pentagon. Top Gun and Red Dawn are some famous examples. They're movies that were meant to make a pro-war message appealing to young people. They were pretty close to propaganda. It's a fact that if you want to make a movie that portrays war, the armed forces, etc. in a negative light, you'll have to do it without the Pentagon's blessing, and that means less funding, no equipment and, well, possibly some controversy from groups that find anti-war messages "unpatriotic".
I'd say that's where i draw the line, when entertainment crosses over to propaganda, when it only serves to deliver a message that is harmful in some way. (For example, Top Gun's message that war is hip.)
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I thought Top Gun was about how we should repeal DADT.
This is kind of how I feel about Alan Moore -- or more specifically, how I feel about New Crazy-ass Mystic Alan Moore.
Really? An old pothead who hangs out in his house hurting no-one offends your sensibilities that much?
Yours must be the most incredible, rarefied human life that has ever been lived.
It also supposed to federalist and give significant power to states and local governments thus allowing for a wide range of approaches and preferences.
It's just hilarious that she mentions freedom for everyone, everywhere and then wants us to what, change how people think by law? In the US we're so free that racists and bigots are allowed to say and believe whatever they want and the government only intercedes when they want to infringe on the rights of those they hate. Is it perfect? No, the process to correct injustices is admittedly slow and in the meantime there are victims. But ultimately everyone in the United States is equal before the law and has the opportunity to make an excellent life for themselves. It is egalitarian and positive, and frankly what other country are you even going to compare it to? Completey ignoring the minorities even among whites the US is far from homogenous, having been formed from a wide variety of religions and nationalities.
I mean, no offense, but those "little self-imposed ghettos" would have more people, and diversity, than all of Australia. It'd be a fairer comparison to contrast the US vs. the EU, and if someone said "if you're not comfortable living in Spain then move to the Netherlands" would you jump all over them?
Where did you read about this "drawcard"? I'm not debating--or interested in debating--some PR bullshit, and I don't think I made any statements with respect to to human nature, winning or capitulating. I'm saying that many parts of the US are extremely nice places to live for people who are homosexual, black, Hispanic, female, and/or Muslim, and that assessments of America that don't take this into account are missing something important.
I think that certain parts of America could make a strong case for being the best place for people to live. I think other places in America are perfectly awful.
I dunno, unless I'm missing something, your statement was reasonable and accurate. The Cat, if I'm reading correctly, was referring to how much the United States resembles its original "intent." Which is sort of a whole other discussion.
It's about both those things. And how awesome aircraft carriers the cost of which individually could cure cancer multiple times over are.
It's about lots of things! What of it?!
Whoa whoa.
This is a pretty far-out conclusion you've jumped to. I'm not "offended" by latter-day Alan Moore. Just kind of weirded out by the crazy shit he talks about now. Doesn't hurt my love for his older work in any way, though.
Neither of these movies were funded by the Pentagon.
In fact, Top Gun was pretty much the opposite. They went to and paid the government/military for their knowledge and resources.