New topic -- Sexist trope: Dads freaking out about their young daughters' consensual sex lives
See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever
Seriously. Gross. Stop this shit. Positioning the father as the gatekeeper of his daughter's sexuality is broken on so many levels, but not the least of which is the incestuous implications.
I mean, I get that the whole protective dad thing is a specific trope involving the male father and female daughter, but aren't parents supposed to care about their kids sex lives? Isn't a major part of being a parent making sure that your kid has a healthy sex life and isn't pandering sexual favors to garner attention/affection?
The problem is that you see, over and fucking over, the dad portrayed as seeing his daughter as pure and innocent, and thus threatening any and all potential beaus with violence if they should show any sort of amorous intent.
It's such a fucked up view, it's fractally fucked up.
Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.
It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.
Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.
It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.
Apparently, though I am yet to be convinced of it. It's still just nebulous claims of harm used as justification to promote the removal of said harm all disguised as some sort of "simple criticism". It's the same old thing, from everyone who was outraged about something, ever. Plus, you don't agree with my premise that art is essentially sacrosanct and should not be suppressed (yes, suppressed, that's what's being advocated as evidenced by the motion of proving harm through to removing harm) under pretty much any circumstance. If it's legal to make it, I support it, and I think our disagreement really stems from there.
We know. You continue to want to conflate criticism with censorship because, I don't know, you jerk off to that idea or something. It's mystifying at this point frankly.
Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.
It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.
Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.
It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.
Apparently, though I am yet to be convinced of it. It's still just nebulous claims of harm used as justification to promote the removal of said harm all disguised as some sort of "simple criticism". It's the same old thing, from everyone who was outraged about something, ever. Plus, you don't agree with my premise that art is essentially sacrosanct and should not be suppressed (yes, suppressed, that's what's being advocated as evidenced by the motion of proving harm through to removing harm) under pretty much any circumstance. If it's legal to make it, I support it, and I think our disagreement really stems from there.
As racial attitudes in America changed, it became less and less acceptable to do stuff like blackface and Magical Negro or mammy stereotypes. Would you say that racist art was "suppressed" in America?
Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.
It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.
Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.
It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.
Apparently, though I am yet to be convinced of it. It's still just nebulous claims of harm used as justification to promote the removal of said harm all disguised as some sort of "simple criticism". It's the same old thing, from everyone who was outraged about something, ever. Plus, you don't agree with my premise that art is essentially sacrosanct and should not be suppressed (yes, suppressed, that's what's being advocated as evidenced by the motion of proving harm through to removing harm) under pretty much any circumstance. If it's legal to make it, I support it, and I think our disagreement really stems from there.
These claims aren't nebulous. We have a study right here showing media influencing culture.
And this whole time you've been criticizing other people's posts. Does this mean you want the government to censor them? Of course not. So stop insisting that's what others want. It's dishonest.
Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.
It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.
Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.
It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.
And in many other threads before this one!
Since you have explicitly asked me not to talk to you in these posts, I'd appreciate you not make posts that involve me. Makes it all rather one sided.
New topic -- Sexist trope: Dads freaking out about their young daughters' consensual sex lives
See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever
Seriously. Gross. Stop this shit. Positioning the father as the gatekeeper of his daughter's sexuality is broken on so many levels, but not the least of which is the incestuous implications.
I mean, I get that the whole protective dad thing is a specific trope involving the male father and female daughter, but aren't parents supposed to care about their kids sex lives? Isn't a major part of being a parent making sure that your kid has a healthy sex life and isn't pandering sexual favors to garner attention/affection?
I don't think the gross thing is a healthy involvement in guiding your kids to have a safe sex life.
It's the, "My daughter is an ANGEL and she will never have sex without my say-so!" attitude.
Quid Jinx!
I guess I just dislike it in a different way. It doesn't bother me that fathers are portrayed as suspicious that boys may try and convince their daughter to have sex before they're ready. Hence the instant dislike of every boyfriend. But I feel like it's equally important to promote the idea that women should be able to have as much sex as they want without feeling ashamed. Which is what gets sacrificed in the depiction of always being against the boyfriends forever.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
New topic -- Sexist trope: Dads freaking out about their young daughters' consensual sex lives
See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever
Seriously. Gross. Stop this shit. Positioning the father as the gatekeeper of his daughter's sexuality is broken on so many levels, but not the least of which is the incestuous implications.
I mean, I get that the whole protective dad thing is a specific trope involving the male father and female daughter, but aren't parents supposed to care about their kids sex lives? Isn't a major part of being a parent making sure that your kid has a healthy sex life and isn't pandering sexual favors to garner attention/affection?
I don't think the gross thing is a healthy involvement in guiding your kids to have a safe sex life.
It's the, "My daughter is an ANGEL and she will never have sex without my say-so!" attitude.
I guess I just dislike it in a different way. It doesn't bother me that fathers are portrayed as suspicious that boys may try and convince their daughter to have sex before they're ready. Hence the instant dislike of every boyfriend. But I feel like it's equally important to promote the idea that women should be able to have as much sex as they want without feeling ashamed. Which is what gets sacrificed in the depiction of always being against the boyfriends forever.
The first Meet the Parents movie deconstructed this somewhat, and then they milked the shit out of it as a franchise.
It's an interesting point, but it's neither an overwhelming consensus, nor is it precisely applicable here. Going from being barbarians to part of the modern world is less than directly applicable to, to use a non-comic example, female RPG characters wearing bikini armor (which is terrible and people who like it should feel bad. If you're going to use eye candy, at the very least justify it in universe, you sexist hack fucks),
It's also worth noting that media may have likely contained a substantial amount of the sexist tropes mentioned in this thread.
No kindly keep your goalposts where they were. Media influences culture. Culture influences people. There is not some upper limit where this ceases to be true..
Earth's gravity and Saturn's gravity are pulling on both of us right now. Which one is more relevant? Which one can safely be disregard?
Access to media which could reasonably be called infrastructure development could absolutely be a different thing than worrying about minutiae like physically implausible poses.
It wasn't exposure to a new media that changed things. It was exposure to different ideas by that media. So please demonstrate what makes your culture so different that it's unaffected by media if you want to claim it isn't affected.
Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?
It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.
Because there is a slippery slope with a few fine lines involved.
1. Criticism of media to make others aware of potential negative tropes. The problem is that potential negative tropes can be very subjective and the actual negative effects are hard to define.
2. Supporting perceived positive tropes in media. Depending on the level of support given to positive tropes, this can turn into de facto censorship of peceived negative tropes.
3. Once something gets labeled as badwrong, certain groups of people take it on themselves to rid the world of it. For a great example of this, see smoking. While rational people may agree that smoking should be allowed, there is still a strong push toward virtual prohibition.
Name me a single piece of general media, wherein no harm actually occurs to anyone, that has been banned in the U.S.
Cause I can name tons of media that is frowned upon far, far worse than the romantic comedy dreck that gets pushed out every year and yet is under no threat of being banned.
Note the words "de facto" in #2. As for #3, just because people have thus far failed at banning things in the US does not mean they haven't tried.
So?
People try to do things all the time. That doesn't mean everyone needs to stop being critical of everything ever. Nothing is actually banned.
Note my original response. I am just trying to explain why some people feel the way they do. Just because those groups has thus far failed to get a national ban does not mean that they haven't had successes at the local and state level. Rational people can agree to disagree, but the people I am talking about generally are not open minded or rational.
Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?
It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.
Because there is a slippery slope with a few fine lines involved.
1. Criticism of media to make others aware of potential negative tropes. The problem is that potential negative tropes can be very subjective and the actual negative effects are hard to define.
2. Supporting perceived positive tropes in media. Depending on the level of support given to positive tropes, this can turn into de facto censorship of peceived negative tropes.
3. Once something gets labeled as badwrong, certain groups of people take it on themselves to rid the world of it. For a great example of this, see smoking. While rational people may agree that smoking should be allowed, there is still a strong push toward virtual prohibition.
Name me a single piece of general media, wherein no harm actually occurs to anyone, that has been banned in the U.S.
Cause I can name tons of media that is frowned upon far, far worse than the romantic comedy dreck that gets pushed out every year and yet is under no threat of being banned.
Note the words "de facto" in #2. As for #3, just because people have thus far failed at banning things in the US does not mean they haven't tried.
So name the de facto bans then.
Any video game rated AO. Any movie rated NC 17. Which, I might add, disproportionately affects pro-woman and pro-minority views of sexuality.
Despite what someone briefly skimming my posts in this forum and making a +/- check in their mind might believe, I want to see more females in better roles in video games, and I want to be able to play a protagonist with my same sexuality outside of a very few entries. What I do take exception to is the unsubstantiated claims of substantial negative influence on society, when really, it's the other way around. When prominent religious organizations take orphans hostage to hurt gay people and largely get away with it, it's not the fact that too many FPS protagonists are straight that is having an undue negative effect on society.
programjunkie on
+1
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
I don't do much questioning why people read the things they do. I read some incredibly weird and different things, for all kinds of reasons; I'm in no position to judge. But I'm not going to pretend that I arrived at my broad opinions on the media I consume as a unique snowflake, who never saw anything like the opinions I hold before I adopted them as my own.
You do not think people are influenced by the ideas their culture teaches them?
Of course culture influences people, but higher culture influences them more. Expose a person to a world of culture, and you'll find they can cherry pick the best fruits over the most abundant ones as well as anybody.
The thing is that the idea that comic books are harmful also comes directly from the media, which has a vested interest in stoking the fires of gender war (since controversy and outrage = clicks.)
So yeah, I'll agree that the media can affect people, quite a lot. But the 24/7 outrage machine seems to be about 100 times better at getting inside people's heads than niche picture books about superheroes.
The stuff happens 24/7. People don't keep all of their discrimination to a specified holiday, so action against it isn't going to be either.
Is 'action' in this case synonymous with 'talking about these problems in the media'?
It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of that action is not women, but the media.
Why does it seem that way to you? Which media? Is CNN talking about Wonder Woman's impossible skeleton?
How did you hear that comics are doing these bad things to society? Or did you come up with the idea independently?
My awareness of it has definitely been heightened by reading other people talk about it in these forums, blogs, that one time I took a class on English literature and they told me to read a book, etc. I'm not sure what your point is, though. That you are a man with independent ideas arguing against the automatons of mass media? I mean, I guess, but dismissal of people's concerns about sexism isn't some niche idea. Everywhere you can find people espousing the view that it's no big deal. Is the idea here that people who don't care about this arrived at their views completely independently? They never heard anyone say "c'mon, they're just comic books. For a bit of fun"?
How convenient it is, when our ideas are not only the correct ones, but also completely independent. Arrived at after careful thought and deliberation. Not like those dingbats who read about it in some blog.
I mean, for the most part I share the idea that such things should be left alone as "just a bit of fun". No good, in my mind, ever came of a crusade against artistic content certain groups feel are morally objectionable or harmful.
Comic books and pulp of their ilk are simply there for "a bit of fun", the trouble is in taking them to be more than that in any respect.
Somehow, I don't see Maus being "a bit of fun." Despite what you think, comics are a form of art and culture, and as such are open to legitimate analysis and criticism. Frankly, it's your position that is the more harmful one, as you seek to ghettoize comics into triviality in the name of "saving" them.
l
I'm not ghettoizing anything. Personally I've never seen any good come from one group or another attempting to suppress art they find objectionable, be it the Catholic Church or feminists on the internet. I'm just generally against analysis and criticism used as a cover for making things you dislike go away.
There is a huge difference between suppressing art (as in: "comic books are the devil, ban them from our communities!") and calling art out for it's flaws (which is what is happening here). Look at comic books with a critical lens is a useful and interesting exercise. Making more widespread the lack of sense in body types throughout comic books as a whole is a useful and worthwhile discussion. There is no such thing a "bit of bun" art or other throw-away terms.
The Dragonlance books were something I would say were "trash fiction" back in the 90s, harmless fun that wouldn't ever make for a solid peer reviewed critique. But at the same time TSR and TOR were producing a lot of books, and I (and others) read a lot of them. They were filled with horrible stereotypes (from "empowered" women never passing a bechdel test to racist tendencies in how ethnicity was depicted, and worse). Yes, they werent high-culture things but when an entire generation of young men were reading them during their formative years problems begin to emerge.
No medium should be void of criticism on it's content. All media consumes affects our lives and tints our perception of the world, even subtlely.
So what's your conclusion here? Pulp exists for a reason. If you believe pulp to be harmful (I disagree but whatevs for the hypothetical) than where do you go from there? Where is this line of thought taking you? Because I assure you that there always has been some form of pulp, most likely always will be. Folks will always find it attractive for reasons you can't suppress or condition out of a culture, because it changes to suit the culture.
I'm not saying pulp is bad or harmful, only that tropes in pulp should be taken just as seriously as tropes in any other media. The post was in response to the idea that pulp somehow is above criticism as being "a bit of fun" and not worth reviewing and not remarkable upon impact. Which is really not true at all. If anything, pulp is typically more impactful as more people casually consume it without critical thought compared to other forms of media perceived to have "higher" cultural value.
Pulp should be viewed with a critical eye as well as anything else. Everyone should be an educated and aware consumer of media. There is a ton of good in pulp as well, from offering an affordable escape from reality for those who need it to typically emphasizing themes of good, honest characters triumphing over self-serving destructive ones. There are neutral and problematic areas as well beyond racism and sexism (the need for violence and killing as the universal solution, for example), but pulp is a mixed bag. Identifying why it is mixed is important for being a self-actualized person.
Engaging pulp with a critical eye gets you.... somewhere, but not really where you're supposed to go. You can deconstruct the fuck out of something like Sin City, but if you're reading Sin City to make yourself a more self-actualized person or are relying on it to inform you on how to live your life you might just be barking up the wrong tree.
This also addresses the post asking me why I'm calling all comics pulp. Really I'm not, but there is a lot of pulp there and a lot of what gets raged at does seem to me to fall under the category of good harmless fun, stuff that melts under the harsh light of fierce dissection but is, in the moment, distraction and joy. I'm honestly less concerned about this than I am the focus at stories and tropes at large, but this is odd to me. Cathartic and escspist media will always exist, I'm not worried about feminism squashing the fun out of it, but treating it deadly serious like we are is kinda ironic, no?
What about a piece of work like, say, The Human Centipede? Is it okay to get distraction and joy from such a wretched movie conceit, or is it okay to be disgusted at the concept?
Is it good harmless fun, or is it worrisome in some way?
You can like it or hate it, but the choice to watch it is yours. I don't think we really get to judge peoples tastes that way, on all spectrums up to the legal line. Some people are disgusted and outraged at BDSM, but they don't get to decide if I watch that sort of porn or engage in that sort of activity. I'd think a forum so on board with alternative lifestyles and interests would be less quick to jump on the whole "X causes harm and outrages/disgusts me and thus is wrong" bandwagon, or at least see how easy it is to confise things you dislike with things that cause harm.
This thread moves at a million miles an hour but I wanted to note this bit about choice. Because there is, edge cases excluded, nothing wrong with choosing to consume a piece of media! The problem comes when instead of choosing to partake in a thing, that thing is the norm across large swathes of the media and your choice is made for you unless you actively fight against it.
Imagine if any book you opened, any movie in theaters, any song on the radio, any advertisement, had a substantial chance that a scene from Human Centipede would be in it.
And people started saying, you know, it sure would be nice to have more options to consume things that don't have a scene from Human Centipede in them.
Especially because our society doesn't really see insane doctors going around sewing people together as all that big of a problem and this analogy is getting out of hand.
New topic -- Sexist trope: Dads freaking out about their young daughters' consensual sex lives
See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever
Seriously. Gross. Stop this shit. Positioning the father as the gatekeeper of his daughter's sexuality is broken on so many levels, but not the least of which is the incestuous implications.
I mean, I get that the whole protective dad thing is a specific trope involving the male father and female daughter, but aren't parents supposed to care about their kids sex lives? Isn't a major part of being a parent making sure that your kid has a healthy sex life and isn't pandering sexual favors to garner attention/affection?
The problem is that you see, over and fucking over, the dad portrayed as seeing his daughter as pure and innocent, and thus threatening any and all potential beaus with violence if they should show any sort of amorous intent.
It's such a fucked up view, it's fractally fucked up.
Agreed, although I would argue that the issue is the bolded part essentially saying that the daughter wanting to have sex would be unpure/bad. Not that the father is worried about the amorous feelings of the beau leading to an unhealthy sexual relationship for the daughter. Kids being pressured into sex by their peers seems like a very legitimate concern for parents to have.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.
It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.
Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.
It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.
Apparently, though I am yet to be convinced of it. It's still just nebulous claims of harm used as justification to promote the removal of said harm all disguised as some sort of "simple criticism". It's the same old thing, from everyone who was outraged about something, ever. Plus, you don't agree with my premise that art is essentially sacrosanct and should not be suppressed (yes, suppressed, that's what's being advocated as evidenced by the motion of proving harm through to removing harm) under pretty much any circumstance. If it's legal to make it, I support it, and I think our disagreement really stems from there.
Here's the thing - if you make a piece of art, and someone makes a cogent case for why it is bad, and convinces other people of their case through free speech, and you choose to stick to your guns in response, and as a result you gain a negative reputation...
...you are not being suppressed. And to argue that you are is utterly offensive, because you are fundamentally arguing that, in order to "preserve" free speech, you must destroy it.
Mass media is a significant factor in socialization, but there are also agents such as an individual's family, peers and religious upbringing. The type of people who acted as aggressors against women such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian probably didn't become obsessed misogynists just because of video games. However, pre-existing beliefs from other socializing forces could have laid the groundwork for this type of behavior, which could also cause them to seek-out media created by other people with similar attitudes towards women as themselves, which in effect reinforces these beliefs. I would think that mass media is most likely to affect people who didn't have other strong agents of socialization in their lives to help them form their personal identity and beliefs.
This is an important point and one I think is missed by both sides sometimes.
Generally most people are more influenced by family, peers and other such things than media. If they are influenced by media at all it is usually not by a very significant degree.
But there are also plenty of people for whom this is not the case. People who are raised and remain in situations that are less than ideal, who lack role models and teachers in real life.
So when discussing the obviousness of media totally influencing people/media not at all influencing people we need to be aware of how incredibly different people live in the first place. One person might not be influenced by media to any significant degree while the next person is influenced.
Hollywood teenagers, which are generally played by 20 year olds
so when the "teenage" daughter who looks 20 brings home her boyfriend who also looks 20 and the dad is an overbearing lout
it really just smacks of him sex-policing his daughter who looks like a grown-ass woman who if she was at college nobody would blink twice at having sex with dudes
if they had a 15 year old girl actually being played by a 15 year old girl people would be much more "that girl is fifteen years old, jesus christ" and narrowing their eyes at the boyfriend suspiciously
but that also ties into some gatekeeper sexuality model bullshit where the onus gets put on the boyfriend because he's the dude, so clearly he must be the initiator who is trying to fuck her
not the other way around, of course not
buddy of mine when i was in 9th grade got dumped by his first girlfriend ever because he wouldn't let her suck his dick, he wasn't comfortable with that and she really wanted to do it and she was like "pfft" to that and dumped him for it and she told everybody he was a fag and it pretty much was totally awful for him!
because the gatekeeper model is garbo for men and women! mostly women, but sometimes men (mostly really young men)
It's an interesting point, but it's neither an overwhelming consensus, nor is it precisely applicable here. Going from being barbarians to part of the modern world is less than directly applicable to, to use a non-comic example, female RPG characters wearing bikini armor (which is terrible and people who like it should feel bad. If you're going to use eye candy, at the very least justify it in universe, you sexist hack fucks),
It's also worth noting that media may have likely contained a substantial amount of the sexist tropes mentioned in this thread.
No kindly keep your goalposts where they were. Media influences culture. Culture influences people. There is not some upper limit where this ceases to be true..
Earth's gravity and Saturn's gravity are pulling on both of us right now. Which one is more relevant? Which one can safely be disregard?
Access to media which could reasonably be called infrastructure development could absolutely be a different thing than worrying about minutiae like physically implausible poses.
It wasn't exposure to a new media that changed things. It was exposure to different ideas by that media. So please demonstrate what makes your culture so different that it's unaffected by media if you want to claim it isn't affected.
The responsibility to refute claims that American romcoms make people more sexist is not on the people claiming that introduction of cable to rural India is not sufficient, comprehensive proof of that claim.
Do violent video games, which routinely feature and laud violence being done by the player themselves, encourage violent crime in society?
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Great. Another interesting thread that turns into an episode of Star Trek where our intrepid crew teach a bobbly-headed alien about hoo-man society. Hi jinks ensue as he discovers prune juice is meant to be taken orally and that yes, a human can indeed be influenced by repeated exposure to media!
If you're repeatedly exposed to mockery, do you eventually believe that you deserve to be mocked?
You're asking this expecting a different answer, but many times abusers do repeatedly belittle and break down the spirits of those they abuse by making them feel worthless and that they deserve the abuse.
So, yes.
I want this interpretation to follow through, because if you simply stop or impede the abuser, the fact that the victim can have their own self-esteemed overwhelmed by constant attrition will ensure a road paved with future abusers who find it terribly easy to take advantage of this person. Better to teach this person to have self-confidence not dependent on the absence of worthless opposition than to act as their shield their entire life.
I didn't see anyone respond to this, and I feel like it really should be addressed.
"Hey, don't take harm from psychological manipulation, OK?" is basically on par with "Hey, don't get bruised when someone punches you, OK?"
It's an interesting point, but it's neither an overwhelming consensus, nor is it precisely applicable here. Going from being barbarians to part of the modern world is less than directly applicable to, to use a non-comic example, female RPG characters wearing bikini armor (which is terrible and people who like it should feel bad. If you're going to use eye candy, at the very least justify it in universe, you sexist hack fucks),
It's also worth noting that media may have likely contained a substantial amount of the sexist tropes mentioned in this thread.
No kindly keep your goalposts where they were. Media influences culture. Culture influences people. There is not some upper limit where this ceases to be true..
Earth's gravity and Saturn's gravity are pulling on both of us right now. Which one is more relevant? Which one can safely be disregard?
Access to media which could reasonably be called infrastructure development could absolutely be a different thing than worrying about minutiae like physically implausible poses.
It wasn't exposure to a new media that changed things. It was exposure to different ideas by that media. So please demonstrate what makes your culture so different that it's unaffected by media if you want to claim it isn't affected.
The responsibility to refute claims that American romcoms make people more sexist is not on the people claiming that introduction of cable to rural India is not sufficient, comprehensive proof of that claim.
Do violent video games, which routinely feature and laud violence being done by the player themselves, encourage violent crime in society?
Nobody has said a single piece of media makes people sexist or violent.
Please stop trying to claim that and actually address the statements people make.
Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?
It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.
Because there is a slippery slope with a few fine lines involved.
1. Criticism of media to make others aware of potential negative tropes. The problem is that potential negative tropes can be very subjective and the actual negative effects are hard to define.
2. Supporting perceived positive tropes in media. Depending on the level of support given to positive tropes, this can turn into de facto censorship of peceived negative tropes.
3. Once something gets labeled as badwrong, certain groups of people take it on themselves to rid the world of it. For a great example of this, see smoking. While rational people may agree that smoking should be allowed, there is still a strong push toward virtual prohibition.
Name me a single piece of general media, wherein no harm actually occurs to anyone, that has been banned in the U.S.
Cause I can name tons of media that is frowned upon far, far worse than the romantic comedy dreck that gets pushed out every year and yet is under no threat of being banned.
Note the words "de facto" in #2. As for #3, just because people have thus far failed at banning things in the US does not mean they haven't tried.
So name the de facto bans then.
Any video game rated AO. Any movie rated NC 17. Which, I might add, disproportionately affects pro-woman and pro-minority views of sexuality.
Despite what someone briefly skimming my posts in this forum and making a +/- check in their mind might believe, I want to see more females in better roles in video games, and I want to be able to play a protagonist with my same sexuality outside of a very few entries. What I do take exception to is the unsubstantiated claims of substantial negative influence on society, when really, it's the other way around. When prominent religious organizations take orphans hostage to hurt gay people and largely get away with it, it's not the fact that too many FPS protagonists are straight that is having an undue negative effect on society.
You're right, that is actually bullshit. And you even had people like Leland Yee agree on that point.
Wait, the guy who wanted to ban violent video games was against the AO ban?
Yes, actually. Turns out this media thing is a lot more complicated than you think.
Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.
It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.
Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.
It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.
Apparently, though I am yet to be convinced of it. It's still just nebulous claims of harm used as justification to promote the removal of said harm all disguised as some sort of "simple criticism". It's the same old thing, from everyone who was outraged about something, ever. Plus, you don't agree with my premise that art is essentially sacrosanct and should not be suppressed (yes, suppressed, that's what's being advocated as evidenced by the motion of proving harm through to removing harm) under pretty much any circumstance. If it's legal to make it, I support it, and I think our disagreement really stems from there.
Here's the thing - if you make a piece of art, and someone makes a cogent case for why it is bad, and convinces other people of their case through free speech, and you choose to stick to your guns in response, and as a result you gain a negative reputation...
...you are not being suppressed. And to argue that you are is utterly offensive, because you are fundamentally arguing that, in order to "preserve" free speech, you must destroy it.
It's sort of an issue of tone though. I don't think I've ever scene a visceral "censorship" reaction to someone making a claim like "I wish you wouldn't hyper sexualize your female characters because it leads to unhealthy views of female sexuality" or whatever. But when you claim is basically "this is bad and you should feel bad for making it", it seems less like you are trying to critique something and more like you are trying to suppress it.
edit- I should probably add the huge qualifier that I am mostly talking about discussions on this board. There are absolutely people that will respond to things like the anita sarkeesian videos with "fuck you and die! censorship all up ins!", even though she was clearly trying to have a reasonable discussion. Those people are geese.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.
It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.
Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.
It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.
Apparently, though I am yet to be convinced of it. It's still just nebulous claims of harm used as justification to promote the removal of said harm all disguised as some sort of "simple criticism". It's the same old thing, from everyone who was outraged about something, ever. Plus, you don't agree with my premise that art is essentially sacrosanct and should not be suppressed (yes, suppressed, that's what's being advocated as evidenced by the motion of proving harm through to removing harm) under pretty much any circumstance. If it's legal to make it, I support it, and I think our disagreement really stems from there.
Here's the thing - if you make a piece of art, and someone makes a cogent case for why it is bad, and convinces other people of their case through free speech, and you choose to stick to your guns in response, and as a result you gain a negative reputation...
...you are not being suppressed. And to argue that you are is utterly offensive, because you are fundamentally arguing that, in order to "preserve" free speech, you must destroy it.
It's sort of an issue of tone though. I don't think I've ever scene a visceral "censorship" reaction to someone making a claim like "I wish you wouldn't hyper sexualize your female characters because it leads to unhealthy views of female sexuality" or whatever. But when you claim is basically "this is bad and you should feel bad for making it", it seems less like you are trying to critique something and more like you are trying to suppress it.
edit- I should probably add the huge qualifier that I am mostly talking about discussions on this board. There are absolutely people that will respond to things like the anita sarkeesian videos with "fuck you and die! censorship all up ins!", even though she was clearly trying to have a reasonable discussion. Those people are geese.
Attacking someone's argument on the tone used is called "tone policing", and is a Bad Thing.
Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?
It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.
Because there is a slippery slope with a few fine lines involved.
1. Criticism of media to make others aware of potential negative tropes. The problem is that potential negative tropes can be very subjective and the actual negative effects are hard to define.
2. Supporting perceived positive tropes in media. Depending on the level of support given to positive tropes, this can turn into de facto censorship of peceived negative tropes.
3. Once something gets labeled as badwrong, certain groups of people take it on themselves to rid the world of it. For a great example of this, see smoking. While rational people may agree that smoking should be allowed, there is still a strong push toward virtual prohibition.
Name me a single piece of general media, wherein no harm actually occurs to anyone, that has been banned in the U.S.
Cause I can name tons of media that is frowned upon far, far worse than the romantic comedy dreck that gets pushed out every year and yet is under no threat of being banned.
Note the words "de facto" in #2. As for #3, just because people have thus far failed at banning things in the US does not mean they haven't tried.
So name the de facto bans then.
Any video game rated AO. Any movie rated NC 17. Which, I might add, disproportionately affects pro-woman and pro-minority views of sexuality.
Despite what someone briefly skimming my posts in this forum and making a +/- check in their mind might believe, I want to see more females in better roles in video games, and I want to be able to play a protagonist with my same sexuality outside of a very few entries. What I do take exception to is the unsubstantiated claims of substantial negative influence on society, when really, it's the other way around. When prominent religious organizations take orphans hostage to hurt gay people and largely get away with it, it's not the fact that too many FPS protagonists are straight that is having an undue negative effect on society.
It can also work the other way around. Lets say the US government decides that "porn is unhealthy"(PIU) should be promoted, and thus they give an organization money to make and promote media with a with that ideal. So now you have an organization that can buy up air time, internet bandwidth, ad spots, etc, which can drive up prices for everyone else. All of the for profit porn producers are paying taxes, some of which goes to support PIU, and they are paying higher prices for services like bandwidth and ad spots. You are basically directly hitting their bottom line. Now if we reduce that to the absurd, at some point, you can give the PIU organizaton enough money that they can literally buy up all of the ad spots and/or drive up bandwidth prices to the point that that it actually puts the porn companies out of business. That would be an extreme form of de facto censorship. We didn't ban it, we just made it unprofitable.
Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.
It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.
Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.
It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.
Apparently, though I am yet to be convinced of it. It's still just nebulous claims of harm used as justification to promote the removal of said harm all disguised as some sort of "simple criticism". It's the same old thing, from everyone who was outraged about something, ever. Plus, you don't agree with my premise that art is essentially sacrosanct and should not be suppressed (yes, suppressed, that's what's being advocated as evidenced by the motion of proving harm through to removing harm) under pretty much any circumstance. If it's legal to make it, I support it, and I think our disagreement really stems from there.
Here's the thing - if you make a piece of art, and someone makes a cogent case for why it is bad, and convinces other people of their case through free speech, and you choose to stick to your guns in response, and as a result you gain a negative reputation...
...you are not being suppressed. And to argue that you are is utterly offensive, because you are fundamentally arguing that, in order to "preserve" free speech, you must destroy it.
It's sort of an issue of tone though. I don't think I've ever scene a visceral "censorship" reaction to someone making a claim like "I wish you wouldn't hyper sexualize your female characters because it leads to unhealthy views of female sexuality" or whatever. But when you claim is basically "this is bad and you should feel bad for making it", it seems less like you are trying to critique something and more like you are trying to suppress it.
edit- I should probably add the huge qualifier that I am mostly talking about discussions on this board. There are absolutely people that will respond to things like the anita sarkeesian videos with "fuck you and die! censorship all up ins!", even though she was clearly trying to have a reasonable discussion. Those people are geese.
Attacking someone's argument on the tone used is called "tone policing", and is a Bad Thing.
How then do you differentiate between trying to suppress something (through non legal channels) and critiquing something? Is censorship/suppression claims only valid if something is made illegal?
edit - Also, I did claim that it is a tone issue, but I suppose there's substance difference there as well. Basically the difference between saying this one thing is bad, and in aggregate, all of these things put together are having a negative effect. Even if the one thing is not in and of itself bad. The latter being less likely to draw claims of suppression than the former.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.
It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.
Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.
It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.
And in many other threads before this one!
Since you have explicitly asked me not to talk to you in these posts, I'd appreciate you not make posts that involve me. Makes it all rather one sided.
What I've explicitly asked of you is for you to not to mention me as a third person in your arguments, ie "Cambiata sure does have opinions, doesn't she, chuckle chuckle", because I find it both creepy and demeaning. Quoting what I've said and arguing against or for it is a different matter. I won't necessarily reply to you, because again the whole referring to me in the third person and sending me private messages after I asked you not to, but you can quote and dissect my posts all you want.
Besides, you're hardly the only person in this thread who is doing the "I don't understand what censorship actually is" song and dance. It literally comes up every single time feminism is discussed on these boards, almost always by the exact same people. It's always patiently defined for every thread. Then a new thread comes up and the same "but I don't understand how it's different than censorship" people come up and it has to be defined for them again.
I don't necessarily mind it being explained every single time, because there will always be new people in these threads for whom it is helpful to have that discussion again. I am somewhat in awe at the fortitude and kindness of the people who always helpfully define it again, though.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?
It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.
Because there is a slippery slope with a few fine lines involved.
1. Criticism of media to make others aware of potential negative tropes. The problem is that potential negative tropes can be very subjective and the actual negative effects are hard to define.
2. Supporting perceived positive tropes in media. Depending on the level of support given to positive tropes, this can turn into de facto censorship of peceived negative tropes.
3. Once something gets labeled as badwrong, certain groups of people take it on themselves to rid the world of it. For a great example of this, see smoking. While rational people may agree that smoking should be allowed, there is still a strong push toward virtual prohibition.
Name me a single piece of general media, wherein no harm actually occurs to anyone, that has been banned in the U.S.
Cause I can name tons of media that is frowned upon far, far worse than the romantic comedy dreck that gets pushed out every year and yet is under no threat of being banned.
Note the words "de facto" in #2. As for #3, just because people have thus far failed at banning things in the US does not mean they haven't tried.
So name the de facto bans then.
Any video game rated AO. Any movie rated NC 17. Which, I might add, disproportionately affects pro-woman and pro-minority views of sexuality.
Despite what someone briefly skimming my posts in this forum and making a +/- check in their mind might believe, I want to see more females in better roles in video games, and I want to be able to play a protagonist with my same sexuality outside of a very few entries. What I do take exception to is the unsubstantiated claims of substantial negative influence on society, when really, it's the other way around. When prominent religious organizations take orphans hostage to hurt gay people and largely get away with it, it's not the fact that too many FPS protagonists are straight that is having an undue negative effect on society.
It can also work the other way around. Lets say the US government decides that "porn is unhealthy"(PIU) should be promoted, and thus they give an organization money to make and promote media with a with that ideal. So now you have an organization that can buy up air time, internet bandwidth, ad spots, etc, which can drive up prices for everyone else. All of the for profit porn producers are paying taxes, some of which goes to support PIU, and they are paying higher prices for services like bandwidth and ad spots. You are basically directly hitting their bottom line. Now if we reduce that to the absurd, at some point, you can give the PIU organizaton enough money that they can literally buy up all of the ad spots and/or drive up bandwidth prices to the point that that it actually puts the porn companies out of business. That would be an extreme form of de facto censorship. We didn't ban it, we just made it unprofitable.
But this is literally what happens regardless. Ideas get propagated no matter what.
Like both the above posts run in to the problem that they are defining censorship so broadly that it applies to all expression.
When prominent religious organizations take orphans hostage to hurt gay people and largely get away with it, it's not the fact that too many FPS protagonists are straight that is having an undue negative effect on society.
Posting in a thread on a videogame forum about how we should only be concerned about problems of significant scale
Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?
It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.
Because there is a slippery slope with a few fine lines involved.
1. Criticism of media to make others aware of potential negative tropes. The problem is that potential negative tropes can be very subjective and the actual negative effects are hard to define.
2. Supporting perceived positive tropes in media. Depending on the level of support given to positive tropes, this can turn into de facto censorship of peceived negative tropes.
3. Once something gets labeled as badwrong, certain groups of people take it on themselves to rid the world of it. For a great example of this, see smoking. While rational people may agree that smoking should be allowed, there is still a strong push toward virtual prohibition.
Name me a single piece of general media, wherein no harm actually occurs to anyone, that has been banned in the U.S.
Cause I can name tons of media that is frowned upon far, far worse than the romantic comedy dreck that gets pushed out every year and yet is under no threat of being banned.
Note the words "de facto" in #2. As for #3, just because people have thus far failed at banning things in the US does not mean they haven't tried.
So name the de facto bans then.
Any video game rated AO. Any movie rated NC 17. Which, I might add, disproportionately affects pro-woman and pro-minority views of sexuality.
Despite what someone briefly skimming my posts in this forum and making a +/- check in their mind might believe, I want to see more females in better roles in video games, and I want to be able to play a protagonist with my same sexuality outside of a very few entries. What I do take exception to is the unsubstantiated claims of substantial negative influence on society, when really, it's the other way around. When prominent religious organizations take orphans hostage to hurt gay people and largely get away with it, it's not the fact that too many FPS protagonists are straight that is having an undue negative effect on society.
It can also work the other way around. Lets say the US government decides that "porn is unhealthy"(PIU) should be promoted, and thus they give an organization money to make and promote media with a with that ideal. So now you have an organization that can buy up air time, internet bandwidth, ad spots, etc, which can drive up prices for everyone else. All of the for profit porn producers are paying taxes, some of which goes to support PIU, and they are paying higher prices for services like bandwidth and ad spots. You are basically directly hitting their bottom line. Now if we reduce that to the absurd, at some point, you can give the PIU organizaton enough money that they can literally buy up all of the ad spots and/or drive up bandwidth prices to the point that that it actually puts the porn companies out of business. That would be an extreme form of de facto censorship. We didn't ban it, we just made it unprofitable.
But this is literally what happens regardless. Ideas get propagated no matter what.
Like both the above posts run in to the problem that they are defining censorship so broadly that it applies to all expression.
Again, I am trying to explain why myself and others are wary about groups of people up and deciding that A is good and B is bad. There is a lot of ground in between constructive critique and outright banning. While the people deciding that A is good and B is bad maybe rational and/or against censorship, the people who follow after them may not be.
Alinius133 on
0
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
It's an interesting point, but it's neither an overwhelming consensus, nor is it precisely applicable here. Going from being barbarians to part of the modern world is less than directly applicable to, to use a non-comic example, female RPG characters wearing bikini armor (which is terrible and people who like it should feel bad. If you're going to use eye candy, at the very least justify it in universe, you sexist hack fucks),
It's also worth noting that media may have likely contained a substantial amount of the sexist tropes mentioned in this thread.
No kindly keep your goalposts where they were. Media influences culture. Culture influences people. There is not some upper limit where this ceases to be true..
Earth's gravity and Saturn's gravity are pulling on both of us right now. Which one is more relevant? Which one can safely be disregard?
Access to media which could reasonably be called infrastructure development could absolutely be a different thing than worrying about minutiae like physically implausible poses.
It wasn't exposure to a new media that changed things. It was exposure to different ideas by that media. So please demonstrate what makes your culture so different that it's unaffected by media if you want to claim it isn't affected.
The responsibility to refute claims that American romcoms make people more sexist is not on the people claiming that introduction of cable to rural India is not sufficient, comprehensive proof of that claim.
Do violent video games, which routinely feature and laud violence being done by the player themselves, encourage violent crime in society?
Does our society have a widespread problem wherein people are unaware of violence when it happens, excuse or rationalize away violence when it happens, try to suggest that violence is normal or an unavoidable consequence of our biology? Does our society feature a lack of media that portrays nonviolence in a positive light, or violence in a negative one? Do we assume that the violence displayed in our media is a normal aspect of everyday life?
Edit: To clarify, we are better at recognizing violence and the fact that it's wrong and our media contains more options when it comes to presentations of or lack of violence. Sexism and violence are not the same thing.
Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.
It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.
Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.
It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.
Apparently, though I am yet to be convinced of it. It's still just nebulous claims of harm used as justification to promote the removal of said harm all disguised as some sort of "simple criticism". It's the same old thing, from everyone who was outraged about something, ever. Plus, you don't agree with my premise that art is essentially sacrosanct and should not be suppressed (yes, suppressed, that's what's being advocated as evidenced by the motion of proving harm through to removing harm) under pretty much any circumstance. If it's legal to make it, I support it, and I think our disagreement really stems from there.
Here's the thing - if you make a piece of art, and someone makes a cogent case for why it is bad, and convinces other people of their case through free speech, and you choose to stick to your guns in response, and as a result you gain a negative reputation...
...you are not being suppressed. And to argue that you are is utterly offensive, because you are fundamentally arguing that, in order to "preserve" free speech, you must destroy it.
This is why professionals shouldn't respond to critics. Though sometimes it's awesome when they do, like Scott Lynch.
Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?
It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.
Because there is a slippery slope with a few fine lines involved.
1. Criticism of media to make others aware of potential negative tropes. The problem is that potential negative tropes can be very subjective and the actual negative effects are hard to define.
2. Supporting perceived positive tropes in media. Depending on the level of support given to positive tropes, this can turn into de facto censorship of peceived negative tropes.
3. Once something gets labeled as badwrong, certain groups of people take it on themselves to rid the world of it. For a great example of this, see smoking. While rational people may agree that smoking should be allowed, there is still a strong push toward virtual prohibition.
Name me a single piece of general media, wherein no harm actually occurs to anyone, that has been banned in the U.S.
Cause I can name tons of media that is frowned upon far, far worse than the romantic comedy dreck that gets pushed out every year and yet is under no threat of being banned.
Note the words "de facto" in #2. As for #3, just because people have thus far failed at banning things in the US does not mean they haven't tried.
So name the de facto bans then.
Any video game rated AO. Any movie rated NC 17. Which, I might add, disproportionately affects pro-woman and pro-minority views of sexuality.
Despite what someone briefly skimming my posts in this forum and making a +/- check in their mind might believe, I want to see more females in better roles in video games, and I want to be able to play a protagonist with my same sexuality outside of a very few entries. What I do take exception to is the unsubstantiated claims of substantial negative influence on society, when really, it's the other way around. When prominent religious organizations take orphans hostage to hurt gay people and largely get away with it, it's not the fact that too many FPS protagonists are straight that is having an undue negative effect on society.
It can also work the other way around. Lets say the US government decides that "porn is unhealthy"(PIU) should be promoted, and thus they give an organization money to make and promote media with a with that ideal. So now you have an organization that can buy up air time, internet bandwidth, ad spots, etc, which can drive up prices for everyone else. All of the for profit porn producers are paying taxes, some of which goes to support PIU, and they are paying higher prices for services like bandwidth and ad spots. You are basically directly hitting their bottom line. Now if we reduce that to the absurd, at some point, you can give the PIU organizaton enough money that they can literally buy up all of the ad spots and/or drive up bandwidth prices to the point that that it actually puts the porn companies out of business. That would be an extreme form of de facto censorship. We didn't ban it, we just made it unprofitable.
But this is literally what happens regardless. Ideas get propagated no matter what.
Like both the above posts run in to the problem that they are defining censorship so broadly that it applies to all expression.
Again, I am trying to explain why myself and others are wary about groups of people up and deciding that A is good and B is bad. There is a lot of ground in between constructive critique and outright banning. While the people deciding that A is good and B is bad maybe rational and/or against censorship, the people who follow after them may not be.
But then you are wary of people expressing opinions.
Again, a statement so broad as to be either stupid or meaningless.
Talking about art as harmful and seeking ways to eliminate said harm falls under the umbrella for me with room to spare.
It's not, regardless of whether you believe it is.
Well hey, debate over, you win. Cause you said so, apparently.
It's been explained why your premise is defective several times in this thread.
Apparently, though I am yet to be convinced of it. It's still just nebulous claims of harm used as justification to promote the removal of said harm all disguised as some sort of "simple criticism". It's the same old thing, from everyone who was outraged about something, ever. Plus, you don't agree with my premise that art is essentially sacrosanct and should not be suppressed (yes, suppressed, that's what's being advocated as evidenced by the motion of proving harm through to removing harm) under pretty much any circumstance. If it's legal to make it, I support it, and I think our disagreement really stems from there.
Here's the thing - if you make a piece of art, and someone makes a cogent case for why it is bad, and convinces other people of their case through free speech, and you choose to stick to your guns in response, and as a result you gain a negative reputation...
...you are not being suppressed. And to argue that you are is utterly offensive, because you are fundamentally arguing that, in order to "preserve" free speech, you must destroy it.
It's sort of an issue of tone though. I don't think I've ever scene a visceral "censorship" reaction to someone making a claim like "I wish you wouldn't hyper sexualize your female characters because it leads to unhealthy views of female sexuality" or whatever. But when you claim is basically "this is bad and you should feel bad for making it", it seems less like you are trying to critique something and more like you are trying to suppress it.
edit- I should probably add the huge qualifier that I am mostly talking about discussions on this board. There are absolutely people that will respond to things like the anita sarkeesian videos with "fuck you and die! censorship all up ins!", even though she was clearly trying to have a reasonable discussion. Those people are geese.
Attacking someone's argument on the tone used is called "tone policing", and is a Bad Thing.
How then do you differentiate between trying to suppress something (through non legal channels) and critiquing something? Is censorship/suppression claims only valid if something is made illegal?
edit - Also, I did claim that it is a tone issue, but I suppose there's substance difference there as well. Basically the difference between saying this one thing is bad, and in aggregate, all of these things put together are having a negative effect. Even if the one thing is not in and of itself bad. The latter being less likely to draw claims of suppression than the former.
@Pony has been doing a superlative job of explaining the flaws in this argument, so I would recommend reading his posts. But in short, it's worth remembering that the marketplace of ideas is exactly that. Jus because you put something up doesn't mean people have to buy.
It's an interesting point, but it's neither an overwhelming consensus, nor is it precisely applicable here. Going from being barbarians to part of the modern world is less than directly applicable to, to use a non-comic example, female RPG characters wearing bikini armor (which is terrible and people who like it should feel bad. If you're going to use eye candy, at the very least justify it in universe, you sexist hack fucks),
It's also worth noting that media may have likely contained a substantial amount of the sexist tropes mentioned in this thread.
No kindly keep your goalposts where they were. Media influences culture. Culture influences people. There is not some upper limit where this ceases to be true..
Earth's gravity and Saturn's gravity are pulling on both of us right now. Which one is more relevant? Which one can safely be disregard?
Access to media which could reasonably be called infrastructure development could absolutely be a different thing than worrying about minutiae like physically implausible poses.
It wasn't exposure to a new media that changed things. It was exposure to different ideas by that media. So please demonstrate what makes your culture so different that it's unaffected by media if you want to claim it isn't affected.
The responsibility to refute claims that American romcoms make people more sexist is not on the people claiming that introduction of cable to rural India is not sufficient, comprehensive proof of that claim.
Do violent video games, which routinely feature and laud violence being done by the player themselves, encourage violent crime in society?
Does our society have a widespread problem wherein people are unaware of violence when it happens, excuse or rationalize away violence when it happens, try to suggest that violence is normal or an unavoidable consequence of our biology? Does our society feature a lack of media that portrays nonviolence in a positive light, or violence in a negative one? Do we assume that the violence displayed in our media is a normal aspect of everyday life?
It's an interesting point, but it's neither an overwhelming consensus, nor is it precisely applicable here. Going from being barbarians to part of the modern world is less than directly applicable to, to use a non-comic example, female RPG characters wearing bikini armor (which is terrible and people who like it should feel bad. If you're going to use eye candy, at the very least justify it in universe, you sexist hack fucks),
It's also worth noting that media may have likely contained a substantial amount of the sexist tropes mentioned in this thread.
No kindly keep your goalposts where they were. Media influences culture. Culture influences people. There is not some upper limit where this ceases to be true..
Earth's gravity and Saturn's gravity are pulling on both of us right now. Which one is more relevant? Which one can safely be disregard?
Access to media which could reasonably be called infrastructure development could absolutely be a different thing than worrying about minutiae like physically implausible poses.
It wasn't exposure to a new media that changed things. It was exposure to different ideas by that media. So please demonstrate what makes your culture so different that it's unaffected by media if you want to claim it isn't affected.
The responsibility to refute claims that American romcoms make people more sexist is not on the people claiming that introduction of cable to rural India is not sufficient, comprehensive proof of that claim.
Do violent video games, which routinely feature and laud violence being done by the player themselves, encourage violent crime in society?
Does our society have a widespread problem wherein people are unaware of violence when it happens, excuse or rationalize away violence when it happens, try to suggest that violence is normal or an unavoidable consequence of our biology? Does our society feature a lack of media that portrays nonviolence in a positive light, or violence in a negative one? Do we assume that the violence displayed in our media is a normal aspect of everyday life?
You been in the Ferguson thread?
I believe that's his point.
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
New topic -- Sexist trope: Dads freaking out about their young daughters' consensual sex lives
See: Transformers 4, Hardcore, every dad character in everything ever
Seriously. Gross. Stop this shit. Positioning the father as the gatekeeper of his daughter's sexuality is broken on so many levels, but not the least of which is the incestuous implications.
I loathe that it's repeatedly encouraged in media for father's to physically threaten the people their daughters choose to date, even if they're perfectly decent people.
Cause this is something like half my family clings to and it's disgusting.
Especially in rural and conservative circles, there's still this huge cultural agreement that "young men just ain't no good" and it's daddy's job to protect his daughter's virtue, completely ignoring the cycle of double standards that keeps that ignorant shit going.
+5
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
It's an interesting point, but it's neither an overwhelming consensus, nor is it precisely applicable here. Going from being barbarians to part of the modern world is less than directly applicable to, to use a non-comic example, female RPG characters wearing bikini armor (which is terrible and people who like it should feel bad. If you're going to use eye candy, at the very least justify it in universe, you sexist hack fucks),
It's also worth noting that media may have likely contained a substantial amount of the sexist tropes mentioned in this thread.
No kindly keep your goalposts where they were. Media influences culture. Culture influences people. There is not some upper limit where this ceases to be true..
Earth's gravity and Saturn's gravity are pulling on both of us right now. Which one is more relevant? Which one can safely be disregard?
Access to media which could reasonably be called infrastructure development could absolutely be a different thing than worrying about minutiae like physically implausible poses.
It wasn't exposure to a new media that changed things. It was exposure to different ideas by that media. So please demonstrate what makes your culture so different that it's unaffected by media if you want to claim it isn't affected.
The responsibility to refute claims that American romcoms make people more sexist is not on the people claiming that introduction of cable to rural India is not sufficient, comprehensive proof of that claim.
Do violent video games, which routinely feature and laud violence being done by the player themselves, encourage violent crime in society?
Does our society have a widespread problem wherein people are unaware of violence when it happens, excuse or rationalize away violence when it happens, try to suggest that violence is normal or an unavoidable consequence of our biology? Does our society feature a lack of media that portrays nonviolence in a positive light, or violence in a negative one? Do we assume that the violence displayed in our media is a normal aspect of everyday life?
I bolded all the parts I'd say yes to, particularly when it comes to violence that intersects with racism and sexism. Over in the NFL scandal thread we're talking about people who are like, "Hey, sometimes you gotta beat your kid until he bleeds. That's just good parenting."
Why do these kind of discussions always end up in the same place, which people apparently unable to understand that criticism is not censorship?
It really comes off feeling like some people can't even accept criticism of things they like.
Because there is a slippery slope with a few fine lines involved.
1. Criticism of media to make others aware of potential negative tropes. The problem is that potential negative tropes can be very subjective and the actual negative effects are hard to define.
2. Supporting perceived positive tropes in media. Depending on the level of support given to positive tropes, this can turn into de facto censorship of peceived negative tropes.
3. Once something gets labeled as badwrong, certain groups of people take it on themselves to rid the world of it. For a great example of this, see smoking. While rational people may agree that smoking should be allowed, there is still a strong push toward virtual prohibition.
Name me a single piece of general media, wherein no harm actually occurs to anyone, that has been banned in the U.S.
Cause I can name tons of media that is frowned upon far, far worse than the romantic comedy dreck that gets pushed out every year and yet is under no threat of being banned.
Note the words "de facto" in #2. As for #3, just because people have thus far failed at banning things in the US does not mean they haven't tried.
So name the de facto bans then.
Any video game rated AO. Any movie rated NC 17. Which, I might add, disproportionately affects pro-woman and pro-minority views of sexuality.
Despite what someone briefly skimming my posts in this forum and making a +/- check in their mind might believe, I want to see more females in better roles in video games, and I want to be able to play a protagonist with my same sexuality outside of a very few entries. What I do take exception to is the unsubstantiated claims of substantial negative influence on society, when really, it's the other way around. When prominent religious organizations take orphans hostage to hurt gay people and largely get away with it, it's not the fact that too many FPS protagonists are straight that is having an undue negative effect on society.
It can also work the other way around. Lets say the US government decides that "porn is unhealthy"(PIU) should be promoted, and thus they give an organization money to make and promote media with a with that ideal. So now you have an organization that can buy up air time, internet bandwidth, ad spots, etc, which can drive up prices for everyone else. All of the for profit porn producers are paying taxes, some of which goes to support PIU, and they are paying higher prices for services like bandwidth and ad spots. You are basically directly hitting their bottom line. Now if we reduce that to the absurd, at some point, you can give the PIU organizaton enough money that they can literally buy up all of the ad spots and/or drive up bandwidth prices to the point that that it actually puts the porn companies out of business. That would be an extreme form of de facto censorship. We didn't ban it, we just made it unprofitable.
But this is literally what happens regardless. Ideas get propagated no matter what.
Like both the above posts run in to the problem that they are defining censorship so broadly that it applies to all expression.
Again, I am trying to explain why myself and others are wary about groups of people up and deciding that A is good and B is bad. There is a lot of ground in between constructive critique and outright banning. While the people deciding that A is good and B is bad maybe rational and/or against censorship, the people who follow after them may not be.
But then you are wary of people expressing opinions.
Again, a statement so broad as to be either stupid or meaningless.
I am wary of people expressing opinions as broad generalizations or to put it another way, all generalizatons are false.
Edit: I also already said we are dealing with a slippery slope. For a less rational/aware person, that means what could happen gets interpreted as what will happen which is the heart of the slippery slope fallacy. Where I am wary of the censorship implications, someone else might automatically assume that censorship will follow.
The problem is that people don't always consciously absorb all the messages the media sends out.
For example, look at prejudice against black people in China. There aren't that many black people in China, yet prejudiced beliefs against black people is very widespread and can get pretty vicious. A lot of that is due to western media's influence in China. The Chinese government has even taken some actions to correct the problem by having game/variety/interview shows on state run networks get more black guests.
And no, it's not just a matter of Chinese people being prejudiced against people who are different since white people are respected in China, which is also thanks in part to western media.
Posts
The problem is that you see, over and fucking over, the dad portrayed as seeing his daughter as pure and innocent, and thus threatening any and all potential beaus with violence if they should show any sort of amorous intent.
It's such a fucked up view, it's fractally fucked up.
Attempted murder is funny!
We know. You continue to want to conflate criticism with censorship because, I don't know, you jerk off to that idea or something. It's mystifying at this point frankly.
That ad makes me cringe.
As racial attitudes in America changed, it became less and less acceptable to do stuff like blackface and Magical Negro or mammy stereotypes. Would you say that racist art was "suppressed" in America?
These claims aren't nebulous. We have a study right here showing media influencing culture.
And this whole time you've been criticizing other people's posts. Does this mean you want the government to censor them? Of course not. So stop insisting that's what others want. It's dishonest.
Since you have explicitly asked me not to talk to you in these posts, I'd appreciate you not make posts that involve me. Makes it all rather one sided.
I guess I just dislike it in a different way. It doesn't bother me that fathers are portrayed as suspicious that boys may try and convince their daughter to have sex before they're ready. Hence the instant dislike of every boyfriend. But I feel like it's equally important to promote the idea that women should be able to have as much sex as they want without feeling ashamed. Which is what gets sacrificed in the depiction of always being against the boyfriends forever.
The first Meet the Parents movie deconstructed this somewhat, and then they milked the shit out of it as a franchise.
It wasn't exposure to a new media that changed things. It was exposure to different ideas by that media. So please demonstrate what makes your culture so different that it's unaffected by media if you want to claim it isn't affected.
Note my original response. I am just trying to explain why some people feel the way they do. Just because those groups has thus far failed to get a national ban does not mean that they haven't had successes at the local and state level. Rational people can agree to disagree, but the people I am talking about generally are not open minded or rational.
Any video game rated AO. Any movie rated NC 17. Which, I might add, disproportionately affects pro-woman and pro-minority views of sexuality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated
Despite what someone briefly skimming my posts in this forum and making a +/- check in their mind might believe, I want to see more females in better roles in video games, and I want to be able to play a protagonist with my same sexuality outside of a very few entries. What I do take exception to is the unsubstantiated claims of substantial negative influence on society, when really, it's the other way around. When prominent religious organizations take orphans hostage to hurt gay people and largely get away with it, it's not the fact that too many FPS protagonists are straight that is having an undue negative effect on society.
Imagine if any book you opened, any movie in theaters, any song on the radio, any advertisement, had a substantial chance that a scene from Human Centipede would be in it.
And people started saying, you know, it sure would be nice to have more options to consume things that don't have a scene from Human Centipede in them.
Especially because our society doesn't really see insane doctors going around sewing people together as all that big of a problem and this analogy is getting out of hand.
Agreed, although I would argue that the issue is the bolded part essentially saying that the daughter wanting to have sex would be unpure/bad. Not that the father is worried about the amorous feelings of the beau leading to an unhealthy sexual relationship for the daughter. Kids being pressured into sex by their peers seems like a very legitimate concern for parents to have.
Here's the thing - if you make a piece of art, and someone makes a cogent case for why it is bad, and convinces other people of their case through free speech, and you choose to stick to your guns in response, and as a result you gain a negative reputation...
...you are not being suppressed. And to argue that you are is utterly offensive, because you are fundamentally arguing that, in order to "preserve" free speech, you must destroy it.
This is an important point and one I think is missed by both sides sometimes.
Generally most people are more influenced by family, peers and other such things than media. If they are influenced by media at all it is usually not by a very significant degree.
But there are also plenty of people for whom this is not the case. People who are raised and remain in situations that are less than ideal, who lack role models and teachers in real life.
So when discussing the obviousness of media totally influencing people/media not at all influencing people we need to be aware of how incredibly different people live in the first place. One person might not be influenced by media to any significant degree while the next person is influenced.
you know
Hollywood teenagers, which are generally played by 20 year olds
so when the "teenage" daughter who looks 20 brings home her boyfriend who also looks 20 and the dad is an overbearing lout
it really just smacks of him sex-policing his daughter who looks like a grown-ass woman who if she was at college nobody would blink twice at having sex with dudes
if they had a 15 year old girl actually being played by a 15 year old girl people would be much more "that girl is fifteen years old, jesus christ" and narrowing their eyes at the boyfriend suspiciously
but that also ties into some gatekeeper sexuality model bullshit where the onus gets put on the boyfriend because he's the dude, so clearly he must be the initiator who is trying to fuck her
not the other way around, of course not
buddy of mine when i was in 9th grade got dumped by his first girlfriend ever because he wouldn't let her suck his dick, he wasn't comfortable with that and she really wanted to do it and she was like "pfft" to that and dumped him for it and she told everybody he was a fag and it pretty much was totally awful for him!
because the gatekeeper model is garbo for men and women! mostly women, but sometimes men (mostly really young men)
The responsibility to refute claims that American romcoms make people more sexist is not on the people claiming that introduction of cable to rural India is not sufficient, comprehensive proof of that claim.
Do violent video games, which routinely feature and laud violence being done by the player themselves, encourage violent crime in society?
I didn't see anyone respond to this, and I feel like it really should be addressed.
"Hey, don't take harm from psychological manipulation, OK?" is basically on par with "Hey, don't get bruised when someone punches you, OK?"
Also, speaking to the question of why anyone would say that fiction affects people's behavior, well, that was the reason fiction was invented after all. Some asshole even wrote whole books about that.
Nobody has said a single piece of media makes people sexist or violent.
Please stop trying to claim that and actually address the statements people make.
You're right, that is actually bullshit. And you even had people like Leland Yee agree on that point.
Wait, the guy who wanted to ban violent video games was against the AO ban?
Yes, actually. Turns out this media thing is a lot more complicated than you think.
It's sort of an issue of tone though. I don't think I've ever scene a visceral "censorship" reaction to someone making a claim like "I wish you wouldn't hyper sexualize your female characters because it leads to unhealthy views of female sexuality" or whatever. But when you claim is basically "this is bad and you should feel bad for making it", it seems less like you are trying to critique something and more like you are trying to suppress it.
edit- I should probably add the huge qualifier that I am mostly talking about discussions on this board. There are absolutely people that will respond to things like the anita sarkeesian videos with "fuck you and die! censorship all up ins!", even though she was clearly trying to have a reasonable discussion. Those people are geese.
Attacking someone's argument on the tone used is called "tone policing", and is a Bad Thing.
It can also work the other way around. Lets say the US government decides that "porn is unhealthy"(PIU) should be promoted, and thus they give an organization money to make and promote media with a with that ideal. So now you have an organization that can buy up air time, internet bandwidth, ad spots, etc, which can drive up prices for everyone else. All of the for profit porn producers are paying taxes, some of which goes to support PIU, and they are paying higher prices for services like bandwidth and ad spots. You are basically directly hitting their bottom line. Now if we reduce that to the absurd, at some point, you can give the PIU organizaton enough money that they can literally buy up all of the ad spots and/or drive up bandwidth prices to the point that that it actually puts the porn companies out of business. That would be an extreme form of de facto censorship. We didn't ban it, we just made it unprofitable.
How then do you differentiate between trying to suppress something (through non legal channels) and critiquing something? Is censorship/suppression claims only valid if something is made illegal?
edit - Also, I did claim that it is a tone issue, but I suppose there's substance difference there as well. Basically the difference between saying this one thing is bad, and in aggregate, all of these things put together are having a negative effect. Even if the one thing is not in and of itself bad. The latter being less likely to draw claims of suppression than the former.
What I've explicitly asked of you is for you to not to mention me as a third person in your arguments, ie "Cambiata sure does have opinions, doesn't she, chuckle chuckle", because I find it both creepy and demeaning. Quoting what I've said and arguing against or for it is a different matter. I won't necessarily reply to you, because again the whole referring to me in the third person and sending me private messages after I asked you not to, but you can quote and dissect my posts all you want.
Besides, you're hardly the only person in this thread who is doing the "I don't understand what censorship actually is" song and dance. It literally comes up every single time feminism is discussed on these boards, almost always by the exact same people. It's always patiently defined for every thread. Then a new thread comes up and the same "but I don't understand how it's different than censorship" people come up and it has to be defined for them again.
I don't necessarily mind it being explained every single time, because there will always be new people in these threads for whom it is helpful to have that discussion again. I am somewhat in awe at the fortitude and kindness of the people who always helpfully define it again, though.
But this is literally what happens regardless. Ideas get propagated no matter what.
Like both the above posts run in to the problem that they are defining censorship so broadly that it applies to all expression.
Posting in a thread on a videogame forum about how we should only be concerned about problems of significant scale
Kind of silly
Again, I am trying to explain why myself and others are wary about groups of people up and deciding that A is good and B is bad. There is a lot of ground in between constructive critique and outright banning. While the people deciding that A is good and B is bad maybe rational and/or against censorship, the people who follow after them may not be.
Edit: To clarify, we are better at recognizing violence and the fact that it's wrong and our media contains more options when it comes to presentations of or lack of violence. Sexism and violence are not the same thing.
This is why professionals shouldn't respond to critics. Though sometimes it's awesome when they do, like Scott Lynch.
But then you are wary of people expressing opinions.
Again, a statement so broad as to be either stupid or meaningless.
@Pony has been doing a superlative job of explaining the flaws in this argument, so I would recommend reading his posts. But in short, it's worth remembering that the marketplace of ideas is exactly that. Jus because you put something up doesn't mean people have to buy.
You been in the Ferguson thread?
I believe that's his point.
Especially in rural and conservative circles, there's still this huge cultural agreement that "young men just ain't no good" and it's daddy's job to protect his daughter's virtue, completely ignoring the cycle of double standards that keeps that ignorant shit going.
I bolded all the parts I'd say yes to, particularly when it comes to violence that intersects with racism and sexism. Over in the NFL scandal thread we're talking about people who are like, "Hey, sometimes you gotta beat your kid until he bleeds. That's just good parenting."
I am wary of people expressing opinions as broad generalizations or to put it another way, all generalizatons are false.
Edit: I also already said we are dealing with a slippery slope. For a less rational/aware person, that means what could happen gets interpreted as what will happen which is the heart of the slippery slope fallacy. Where I am wary of the censorship implications, someone else might automatically assume that censorship will follow.
For example, look at prejudice against black people in China. There aren't that many black people in China, yet prejudiced beliefs against black people is very widespread and can get pretty vicious. A lot of that is due to western media's influence in China. The Chinese government has even taken some actions to correct the problem by having game/variety/interview shows on state run networks get more black guests.
And no, it's not just a matter of Chinese people being prejudiced against people who are different since white people are respected in China, which is also thanks in part to western media.