Imagine that a creator comes out and says, "I know the last thing I did, people said it was pretentious. As a result of that discussion, my next thing will attempt to not be pretentious. There will be no thirty page monologues on the nature of reality, even though that's what I want to do, because apparently that makes people angry." Would this be considered a good thing?
Is sexism the only artistic flaw we consider sacrosanct, or do we apply this to all aspects of an artistic work?
Does violent media cause violence?
Does sexist media cause sexism?
Yes to both, or no to both.
Why
Where are you getting the idea that those are even remotely the same thing
They're both questions of media influence. The influence of art or entertainment or books or movies or fictional depictions on person's understandings of reality.
Does violent media cause violence?
Does sexist media cause sexism?
Yes to both, or no to both.
Why
Where are you getting the idea that those are even remotely the same thing
Unless you're going with the radfem idea that all misogyny is inherently violence, but I doubt it somehow
To be fair if you want to change his mind you should talk about why they are different instead of taking the usual approach of saying that it is somehow obvious.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
So you're saying I am suppressing McDonalds by not buying their food?
You seem to get really caught up in personal behavior. You can do whatever you want and no one has claimed otherwise. When you start trying to convince other people to do the same you are trying to suppress something (if what your trying to convince them to do is not use/buy/support a certain thing). Suppression also isn't inherently bad. Being a dick isn't illegal but I fully support you in trying to suppress people being dicks.
Where things run afoul is when you try and suppress things that aren't inherently bad. In this case a particular art style. You may believe that the harms of that art style make it inherently bad. Other people have said that there is not enough evidence to support your position and so trying to suppress said art style is not ok in their view.
At the very least please stop posting about how you can do whatever you want with your money. That gets old so fast.
Frankie is the one who said what a person does none of my business. Except for some reason when I opt to not buy sexist art then it's suppression and wrong. Don't get on me about it.
And since once again people seem intent on replying to posts no one is making, here is what I, and multiple people, have suggested be done about sexist art:
Generally try to avoid sexist media, support more positive media, and talk about the topic when it comes up like now.
Which is appalling to several others for reasons.
+1
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
There's always the difference of "being a sexist" and "doing something that is/could be sexist". Trying to prove empirically that someone is sexist is very difficult. Illustrating that some action is sexist is much easier, and is always the conversation you want to have.
Does violent media cause violence?
Does sexist media cause sexism?
Yes to both, or no to both.
Your continued assertions with no evidence remain unconvincing. The way humans learn, the way they spread information and assumptions and paradigms, and the role media and narrative and the production and consumption of the same all play into each other is incredibly complicated.
"Yes to both or no to both" is laughably reductive, and you have offered a net total of 0 pieces of evidence in support of your position. That there might be some difference in how media informs different types of behavior is a noncontroversial and obvious consideration. The onus is on you to prove that violent media and sexist media both influence prospective audiences in the same way.
Imagine that a creator comes out and says, "I know the last thing I did, people said it was pretentious. As a result of that discussion, my next thing will attempt to not be pretentious. There will be no thirty page monologues on the nature of reality, even though that's what I want to do, because apparently that makes people angry." Would this be considered a good thing?
Is sexism the only artistic flaw we consider sacrosanct, or do we apply this to all aspects of an artistic work?
I feel like the point is that big titted, arch backed wonder woman is not necessarily a flaw. You are certainly free to disagree, and can certainly state any opinions you have. But that's not the same as stating that a particular art style is harmful, or shameful, or that it should be avoided at all costs. There is a difference between critique and suppression. One is more extreme than the other, although neither are inherently bad or wrong.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Does violent media cause violence?
Does sexist media cause sexism?
Yes to both, or no to both.
Why
Where are you getting the idea that those are even remotely the same thing
They're both questions of media influence. The influence of art or entertainment or books or movies or fictional depictions on person's understandings of reality.
You're arguing that propensity to, or willingness to engage in, violence is a inherited cultural value?
Imagine that a creator comes out and says, "I know the last thing I did, people said it was pretentious. As a result of that discussion, my next thing will attempt to not be pretentious. There will be no thirty page monologues on the nature of reality, even though that's what I want to do, because apparently that makes people angry." Would this be considered a good thing?
Is sexism the only artistic flaw we consider sacrosanct, or do we apply this to all aspects of an artistic work?
I feel like the point is that big titted, arch backed wonder woman is not necessarily a flaw. You are certainly free to disagree, and can certainly state any opinions you have. But that's not the same as stating that a particular art style is harmful, or shameful, or that it should be avoided at all costs. There is a difference between critique and suppression. One is more extreme than the other, although neither are inherently bad or wrong.
Long load times aren't necessarily a flaw
Being pretentious isn't necessarily a flaw
Bad graphics aren't necessarily a flaw
I'm confused about what subjects are OK for criticism.
Regardless, your suppression and censorship of my position is noted and will be reported to the proper authorities.
So you're saying I am suppressing McDonalds by not buying their food?
You seem to get really caught up in personal behavior. You can do whatever you want and no one has claimed otherwise. When you start trying to convince other people to do the same you are trying to suppress something (if what your trying to convince them to do is not use/buy/support a certain thing). Suppression also isn't inherently bad. Being a dick isn't illegal but I fully support you in trying to suppress people being dicks.
Where things run afoul is when you try and suppress things that aren't inherently bad. In this case a particular art style. You may believe that the harms of that art style make it inherently bad. Other people have said that there is not enough evidence to support your position and so trying to suppress said art style is not ok in their view.
At the very least please stop posting about how you can do whatever you want with your money. That gets old so fast.
Frankie is the one who said what a person does none of my business. Except for some reason when I opt to not buy sexist art then it's suppression and wrong. Don't get on me about it.
And since once again people seem intent on replying to posts no one is making, here is what I, and multiple people, have suggested be done about sexist art:
Generally try to avoid sexist media, support more positive media, and talk about the topic when it comes up like now.
Which is appalling to several others for reasons.
The reasons are in how you approach those who consume or create what you have deemed as sexist media. If you simply never interacted with them then no one would take issue with your stance at all. But if you seek to admonish them for what they have done then you are doing more than what is in your list. And it is this last part that most take issue with.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Does violent media cause violence?
Does sexist media cause sexism?
Yes to both, or no to both.
Why
Where are you getting the idea that those are even remotely the same thing
Unless you're going with the radfem idea that all misogyny is inherently violence, but I doubt it somehow
To be fair if you want to change his mind you should talk about why they are different instead of taking the usual approach of saying that it is somehow obvious.
Well sure, but given that I have no idea what he thinks they have in common, and he's spent all thread failing to explain it, I don't have a meaningful place to start. It's difficult to refute a bare and unsupported assertion.
Does violent media cause violence?
Does sexist media cause sexism?
Yes to both, or no to both.
Why
Where are you getting the idea that those are even remotely the same thing
They're both questions of media influence. The influence of art or entertainment or books or movies or fictional depictions on person's understandings of reality.
They're different things though, radically different things. At the very least you should be asking if sexist and violent imagery affect impulse control the same way, or how the two influence the way relationships are structured and other peoples positions within them.
Two very different questions here, both with different answers on different topics. Watching cooking shows will definitely impact your culinary skills even if its ever so slight. That has no bearing on sex and violence though, whilst by your logic it'd prove the connection.
There's always the difference of "being a sexist" and "doing something that is/could be sexist". Trying to prove empirically that someone is sexist is very difficult. Illustrating that some action is sexist is much easier, and is always the conversation you want to have.
Exactly. It's also the conversation that will make people less defensive, because one is a commentary on their character and the other is a commentary on their actions.
This is something I think fans need to remember, too. I think too many fans (many self-identified gamers especially, to put a current events spin on things) consider a criticism of the sexist problems in something they enjoy as essentially calling them sexist for enjoying it. Which makes them think "Well, I'm not sexist, erego, your argument is meritless and incorrect" and they get defensive accordingly.
I think it comes from a place of, as I said earlier in this thread, of insecurity. It also comes from a place of, as I talked about when I told of my rather personal experience with the "Manic Pixie Dream Girl" issue, people forming their self-identity in part out of the pop culture and entertainment media they enjoy in lieu of actually figuring out who they are.
Imagine that a creator comes out and says, "I know the last thing I did, people said it was pretentious. As a result of that discussion, my next thing will attempt to not be pretentious. There will be no thirty page monologues on the nature of reality, even though that's what I want to do, because apparently that makes people angry." Would this be considered a good thing?
Is sexism the only artistic flaw we consider sacrosanct, or do we apply this to all aspects of an artistic work?
I feel like the point is that big titted, arch backed wonder woman is not necessarily a flaw. You are certainly free to disagree, and can certainly state any opinions you have. But that's not the same as stating that a particular art style is harmful, or shameful, or that it should be avoided at all costs. There is a difference between critique and suppression. One is more extreme than the other, although neither are inherently bad or wrong.
Long load times aren't necessarily a flaw
Being pretentious isn't necessarily a flaw
Bad graphics aren't necessarily a flaw
I'm confused about what subjects are OK for criticism.
Regardless, your suppression and censorship of my position is noted and will be reported to the proper authorities.
Every subject is ok for criticism and I never said it wasn't. But there's a difference between saying you dislike something for reasons X and saying that a particular thing should not be created or consumed and that anyone who does so is commiting harm and or a bad person. I support your decision to say you dislike my posts and will not read them. I do not support your decision to tell people that agreeing or awesoming my posts makes them a bad person.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Does violent media cause violence?
Does sexist media cause sexism?
Yes to both, or no to both.
Why
Where are you getting the idea that those are even remotely the same thing
They're both questions of media influence. The influence of art or entertainment or books or movies or fictional depictions on person's understandings of reality.
You're arguing that propensity to, or willingness to engage in, violence is a inherited cultural value?
The premise seems to be that violence is inherent in the human condition, while sexism is not. This seems incorrect. See: The history of the Western World.
If violence is not a learned behavior, then maybe sexism is not a learned behavior, either. That would put a damper on most of the premises of this conversation.
So far as I can tell, "Western Culture" has been violent and sexist since...ever.
Edit: And to be clear, if everyone gets aboard the "Violent video games make people violent" train then I'll get aboard the "Sexist video games make people sexist" train.*
*For the purposes of this imagery, a person can be on multiple trains.
So you're saying I am suppressing McDonalds by not buying their food?
You seem to get really caught up in personal behavior. You can do whatever you want and no one has claimed otherwise. When you start trying to convince other people to do the same you are trying to suppress something (if what your trying to convince them to do is not use/buy/support a certain thing). Suppression also isn't inherently bad. Being a dick isn't illegal but I fully support you in trying to suppress people being dicks.
Where things run afoul is when you try and suppress things that aren't inherently bad. In this case a particular art style. You may believe that the harms of that art style make it inherently bad. Other people have said that there is not enough evidence to support your position and so trying to suppress said art style is not ok in their view.
At the very least please stop posting about how you can do whatever you want with your money. That gets old so fast.
Frankie is the one who said what a person does none of my business. Except for some reason when I opt to not buy sexist art then it's suppression and wrong. Don't get on me about it.
And since once again people seem intent on replying to posts no one is making, here is what I, and multiple people, have suggested be done about sexist art:
Generally try to avoid sexist media, support more positive media, and talk about the topic when it comes up like now.
Which is appalling to several others for reasons.
The reasons are in how you approach those who consume or create what you have deemed as sexist media. If you simply never interacted with them then no one would take issue with your stance at all. But if you seek to admonish them for what they have done then you are doing more than what is in your list. And it is this last part that most take issue with.
That's a conversation you're having with someone else. It's not at all the one I'm having with Frankie.
+1
Options
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered 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.
There was no debate. You were wrong on a matter of fact, and you were corrected. Maybe take some time to reflect on your error and how to avoid making it again in the future.
No, nothing was proven. Someone made a statement and seemed to think that was it. Odd way to debate.
Please allow me to elaborate:
"Censorship", in the way we are concerned with, has a fairly concrete definition, a necessary element of which is the exercise of authority to prevent the dissemination of speech. The criticism and media advocacy at issue in this thread presumably do not involve such exercise of authority (and if you had evidence it did, I surely hope you would present it forthrightly). You may disagree with this criticism, or be uncomfortable with its goals or methodology. But that cannot transform it into censorship. To argue otherwise is, frankly, disingenuous and dishonest. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts", as the saying goes.
I haven't argued about censorship, as rigidly defined as the government censoring things. I haven't brought the government into it at all, and have attempted to use the word Suppression to differentiate, and to show I'm talking about a broader issue than Jack Booted Thugs, etc.
Perhaps reading my posts in that light will illuminate some things?
What you call "suppression" isn't anything that hasn't routinely affected artists of all kinds throughout human history. Artists have always absorbed influences, especially from critics. And market forces exert limitations on artistic freedom as a matter of necessity. (For the most part, the kind of stuff this thread was made in response to was not made by auteurs given a high degree of free reign, mind you.) These kinds of these things are happening right now, we're just trying to get them to happen in a way that improves the end results.
There's always the difference of "being a sexist" and "doing something that is/could be sexist". Trying to prove empirically that someone is sexist is very difficult. Illustrating that some action is sexist is much easier, and is always the conversation you want to have.
I feel like it's pretty steady at this point that all of those who try to argue for less sexism in media always point out the sexist action and do not say "this artist is sexist." As @Pony 's story explains really well, we aren't going to go around labeling people sexist because each of us who have examined sexist tropes in media have noticed ourselves falling prey to them as well. It's also how we know media affects people - because we have obviously been affected ourselves.
What gets me is the people arguing that no, absolutely not, art does not change people in any way, shut up. When we have some pretty goddamn direct examples of it, like how the film Top Gun increasing Naval recruitment or how the show CSI has a lot of kids looking into forensics. Why is it suddenly different if sexism is the thing that's being glorified, why do you suddenly think that people won't be affected?
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
An expression of a violent idea (or an idea related to violence, such as its glorification, or trivialisation) is not, in and of itself, an act of violence.
The expression of a sexist idea is, often, an sexist act.
Gotta say, I'm getting a little fucking tired of this "BEEP BOOP WHAT IS IT TO BE HEW-MON" shit in here from some.
Those of you who are advocating devils, and I can't tell who it is anymore, can you fucking lay off that shit?
The internet is a large enough hell that the devils will turn round on you in soon enough order to speak on their own behalf, they need no advocacy from the likes of you!
If you're trying to check people's premises, or test their theories, also can I ask you, not tell you but ask you, to fucking knock that off too? You're not a professor, this isn't class time.
We're also not your marionettes, either, so please don't play a character to provoke a response out of people and see how they twist, yeah?
Argue in good faith, or don't at all, man. That's all I ask, with the maximum politeness I can manage. From hereon I'm going to make the assumption that is what people are doing and I'm going to respond accordingly to the shit they present as if that is what they actually believe and are trying to say.
I realize this isn't the most contributory of posts but like, at this point it's all I can manage because I feel like that dude in Sting's video for If I Lose My Faith In You, swinging a sword against the tide.
Does violent media cause violence?
Does sexist media cause sexism?
Yes to both, or no to both.
Why
Where are you getting the idea that those are even remotely the same thing
They're both questions of media influence. The influence of art or entertainment or books or movies or fictional depictions on person's understandings of reality.
You're arguing that propensity to, or willingness to engage in, violence is a inherited cultural value?
The premise seems to be that violence is inherent in the human condition, while sexism is not. This seems incorrect. See: The history of the Western World.
If violence is not a learned behavior, then maybe sexism is not a learned behavior, either. That would put a damper on most of the premises of this conversation.
So far as I can tell, "Western Culture" has been violent and sexist since...ever.
The stats showing that violent crime rates go up and down, and have gone down drastically in the last century shows that society can play a huge part here. Violent imagery is at an all time high far as how many people have access to it but is clearly not being acted on. I'd guess at just seeing it happen in a controlled way isn't the trigger compared to being the physical victim of it.
Characters and their interactions in media is much closer to real life, and those behaviours can act as examples in a way that the generally Othered victims in violent games don't. We'll copy sexist behaviours but we never get the chance to shoot at aliens from video games. Real people aren't a equivalent substitute. We're happy to accept a relationship between two characters is real even when we know they are not.
There's always the difference of "being a sexist" and "doing something that is/could be sexist". Trying to prove empirically that someone is sexist is very difficult. Illustrating that some action is sexist is much easier, and is always the conversation you want to have.
I feel like it's pretty steady at this point that all of those who try to argue for less sexism in media always point out the sexist action and do not say "this artist is sexist." As @Pony 's story explains really well, we aren't going to go around labeling people sexist because each of us who have examined sexist tropes in media have noticed ourselves falling prey to them as well. It's also how we know media affects people - because we have obviously been affected ourselves.
What gets me is the people arguing that no, absolutely not, art does not change people in any way, shut up. When we have some pretty goddamn direct examples of it, like how the film Top Gun increasing Naval recruitment or how the show CSI has a lot of kids looking into forensics. Why is it suddenly different if sexism is the thing that's being glorified, why do you suddenly think that people won't be affected?
I think a lot of the contrition is that very seldom are critics calling out overt sexism, and yet they still admonish individual works. When you point out and individual work, like a particular comic run, and you say "this is bad because it's sexist", you're implying that the individual work is causing some inherent harm. But that's not really the case. The problem is in the collective narrative on women rather than a single comics depiction. So when you attack and individual piece, the artist and the fans feel justified in pointing out that there is nothing inherently wrong with it.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
An expression of a violent idea (or an idea related to violence, such as its glorification, or trivialisation) is not, in and of itself, an act of violence.
The expression of a sexist idea is, often, an sexist act.
Disagree. A sexist act is an act of prejudice or discrimination towards an individual, based upon the perceived sex/gender of that individual.
A picture of wonder woman is neither an act of prejudice nor an act of discrimination towards an individual.
I would guess the naysayers (and they 'yaysayers') are debating here in the hope and belief that they're arguments might sway or influence people.
Ok, discussion and debate influence people?
So we put that argument onto a blog. Is it now media? Is it now quarantined from influence? It ceases to convince or enact change?
We now put the arguments into the mouths of a protagonist in a novel. We have them act out the repercussions of our beliefs. Are those same arguments and rhetorical devices further quarantined from influence? Where is the 'influence' line drawn? If media has no effect on thought and actions then surely neither does the reasoned debate that stated the chain?
It comes back to the delusion that we are intellectual titans, using our Herculean wits to filter out unwanted influences leaving us pure and free from, I'm guessing, the effects of advertising too? Peer pressure? Surely we are the pinnacle of pure thought who will soon evolve past these squishy meat prisons!
So you're saying I am suppressing McDonalds by not buying their food?
You seem to get really caught up in personal behavior. You can do whatever you want and no one has claimed otherwise. When you start trying to convince other people to do the same you are trying to suppress something (if what your trying to convince them to do is not use/buy/support a certain thing). Suppression also isn't inherently bad. Being a dick isn't illegal but I fully support you in trying to suppress people being dicks.
Where things run afoul is when you try and suppress things that aren't inherently bad. In this case a particular art style. You may believe that the harms of that art style make it inherently bad. Other people have said that there is not enough evidence to support your position and so trying to suppress said art style is not ok in their view.
At the very least please stop posting about how you can do whatever you want with your money. That gets old so fast.
Frankie is the one who said what a person does none of my business. Except for some reason when I opt to not buy sexist art then it's suppression and wrong. Don't get on me about it.
And since once again people seem intent on replying to posts no one is making, here is what I, and multiple people, have suggested be done about sexist art:
Generally try to avoid sexist media, support more positive media, and talk about the topic when it comes up like now.
Which is appalling to several others for reasons.
I personally have no problems with boycotting racist, sexist , or otherwise demeaning media. Where my problem lies is when those boycotts are done en mass due to gross or hasty generalizations.
Some people are sexist. Some people who are not sexist occasionally write or say things that are insensitive to a member of the opposite sex. Just because you say something that is insensitive does not mean you need to be branded as a sexist and driven from the public square. Yet, we live in a world where a single insensitive comment can ruin your public career.
As others said earlier, we are not operating in a social or cultural vacuum. You are not talking about your personal decisions here. We are all actively trying to convince others to see things our way.
So you're saying I am suppressing McDonalds by not buying their food?
You seem to get really caught up in personal behavior. You can do whatever you want and no one has claimed otherwise. When you start trying to convince other people to do the same you are trying to suppress something (if what your trying to convince them to do is not use/buy/support a certain thing). Suppression also isn't inherently bad. Being a dick isn't illegal but I fully support you in trying to suppress people being dicks.
Where things run afoul is when you try and suppress things that aren't inherently bad. In this case a particular art style. You may believe that the harms of that art style make it inherently bad. Other people have said that there is not enough evidence to support your position and so trying to suppress said art style is not ok in their view.
At the very least please stop posting about how you can do whatever you want with your money. That gets old so fast.
Frankie is the one who said what a person does none of my business. Except for some reason when I opt to not buy sexist art then it's suppression and wrong. Don't get on me about it.
And since once again people seem intent on replying to posts no one is making, here is what I, and multiple people, have suggested be done about sexist art:
Generally try to avoid sexist media, support more positive media, and talk about the topic when it comes up like now.
Which is appalling to several others for reasons.
I personally have no problems with boycotting racist, sexist , or otherwise demeaning media. Where my problem lies is when those boycotts are done en mass due to gross or hasty generalizations.
Some people are sexist. Some people who are not sexist occasionally write or say things that are insensitive to a member of the opposite sex. Just because you say something that is insensitive does not mean you need to be branded as a sexist and driven from the public square. Yet, we live in a world where a single insensitive comment can ruin your public career.
As others said earlier, we are not operating in a social or cultural vacuum. You are not talking about your personal decisions here. We are all actively trying to convince others to see things our way.
Who said the bolded outside of when the topic comes up for discussion?
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Imagine that a creator comes out and says, "I know the last thing I did, people said it was pretentious. As a result of that discussion, my next thing will attempt to not be pretentious. There will be no thirty page monologues on the nature of reality, even though that's what I want to do, because apparently that makes people angry." Would this be considered a good thing?
Is sexism the only artistic flaw we consider sacrosanct, or do we apply this to all aspects of an artistic work?
I feel like the point is that big titted, arch backed wonder woman is not necessarily a flaw. You are certainly free to disagree, and can certainly state any opinions you have. But that's not the same as stating that a particular art style is harmful, or shameful, or that it should be avoided at all costs. There is a difference between critique and suppression. One is more extreme than the other, although neither are inherently bad or wrong.
Long load times aren't necessarily a flaw
Being pretentious isn't necessarily a flaw
Bad graphics aren't necessarily a flaw
I'm confused about what subjects are OK for criticism.
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't to voice your disapproval or vote with your dollars. But there's a difference in kind, not just in extent, when that individual behavior becomes a movement. (Arguably the very vocal group complaining about pixel counts and judging new games solely on their graphics has led to huge problems within the industry.)
Regardless, your suppression and censorship of my position is noted and will be reported to the proper authorities.
no, John, you are the real censors
I mean, the situation might be equivalent if we spent pages and pages talking about what's wrong with PotatoNinja and how much we need posters who post like PotatoNinja to stop being so awful because PotatoNinja is a symptom of society's disease. I think you would be (rightfully) upset if we did that.
A sexist act is an act of prejudice or discrimination towards an individual
This is literally wrong.
Source?
Source your own claim that it's only against individuals.
For once ever justify something you post.
I just added it in the edit. But new posts are ok.
I was using the text from the Civil Rights Act, which I thought was a good general example of "something against racism / racist acts", which could easily translate into sexism / sexist acts.
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
The rest of the document is littered with talk of individuals, denying individuals, etc.
So you're saying I am suppressing McDonalds by not buying their food?
You seem to get really caught up in personal behavior. You can do whatever you want and no one has claimed otherwise. When you start trying to convince other people to do the same you are trying to suppress something (if what your trying to convince them to do is not use/buy/support a certain thing). Suppression also isn't inherently bad. Being a dick isn't illegal but I fully support you in trying to suppress people being dicks.
Where things run afoul is when you try and suppress things that aren't inherently bad. In this case a particular art style. You may believe that the harms of that art style make it inherently bad. Other people have said that there is not enough evidence to support your position and so trying to suppress said art style is not ok in their view.
At the very least please stop posting about how you can do whatever you want with your money. That gets old so fast.
Frankie is the one who said what a person does none of my business. Except for some reason when I opt to not buy sexist art then it's suppression and wrong. Don't get on me about it.
And since once again people seem intent on replying to posts no one is making, here is what I, and multiple people, have suggested be done about sexist art:
Generally try to avoid sexist media, support more positive media, and talk about the topic when it comes up like now.
Which is appalling to several others for reasons.
I personally have no problems with boycotting racist, sexist , or otherwise demeaning media. Where my problem lies is when those boycotts are done en mass due to gross or hasty generalizations.
Some people are sexist. Some people who are not sexist occasionally write or say things that are insensitive to a member of the opposite sex. Just because you say something that is insensitive does not mean you need to be branded as a sexist and driven from the public square. Yet, we live in a world where a single insensitive comment can ruin your public career.
As others said earlier, we are not operating in a social or cultural vacuum. You are not talking about your personal decisions here. We are all actively trying to convince others to see things our way.
Who said the bolded outside of when the topic comes up for discussion?
i dunno dogg i'm like
actually a for reals activist who fuckin' starts shit
A sexist act is an act of prejudice or discrimination towards an individual
This is literally wrong.
Source?
Source your own claim that it's only against individuals.
For once ever justify something you post.
I just added it in the edit. But new posts are ok.
I was using the text from the Civil Rights Act, which I thought was a good general example of "something against racism / racist acts", which could easily translate into sexism / sexist acts.
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
The rest of the document is littered with talk of individuals, denying individuals, etc.
That, once again, literally does not mean sexism only applies to actions against an individual and only an individual.
The alternative is you believe that the claim "All women are weak willed imbeciles" isn't sexist because, hey, not an individual.
So you're saying I am suppressing McDonalds by not buying their food?
You seem to get really caught up in personal behavior. You can do whatever you want and no one has claimed otherwise. When you start trying to convince other people to do the same you are trying to suppress something (if what your trying to convince them to do is not use/buy/support a certain thing). Suppression also isn't inherently bad. Being a dick isn't illegal but I fully support you in trying to suppress people being dicks.
Where things run afoul is when you try and suppress things that aren't inherently bad. In this case a particular art style. You may believe that the harms of that art style make it inherently bad. Other people have said that there is not enough evidence to support your position and so trying to suppress said art style is not ok in their view.
At the very least please stop posting about how you can do whatever you want with your money. That gets old so fast.
Frankie is the one who said what a person does none of my business. Except for some reason when I opt to not buy sexist art then it's suppression and wrong. Don't get on me about it.
And since once again people seem intent on replying to posts no one is making, here is what I, and multiple people, have suggested be done about sexist art:
Generally try to avoid sexist media, support more positive media, and talk about the topic when it comes up like now.
Which is appalling to several others for reasons.
I personally have no problems with boycotting racist, sexist , or otherwise demeaning media. Where my problem lies is when those boycotts are done en mass due to gross or hasty generalizations.
Some people are sexist. Some people who are not sexist occasionally write or say things that are insensitive to a member of the opposite sex. Just because you say something that is insensitive does not mean you need to be branded as a sexist and driven from the public square. Yet, we live in a world where a single insensitive comment can ruin your public career.
As others said earlier, we are not operating in a social or cultural vacuum. You are not talking about your personal decisions here. We are all actively trying to convince others to see things our way.
There's also the thousands of careers that are ruined or held back because of sexism. Plus loads of times people get called out and apologise, admitting the mistake and promiding to do better afterall if there was a serious backlash and they absolutely refused to change, which then ruined them, is this a bad thing? Equality is advanced at the expense of a noncommercially viable product, seems like a decent trade.
A sexist act is an act of prejudice or discrimination towards an individual
This is literally wrong.
Source?
Source your own claim that it's only against individuals.
For once ever justify something you post.
I just added it in the edit. But new posts are ok.
I was using the text from the Civil Rights Act, which I thought was a good general example of "something against racism / racist acts", which could easily translate into sexism / sexist acts.
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
The rest of the document is littered with talk of individuals, denying individuals, etc.
That, once again, literally does not mean sexism only applies to actions against an individual and only an individual.
The alternative is you believe that the claim "All women are weak willed imbeciles" isn't sexist because, hey, not an individual.
"All women are weak willed imbeciles" is a claim made about the individual members of the group "women".
The person saying, "All women are weak willed imbeciles" is not saying that the category of women is a weak-willed imbecile. It is a claim about the individual members of that category.
Edit: "All members of the category 'women' are weak willed imbeciles", is what the statement means.
So you're saying I am suppressing McDonalds by not buying their food?
You seem to get really caught up in personal behavior. You can do whatever you want and no one has claimed otherwise. When you start trying to convince other people to do the same you are trying to suppress something (if what your trying to convince them to do is not use/buy/support a certain thing). Suppression also isn't inherently bad. Being a dick isn't illegal but I fully support you in trying to suppress people being dicks.
Where things run afoul is when you try and suppress things that aren't inherently bad. In this case a particular art style. You may believe that the harms of that art style make it inherently bad. Other people have said that there is not enough evidence to support your position and so trying to suppress said art style is not ok in their view.
At the very least please stop posting about how you can do whatever you want with your money. That gets old so fast.
Frankie is the one who said what a person does none of my business. Except for some reason when I opt to not buy sexist art then it's suppression and wrong. Don't get on me about it.
And since once again people seem intent on replying to posts no one is making, here is what I, and multiple people, have suggested be done about sexist art:
Generally try to avoid sexist media, support more positive media, and talk about the topic when it comes up like now.
Which is appalling to several others for reasons.
I personally have no problems with boycotting racist, sexist , or otherwise demeaning media. Where my problem lies is when those boycotts are done en mass due to gross or hasty generalizations.
Some people are sexist. Some people who are not sexist occasionally write or say things that are insensitive to a member of the opposite sex. Just because you say something that is insensitive does not mean you need to be branded as a sexist and driven from the public square. Yet, we live in a world where a single insensitive comment can ruin your public career.
As others said earlier, we are not operating in a social or cultural vacuum. You are not talking about your personal decisions here. We are all actively trying to convince others to see things our way.
Who said the bolded outside of when the topic comes up for discussion?
Are you saying that this is not a public forum full of onlookers or are you saying that if you learn something new here it will not be applied to your personal life and /or passed on to others?
A sexist act is an act of prejudice or discrimination towards an individual
This is literally wrong.
Source?
Source your own claim that it's only against individuals.
For once ever justify something you post.
I just added it in the edit. But new posts are ok.
I was using the text from the Civil Rights Act, which I thought was a good general example of "something against racism / racist acts", which could easily translate into sexism / sexist acts.
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
The rest of the document is littered with talk of individuals, denying individuals, etc.
That, once again, literally does not mean sexism only applies to actions against an individual and only an individual.
The alternative is you believe that the claim "All women are weak willed imbeciles" isn't sexist because, hey, not an individual.
"All women are weak willed imbeciles" is a claim made about the individual members of the group "women".
The person saying, "All women are weak willed imbeciles" is not saying that the category of women is a weak-willed imbecile. It is a claim about the individual members of that category.
A sexist act is an act of prejudice or discrimination towards an individual
This is literally wrong.
Source?
Source your own claim that it's only against individuals.
For once ever justify something you post.
I just added it in the edit. But new posts are ok.
I was using the text from the Civil Rights Act, which I thought was a good general example of "something against racism / racist acts", which could easily translate into sexism / sexist acts.
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
The rest of the document is littered with talk of individuals, denying individuals, etc.
That, once again, literally does not mean sexism only applies to actions against an individual and only an individual.
The alternative is you believe that the claim "All women are weak willed imbeciles" isn't sexist because, hey, not an individual.
"All women are weak willed imbeciles" is a claim made about the individual members of the group "women".
The person saying, "All women are weak willed imbeciles" is not saying that the category of women is a weak-willed imbecile. It is a claim about the individual members of that category.
A sexist act is an act of prejudice or discrimination towards an individual
This is literally wrong.
Source?
Source your own claim that it's only against individuals.
For once ever justify something you post.
I just added it in the edit. But new posts are ok.
I was using the text from the Civil Rights Act, which I thought was a good general example of "something against racism / racist acts", which could easily translate into sexism / sexist acts.
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
The rest of the document is littered with talk of individuals, denying individuals, etc.
That, once again, literally does not mean sexism only applies to actions against an individual and only an individual.
The alternative is you believe that the claim "All women are weak willed imbeciles" isn't sexist because, hey, not an individual.
"All women are weak willed imbeciles" is a claim made about the individual members of the group "women".
The person saying, "All women are weak willed imbeciles" is not saying that the category of women is a weak-willed imbecile. It is a claim about the individual members of that category.
Posts
Is sexism the only artistic flaw we consider sacrosanct, or do we apply this to all aspects of an artistic work?
If you don't believe they are affected the same then don't use them as analogies.
So at what point am I suppressing the artist? Is it when someone asks my opinion on the matter? Is it when I decide what to spend my money on them?
They're both questions of media influence. The influence of art or entertainment or books or movies or fictional depictions on person's understandings of reality.
To be fair if you want to change his mind you should talk about why they are different instead of taking the usual approach of saying that it is somehow obvious.
Frankie is the one who said what a person does none of my business. Except for some reason when I opt to not buy sexist art then it's suppression and wrong. Don't get on me about it.
And since once again people seem intent on replying to posts no one is making, here is what I, and multiple people, have suggested be done about sexist art:
Which is appalling to several others for reasons.
Your continued assertions with no evidence remain unconvincing. The way humans learn, the way they spread information and assumptions and paradigms, and the role media and narrative and the production and consumption of the same all play into each other is incredibly complicated.
"Yes to both or no to both" is laughably reductive, and you have offered a net total of 0 pieces of evidence in support of your position. That there might be some difference in how media informs different types of behavior is a noncontroversial and obvious consideration. The onus is on you to prove that violent media and sexist media both influence prospective audiences in the same way.
I feel like the point is that big titted, arch backed wonder woman is not necessarily a flaw. You are certainly free to disagree, and can certainly state any opinions you have. But that's not the same as stating that a particular art style is harmful, or shameful, or that it should be avoided at all costs. There is a difference between critique and suppression. One is more extreme than the other, although neither are inherently bad or wrong.
You're arguing that propensity to, or willingness to engage in, violence is a inherited cultural value?
Long load times aren't necessarily a flaw
Being pretentious isn't necessarily a flaw
Bad graphics aren't necessarily a flaw
I'm confused about what subjects are OK for criticism.
Regardless, your suppression and censorship of my position is noted and will be reported to the proper authorities.
The reasons are in how you approach those who consume or create what you have deemed as sexist media. If you simply never interacted with them then no one would take issue with your stance at all. But if you seek to admonish them for what they have done then you are doing more than what is in your list. And it is this last part that most take issue with.
Well sure, but given that I have no idea what he thinks they have in common, and he's spent all thread failing to explain it, I don't have a meaningful place to start. It's difficult to refute a bare and unsupported assertion.
They're different things though, radically different things. At the very least you should be asking if sexist and violent imagery affect impulse control the same way, or how the two influence the way relationships are structured and other peoples positions within them.
Two very different questions here, both with different answers on different topics. Watching cooking shows will definitely impact your culinary skills even if its ever so slight. That has no bearing on sex and violence though, whilst by your logic it'd prove the connection.
Exactly. It's also the conversation that will make people less defensive, because one is a commentary on their character and the other is a commentary on their actions.
This is something I think fans need to remember, too. I think too many fans (many self-identified gamers especially, to put a current events spin on things) consider a criticism of the sexist problems in something they enjoy as essentially calling them sexist for enjoying it. Which makes them think "Well, I'm not sexist, erego, your argument is meritless and incorrect" and they get defensive accordingly.
I think it comes from a place of, as I said earlier in this thread, of insecurity. It also comes from a place of, as I talked about when I told of my rather personal experience with the "Manic Pixie Dream Girl" issue, people forming their self-identity in part out of the pop culture and entertainment media they enjoy in lieu of actually figuring out who they are.
Every subject is ok for criticism and I never said it wasn't. But there's a difference between saying you dislike something for reasons X and saying that a particular thing should not be created or consumed and that anyone who does so is commiting harm and or a bad person. I support your decision to say you dislike my posts and will not read them. I do not support your decision to tell people that agreeing or awesoming my posts makes them a bad person.
The premise seems to be that violence is inherent in the human condition, while sexism is not. This seems incorrect. See: The history of the Western World.
If violence is not a learned behavior, then maybe sexism is not a learned behavior, either. That would put a damper on most of the premises of this conversation.
So far as I can tell, "Western Culture" has been violent and sexist since...ever.
Edit: And to be clear, if everyone gets aboard the "Violent video games make people violent" train then I'll get aboard the "Sexist video games make people sexist" train.*
*For the purposes of this imagery, a person can be on multiple trains.
That's a conversation you're having with someone else. It's not at all the one I'm having with Frankie.
What you call "suppression" isn't anything that hasn't routinely affected artists of all kinds throughout human history. Artists have always absorbed influences, especially from critics. And market forces exert limitations on artistic freedom as a matter of necessity. (For the most part, the kind of stuff this thread was made in response to was not made by auteurs given a high degree of free reign, mind you.) These kinds of these things are happening right now, we're just trying to get them to happen in a way that improves the end results.
I feel like it's pretty steady at this point that all of those who try to argue for less sexism in media always point out the sexist action and do not say "this artist is sexist." As @Pony 's story explains really well, we aren't going to go around labeling people sexist because each of us who have examined sexist tropes in media have noticed ourselves falling prey to them as well. It's also how we know media affects people - because we have obviously been affected ourselves.
What gets me is the people arguing that no, absolutely not, art does not change people in any way, shut up. When we have some pretty goddamn direct examples of it, like how the film Top Gun increasing Naval recruitment or how the show CSI has a lot of kids looking into forensics. Why is it suddenly different if sexism is the thing that's being glorified, why do you suddenly think that people won't be affected?
The expression of a sexist idea is, often, an sexist act.
Those of you who are advocating devils, and I can't tell who it is anymore, can you fucking lay off that shit?
The internet is a large enough hell that the devils will turn round on you in soon enough order to speak on their own behalf, they need no advocacy from the likes of you!
If you're trying to check people's premises, or test their theories, also can I ask you, not tell you but ask you, to fucking knock that off too? You're not a professor, this isn't class time.
We're also not your marionettes, either, so please don't play a character to provoke a response out of people and see how they twist, yeah?
Argue in good faith, or don't at all, man. That's all I ask, with the maximum politeness I can manage. From hereon I'm going to make the assumption that is what people are doing and I'm going to respond accordingly to the shit they present as if that is what they actually believe and are trying to say.
I realize this isn't the most contributory of posts but like, at this point it's all I can manage because I feel like that dude in Sting's video for If I Lose My Faith In You, swinging a sword against the tide.
The stats showing that violent crime rates go up and down, and have gone down drastically in the last century shows that society can play a huge part here. Violent imagery is at an all time high far as how many people have access to it but is clearly not being acted on. I'd guess at just seeing it happen in a controlled way isn't the trigger compared to being the physical victim of it.
Characters and their interactions in media is much closer to real life, and those behaviours can act as examples in a way that the generally Othered victims in violent games don't. We'll copy sexist behaviours but we never get the chance to shoot at aliens from video games. Real people aren't a equivalent substitute. We're happy to accept a relationship between two characters is real even when we know they are not.
I think a lot of the contrition is that very seldom are critics calling out overt sexism, and yet they still admonish individual works. When you point out and individual work, like a particular comic run, and you say "this is bad because it's sexist", you're implying that the individual work is causing some inherent harm. But that's not really the case. The problem is in the collective narrative on women rather than a single comics depiction. So when you attack and individual piece, the artist and the fans feel justified in pointing out that there is nothing inherently wrong with it.
Disagree. A sexist act is an act of prejudice or discrimination towards an individual, based upon the perceived sex/gender of that individual.
A picture of wonder woman is neither an act of prejudice nor an act of discrimination towards an individual.
This is literally wrong.
Ok, discussion and debate influence people?
So we put that argument onto a blog. Is it now media? Is it now quarantined from influence? It ceases to convince or enact change?
We now put the arguments into the mouths of a protagonist in a novel. We have them act out the repercussions of our beliefs. Are those same arguments and rhetorical devices further quarantined from influence? Where is the 'influence' line drawn? If media has no effect on thought and actions then surely neither does the reasoned debate that stated the chain?
It comes back to the delusion that we are intellectual titans, using our Herculean wits to filter out unwanted influences leaving us pure and free from, I'm guessing, the effects of advertising too? Peer pressure? Surely we are the pinnacle of pure thought who will soon evolve past these squishy meat prisons!
Bollocks, say I.
Source?
Edit: Just for general applicability I was going with the text of The Civil Rights Act. And it talks about individuals...so...
I personally have no problems with boycotting racist, sexist , or otherwise demeaning media. Where my problem lies is when those boycotts are done en mass due to gross or hasty generalizations.
Some people are sexist. Some people who are not sexist occasionally write or say things that are insensitive to a member of the opposite sex. Just because you say something that is insensitive does not mean you need to be branded as a sexist and driven from the public square. Yet, we live in a world where a single insensitive comment can ruin your public career.
As others said earlier, we are not operating in a social or cultural vacuum. You are not talking about your personal decisions here. We are all actively trying to convince others to see things our way.
Source your own claim that it's only against individuals.
For once ever justify something you post.
Who said the bolded outside of when the topic comes up for discussion?
There's a difference between "I didn't like this game because the graphics were bad" and "This game's bad graphics are indicative of an industry-wide cancer. We need more games with good graphics and fewer games with bad graphics. Artists who make games with bad graphics should be ashamed of themselves and we should all endeavor only to support games with good graphics."
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't to voice your disapproval or vote with your dollars. But there's a difference in kind, not just in extent, when that individual behavior becomes a movement. (Arguably the very vocal group complaining about pixel counts and judging new games solely on their graphics has led to huge problems within the industry.)
no, John, you are the real censors
I mean, the situation might be equivalent if we spent pages and pages talking about what's wrong with PotatoNinja and how much we need posters who post like PotatoNinja to stop being so awful because PotatoNinja is a symptom of society's disease. I think you would be (rightfully) upset if we did that.
I just added it in the edit. But new posts are ok.
I was using the text from the Civil Rights Act, which I thought was a good general example of "something against racism / racist acts", which could easily translate into sexism / sexist acts.
The rest of the document is littered with talk of individuals, denying individuals, etc.
i dunno dogg i'm like
actually a for reals activist who fuckin' starts shit
i might be a minority, idk
That, once again, literally does not mean sexism only applies to actions against an individual and only an individual.
The alternative is you believe that the claim "All women are weak willed imbeciles" isn't sexist because, hey, not an individual.
There's also the thousands of careers that are ruined or held back because of sexism. Plus loads of times people get called out and apologise, admitting the mistake and promiding to do better afterall if there was a serious backlash and they absolutely refused to change, which then ruined them, is this a bad thing? Equality is advanced at the expense of a noncommercially viable product, seems like a decent trade.
"All women are weak willed imbeciles" is a claim made about the individual members of the group "women".
The person saying, "All women are weak willed imbeciles" is not saying that the category of women is a weak-willed imbecile. It is a claim about the individual members of that category.
Edit: "All members of the category 'women' are weak willed imbeciles", is what the statement means.
Edit Edit: This is basic Aristotelian logic.
Are you saying that this is not a public forum full of onlookers or are you saying that if you learn something new here it will not be applied to your personal life and /or passed on to others?
:rotate:
Jaw.Drop.
Is my statement incorrect?