Hasn't GTA had minority protagonists? Did they get any heat for that?
IIRC, yes, they did.
They caught shit for having a Cuban gang leader (NPC) declare that he hated Haitians (another gang that they were feuding with).
As far as I'm aware, they've only had three minority protagonists. But I don't know how much criticism they received on that front. The criticisms I remember were all about how San Andreas glorified gang culture. But I don't remember how much of that actually came from outside gaming communities.
CJ from San Andreas Luis from Ballad of Gay Tony
Huang Lee from Chinatown Wars Vic from Vice City Stories
Franklin from GTA 5
Right. Forgot about those two (never played VCS [or Chinatown Wars come to that]).
Still don't recall much in the way of criticism from a group beyond any of the usual 'not representative of the community' sort of thing. Hell, the city of New York complained that GTA IV somehow presented them in a bad light.
I wouldn't decide to not be someone's friend for owning the game or playing it. I'd do that based off of their response to it. There are legitimate reasons to check it out, such as seeing if it lives up to the controversy surrounding it.
And this hinges on the game actually being as vile as the trailers and developers have made it out to be.
Death of Rats on
No I don't.
+1
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I wouldn't decide to not be someone's friend for owning the game or playing it. I'd do that based off of their response to it. There are legitimate reasons to check it out, such as seeing if it lives up to the controversy surrounding it.
And this hinges on the game actually being as vile as the trailers and developers have made it out to be.
From my reading of the dev forum, I think it's just going to be blandly offensive and ultraviolent.
It is not going to end up the minority shooting spree simulator people were initially afraid of.
Edit: For me I go back to those American Sniper tweets. I think its jingoistic propaganda, but I know my friends don't entirely agree and some think it's rather poignant. That's a disagreement and difference of opinion. One of my friends posts something like those tweets? Fuck them. They can be exiled to the island. Thankfully, none of my friends actually would say those kind of things. Same with Hatred, I know some of my friends are going to download it to check it out to see if it's worth the fuss, but if they start doing things like the proposed mods to change all the women into Anita and shoot minorities specifically then that's a line for me where I don't want to associate with them.
I wouldn't really judge my friendship with a person on a thing some one consumes, but how they consume it, or if it leads to something that truly makes me question their actions.
Just owning hatred wouldn't really phase me, but if they were to start commenting on how the main character guy has a point or they start coming out to have sociopath tendencies (which would of been there to begin with) then I would probably drop them from my list.
And people can be hurt by art. You're a privileged fool if you think that's impossible. And so some art I'd rather not have around.
Which people? How?
All people, emotionally.
Even people who don't personally experience it?
it's pretty clear from context and good faith that he/she meant any person, not all humans.
You keep not understanding all of the things. Why is that?
poshniallo on
I figure I could take a bear.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited January 2015
I understand fine, I'm just trying to get y'all to actually make an argument describing how Hatred is harmful beyond just "look at it, privileged fools".
So far the two examples we have "sometimes art misrepresents a minority, which may lead to resulting social harm to that minority as a result" and "blackface hurts the feelings of some people". But neither of these seem to apply to Hatred, and the latter seems suspect as described (plenty of satire hurts somebody's feelings, but that doesn't necessarily make you a bad person for enjoying it).
I understand fine, I'm just trying to get y'all to actually make an argument describing how Hatred is harmful beyond just "look at it, privileged fools".
I really have to ask how did that response in any way get you closer to your goal? Do you honestly believe that art can't hurt people?
No I don't.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I dunno. I wanted to hear the point elaborated upon so I could see if it applied to the work being discussed. I thought a little Socratic back and forth was nicer than snarkily asking for more than an insult.
Socratic arguments can sometimes be annoying as fuck and actively detrimental to cogent discussion. If used maliciously (Devils advocate) it's more about obfuscating the opposing argument rather than reaching any form of consensus.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
If y'all think I've done something wrong, feel free to report my posts. I apologize if this was an improper way to have a conversation. I've been participating at length and in good faith for the past 30 pages, I think I've earned the benefit of the doubt as to my intentions here.
Not at all. I think you're one of the better debaters here even if I don't always agree with you (especially about movies!) I just think inserting Socrates into the argument was unnecessary and doesn't turn the discussion into something that will be pondered over by scholars in 2500 years time.
I understand fine, I'm just trying to get y'all to actually make an argument describing how Hatred is harmful beyond just "look at it, privileged fools".
Well a step in this direction would be to stop mischaracterizing everyone who disagrees with you's opinion as this. Maybe start there and work your way forward.
I understand fine, I'm just trying to get y'all to actually make an argument describing how Hatred is harmful beyond just "look at it, privileged fools".
So far the two examples we have "sometimes art misrepresents a minority, which may lead to resulting social harm to that minority as a result" and "blackface hurts the feelings of some people". But neither of these seem to apply to Hatred, and the latter seems suspect as described (plenty of satire hurts somebody's feelings, but that doesn't necessarily make you a bad person for enjoying it).
Blackface killed Ted Danson's career for a while. That's how toxic it is.
I understand fine, I'm just trying to get y'all to actually make an argument describing how Hatred is harmful beyond just "look at it, privileged fools".
So far the two examples we have "sometimes art misrepresents a minority, which may lead to resulting social harm to that minority as a result" and "blackface hurts the feelings of some people". But neither of these seem to apply to Hatred, and the latter seems suspect as described (plenty of satire hurts somebody's feelings, but that doesn't necessarily make you a bad person for enjoying it).
Blackface killed Ted Danson's career for a while. That's how toxic it is.
High degree of difficulty. It didn't hurt Sarah Silverman much. Louis CK can say N***** (the asterisks of which he does an ironic bit about). Michael Richards not so much. We care what we think are in people's hearts. That said we are frequently wrong and if history is any guide, our instincts err massively on the side of DESTROY THE PERSON WHO ISN'T LIKE ME.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I understand fine, I'm just trying to get y'all to actually make an argument describing how Hatred is harmful beyond just "look at it, privileged fools".
So far the two examples we have "sometimes art misrepresents a minority, which may lead to resulting social harm to that minority as a result" and "blackface hurts the feelings of some people". But neither of these seem to apply to Hatred, and the latter seems suspect as described (plenty of satire hurts somebody's feelings, but that doesn't necessarily make you a bad person for enjoying it).
Blackface killed Ted Danson's career for a while. That's how toxic it is.
High degree of difficulty. It didn't hurt Sarah Silverman much. Louis CK can say N***** (the asterisks of which he does an ironic bit about). Michael Richards not so much. We care what we think are in people's hearts. That said we are frequently wrong and if history is any guide, our instincts err massively on the side of DESTROY THE PERSON WHO ISN'T LIKE ME.
Context. What did Silverman do, exactly? Louis CK "blurring" the word does dull how it is heard and Richards was using it to insult audience members, not making jokes. The two incidents aren't too comparable. It's not strictly about intent, it's how it's used. That's why CK has a thriving carer and Richards' crashed.
edit: This isn't about hurting people who aren't like me, it's about protecting themselves from people who act like they wish you harm, even if it isn't with violence.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I understand fine, I'm just trying to get y'all to actually make an argument describing how Hatred is harmful beyond just "look at it, privileged fools".
Well a step in this direction would be to stop mischaracterizing everyone who disagrees with you's opinion as this. Maybe start there and work your way forward.
I was specifically responding to this. Am I mischaracterizing it?
I understand fine, I'm just trying to get y'all to actually make an argument describing how Hatred is harmful beyond just "look at it, privileged fools".
Well a step in this direction would be to stop mischaracterizing everyone who disagrees with you's opinion as this. Maybe start there and work your way forward.
I was specifically responding to this. Am I mischaracterizing it?
And people can be hurt by art. You're a privileged fool if you think that's impossible. And so some art I'd rather not have around.
Would you like more tweets from American Sniper right wing reactionaries saying how America was right to slaughter savages? I honestly don't know how you're contesting that particular point when I show you direct evidence that is LITERALLY days old. I am hardly digging up some obscure random example from the past to make a point.
Edit: Not to mention that movie sanitizes and arguably glorifies the life of a deeply racist man who wrote blatant lies in his own autobiography.
Edit2: And if you want something about hatred specifically, we have to see what it is actually like. Bear in mind the worst fears about it - EG a focus on slaughtering minorities specifically - do not seem to be true. But your point is wilful ignorance otherwise, especially when there is blatant proof just slapping you in the face not a page ago from only just recently.
I understand fine, I'm just trying to get y'all to actually make an argument describing how Hatred is harmful beyond just "look at it, privileged fools".
Well a step in this direction would be to stop mischaracterizing everyone who disagrees with you's opinion as this. Maybe start there and work your way forward.
I was specifically responding to this. Am I mischaracterizing it?
And people can be hurt by art. You're a privileged fool if you think that's impossible. And so some art I'd rather not have around.
Would you like more tweets from American Sniper right wing reactionaries saying how America was right to slaughter savages? I honestly don't know how you're contesting that particular point when I show you direct evidence that is LITERALLY days old. I am hardly digging up some obscure random example from the past to make a point.
Edit: Not to mention that movie sanitizes and arguably glorifies the life of a deeply racist man who wrote blatant lies in his own autobiography.
I don't see any evidence of harm this movie has or could cause to be frank. If your standard of judging something is based on people saying dumb shit on twitter we simply won't be allowed anything ever.
I don't see how art is harmful and I am really not seeing any proof being provided beyond random people on twitter. you can not like something. You can disagree completely with what it is saying but you can not use that as a weapon saying it is harmful. There is nothing I fear more then moral busy bodies. Can you link actual harm art has ever caused beyond making people ask questions?
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I understand fine, I'm just trying to get y'all to actually make an argument describing how Hatred is harmful beyond just "look at it, privileged fools".
Well a step in this direction would be to stop mischaracterizing everyone who disagrees with you's opinion as this. Maybe start there and work your way forward.
I was specifically responding to this. Am I mischaracterizing it?
And people can be hurt by art. You're a privileged fool if you think that's impossible. And so some art I'd rather not have around.
Would you like more tweets from American Sniper right wing reactionaries saying how America was right to slaughter savages? I honestly don't know how you're contesting that particular point when I show you direct evidence that is LITERALLY days old. I am hardly digging up some obscure random example from the past to make a point.
Edit: Not to mention that movie sanitizes and arguably glorifies the life of a deeply racist man who wrote blatant lies in his own autobiography.
I don't see any evidence of harm this movie has or could cause to be frank. If your standard of judging something is based on people saying dumb shit on twitter we simply won't be allowed anything ever.
I don't see how art is harmful and I am really not seeing any proof being provided beyond random people on twitter.
You don't believe stirring up deeply racist sentiment is "harmful"? Have you never read a history book before?
Can you link actual harm art has ever caused beyond making people ask questions?
Did you kind of miss the shooting in France recently? It might of been on news and was a cowardly, awful act carried out by genuine assholes but was in direct response to art that incited them (however ridiculous it is for people to take offence to the point of murdering others over cartoons FFS). The Dominos advertisement campaign for "Avoid the Noid" where a mentally ill man who (sadly) had the same name held people hostage* (prompting them to drop the advertising campaign)? Have you literally never read a single thing about propaganda produced throughout human history? Or do you regard propaganda as being harmless art?
I am just stunned at the sheer ignorance of "Art causes no harm, who cares if people are saying they're inspired to shoot Muslims"!
I understand fine, I'm just trying to get y'all to actually make an argument describing how Hatred is harmful beyond just "look at it, privileged fools".
Well a step in this direction would be to stop mischaracterizing everyone who disagrees with you's opinion as this. Maybe start there and work your way forward.
I was specifically responding to this. Am I mischaracterizing it?
And people can be hurt by art. You're a privileged fool if you think that's impossible. And so some art I'd rather not have around.
Would you like more tweets from American Sniper right wing reactionaries saying how America was right to slaughter savages? I honestly don't know how you're contesting that particular point when I show you direct evidence that is LITERALLY days old. I am hardly digging up some obscure random example from the past to make a point.
Edit: Not to mention that movie sanitizes and arguably glorifies the life of a deeply racist man who wrote blatant lies in his own autobiography.
I don't see any evidence of harm this movie has or could cause to be frank. If your standard of judging something is based on people saying dumb shit on twitter we simply won't be allowed anything ever.
I don't see how art is harmful and I am really not seeing any proof being provided beyond random people on twitter.
You don't believe stirring up deeply racist sentiment is "harmful"? Have you never read a history book before?
Can you link actual harm art has ever caused beyond making people ask questions?
Did you kind of miss the shooting in France recently? It might of been on news and was a cowardly, awful act carried out by genuine assholes but was in direct response to art that incited them (however ridiculous it is for people to take offence to the point of murdering others over cartoons FFS). The Dominos advertisement campaign for "Avoid the Noid" where a mentally ill man who (sadly) had the same name killed people (prompting them to drop the advertising campaign)? Have you literally never read a single thing about propaganda produced throughout human history? Or do you regard propaganda as being harmless art?
I am just stunned at the sheer ignorance of "Art causes no harm, who cares if people are saying they're inspired to shoot Muslims"!
I have stepped into bizarro world.
You're going to have to tiptoe very carefully to avoid instigating a tragedy with the mentally ill
And if you step into the charlie hebdo thread you'll possibly find that bizarro world is a lot closer than you think
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I feel like if your pro-censorship argument leads directly to you to victim blaming people murdered by terrorists, maybe there are problems with the way you look at the world? Personally, I think that sort of paternalism, that removal of all agency from minorities is sorta...fucked, for a viewpoint that alleges to be concerned with the feelings and well-being of said minorities.
I support the right of Steam to not carry Hatred as it likes. But I also think all art/speech/etc should be available to those who want it, because I absolutely do not want others deciding what is and isn't safe/harmful/proper/evil/right/legal/illegal for me to create or view.
I feel like if your pro-censorship argument leads directly to you to victim blaming people murdered by terrorists, maybe there are problems with the way you look at the world? Personally, I think that sort of paternalism, that removal of all agency from minorities is sorta...fucked, for a viewpoint that alleges to be concerned with the feelings and well-being of said minorities.
I support the right of Steam to not carry Hatred as it likes. But I also think all art/speech/etc should be available to those who want it, because I absolutely do not want others deciding what is and isn't safe/harmful/proper/evil/right/legal/illegal for me to create or view.
Man, if only anyone was advocating for censorship in this here thread.
I've given specific examples of specific art that would harm specific people. The only way I can begin to understand disagreements with that is if you literally deny the concept of emotional pain.
I don't see any good faith in Astaereth's arguments, either. Strawmen and selective reading galore.
One last time - people get hurt by art. Rape victims get hurt by rape depictions or jokes. Black people are hurt by racist jokes, depictions, blackface etc. Gay people get hurt by stereotypical portrayals. The minimum is emotional distress, and then there are other more pernicious effects, such as the spreading of bigoted ideas.
If you literally cannot imagine someone being hurt by a piece of art, fiction, gaming etc, then you are privileged as hell. I certainly don't get hurt by much of it, although racist jokes on TV upset me a lot. I'm very lucky. But I see others hurt by it. Why do you think 'trigger warning' became a phrase? You want to know how a survivor of torture reacts to an average episode of 24? I've seen that, and it's not pretty.
What you want to make of this I don't know. primalight apparently thinks that means I want to enact 1984. Perhaps you view hurting people (minorities, though, always minorities and victims, remember) is the necessary price of a free state.
But I just simply responded to some of you saying 'art can't harm' - because it so manifestly does all the time.
I figure I could take a bear.
+3
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I feel like if your pro-censorship argument leads directly to you to victim blaming people murdered by terrorists, maybe there are problems with the way you look at the world
Good thing I didn't do that then and again, stop mangling the meaning of "censorship". Also the question was not "Who deserved to be shot for art they produced", the question was "When has art ever done harm?" and a terrorist attack 100% qualifies. Especially when I unequivocally stated how utterly wrong it was, they were not randomly targeted out of the fucking blue for utterly no reason and therefore it answers the question.
I've given specific examples of specific art that would harm specific people. The only way I can begin to understand disagreements with that is if you literally deny the concept of emotional pain.
I don't see any good faith in Astaereth's arguments, either. Strawmen and selective reading galore.
One last time - people get hurt by art. Rape victims get hurt by rape depictions or jokes. Black people are hurt by racist jokes, depictions, blackface etc. Gay people get hurt by stereotypical portrayals. The minimum is emotional distress, and then there are other more pernicious effects, such as the spreading of bigoted ideas.
If you literally cannot imagine someone being hurt by a piece of art, fiction, gaming etc, then you are privileged as hell. I certainly don't get hurt by much of it, although racist jokes on TV upset me a lot. I'm very lucky. But I see others hurt by it. Why do you think 'trigger warning' became a phrase? You want to know how a survivor of torture reacts to an average episode of 24? I've seen that, and it's not pretty.
What you want to make of this I don't know. primalight apparently thinks that means I want to enact 1984. Perhaps you view hurting people (minorities, though, always minorities and victims, remember) is the necessary price of a free state.
But I just simply responded to some of you saying 'art can't harm' - because it so manifestly does all the time.
I would argue that torture causes torture related psychological harm, rather than 24. Torture is going to be somewhere between 99% and 100% as harmful less 24, but 24 without torture isn't harmful.
I understand fine, I'm just trying to get y'all to actually make an argument describing how Hatred is harmful beyond just "look at it, privileged fools".
Well a step in this direction would be to stop mischaracterizing everyone who disagrees with you's opinion as this. Maybe start there and work your way forward.
I was specifically responding to this. Am I mischaracterizing it?
And people can be hurt by art. You're a privileged fool if you think that's impossible. And so some art I'd rather not have around.
Would you like more tweets from American Sniper right wing reactionaries saying how America was right to slaughter savages? I honestly don't know how you're contesting that particular point when I show you direct evidence that is LITERALLY days old. I am hardly digging up some obscure random example from the past to make a point.
Edit: Not to mention that movie sanitizes and arguably glorifies the life of a deeply racist man who wrote blatant lies in his own autobiography.
I don't see any evidence of harm this movie has or could cause to be frank. If your standard of judging something is based on people saying dumb shit on twitter we simply won't be allowed anything ever.
I don't see how art is harmful and I am really not seeing any proof being provided beyond random people on twitter. you can not like something. You can disagree completely with what it is saying but you can not use that as a weapon saying it is harmful. There is nothing I fear more then moral busy bodies. Can you link actual harm art has ever caused beyond making people ask questions?
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience
Sexism, racism, violence against others, etc are all supported by any culture to one degree or another. This doesn't mean that books supporting sexism in any way need to be burned or that we resort to some 1984 style government. It does mean acknowledging that people are influenced by the culture they're regularly exposed to. And for people like myself it means doing things such as opting to not buy stuff advocating horrible ideas in order to alter that culture.
I understand fine, I'm just trying to get y'all to actually make an argument describing how Hatred is harmful beyond just "look at it, privileged fools".
Well a step in this direction would be to stop mischaracterizing everyone who disagrees with you's opinion as this. Maybe start there and work your way forward.
I was specifically responding to this. Am I mischaracterizing it?
Plenty explanation beyond "look at it, privileged fools" has been given in this thread about how culture affects people. If you don't think anyone has ever been affected by culture then there's not much to be done since you would be denying reality itself.
I understand fine, I'm just trying to get y'all to actually make an argument describing how Hatred is harmful beyond just "look at it, privileged fools".
Well a step in this direction would be to stop mischaracterizing everyone who disagrees with you's opinion as this. Maybe start there and work your way forward.
I was specifically responding to this. Am I mischaracterizing it?
I've given specific examples of specific art that would harm specific people. The only way I can begin to understand disagreements with that is if you literally deny the concept of emotional pain.
Art can cause emotional harm, but I have a hard time drawing actionable conclusions from this, particularly in terms of the idea that person A choosing to experience media that hurts the feelings of person B (who is not experiencing this media) makes person A a bad person.
One last time - people get hurt by art. Rape victims get hurt by rape depictions or jokes. Black people are hurt by racist jokes, depictions, blackface etc. Gay people get hurt by stereotypical portrayals. The minimum is emotional distress, and then there are other more pernicious effects, such as the spreading of bigoted ideas.
By that standard, most art is harmful (finding art that doesn't contribute to sexism is nearly impossible just on its own), and if viewing harmful art makes you a bad person, everyone is a bad person. So although I respect your point in a broader sense, I don't think it logically connects back to Hatred.
What you want to make of this I don't know. primalight apparently thinks that means I want to enact 1984. Perhaps you view hurting people (minorities, though, always minorities and victims, remember) is the necessary price of a free state.
Everybody is targeted directly or indirectly by some kinds of art, not just minorities and victims. We just care more about people getting kicked when they are already down. That's the right way to react, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that there's plenty of art mocking or slandering, say, young white straight males, too.
Can you link actual harm art has ever caused beyond making people ask questions?
Did you kind of miss the shooting in France recently? It might of been on news and was a cowardly, awful act carried out by genuine assholes but was in direct response to art that incited them (however ridiculous it is for people to take offence to the point of murdering others over cartoons FFS).
I think it's quite a stretch to say that the Hebdo cartoons were harmful because look at all the dead bodies that resulted. The killers were very harmful, yes. But laying that at the feet of the cartoon (and by extension the dead cartoonists) is a very problematic thing to say.
Did you kind of miss the shooting in France recently? It might of been on news and was a cowardly, awful act carried out by genuine assholes but was in direct response to art that incited them (however ridiculous it is for people to take offence to the point of murdering others over cartoons FFS). The Dominos advertisement campaign for "Avoid the Noid" where a mentally ill man who (sadly) had the same name held people hostage* (prompting them to drop the advertising campaign)? Have you literally never read a single thing about propaganda produced throughout human history? Or do you regard propaganda as being harmless art?
I am just stunned at the sheer ignorance of "Art causes no harm, who cares if people are saying they're inspired to shoot Muslims"!
I have stepped into bizarro world.
I absolutely agree with you that art can cause harm and that we should work to prevent that harm by discouraging particularly problematic works. However, I'm also hesitant to jump the gun and declare a piece of art dangerous without it being proven to actually cause harm, and I'm also not certain how to feel about artwork that only cause harm in people predisposed to interpret said artwork in a negative fashion.
For example, it has been claimed that Scarface glorifies criminal activity and inspires young people to become criminal themselves. Was inspiring people to become criminals the point of Scarface? If it is inspiring the glorification of crime regardless, does the lack of intent to do so matter? Is it right to blame Scarface's creators for the harmful interpretations created by some of its viewers, or should the viewers be held to blame? Why are they getting this problematic interpretation?
Art can both inspire and reinforce problematic beliefs and behaviors, but what beliefs and behaviors are gleaned from pieces of art depend entirely on the perspectives of their consumers. These perspectives are themselves influenced not only by other art, but by other socialization factors such as family life, religious indoctrination, economic status, mental illness, etc. I doubt very many people who made those hateful tweets inspired by American Sniper walked into the theater beforehand without a bigoted thought in their head, but I also wouldn't doubt that the movie could inspire some of those people to participate in more hateful actions than they might have before.
For a more personal example, the movie Chronicle features a bullied teen who gains superpowers and uses them to get back at his tormenters. At one point, the character (I think his name was Andrew) uses telekinesis on one of his bullies to suddenly tear-out three of the other boy's teeth. As a person who was bullied in middle school and high school myself and who is still trying to recover from my resulting social anxiety issues nearly a decade after graduation, I'm not particularly ashamed to say that was my favorite part of the movie. I also don't think I would perform a similar act of revenge even if I was in the same position, and I'm sure most people didn't experience that scene as a thrilling power fantasy like I did. If a bullied teen had seen Chronicle and was inspired by the scene to try and take violent revenge on his oppressors, though, would that be the fault of Chronicle's creators?
I guess my position is that I would hypothetically be for discouraging art that can cause people to form negative beliefs and are likely to inspire extremely harmful acts from those people who already hold those beliefs, but I'm hesitant to claim that a given piece of art is harmful unless there is clear evidence of causation. For example, I've seen some analyses of various media by socially-conscious individuals that I personally found to be too quick to condemn a work and unwilling to consider more nuanced interpretations, which I'm afraid could cause even people with their hearts in the right place to ignore or reject other, possibly better solutions to social problems.
For example, as this SF Weekly article explains, The Hawkeye Initiative was originally intended to satirize sexism in comics by substituting the male character Hawkeye in place of particularly sexualized female characters in what are claimed to be inherently ridiculous poses, but has drawn criticism because it fails to consider the perspectives of trans individuals (who argue the humor is entirely dependent on transphobia and the assumption that femininity is inherently ridiculous) and people who honestly find Hawkeye just as sexy in these parodies as the original female characters were intended to be.
To bring this back to Hatred, I honestly would like to see sociological research performed to see how people react to games with increasingly realistic depictions of violence. Even though I don't think games like GTA and Saints Row actually inspire violent actions, it's possible that there could one day be a game whose depiction of violence is so realistic that it actually does inspire real-world violence. Even if Hatred isn't that game, what about a possible successor that pairs VR and AR technology with motion controls and extremely realistic NPC behavior?
Hexmage-PA on
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
For example, it has been claimed that Scarface glorifies criminal activity and inspires young people to become criminal themselves. Was inspiring people to become criminals the point of Scarface? If it is inspiring the glorification of crime regardless, does the lack of intent to do so matter? Is it right to blame Scarface's creators for the harmful interpretations created by some of its viewers, or should the viewers be held to blame? Why are they getting this problematic interpretation?
Hell we could take the point further and talk about war films and their general inability to have an anti-war message regardless of intent. You could perhaps place the blame on the people taking the wrong message from Scarface, but with war films you know that people will see them as glorifying war.
I've given specific examples of specific art that would harm specific people. The only way I can begin to understand disagreements with that is if you literally deny the concept of emotional pain.
I don't see any good faith in Astaereth's arguments, either. Strawmen and selective reading galore.
One last time - people get hurt by art. Rape victims get hurt by rape depictions or jokes. Black people are hurt by racist jokes, depictions, blackface etc. Gay people get hurt by stereotypical portrayals. The minimum is emotional distress, and then there are other more pernicious effects, such as the spreading of bigoted ideas.
If you literally cannot imagine someone being hurt by a piece of art, fiction, gaming etc, then you are privileged as hell. I certainly don't get hurt by much of it, although racist jokes on TV upset me a lot. I'm very lucky. But I see others hurt by it. Why do you think 'trigger warning' became a phrase? You want to know how a survivor of torture reacts to an average episode of 24? I've seen that, and it's not pretty.
What you want to make of this I don't know. primalight apparently thinks that means I want to enact 1984. Perhaps you view hurting people (minorities, though, always minorities and victims, remember) is the necessary price of a free state.
But I just simply responded to some of you saying 'art can't harm' - because it so manifestly does all the time.
Forgive me for being blunt.
People like you are the greatest cowards on earth and you earn nothing but my spite.
Your sick and yes sick is the proper word to use here idea to try and bubble wrap the world in order for no one the be offended is one of the most toxic attitude you can take and should never be tolerated in any society that considers itself civilized.
Making issues or topics sacred cows does not help anyone not the victims of crime nor those being persecuted by racism. Tell me do you honestly believe rape jokes or black jokes cause rape? Are you that naive? Do you really think by making issues be sectioned off you are doing anything but being a determent to us as a people facing them?
Jokes about black people do not cause racism. Preferential treatment combined with a extremely high rate of crime being committed by black people cause racism.
Rape victims well to be frank it depends on a individual case bases to be frank people like you I personally believe are what make rape such a terrible crime and sadly I speak from experience. I didn't lose my virginity by choice and I lost it at the age of 13 to a at the time 37 year old women. Now I won't condone rape in anyway but it wasn't the act itself that caused me the most pain. It was how everyone afterwards treated me so differently they walked on pins and needles afraid to talk or even to bring up what happened. It wasn't till someone took the time to explain to me that what happened was really at the end of the day just sex. I was not prepared for it and it was done unwillingly but at the end of the day that is what it was.
"trigger warning" and "privilege" are not words used by the wise or the learned. They are used by people who have no argument who want to shame people into agreeing with them. I refuse to see the world as something it isn't. I refuse to pretend groups have privilege while you can post in newspapers legally that they are only hiring people of color or people or people of a native tribe.
You want to say people are privileged?
Then explain why I was denied the chance at a scholarship despite having better grades then a women and people of color and had to take on military service to afford a education?
You want to bubble wrap the world so no one gets offended. So no one with any problem ever has to face it and I want you to understand people like me will fight you bitterly to the end in order to ever stop you from doing so. You want to stop racist jokes? Take a hard look at why black people commit a hell of a lot more crimes and address it. You want to stop hurting rape victims? Stop treating them as damaged good and help them realize that although what happened to them was wrong it was in reality no more then a assault rather then making it seem like a life altering event.
Art only hurts those who are to afraid to look at the hardness of the world and wish to turn a blind eye to its harshness in favor for comforting lies.
While I think you think that's what he's saying, I don't think that's what he's saying at all.
I think Posh is saying art can harm (hell, sometimes art is even meant to cause harm) and that's pretty much of the extent of his quoted text.
Lilnoobs on
+7
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
edited January 2015
Okay, one thing: Trigger Warning is not used to shame people. It is used to give warning to people who may need it that the following thing has stuff that may remind them of something traumatic that happened to them in the past, that still causes them emotional pain if they happen upon it by surprise.
Then explain why I was denied the chance at a scholarship despite having better grades then a women and people of color and had to take on military service to afford a education?
Wait, did you meet the people who recieved scholarships instead of you? Like, individually? Did you all take tests and share the results?
Because what it seems like happened is you assumed you deserved the scholarships over others, and are holding sexist and racist beliefs about intelligence levels.
Okay, one thing: Trigger Warning is not used to shame people. It is used to give warning to people who may need it that the following thing has stuff that may remind them of something traumatic that happened to them in the past, that still causes them emotional pain if they happen upon it by surprise.
To clarify, emotional pain doesn't just mean "my feeling are hurt"; trigger warnings are supposed to be used for events that trigger PTSD, and I for one am for them.
Here's why: I saw "The Book of Eli" in a theater when it first came out, and during the film is a scene where Mila Kunis' character is nearly raped only to be rescued at the last second. During this scene, a woman sitting near the front of the theater suddenly bolted from her seat to the exit.
So, I support trigger warnings because I doubt that woman wanted her night at the movies to end with her experiencing extreme emotional turmoil and the shame that everyone in the theater knows what happened to her.
+4
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
I'm willing to acknowledge that art can cause some level of emotional harm in some people. I think one could probably find several real examples of that happening, and it certainly doesn't seem impossible.
But do you know what probably also causes some people emotional harm? Statements like:
If you go on about how x is the best game you've played and you want a sequel, I'd probably avoid speaking with you and think you a potential psychopath.
Like, if someone is a fan of x, even if they claim it's for the gameplay, I want nothing to do with them. The same goes for y.
I don't think its so much "don't like" but know that I will not get along with, nor do I want to get along with, someone who would be up to playing x and enjoying it.
when I see someone playing a game that is mostly senseless violence, I would assume that person likes senseless violence (because if they didn't like it, why would they be playing).
it's going to make the gaming space filled with more assholes.
it'll be a nice test to see who's probably a shitty person on your steam friends list.
Perhaps these wouldn't hurt individually, in the same way that an individual piece of art rarely hurts on its own. But I can confidently say that being subjected to a constant stream of hatred and put-downs based on arbitrary media tastes (especially through your formative years) can really mess you up. It turns out you can't easily change your taste in media, even when your tastes get you constantly called a terrible person by mainstream society, and eventually each insult just reinforces the self-hatred and shame and paranoia.
And it seems to me that many of the same people who are apparently hyper-sensitive to fiction that might somehow be emotionally harmful to a minority, are absolutely shocked that shouting unending messages of cultural shame from the rooftops could somehow hurt people who like the things they are arbitrarily shaming. Or that those people could end up full of self-loathing or anger, or even just a strong dislike of those kinds of attacks and a vigorous need to defend people's right to have their tastes without being judged for it.
So if you want to talk about the harms caused by art, we can do that. But if the answer is "Let's shame and be cruel to the unpopular people who's tastes don't match up with the mainstream", then it seems to me that the cure is substantially worse than the disease. Technology has made us pretty good at giving people a variety of platforms for their art, and allowing minority voices to put their work out there more freely than they ever could. It's also made as very very good at shaming and group hate-fests and elevating our sneering insular distaste of other people's media into some kind of struggle against evil.
Posts
Right. Forgot about those two (never played VCS [or Chinatown Wars come to that]).
Still don't recall much in the way of criticism from a group beyond any of the usual 'not representative of the community' sort of thing. Hell, the city of New York complained that GTA IV somehow presented them in a bad light.
And this hinges on the game actually being as vile as the trailers and developers have made it out to be.
From my reading of the dev forum, I think it's just going to be blandly offensive and ultraviolent.
It is not going to end up the minority shooting spree simulator people were initially afraid of.
Edit: For me I go back to those American Sniper tweets. I think its jingoistic propaganda, but I know my friends don't entirely agree and some think it's rather poignant. That's a disagreement and difference of opinion. One of my friends posts something like those tweets? Fuck them. They can be exiled to the island. Thankfully, none of my friends actually would say those kind of things. Same with Hatred, I know some of my friends are going to download it to check it out to see if it's worth the fuss, but if they start doing things like the proposed mods to change all the women into Anita and shoot minorities specifically then that's a line for me where I don't want to associate with them.
Just owning hatred wouldn't really phase me, but if they were to start commenting on how the main character guy has a point or they start coming out to have sociopath tendencies (which would of been there to begin with) then I would probably drop them from my list.
it's pretty clear from context and good faith that he/she meant any person, not all humans.
You keep not understanding all of the things. Why is that?
So far the two examples we have "sometimes art misrepresents a minority, which may lead to resulting social harm to that minority as a result" and "blackface hurts the feelings of some people". But neither of these seem to apply to Hatred, and the latter seems suspect as described (plenty of satire hurts somebody's feelings, but that doesn't necessarily make you a bad person for enjoying it).
I really have to ask how did that response in any way get you closer to your goal? Do you honestly believe that art can't hurt people?
Well a step in this direction would be to stop mischaracterizing everyone who disagrees with you's opinion as this. Maybe start there and work your way forward.
Blackface killed Ted Danson's career for a while. That's how toxic it is.
High degree of difficulty. It didn't hurt Sarah Silverman much. Louis CK can say N***** (the asterisks of which he does an ironic bit about). Michael Richards not so much. We care what we think are in people's hearts. That said we are frequently wrong and if history is any guide, our instincts err massively on the side of DESTROY THE PERSON WHO ISN'T LIKE ME.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Context. What did Silverman do, exactly? Louis CK "blurring" the word does dull how it is heard and Richards was using it to insult audience members, not making jokes. The two incidents aren't too comparable. It's not strictly about intent, it's how it's used. That's why CK has a thriving carer and Richards' crashed.
edit: This isn't about hurting people who aren't like me, it's about protecting themselves from people who act like they wish you harm, even if it isn't with violence.
I was specifically responding to this. Am I mischaracterizing it?
Would you like more tweets from American Sniper right wing reactionaries saying how America was right to slaughter savages? I honestly don't know how you're contesting that particular point when I show you direct evidence that is LITERALLY days old. I am hardly digging up some obscure random example from the past to make a point.
Edit: Not to mention that movie sanitizes and arguably glorifies the life of a deeply racist man who wrote blatant lies in his own autobiography.
Edit2: And if you want something about hatred specifically, we have to see what it is actually like. Bear in mind the worst fears about it - EG a focus on slaughtering minorities specifically - do not seem to be true. But your point is wilful ignorance otherwise, especially when there is blatant proof just slapping you in the face not a page ago from only just recently.
I don't see any evidence of harm this movie has or could cause to be frank. If your standard of judging something is based on people saying dumb shit on twitter we simply won't be allowed anything ever.
I don't see how art is harmful and I am really not seeing any proof being provided beyond random people on twitter. you can not like something. You can disagree completely with what it is saying but you can not use that as a weapon saying it is harmful. There is nothing I fear more then moral busy bodies. Can you link actual harm art has ever caused beyond making people ask questions?
You don't believe stirring up deeply racist sentiment is "harmful"? Have you never read a history book before?
Did you kind of miss the shooting in France recently? It might of been on news and was a cowardly, awful act carried out by genuine assholes but was in direct response to art that incited them (however ridiculous it is for people to take offence to the point of murdering others over cartoons FFS). The Dominos advertisement campaign for "Avoid the Noid" where a mentally ill man who (sadly) had the same name held people hostage* (prompting them to drop the advertising campaign)? Have you literally never read a single thing about propaganda produced throughout human history? Or do you regard propaganda as being harmless art?
I am just stunned at the sheer ignorance of "Art causes no harm, who cares if people are saying they're inspired to shoot Muslims"!
I have stepped into bizarro world.
*Mixed this up with another incident.
You're going to have to tiptoe very carefully to avoid instigating a tragedy with the mentally ill
And if you step into the charlie hebdo thread you'll possibly find that bizarro world is a lot closer than you think
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I support the right of Steam to not carry Hatred as it likes. But I also think all art/speech/etc should be available to those who want it, because I absolutely do not want others deciding what is and isn't safe/harmful/proper/evil/right/legal/illegal for me to create or view.
Man, if only anyone was advocating for censorship in this here thread.
I don't see any good faith in Astaereth's arguments, either. Strawmen and selective reading galore.
One last time - people get hurt by art. Rape victims get hurt by rape depictions or jokes. Black people are hurt by racist jokes, depictions, blackface etc. Gay people get hurt by stereotypical portrayals. The minimum is emotional distress, and then there are other more pernicious effects, such as the spreading of bigoted ideas.
If you literally cannot imagine someone being hurt by a piece of art, fiction, gaming etc, then you are privileged as hell. I certainly don't get hurt by much of it, although racist jokes on TV upset me a lot. I'm very lucky. But I see others hurt by it. Why do you think 'trigger warning' became a phrase? You want to know how a survivor of torture reacts to an average episode of 24? I've seen that, and it's not pretty.
What you want to make of this I don't know. primalight apparently thinks that means I want to enact 1984. Perhaps you view hurting people (minorities, though, always minorities and victims, remember) is the necessary price of a free state.
But I just simply responded to some of you saying 'art can't harm' - because it so manifestly does all the time.
Good thing I didn't do that then and again, stop mangling the meaning of "censorship". Also the question was not "Who deserved to be shot for art they produced", the question was "When has art ever done harm?" and a terrorist attack 100% qualifies. Especially when I unequivocally stated how utterly wrong it was, they were not randomly targeted out of the fucking blue for utterly no reason and therefore it answers the question.
I would argue that torture causes torture related psychological harm, rather than 24. Torture is going to be somewhere between 99% and 100% as harmful less 24, but 24 without torture isn't harmful.
Sexism, racism, violence against others, etc are all supported by any culture to one degree or another. This doesn't mean that books supporting sexism in any way need to be burned or that we resort to some 1984 style government. It does mean acknowledging that people are influenced by the culture they're regularly exposed to. And for people like myself it means doing things such as opting to not buy stuff advocating horrible ideas in order to alter that culture.
Plenty explanation beyond "look at it, privileged fools" has been given in this thread about how culture affects people. If you don't think anyone has ever been affected by culture then there's not much to be done since you would be denying reality itself.
Yup.
There's a reason why most people use the quote button rather than rephrase the quotes.
Art can cause emotional harm, but I have a hard time drawing actionable conclusions from this, particularly in terms of the idea that person A choosing to experience media that hurts the feelings of person B (who is not experiencing this media) makes person A a bad person.
By that standard, most art is harmful (finding art that doesn't contribute to sexism is nearly impossible just on its own), and if viewing harmful art makes you a bad person, everyone is a bad person. So although I respect your point in a broader sense, I don't think it logically connects back to Hatred.
Everybody is targeted directly or indirectly by some kinds of art, not just minorities and victims. We just care more about people getting kicked when they are already down. That's the right way to react, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that there's plenty of art mocking or slandering, say, young white straight males, too.
I think it's quite a stretch to say that the Hebdo cartoons were harmful because look at all the dead bodies that resulted. The killers were very harmful, yes. But laying that at the feet of the cartoon (and by extension the dead cartoonists) is a very problematic thing to say.
I absolutely agree with you that art can cause harm and that we should work to prevent that harm by discouraging particularly problematic works. However, I'm also hesitant to jump the gun and declare a piece of art dangerous without it being proven to actually cause harm, and I'm also not certain how to feel about artwork that only cause harm in people predisposed to interpret said artwork in a negative fashion.
For example, it has been claimed that Scarface glorifies criminal activity and inspires young people to become criminal themselves. Was inspiring people to become criminals the point of Scarface? If it is inspiring the glorification of crime regardless, does the lack of intent to do so matter? Is it right to blame Scarface's creators for the harmful interpretations created by some of its viewers, or should the viewers be held to blame? Why are they getting this problematic interpretation?
Art can both inspire and reinforce problematic beliefs and behaviors, but what beliefs and behaviors are gleaned from pieces of art depend entirely on the perspectives of their consumers. These perspectives are themselves influenced not only by other art, but by other socialization factors such as family life, religious indoctrination, economic status, mental illness, etc. I doubt very many people who made those hateful tweets inspired by American Sniper walked into the theater beforehand without a bigoted thought in their head, but I also wouldn't doubt that the movie could inspire some of those people to participate in more hateful actions than they might have before.
For a more personal example, the movie Chronicle features a bullied teen who gains superpowers and uses them to get back at his tormenters. At one point, the character (I think his name was Andrew) uses telekinesis on one of his bullies to suddenly tear-out three of the other boy's teeth. As a person who was bullied in middle school and high school myself and who is still trying to recover from my resulting social anxiety issues nearly a decade after graduation, I'm not particularly ashamed to say that was my favorite part of the movie. I also don't think I would perform a similar act of revenge even if I was in the same position, and I'm sure most people didn't experience that scene as a thrilling power fantasy like I did. If a bullied teen had seen Chronicle and was inspired by the scene to try and take violent revenge on his oppressors, though, would that be the fault of Chronicle's creators?
I guess my position is that I would hypothetically be for discouraging art that can cause people to form negative beliefs and are likely to inspire extremely harmful acts from those people who already hold those beliefs, but I'm hesitant to claim that a given piece of art is harmful unless there is clear evidence of causation. For example, I've seen some analyses of various media by socially-conscious individuals that I personally found to be too quick to condemn a work and unwilling to consider more nuanced interpretations, which I'm afraid could cause even people with their hearts in the right place to ignore or reject other, possibly better solutions to social problems.
For example, as this SF Weekly article explains, The Hawkeye Initiative was originally intended to satirize sexism in comics by substituting the male character Hawkeye in place of particularly sexualized female characters in what are claimed to be inherently ridiculous poses, but has drawn criticism because it fails to consider the perspectives of trans individuals (who argue the humor is entirely dependent on transphobia and the assumption that femininity is inherently ridiculous) and people who honestly find Hawkeye just as sexy in these parodies as the original female characters were intended to be.
To bring this back to Hatred, I honestly would like to see sociological research performed to see how people react to games with increasingly realistic depictions of violence. Even though I don't think games like GTA and Saints Row actually inspire violent actions, it's possible that there could one day be a game whose depiction of violence is so realistic that it actually does inspire real-world violence. Even if Hatred isn't that game, what about a possible successor that pairs VR and AR technology with motion controls and extremely realistic NPC behavior?
Hell we could take the point further and talk about war films and their general inability to have an anti-war message regardless of intent. You could perhaps place the blame on the people taking the wrong message from Scarface, but with war films you know that people will see them as glorifying war.
Forgive me for being blunt.
People like you are the greatest cowards on earth and you earn nothing but my spite.
Your sick and yes sick is the proper word to use here idea to try and bubble wrap the world in order for no one the be offended is one of the most toxic attitude you can take and should never be tolerated in any society that considers itself civilized.
Making issues or topics sacred cows does not help anyone not the victims of crime nor those being persecuted by racism. Tell me do you honestly believe rape jokes or black jokes cause rape? Are you that naive? Do you really think by making issues be sectioned off you are doing anything but being a determent to us as a people facing them?
Jokes about black people do not cause racism. Preferential treatment combined with a extremely high rate of crime being committed by black people cause racism.
Rape victims well to be frank it depends on a individual case bases to be frank people like you I personally believe are what make rape such a terrible crime and sadly I speak from experience. I didn't lose my virginity by choice and I lost it at the age of 13 to a at the time 37 year old women. Now I won't condone rape in anyway but it wasn't the act itself that caused me the most pain. It was how everyone afterwards treated me so differently they walked on pins and needles afraid to talk or even to bring up what happened. It wasn't till someone took the time to explain to me that what happened was really at the end of the day just sex. I was not prepared for it and it was done unwillingly but at the end of the day that is what it was.
"trigger warning" and "privilege" are not words used by the wise or the learned. They are used by people who have no argument who want to shame people into agreeing with them. I refuse to see the world as something it isn't. I refuse to pretend groups have privilege while you can post in newspapers legally that they are only hiring people of color or people or people of a native tribe.
You want to say people are privileged?
Then explain why I was denied the chance at a scholarship despite having better grades then a women and people of color and had to take on military service to afford a education?
You want to bubble wrap the world so no one gets offended. So no one with any problem ever has to face it and I want you to understand people like me will fight you bitterly to the end in order to ever stop you from doing so. You want to stop racist jokes? Take a hard look at why black people commit a hell of a lot more crimes and address it. You want to stop hurting rape victims? Stop treating them as damaged good and help them realize that although what happened to them was wrong it was in reality no more then a assault rather then making it seem like a life altering event.
Art only hurts those who are to afraid to look at the hardness of the world and wish to turn a blind eye to its harshness in favor for comforting lies.
I think Posh is saying art can harm (hell, sometimes art is even meant to cause harm) and that's pretty much of the extent of his quoted text.
So what does cause racism?
No no no, I asked what causes racism, not give an example of a racist statement.
Wait, did you meet the people who recieved scholarships instead of you? Like, individually? Did you all take tests and share the results?
Because what it seems like happened is you assumed you deserved the scholarships over others, and are holding sexist and racist beliefs about intelligence levels.
To clarify, emotional pain doesn't just mean "my feeling are hurt"; trigger warnings are supposed to be used for events that trigger PTSD, and I for one am for them.
Here's why: I saw "The Book of Eli" in a theater when it first came out, and during the film is a scene where Mila Kunis' character is nearly raped only to be rescued at the last second. During this scene, a woman sitting near the front of the theater suddenly bolted from her seat to the exit.
So, I support trigger warnings because I doubt that woman wanted her night at the movies to end with her experiencing extreme emotional turmoil and the shame that everyone in the theater knows what happened to her.
I'm bad at fully explaining things.
in that specific usage, I guess?
I've never come across that.
But do you know what probably also causes some people emotional harm? Statements like:
Perhaps these wouldn't hurt individually, in the same way that an individual piece of art rarely hurts on its own. But I can confidently say that being subjected to a constant stream of hatred and put-downs based on arbitrary media tastes (especially through your formative years) can really mess you up. It turns out you can't easily change your taste in media, even when your tastes get you constantly called a terrible person by mainstream society, and eventually each insult just reinforces the self-hatred and shame and paranoia.
And it seems to me that many of the same people who are apparently hyper-sensitive to fiction that might somehow be emotionally harmful to a minority, are absolutely shocked that shouting unending messages of cultural shame from the rooftops could somehow hurt people who like the things they are arbitrarily shaming. Or that those people could end up full of self-loathing or anger, or even just a strong dislike of those kinds of attacks and a vigorous need to defend people's right to have their tastes without being judged for it.
So if you want to talk about the harms caused by art, we can do that. But if the answer is "Let's shame and be cruel to the unpopular people who's tastes don't match up with the mainstream", then it seems to me that the cure is substantially worse than the disease. Technology has made us pretty good at giving people a variety of platforms for their art, and allowing minority voices to put their work out there more freely than they ever could. It's also made as very very good at shaming and group hate-fests and elevating our sneering insular distaste of other people's media into some kind of struggle against evil.