...i mean really? When you get right down to it?
Recently Nigel and I had a discussion about the racial issues surrounding the recent Rachel Dolezal story, which brought up some good points we wanted to share with you guys, which were thus:
QuoteI guess my initial reaction was a kneejerk, "screw this crazy white lady" which i will admit was probably couched in my general dislike for Tumblr identity politics, and a feeling that this would result less in a nuanced discussion of how race is a socially defined construct and more in a bunch of tumblr spags going "see, see! transethnic IS a thing! I was right all along! I AM black even though i've lived my whole life in the suburbs!"
But my other response, the one that made this so difficult to dismiss, was Why can i dismiss transethnics and not transgenders?" and I'll admit i dont really have a clear defining line for that except that I'm more used to one idea than the other. But then again, even transgenderism used to not really be so accepted, so who knows? Maybe if i just dismissed it like i wanted to i'd end up one of those bitter old men on the wrong side of history.
So i thought about race and gender and how those two are just social constructs, but then i had the thought of "well, what else would you construct a society out of if not social constructs?" Hell, language is a social construct, but we'd all be fucked if it disappeared tomorrow and had to make do with points and grunts. We're all stuck playing this game called society, and social constructs like race and gender help to define the rules; give us quick and easy categories to fit each other in so we can flow through our day to day interactions. So it seemed to me, that the problem wasn't that this game we're playing has rules, but rather that the rules are decidedly unfair to large groups of players.
To which she replied:
QuoteI really think that a lot of this digs into an underlying question, which is "why can't people live and identify as they want to, and not as their happenstance of biology dictates"?
which led to:
QuoteYea, and i feel like the end goal of social justice should be to create a society where people can do whatever they like as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. Like a more benevolent Hammurabi's code of law, i guess. tho that also leads me to another interesting question. If, in this hypothetical social justice utopia i am positing, almost no discrimination based on race gender, sexual orientation, creed etc. happens, would we not have to reach a point where all those things stop mattering, to a degree? Like, not that we stop having them somehow, but that they become extraneous details that people don't necessarily focus on, like the color of you hair or your middle name. Like, not only do people NOT decide whether you should have a job based on your race, but that your race is seen as such a nonfactor that people are infinitely more interested in the fact that you enjoy nude bungee jumping or whatever.
Followed by:
QuoteYes, I think they could continue to matter, but in a much less relevant way; more as "oh, your grandmother went to school in Budapest? How interesting!" kind of way, rather than the current "your skin color makes you Other" kind of way. A person's cultural heritage is an important part of who they are, but not necessarily particularly relevant to other people in most settings; it is highly personally relevant to my friend that she is Jewish, but that fact doesn't significantly shape our friendship or her job or the way she interacts with most people.
and finally:
QuoteI think that will happen slowly as people become more connected and the sharing of details like that becomes more and more common. Perhaps as more and more peoples experiences become shared, whether it be the experiences of different races, homosexuals, intersexuals, etc. become commonplace, things like race and gender will become like white noise amongst all of the formerly "weird" things that now everyone will grow up knowing about.
:mittens:
I think you have to be very careful talking about what 'everyone' will do.
60% of the world is still without flushing toilets. Progress really shouldn't be taken for granted. Whilst it is true that equality and tolerance regarding sexuality and race has become more mainstream and accepted in the more economically developed countries, I'm willing to bet that the majority of human beings are still racist, sexist and intolerant.
I sometimes get too caught up in the definitions of words myself. I found the discussion around race as cultural heritage very interesting, but what it 'is' for most people?
Race and gender are significant components in what people use to judge you at first sight - for this purpose, the 'cultural' element of race is (mostly) irrelevant. Instead, people will judge other people based on skin colour, physical attributes etc.
How you look - in every way, from how fit you are to how attractive to what you're wearing and how you're holding yourself - feeds into this first impression, the initial judgement people make before you've even opened your mouth. Right now, skin colour and gender come with a whole bunch of expectations attached regarding social and cultural roles. When you open your mouth and get to know people, that's when those expectations can be challenged and changed - but they'll still exist, and a lot of people won't react kindly to the undermined expectations.
I don't expect that to change any time soon. In a hypothetical utopia where all of these things are entirely in your control and you can choose to change your outward appearance to match what you think of yourself to be? That's going to become even more relevant - because it becomes a shorthand language used to tell others who you consider yourself to be.
As it is, the 'sex' component of gender and the 'physical' component of race are almost entirely outside the control of most people in the world - but they are still used to judge, because our appearance is one of the most solid identifiers people use to tell who we 'are'.
The alternative is to say transgenderism is cultural appropriation that is only available to the privileged.
Your way builds tolerance, the alternative encourages intolerance. I wonder what tumblr would make of it.
At this point in time, the idea of a society in which race and gender are mere background information about a person, and not a massively significant part of their personal identity and how people treat them, is just a pope dream. But it's still a conversation worth having, IMO. What would a society like that look like, and what would be necessary to achieve it? I think that the starting point is eliminating hunger and poverty, which is a pretty lofty goal.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 10, 2015, 05:34:39 PM
At this point in time, the idea of a society in which race and gender are mere background information about a person, and not a massively significant part of their personal identity and how people treat them, is just a pope dream. But it's still a conversation worth having, IMO. What would a society like that look like, and what would be necessary to achieve it? I think that the starting point is eliminating hunger and poverty, which is a pretty lofty goal.
I think you're right; you'd need to eliminate hunger and poverty first.
You'd also probably need to eliminate nation states as they exist today. Nations are essentially in competition with one another, and part of the reason race is so entrenched is because of that. There's a vested interest in keeping segments of the world divided along racial lines. You may also have to eliminate the idea of inheriting property from your ancestors and leaving it to your progeny for similar reasons; you want to get rid of any potential material inequality which might be inherited, in order to prevent origin from causing jealousy.
Then you'd need to radically restructure the role or message of religion, as most major organized religions perpetuate certain gender roles. There's some progress being made on that front, but I think you'd also need to break the 'organized' part and have religion seen broadly as one more fluid aspect of identity, rather than being prescribed by an authority, or you risk that authority bringing in the old 'mark of Caine' or 'natural role of women' arguments back to the fore.
Once you've eliminated the main reasons that people judge others - socio-economic status, religious grounds and nationalism - then race starts to be far less important. Presumably there'll still be sexual preferences, though, and people will still be prejudiced towards one another to some extent by the particular features they find attractive or undesirable. Gender, therefore, is still an issue.
I'm not sure how you go about removing the fact that people treat people of the gender they find attractive (or unattractive) differently to other people. I think removing a lot of the taboo around sex is a start - so you probably have to eliminate all sexually transmitted diseases, and make birth control trivially easy to obtain. You ultimately need to eradicate the idea that sex is a significant motivating factor, so that the possibility of sex is no longer able to colour decisions - and therefore what gender someone chooses to present themselves as can't significantly alter how they are treated by the people around them. Such a culture probably winds up looking pretty hedonistic from our standpoint. Or, alternatively, has completely eradicated sex in favour of a means of reproduction that involves as few biological parts as possible.
Transhumanist sci-fi ala 'The Culture' series or Eclipse Phase can provide some useful inspiration here. The basic idea is that when you can have everything you want and can spend your time how you want, the only thing that matters about you as a person is what you achieve with that time.
Quote from: Faust on July 10, 2015, 09:04:34 AM
The alternative is to say transgenderism is cultural appropriation that is only available to the privileged.
Your way builds tolerance, the alternative encourages intolerance. I wonder what tumblr would make of it.
3/4s of them would shit a cinder block.
I agree with whichever method is most likely to make my youngest kid's life easier.
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on July 10, 2015, 08:16:57 AM
So i thought about race and gender and how those two are just social constructs, but then i had the thought of "well, what else would you construct a society out of if not social constructs?" Hell, language is a social construct, but we'd all be fucked if it disappeared tomorrow and had to make do with points and grunts. We're all stuck playing this game called society, and social constructs like race and gender help to define the rules; give us quick and easy categories to fit each other in so we can flow through our day to day interactions. So it seemed to me, that the problem wasn't that this game we're playing has rules, but rather that the rules are decidedly unfair to large groups of players.
To which she replied:
QuoteI really think that a lot of this digs into an underlying question, which is "why can't people live and identify as they want to, and not as their happenstance of biology dictates"?
which led to:
QuoteYea, and i feel like the end goal of social justice should be to create a society where people can do whatever they like as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. Like a more benevolent Hammurabi's code of law, i guess. tho that also leads me to another interesting question. If, in this hypothetical social justice utopia i am positing, almost no discrimination based on race gender, sexual orientation, creed etc. happens, would we not have to reach a point where all those things stop mattering, to a degree? Like, not that we stop having them somehow, but that they become extraneous details that people don't necessarily focus on, like the color of you hair or your middle name. Like, not only do people NOT decide whether you should have a job based on your race, but that your race is seen as such a nonfactor that people are infinitely more interested in the fact that you enjoy nude bungee jumping or whatever.
Followed by:
QuoteYes, I think they could continue to matter, but in a much less relevant way; more as "oh, your grandmother went to school in Budapest? How interesting!" kind of way, rather than the current "your skin color makes you Other" kind of way. A person's cultural heritage is an important part of who they are, but not necessarily particularly relevant to other people in most settings; it is highly personally relevant to my friend that she is Jewish, but that fact doesn't significantly shape our friendship or her job or the way she interacts with most people.
and finally:
QuoteI think that will happen slowly as people become more connected and the sharing of details like that becomes more and more common. Perhaps as more and more peoples experiences become shared, whether it be the experiences of different races, homosexuals, intersexuals, etc. become commonplace, things like race and gender will become like white noise amongst all of the formerly "weird" things that now everyone will grow up knowing about.
[/quote]
Id like to argue that the building blocks of
"social constructs" is language, and whatever is built from those blocks is the real problem, id say that your argument is conflating the wrong use of a tool with an argument of origin and causality.
Then to what the Mezosoic answered of why cant we just identify regardless of biology, is that each purist definition of identity (read: uniform) has privileges, groupality and/or power politics involved.
Then start talking of "social justice" and i personally thats a weak way to frame the debate... ive been working on a 25 page article and this has vague resonances with it... like, id rather personally argue for and thru the perspective of human rights, because social justice seems like much more polisemic and ambiguous, and its a subset of sticking to human rights anyways. Right?
And whats the primary obstacle to human rights? The dehumanization and treatment of groups as second class citizens.
Does this make sense?
Just for reference ill copy paste the synthetized version of HRs:
Article 1 Right to Equality
Article 2 Freedom from Discrimination
Article 3 Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
Article 4 Freedom from Slavery
Article 5 Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment
Article 6 Right to Recognition as a Person before the Law
Article 7 Right to Equality before the Law
Article 8 Right to Remedy by Competent Tribunal
Article 9 Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile
Article 10 Right to Fair Public Hearing
Article 11 Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
Article 12 Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
Article 13 Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country
Article 14 Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution
Article 15 Right to a Nationality and the Freedom to Change It
Article 16 Right to Marriage and Family
Article 17 Right to Own Property
Article 18 Freedom of Belief and Religion
Article 19 Freedom of Opinion and Information
Article 20 Right of Peaceful Assembly and Association
Article 21 Right to Participate in Government and in Free Elections
Article 22 Right to Social Security
Article 23 Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions
Article 24 Right to Rest and Leisure
Article 25 Right to Adequate Living Standard
Article 26 Right to Education
Article 27 Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community
Article 28 Right to a Social Order that Articulates this Document
Article 29 Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development
Article 30 Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights
Ever notice that in Sleeping Beauty and Snow White, the prince is making out with some drugged chick?
Is that wrong, or what?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 11, 2015, 01:32:42 AM
Ever notice that in Sleeping Beauty and Snow White, the prince is making out with some drugged chick?
Is that wrong, or what?
:?
WTF? I posted this in open bar. I swear.
:lulz:
I will admit, i spent far more time than i should have trying to glean what you meant by that statement, Dok. :P
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 11, 2015, 03:14:13 AM
WTF? I posted this in open bar. I swear.
I knew I saw it before you posted it here!
I though I was going mad.
Did it accidentally get moved here?
Quote from: Reginald Ret on July 13, 2015, 08:09:58 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 11, 2015, 03:14:13 AM
WTF? I posted this in open bar. I swear.
I knew I saw it before you posted it here!
I though I was going mad.
Did it accidentally get moved here?
I suspect the foul mind of Faust behind all this business. He is like the Dr Moriarity of BBS crimes.
Does that make you and Nigel Sherlock and Holmes? If so, which is which?
I saw this today and it is only tangentially relevant but it made me bawwww https://medium.com/@cwinterbg/the-day-my-daughter-discovered-i-m-white-8c2e41f35b14
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 13, 2015, 03:52:53 PM
I saw this today and it is only tangentially relevant but it made me bawwww https://medium.com/@cwinterbg/the-day-my-daughter-discovered-i-m-white-8c2e41f35b14
I love how kids do that with "big" parenting moments. "Yes, honey, two boys or two girls can get married, just like a girl and a boy can get married." "What's for dinner?"
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on July 13, 2015, 09:29:22 AM
Does that make you and Nigel Sherlock and Holmes? If so, which is which?
No. I'm Mrs Hudson, and Nigel drives the hansom cab.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on July 13, 2015, 03:59:41 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 13, 2015, 03:52:53 PM
I saw this today and it is only tangentially relevant but it made me bawwww https://medium.com/@cwinterbg/the-day-my-daughter-discovered-i-m-white-8c2e41f35b14
I love how kids do that with "big" parenting moments. "Yes, honey, two boys or two girls can get married, just like a girl and a boy can get married." "What's for dinner?"
That's the thing about kids; they don't have all the expectations and social crap around it, so they're just like "OK".
Yea, its like, they believed you when you told them a magic fairy collects their teeth, two same-sex people in love isn't even close to the strangest thing they've been told.
That is the correct stance on race.
And that is what (i hope all but at least some) people mean when they say they don't see skin color. It is like seeing a nose. Sure, it can be all different kinds, but the general idea is the same and it doesn't really matter.
Quote from: Reginald Ret on July 14, 2015, 07:52:35 AM
That is the correct stance on race.
And that is what (i hope all but at least some) people mean when they say they don't see skin color. It is like seeing a nose. Sure, it can be all different kinds, but the general idea is the same and it doesn't really matter.
Given the actual world we live in, when most people say they don't see skin color, they're lying, and what they mean is "my ideals would make my life easier if I couldn't see skin color".
Is it all the same? No. Any child can see that one butt is brown and another butt is light. Unless you have literal brain damage, you can see color. The difference is the social value assigned to it.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 08:29:47 AM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on July 14, 2015, 07:52:35 AM
That is the correct stance on race.
And that is what (i hope all but at least some) people mean when they say they don't see skin color. It is like seeing a nose. Sure, it can be all different kinds, but the general idea is the same and it doesn't really matter.
Given the actual world we live in, when most people say they don't see skin color, they're lying, and what they mean is "my ideals would make my life easier if I couldn't see skin color".
Is it all the same? No. Any child can see that one butt is brown and another butt is light. Unless you have literal brain damage, you can see color. The difference is the social value assigned to it.
Well... in that case most people suck!
Gah! :sad:
I can never wrap my mind around the fact that almost everyone sees such superficial things as IMPORTANT THINGS.
Good people notice and remember actions better than looks.
Example: in-game chat conversation with a new acquaintance, despite her mentioning her name and describing her looks I had no idea who she was until she mentioned that we worked together for 10 minutes on restocking some shelves near the end of the LAN party where we met. (it was held in a food-bank/supermarket building, proceeds went to support the food-bank.) Though that may just be my crappy memory :P
Quote from: Reginald Ret on July 14, 2015, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 08:29:47 AM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on July 14, 2015, 07:52:35 AM
That is the correct stance on race.
And that is what (i hope all but at least some) people mean when they say they don't see skin color. It is like seeing a nose. Sure, it can be all different kinds, but the general idea is the same and it doesn't really matter.
Given the actual world we live in, when most people say they don't see skin color, they're lying, and what they mean is "my ideals would make my life easier if I couldn't see skin color".
Is it all the same? No. Any child can see that one butt is brown and another butt is light. Unless you have literal brain damage, you can see color. The difference is the social value assigned to it.
Well... in that case most people suck!
Gah! :sad:
I can never wrap my mind around the fact that almost everyone sees such superficial things as IMPORTANT THINGS.
Good people notice and remember actions better than looks.
Example: in-game chat conversation with a new acquaintance, despite her mentioning her name and describing her looks I had no idea who she was until she mentioned that we worked together for 10 minutes on restocking some shelves near the end of the LAN party where we met. (it was held in a food-bank/supermarket building, proceeds went to support the food-bank.) Though that may just be my crappy memory :P
Most people DO suck, and are selfish, and assign themselves virtue where none is due. Failing to notice someone's appearance or personal attributes isn't a virtue.
I mean, what if a woman laughed and was like "Oh, LOL, you're a man? I didn't notice!"
Shift the context just a little, and people will take it as an insult. NOT NOTICING who people are isn't flattering, it isn't nice, it isn't post-racism. It's just being a dick, unless you authentically have brain damage or a disorder that makes it difficult for you to perceive physical attributes of individual people.
Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine. White men tend to be the worst, because they assume that thinking you're just like them is some kind of compliment, like "Oh, I didn't even notice you were brown or female" is supposed to make me feel GOOD about myself.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 03:48:25 PM
I mean, what if a woman laughed and was like "Oh, LOL, you're a man? I didn't notice!"
Shift the context just a little, and people will take it as an insult. NOT NOTICING who people are isn't flattering, it isn't nice, it isn't post-racism. It's just being a dick, unless you authentically have brain damage or a disorder that makes it difficult for you to perceive physical attributes of individual people.
I think I've mentioned before that my dad is horrifically racist.
He claims he's not because one of his best friends is Greek - and as he puts it, "You'd never know the guy is Greek unless you go to his house because he keeps all that stuff behind closed doors where it doesn't bother anybody! That's the good kind of immigration right there!"
The 'I don't see race' idea always reminds me of that. "You can have a different heritage so long as it doesn't
offend me, the mainstream majority, by being
obviously different."
Quote from: Demolition Squid on July 14, 2015, 03:53:42 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 03:48:25 PM
I mean, what if a woman laughed and was like "Oh, LOL, you're a man? I didn't notice!"
Shift the context just a little, and people will take it as an insult. NOT NOTICING who people are isn't flattering, it isn't nice, it isn't post-racism. It's just being a dick, unless you authentically have brain damage or a disorder that makes it difficult for you to perceive physical attributes of individual people.
I think I've mentioned before that my dad is horrifically racist.
He claims he's not because one of his best friends is Greek - and as he puts it, "You'd never know the guy is Greek unless you go to his house because he keeps all that stuff behind closed doors where it doesn't bother anybody! That's the good kind of immigration right there!"
The 'I don't see race' idea always reminds me of that. "You can have a different heritage so long as it doesn't offend me, the mainstream majority, by being obviously different."
Yep. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. "I'm so enlightened that I didn't even notice that you're different from me!" is not that far from "Your deviance is OK as long as I can't see it".
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=34741.msg1267082#msg1267082
(http://imageshack.us/a/img163/2576/racismmr.jpg)
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 03:48:25 PM
I mean, what if a woman laughed and was like "Oh, LOL, you're a man? I didn't notice!"
Shift the context just a little, and people will take it as an insult. NOT NOTICING who people are isn't flattering, it isn't nice, it isn't post-racism. It's just being a dick, unless you authentically have brain damage or a disorder that makes it difficult for you to perceive physical attributes of individual people.
I wouldn't be insulted by that.
I'm not saying I don't notice who people are, I'm saying I notice what people do sooner than I notice a haircut. Do not assume that my lack of interest in looks only extends to those looks that are different than mine, I don't give a fuck about my own looks either.
I have similar blocks regarding money, I don't notice the price of some rich asshole's clothes, I notice them acting like they are better than other people.
I don't have brain damage, I have self-built mental blocks that keep me from perceiving trivial attributes of people such as minor variations in looks.
People for whom superficial traits are so essential to their identity that they feel insulted if others aren't constantly noticing those traits are difficult for me to understand. Don't these people have hobbies?
Maybe this would help clarify:
If someone sees you sitting and reading, would you prefer a question about your thighs or about your book?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 03:51:37 PM
Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine. White men tend to be the worst, because they assume that thinking you're just like them is some kind of compliment, like "Oh, I didn't even notice you were brown or female" is supposed to make me feel GOOD about myself.
No need to apologize, I knew that beforehand.
Oh, relevant! I would notice
your skin and gender because it is a large part of your self-image. I would still care more about your study books and be more likely to remember titles of your books than the length of your hair a few days (or even minutes) later.
If that is generally considered offensive, I still won't change that part of me. I am an anti-social bibliophile and a boorish bastard.
Quote from: Reginald Ret on July 14, 2015, 06:28:10 PM
If someone sees you sitting and reading, would you prefer a question about your thighs or about your book?
Really classy brah.
Quote from: Don Coyote on July 14, 2015, 08:46:14 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on July 14, 2015, 06:28:10 PM
If someone sees you sitting and reading, would you prefer a question about your thighs hair or about your book?
Really classy brah.
Sorry, is it better like this?
Just LOOK at all that virtue you're assigning to yourself. And the flip side, the malignment of those terribly shallow people who don't have the virtue of not noticing people's appearance.
If someone sees me sitting there reading, I prefer that they notice that I'm reading and leave me the fuck alone. Why would YOU approach a stranger who is reading? I can tell you why I'm approached while I'm reading 99% of the time, and it isn't because they failed to notice my gender or appearance.
But please, continue to tell women and brown people why they're lame and shallow to find "I don't see gender" and "I don't see race" facile, disingenuous, and insulting.
But I'm so much better than you this way!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 14, 2015, 10:15:56 PM
But I'm so much better than you this way!
:lulz:
If everyone was more virtuous, like me, the world would be a better place! There wouldn't be any racism or sexism, because I just don't
see those things. I choose not to notice them.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 10:11:34 PM
If someone sees me sitting there reading, I prefer that they notice that I'm reading and leave me the fuck alone. Why would YOU approach a stranger who is reading? I can tell you why I'm approached while I'm reading 99% of the time, and it isn't because they failed to notice my gender or appearance.
Shhh. Now just sit there and let the men talk about the best way to notice and approach women.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 10:11:34 PM
If someone sees me sitting there reading, I prefer that they notice that I'm reading and leave me the fuck alone. Why would YOU approach a stranger who is reading? I can tell you why I'm approached while I'm reading 99% of the time, and it isn't because they failed to notice my gender or appearance.
But how else are alpha-males going to get laid if not by approaching women in totally inappropriate circumstances.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 10:11:34 PM
If someone sees me sitting there reading, I prefer that they notice that I'm reading and leave me the fuck alone. Why would YOU approach a stranger who is reading? I can tell you why I'm approached while I'm reading 99% of the time, and it isn't because they failed to notice my gender or appearance.
But how else are alpha-males going to get fodder for their blogs in which they sing their praises for complimenting the obviously available woman on her choice of reading material rather than her physical appearance, and simultaneously excoriate that same woman for being a rude, bitch who is full of herself and is actually just a fake nerd and ugly?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 04:12:56 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=34741.msg1267082#msg1267082
(http://imageshack.us/a/img163/2576/racismmr.jpg)
Isn't noting the prevalence of white people in Portland "seeing race"? Just because someone happens to be currently located in one of the more diverse areas like a Mississippi bar doesn't change the fact that the ratio of white people to minorities is surprisingly high in terms of the greater Metro area. Unless you live and work in Northeast and never run errands outside of a small area, it's quite noticeable.
I used to commute from Northeast to Tigard everyday so I'd see whiteys all day and then come home to a neighborhood full of different skin tones. That and having had just moved back from the East Bay at the time just made the segregated neighborhoods and prevalence of whiteness quite jarring so I commented on it a lot for a while.
But apparently I was betraying a fear of dark skin? I guess I'm having trouble seeing how complaining about Portland's inordinate amount of whiteness is an example of "not seeing race"? Is it only okay to discuss the unfortunate lack of diversity in Portland when you are currently in one of its white areas? I find it comforting to be in a fairly diverse city again because being surrounded by almost entirely one race is fairly creepy.
:?
Quote from: N E T on July 15, 2015, 12:11:59 AM
Isn't noting the prevalence of white people in Portland "seeing race"? Just because someone happens to be currently located in one of the more diverse areas like a Mississippi bar doesn't change the fact that the ratio of white people to minorities is surprisingly high in terms of the greater Metro area. Unless you live and work in Northeast and never run errands outside of a small area, it's quite noticeable.
I used to commute from Northeast to Tigard everyday so I'd see whiteys all day and then come home to a neighborhood full of different skin tones. That and having had just moved back from the East Bay at the time just made the segregated neighborhoods and prevalence of whiteness quite jarring so I commented on it a lot for a while.
But apparently I was betraying a fear of dark skin? I guess I'm having trouble seeing how complaining about Portland's inordinate amount of whiteness is an example of "not seeing race"? Is it only okay to discuss the unfortunate lack of diversity in Portland when you are currently in one of its white areas? I find it comforting to be in a fairly diverse city again because being surrounded by almost entirely one race is fairly creepy.
:?
What I wrote was specifically about the issue of rendering invisible those people of color who ARE present (@ 30% of Portland's population) by saying that they don't exist. The specific incident I refer to in that story occurred at Mississippi Pizza, and pretty much as always, when I looked around, there were a number of brown-skinned patrons; at least 1/3 of the people there were not white, including two of the servers. There is a reason that I specified that these comments, this disappearance, is troubling when it takes place in North and Northeast, in Portland's least white neighborhoods. The lack of black patrons in establishments in neighborhoods that were historically black and still have large black and brown populations... that's a whole other conversation about social segregation, exclusion, and gentrification.
It's sort of "seeing race" through a white filter, if you only notice the white ones. It's a more extreme, literal version of "not seeing color" when you just can't see the brown people. Yeah, Portland is about 70% white, and if you stick to certain neighborhoods you can (hypothetically, albeit unlikely in reality) go days without seeing a brown person. However, I think it might be worth noting that I never have, even though I have worked and lived in some of the whitest parts of town. If you're used to a much browner town, yes, Portland has a startlingly high percentage of white people. But anyone who is walking around and
literally not seeing the 1/3 of the population who isn't white is, by the odds, more likely to be operating under a filter that disappears brown people than actually in an environment devoid of blacks, native north and south americans, and asians.
Tigard is only 15% non-white, so, yeah, that's a lot whiter. But also, it is not Portland. Because it is Tigard. Which is literally a different city from Portland.
Quote from: Don Coyote on July 14, 2015, 10:56:23 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 10:11:34 PM
If someone sees me sitting there reading, I prefer that they notice that I'm reading and leave me the fuck alone. Why would YOU approach a stranger who is reading? I can tell you why I'm approached while I'm reading 99% of the time, and it isn't because they failed to notice my gender or appearance.
Shhh. Now just sit there and let the men talk about the best way to notice and approach women.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 10:11:34 PM
If someone sees me sitting there reading, I prefer that they notice that I'm reading and leave me the fuck alone. Why would YOU approach a stranger who is reading? I can tell you why I'm approached while I'm reading 99% of the time, and it isn't because they failed to notice my gender or appearance.
But how else are alpha-males going to get laid if not by approaching women in totally inappropriate circumstances.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 10:11:34 PM
If someone sees me sitting there reading, I prefer that they notice that I'm reading and leave me the fuck alone. Why would YOU approach a stranger who is reading? I can tell you why I'm approached while I'm reading 99% of the time, and it isn't because they failed to notice my gender or appearance.
But how else are alpha-males going to get fodder for their blogs in which they sing their praises for complimenting the obviously available woman on her choice of reading material rather than her physical appearance, and simultaneously excoriate that same woman for being a rude, bitch who is full of herself and is actually just a fake nerd and ugly?
:lulz:
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 10:09:41 PM
Just LOOK at all that virtue you're assigning to yourself. And the flip side, the malignment of those terribly shallow people who don't have the virtue of not noticing people's appearance.
I'm quite aware that I am a bad person, I just don't think that my attempts to not judge by appearance is one of the reasons.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 10:11:34 PM
If someone sees me sitting there reading, I prefer that they notice that I'm reading and leave me the fuck alone. Why would YOU approach a stranger who is reading? I can tell you why I'm approached while I'm reading 99% of the time, and it isn't because they failed to notice my gender or appearance.
I would want to be left alone as well so I wouldn't approach reading people.
If most approaches while you are reading happen because they assign greater value to your looks than to your book and that annoys you, that means you would prefer people to notice your book? Are you saying that books are more important than looks? Because that would be nice but it doesn't fit the general tone of your other posts.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 10:12:24 PM
But please, continue to tell women and brown people why they're lame and shallow to find "I don't see gender" and "I don't see race" facile, disingenuous, and insulting.
Isn't assigning a large value to superficial traits like skin color the definition of shallow?
I'm telling people who assign a large value to superficial traits that they are shallow. That usually hits bigots harder than brown women.
I see skin color just fine, I just don't assign it a large value.
I get the impression we are not fighting on the same battleground, I'm trying to tell you that broad-brush superficial categories don't matter to me and that I hope many other people think that way as well.
You are trying to tell me I am lying because other people tend to lie about that. OK, so you don't believe me. I can accept that. Just don't expect me to be quiet when you call me a liar.
My last attempt at clarifying what I mean:
I think superficial and trivial should have a large overlap so I try to shape my thought processes to make that true.
Ret: if you're trying to say you notice traits like race and gender, but make a conscious effort to avoid judging people based on those traits, you probably don't want to express that by saying you "don't notice" those traits.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on July 15, 2015, 03:27:36 PM
Ret: if you're trying to say you notice traits like race and gender, but make a conscious effort to avoid judging people based on those traits, you probably don't want to express that by saying you "don't notice" those traits.
That is a good idea.
Thats why I didn't say that.
The closest I came to saying something even vaguely similar was:
Quote from: Reginald Ret on July 14, 2015, 09:57:05 AM
Good people notice and remember actions better than looks.
I hope that didn't cause all this fighting because now that I reread that it doesn't read like a proper sentence. Noticing is a yes/no affair, so there is no better.
I apologize for putting up that windmill for people to attack with my badly constructed sentence.
If you would allow me to rephrase:
Good people assign a greater value to your actions than your looks when they judge you.
So that when they start forgetting details of the time they met you(forgetting is unavoidable afaik) they will forget the tilt of your nose before they forget that you rescued a bee from drowning. Unless they think your nose is exceptional in some way and/or they really don't care about bees.
Of course, both ctrl-F and my memory could have failed me, so please point out anywhere in this thread where i said i didn't see race or gender. I'm pretty sure I qualified every one of my statements though.
Id say than in general the more sensible option is hyperawareness rather than blindness...
blindness to a trait is treated as innocence by purists but 90% of the time in real life its just callouness.
ill rephrase later if no sense it makes im waking up
Quote from: Reginald Ret on July 15, 2015, 11:32:26 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 10:09:41 PM
Just LOOK at all that virtue you're assigning to yourself. And the flip side, the malignment of those terribly shallow people who don't have the virtue of not noticing people's appearance.
I'm quite aware that I am a bad person, I just don't think that my attempts to not judge by appearance is one of the reasons.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 10:11:34 PM
If someone sees me sitting there reading, I prefer that they notice that I'm reading and leave me the fuck alone. Why would YOU approach a stranger who is reading? I can tell you why I'm approached while I'm reading 99% of the time, and it isn't because they failed to notice my gender or appearance.
I would want to be left alone as well so I wouldn't approach reading people.
If most approaches while you are reading happen because they assign greater value to your looks than to your book and that annoys you, that means you would prefer people to notice your book? Are you saying that books are more important than looks? Because that would be nice but it doesn't fit the general tone of your other posts.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 10:12:24 PM
But please, continue to tell women and brown people why they're lame and shallow to find "I don't see gender" and "I don't see race" facile, disingenuous, and insulting.
Isn't assigning a large value to superficial traits like skin color the definition of shallow?
I'm telling people who assign a large value to superficial traits that they are shallow. That usually hits bigots harder than brown women.
I see skin color just fine, I just don't assign it a large value.
I get the impression we are not fighting on the same battleground, I'm trying to tell you that broad-brush superficial categories don't matter to me and that I hope many other people think that way as well.
You are trying to tell me I am lying because other people tend to lie about that. OK, so you don't believe me. I can accept that. Just don't expect me to be quiet when you call me a liar.
My last attempt at clarifying what I mean:
I think superficial and trivial should have a large overlap so I try to shape my thought processes to make that true.
I think that you are doing the kind of hand-waving dismissal of the experience of being black or female as "shallow and trivial" that only people who do not possess or wish to have to think about nonwhite nonmale physical traits can do. It's only possible to do when they don't have traits that not only put them in a minority, but also significantly shape their experience of existence.
It is far easier to dismiss someone's racial, cultural, or gender experience as trivial and worthy only of being ignored (if you are a good person, that is) than it is to recognize and value it for what it is.
Some people have conditions... well, conditions is probably the wrong word. Let us call them "unique variations of normal" that make it so they literally find it difficult to notice what people look like. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it's not some virtue that makes them "less shallow" than someone who is highly visually observant. Observing and recognizing physical differences isn't shallow, nor is it shallow to form a sense of identity that incorporates those physical attributes; assigning relative values to physical appearance is.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 15, 2015, 07:03:05 PM
Id say than in general the more sensible option is hyperawareness rather than blindness...
blindness to a trait is treated as innocence by purists but 90% of the time in real life its just callouness.
ill rephrase later if no sense it makes im waking up
It makes perfect sense.
I used to think that being "color-blind" was the moral course for dealing with race, gender, etc. Nigel and Garbo
1 set me straight on that, with some help from LMNO and a few others.
It was made clear to me that people
are different. And that this okay. Not better or worse, just different.
1 This was, obviously, pre-tumblr Garbo, whom I miss terribly.
In fact, to say otherwise is to trivialize people and the things they go through. No matter who they are.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 16, 2015, 03:26:38 AM
In fact, to say otherwise is to trivialize people and the things they go through. No matter who they are.
Yep.
For example, you and my housemate are big white guys, and because of that, various types of assholes tend to single you out for their insecurity-fueled cockerel-strutting bar challenges. Were my response to that to be "Oh, you're big and white and intimidating-looking? I hadn't noticed, I don't see trivial things like that. How shallow of people to respond to you based on an inconsequential aspect of your appearance", I would be effectively totally dismissing your actual, lived experience of going through life with a physical appearance that elicits certain treatment and responses from people. Is it shallow of them? I don't know about that... you actually ARE physically large and potentially intimidating, just as I actually AM small and brown and have a uterus. It's all very well and good to say that people shouldn't treat us differently or that social status and opportunities shouldn't be based on these superficial traits, but we are living in the world as it is, not as it should be, and we are having the experiences that we do.
Furthermore, I don't think a valid argument can be made for value or enlightenment in ignoring a person's physical attributes. They may not be the most important thing about them, but they aren't completely inconsequential, either. Ignoring them seems to me to be essentially an intellectually lazy means of avoidance; it certainly doesn't fly in biomedical research, where those "trivial" physical differences may betray important medical considerations that should not be ignored. Vision is a sense that relays information about the physical world to our brains.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 16, 2015, 03:25:22 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 15, 2015, 07:03:05 PM
Id say than in general the more sensible option is hyperawareness rather than blindness...
blindness to a trait is treated as innocence by purists but 90% of the time in real life its just callouness.
ill rephrase later if no sense it makes im waking up
It makes perfect sense.
I used to think that being "color-blind" was the moral course for dealing with race, gender, etc. Nigel and Garbo1 set me straight on that, with some help from LMNO and a few others.
It was made clear to me that people are different. And that this okay. Not better or worse, just different.
1 This was, obviously, pre-tumblr Garbo, whom I miss terribly.
Yah like, i have quite a diverse group of aquaintances and friends, and given that each has its own language registry, humour and special characteristics, not everything flies with everyone.
I really dont want to offend anyone, but for example, when im playing videogames versus a friend, we have moments in which we devolve to call each others variations of pig or homosexual, because, even though its politically insensitive and incorrect in other contexts or in front of other people, used exclusively against each other is for the sole purpose of jabbing at each other with a clear message conveyed...
now, i also have obese friends, so i would never in the world mention pig or anything that could offend them because it might (or might not) be offended or sensitive about it...
im also friends with a lesbian couple, so i would completely avoid any slur or trigger word around them...
or idk, i also have friends with suicidal tendencies, so saying a phrase after a hard day or a long week something like "omg im gonna kill myself, this week was horrible" is also out of the question.
TL;DR being hyper-aware of the differences and vulnerabilities of someone allows us to be emphatic and avoid hurtful comments and actions.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 16, 2015, 07:59:00 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 16, 2015, 03:25:22 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 15, 2015, 07:03:05 PM
Id say than in general the more sensible option is hyperawareness rather than blindness...
blindness to a trait is treated as innocence by purists but 90% of the time in real life its just callouness.
ill rephrase later if no sense it makes im waking up
It makes perfect sense.
I used to think that being "color-blind" was the moral course for dealing with race, gender, etc. Nigel and Garbo1 set me straight on that, with some help from LMNO and a few others.
It was made clear to me that people are different. And that this okay. Not better or worse, just different.
1 This was, obviously, pre-tumblr Garbo, whom I miss terribly.
Yah like, i have quite a diverse group of aquaintances and friends, and given that each has its own language registry, humour and special characteristics, not everything flies with everyone.
I really dont want to offend anyone, but for example, when im playing videogames versus a friend, we have moments in which we devolve to call each others variations of pig or homosexual, because, even though its politically insensitive and incorrect in other contexts or in front of other people, used exclusively against each other is for the sole purpose of jabbing at each other with a clear message conveyed...
now, i also have obese friends, so i would never in the world mention pig or anything that could offend them because it might (or might not) be offended or sensitive about it...
im also friends with a lesbian couple, so i would completely avoid any slur or trigger word around them...
or idk, i also have friends with suicidal tendencies, so saying a phrase after a hard day or a long week something like "omg im gonna kill myself, this week was horrible" is also out of the question.
TL;DR being hyper-aware of the differences and vulnerabilities of someone allows us to be emphatic and avoid hurtful comments and actions.
Very well-conveyed, Johnny.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 16, 2015, 05:57:36 AM
It's all very well and good to say that people shouldn't treat us differently or that social status and opportunities shouldn't be based on these superficial traits, but we are living in the world as it is, not as it should be, and we are having the experiences that we do.
Exactly.
On top of that, even if the world were fair, why not
enjoy the differences around you?
I spent the first 11 years of my life surrounded by people with almost identical appearances. Everyone was Scots/Irish. I am not joking when I say that as a small child, I thought Black and Hispanic people were make believe, because I only ever saw them on Sesame Street (which also gave me some interesting expectations, years later). I can't describe how dreary that is...By which I mean, there was only one culture, and nothing local was feeding into it. It was a culture that had only three meaningful interruptions in two centuries (WWI, WWII, the advent of television).
Just moving from Newfoundland to Ontario was a hell of a step up. Moving to the states was like moving to another world.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 16, 2015, 07:33:02 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 16, 2015, 05:57:36 AM
It's all very well and good to say that people shouldn't treat us differently or that social status and opportunities shouldn't be based on these superficial traits, but we are living in the world as it is, not as it should be, and we are having the experiences that we do.
Exactly.
On top of that, even if the world were fair, why not enjoy the differences around you?
I spent the first 11 years of my life surrounded by people with almost identical appearances. Everyone was Scots/Irish. I am not joking when I say that as a small child, I thought Black and Hispanic people were make believe, because I only ever saw them on Sesame Street (which also gave me some interesting expectations, years later). I can't describe how dreary that is...By which I mean, there was only one culture, and nothing local was feeding into it. It was a culture that had only three meaningful interruptions in two centuries (WWI, WWII, the advent of television).
Just moving from Newfoundland to Ontario was a hell of a step up. Moving to the states was like moving to another world.
Totally! I mean, one of the reasons I like white guys is the skin-in-skin contrast, which is also true of guys who are much darker than I am. Looking around and seeing a lot of people who look different is visually appealing. It's pretty. If appreciating that makes me shallow, then I guess I'm shallow.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 16, 2015, 10:48:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 16, 2015, 07:33:02 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 16, 2015, 05:57:36 AM
It's all very well and good to say that people shouldn't treat us differently or that social status and opportunities shouldn't be based on these superficial traits, but we are living in the world as it is, not as it should be, and we are having the experiences that we do.
Exactly.
On top of that, even if the world were fair, why not enjoy the differences around you?
I spent the first 11 years of my life surrounded by people with almost identical appearances. Everyone was Scots/Irish. I am not joking when I say that as a small child, I thought Black and Hispanic people were make believe, because I only ever saw them on Sesame Street (which also gave me some interesting expectations, years later). I can't describe how dreary that is...By which I mean, there was only one culture, and nothing local was feeding into it. It was a culture that had only three meaningful interruptions in two centuries (WWI, WWII, the advent of television).
Just moving from Newfoundland to Ontario was a hell of a step up. Moving to the states was like moving to another world.
Totally! I mean, one of the reasons I like white guys is the skin-in-skin contrast, which is also true of guys who are much darker than I am. Looking around and seeing a lot of people who look different is visually appealing. It's pretty. If appreciating that makes me shallow, then I guess I'm shallow.
Well ive heard stories that being attracted to "exotic people" (read: those different than yourself) has some basis on seeking to enrich the gene pool and explains why foreigners are more attractive when they are indeed foreigners than how attractive they were at their homeland. But this is pseudo-biology im talking about.
So besides the hypothetical gene enrichment, theres the cultural and intellectual enrichment... ive been to a lot of places with a lot of people, and after a while you start seeing how customs and ideas are just stupid inertia most of the time, opening a whole new perspective on things.
Right so this was really bothering me for a bit and i thought i'd get this off my chest. I recently had to talk to my dad about this joke he used to make. It would always really bother me and i'm wondering if there might be some racial undertones to it or if i'm being overly sensitive. My dad used to joke that i am "the mailman's son" because i tend to favor my mom's side of the family in terms of looks. My dads side of the family are what you would call Californios- Mexicans that have typically european features, short with dark wavy hair, green eyes, pale skin. My mom's family, with the exception of my mom, look like Indios,- Mexicans with more Native features. All of my uncles are taller, with very curly hair, dark skin, and brown eyes.
This joke wouldnt cut so deep except that my dad has a deep, abiding hate for my mom's family, and if you talk to him for an extended period of time he'll eventually get to his screed about why my mother's family is a bunch of liars cheaters and thieves. So because I, between me and my sisters, look the most like my moms family, it is often said in my family that i am genetically only 25% Alonzo, and my sisters are 50% and 75% Alonzo respectively(cuz you know, genes have surnames, right?) and so between that and the mailman thing, it feels like my dad is saying i'm a lying cheating piece of shit that is probably not his son anyway. All the while, this si a man who paid for my college, lets me live rent-free, and pays me to do odd jobs around the house. When i confronted him about it, he initially laughed it off, but he seems to have dropped that particualr gem from his Dad Joke repetoire. Am i nuts for reading a racial thing into this?
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on August 04, 2015, 07:49:43 AM
Right so this was really bothering me for a bit and i thought i'd get this off my chest. I recently had to talk to my dad about this joke he used to make. It would always really bother me and i'm wondering if there might be some racial undertones to it or if i'm being overly sensitive. My dad used to joke that i am "the mailman's son" because i tend to favor my mom's side of the family in terms of looks. My dads side of the family are what you would call Californios- Mexicans that have typically european features, short with dark wavy hair, green eyes, pale skin. My mom's family, with the exception of my mom, look like Indios,- Mexicans with more Native features. All of my uncles are taller, with very curly hair, dark skin, and brown eyes.
This joke wouldnt cut so deep except that my dad has a deep, abiding hate for my mom's family, and if you talk to him for an extended period of time he'll eventually get to his screed about why my mother's family is a bunch of liars cheaters and thieves. So because I, between me and my sisters, look the most like my moms family, it is often said in my family that i am genetically only 25% Alonzo, and my sisters are 50% and 75% Alonzo respectively(cuz you know, genes have surnames, right?) and so between that and the mailman thing, it feels like my dad is saying i'm a lying cheating piece of shit that is probably not his son anyway. All the while, this si a man who paid for my college, lets me live rent-free, and pays me to do odd jobs around the house. When i confronted him about it, he initially laughed it off, but he seems to have dropped that particualr gem from his Dad Joke repetoire. Am i nuts for reading a racial thing into this?
No, not nuts. Sometimes people are carrying prejudices they don't realize they have, and it sounds like that is probably the case with your dad.
It sounds like he really cares about you, and even if he does have some prejudices and he hasn't realised why it bothers you, he cares about you enough not to make the joke any more.
yea, one of the things it took me a long time to accept about my dad is that he only knows how to show love by being a prick. So yea, hes an asshole, but he's MY asshole.
SO i had a long discussion with a feminist friend of mine, where she explained something to me that i'd only ever had yelled at me incoherently: SJW discussion etiquette. The rule, i have been told is that the group should moderate who gets to contribute the most to any discussion about a social justice issue by who is most or least privileged in a given discussion group. The people who are the most privileged are assumed to have the least to contribute to the discussion and are encouraged to sit back and take in the experiences of those who are. So, in a discussion of abortion , for example, a woman would be assumed to have more to say on the subject than a man, or an immigrant would be assumed to have more to say than non-immigrants in a debate on immigration policy. I get the sentiment behind this, allowing for marginalized groups to share their experiences more readily. But then i remember that humans are basically chimps, and so I see this resulting in hierarchy and a game of oneupsmanship and social status seeking within the group which leads to resentment and table-flipping as people get frustrated with the rules of who can speak about what and when. What do you guys think? Am i missing something here?
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on August 18, 2015, 08:52:47 AMBut then i remember that humans are basically chimps, and so I see this resulting in hierarchy and a game of oneupsmanship and social status seeking within the group which leads to resentment and table-flipping as people get frustrated with the rules of who can speak about what and when. What do you guys think? Am i missing something here?
That's my take. Whilst the reason may seem logical on the surface, it's actually bullshit masquerading as an excuse to crowbar in some monkey status.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 18, 2015, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on August 18, 2015, 08:52:47 AMBut then i remember that humans are basically chimps, and so I see this resulting in hierarchy and a game of oneupsmanship and social status seeking within the group which leads to resentment and table-flipping as people get frustrated with the rules of who can speak about what and when. What do you guys think? Am i missing something here?
That's my take. Whilst the reason may seem logical on the surface, it's actually bullshit masquerading as an excuse to crowbar in some monkey status.
Yeah, I've seen it get taken to some pretty bullshit extremes. I've been told to my face before that I don't have the right to think critically about certain subjects, like colourism because I'm not black, or otherkin because I'm not trans(I didn't think those were the same thing, but the more you know, I guess). I asked for clarification a few times, and yes, it turns out that I didn't mishear her and she meant exactly what she said. I couldn't wrap my head around it.
I can understand that I'm probably less informed on those subjects than someone who has to deal with them in their daily life, and I should therefore probably defer to them instead of jumping in half-cocked and acting on assumptions, but I was also told that I shouldn't ask people any questions, and that instead I should show up to discussions having read the correct blogs ahead of time and decided on an opinion someone else had arrived on. This too is no exaggeration.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 18, 2015, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on August 18, 2015, 08:52:47 AMBut then i remember that humans are basically chimps, and so I see this resulting in hierarchy and a game of oneupsmanship and social status seeking within the group which leads to resentment and table-flipping as people get frustrated with the rules of who can speak about what and when. What do you guys think? Am i missing something here?
That's my take. Whilst the reason may seem logical on the surface, it's actually bullshit masquerading as an excuse to crowbar in some monkey status.
Or it's both logical and necessary
and inevitably leads to idiot monkey status things.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 18, 2015, 03:40:54 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 18, 2015, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on August 18, 2015, 08:52:47 AMBut then i remember that humans are basically chimps, and so I see this resulting in hierarchy and a game of oneupsmanship and social status seeking within the group which leads to resentment and table-flipping as people get frustrated with the rules of who can speak about what and when. What do you guys think? Am i missing something here?
That's my take. Whilst the reason may seem logical on the surface, it's actually bullshit masquerading as an excuse to crowbar in some monkey status.
Or it's both logical and necessary and inevitably leads to idiot monkey status things.
Eliminating a mind from a discussion is neither logical or necessary. It's retarded primate posturing all the way down.
If the discussion is on a subject where the less privileged has more direct experience, I agree whole-heartedly, because there's more direct knowledge there. Much in the same way that I would allow a professor of particle physics to lead a conversation about quarks, but I would let a neurobiologist lead a conversation about dendrites. Let the people who know, talk.
However,
Quote from: President Television on August 18, 2015, 03:34:26 PM
I was also told that I shouldn't ask people any questions, and that instead I should show up to discussions having read the correct blogs ahead of time and decided on an opinion someone else had arrived on. This too is no exaggeration.
That's not a discussion. That's social signaling, and fart-huffing.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 18, 2015, 05:31:08 PM
If the discussion is on a subject where the less privileged has more direct experience, I agree whole-heartedly, because there's more direct knowledge there. Much in the same way that I would allow a professor of particle physics to lead a conversation about quarks, but I would let a neurobiologist lead a conversation about dendrites. Let the people who know, talk.
However,
Quote from: President Television on August 18, 2015, 03:34:26 PM
I was also told that I shouldn't ask people any questions, and that instead I should show up to discussions having read the correct blogs ahead of time and decided on an opinion someone else had arrived on. This too is no exaggeration.
That's not a discussion. That's social signaling, and fart-huffing.
Yeah, and I agree with your position there. But I wasn't paraphrasing when I said I was told I didn't have the right to think critically. When you talk to said professor, you're allowed to make guesses and cobble together clumsy analogies, and the professor will tell you which things you're right about and which you're wrong about, and in which sense, rather than telling you it was forbidden to do so in the first place. A professor of particle physics will try to stimulate your thought process. This particular individual(though not necessarily representative of anyone else) openly stated her intention to stifle it. It's depressing as hell.
That would seem to be a group to walk away from.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 18, 2015, 03:40:54 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 18, 2015, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on August 18, 2015, 08:52:47 AMBut then i remember that humans are basically chimps, and so I see this resulting in hierarchy and a game of oneupsmanship and social status seeking within the group which leads to resentment and table-flipping as people get frustrated with the rules of who can speak about what and when. What do you guys think? Am i missing something here?
That's my take. Whilst the reason may seem logical on the surface, it's actually bullshit masquerading as an excuse to crowbar in some monkey status.
Or it's both logical and necessary and inevitably leads to idiot monkey status things.
Bingo.
The whole reason that approach has come about is because the most privileged have a tendency to dominate the conversation with their opinions.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 18, 2015, 05:14:40 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 18, 2015, 03:40:54 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 18, 2015, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on August 18, 2015, 08:52:47 AMBut then i remember that humans are basically chimps, and so I see this resulting in hierarchy and a game of oneupsmanship and social status seeking within the group which leads to resentment and table-flipping as people get frustrated with the rules of who can speak about what and when. What do you guys think? Am i missing something here?
That's my take. Whilst the reason may seem logical on the surface, it's actually bullshit masquerading as an excuse to crowbar in some monkey status.
Or it's both logical and necessary and inevitably leads to idiot monkey status things.
Eliminating a mind from a discussion is neither logical or necessary. It's retarded primate posturing all the way down.
This is a prime example of what I mean.
You fail to see the reason those who are most affected by a situation should be given the space to lead the discussion about it, so you dismiss it as "retarded primate posturing".
Quote from: President Television on August 18, 2015, 05:43:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 18, 2015, 05:31:08 PM
If the discussion is on a subject where the less privileged has more direct experience, I agree whole-heartedly, because there's more direct knowledge there. Much in the same way that I would allow a professor of particle physics to lead a conversation about quarks, but I would let a neurobiologist lead a conversation about dendrites. Let the people who know, talk.
However,
Quote from: President Television on August 18, 2015, 03:34:26 PM
I was also told that I shouldn't ask people any questions, and that instead I should show up to discussions having read the correct blogs ahead of time and decided on an opinion someone else had arrived on. This too is no exaggeration.
That's not a discussion. That's social signaling, and fart-huffing.
Yeah, and I agree with your position there. But I wasn't paraphrasing when I said I was told I didn't have the right to think critically. When you talk to said professor, you're allowed to make guesses and cobble together clumsy analogies, and the professor will tell you which things you're right about and which you're wrong about, and in which sense, rather than telling you it was forbidden to do so in the first place. A professor of particle physics will try to stimulate your thought process. This particular individual(though not necessarily representative of anyone else) openly stated her intention to stifle it. It's depressing as hell.
The answer is that she is a control-freaky jerk. The world is full of them.
well, also does one make allowances for expertise? Like, how much would say a white professor of African Studies with a history of social activism get to say on the topic of black civil rights, compared to say a black teenager who has much day to day experience with racism but has no idea how to lead a social movement? There seems to be an assumption that based on ones race or gender that the people in the group already know what the speaker is going to contribute to the group and have already decided that it is inherently of less value than something another person might say.
I think I'm gonna hand the expertise on the subject of race over to the people with the most day-to-day experience with it.
Would you prefer to have a high rise building's tabs (the metal hangers that are used to hold the concrete slabs in place) inspected by a welder with 20 years experience, or an engineering professor with zero time in the field?
Quote from: President Television on August 18, 2015, 05:43:29 PM
This particular individual(though not necessarily representative of anyone else) openly stated her intention to stifle it. It's depressing as hell.
What you have there is tumblr, Sanders groupies, and my mom.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 18, 2015, 07:32:26 PM
I think I'm gonna hand the expertise on the subject of race over to the people with the most day-to-day experience with it.
Would you prefer to have a high rise building's tabs (the metal hangers that are used to hold the concrete slabs in place) inspected by a welder with 20 years experience, or an engineering professor with zero time in the field?
And this would also be the
perfect time for questions -- specifically, the white professor asking questions of the black teens.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 18, 2015, 07:34:02 PM
Quote from: President Television on August 18, 2015, 05:43:29 PM
This particular individual(though not necessarily representative of anyone else) openly stated her intention to stifle it. It's depressing as hell.
What you have there is tumblr, Sanders groupies, and my mom.
You bring up Tumblr, do you think that the medium in which these discussions happen matter? does this method just not work on the internet, since people feel less inhibited to be assholes there?
From what I hear, it's happening in some colleges, as well.
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on August 18, 2015, 07:40:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 18, 2015, 07:34:02 PM
Quote from: President Television on August 18, 2015, 05:43:29 PM
This particular individual(though not necessarily representative of anyone else) openly stated her intention to stifle it. It's depressing as hell.
What you have there is tumblr, Sanders groupies, and my mom.
You bring up Tumblr, do you think that the medium in which these discussions happen matter? does this method just not work on the internet, since people feel less inhibited to be assholes there?
The fart blanket occurs at any time in which only one opinion can be expressed. It is best described by tumblr, upon which only comments allowed by the blog owner see daylight. Any time that occurs, IRL, internet, whatever, it becomes a downward spiral of extremism.
For non-SJW types doing this, go to a Sanders page on FB and express any sort of opinion that doesn't involve Sanders sweeping the nation in both the primary and the general election.
Wear a hard hat.
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on August 18, 2015, 07:40:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 18, 2015, 07:34:02 PM
Quote from: President Television on August 18, 2015, 05:43:29 PM
This particular individual(though not necessarily representative of anyone else) openly stated her intention to stifle it. It's depressing as hell.
What you have there is tumblr, Sanders groupies, and my mom.
You bring up Tumblr, do you think that the medium in which these discussions happen matter? does this method just not work on the internet, since people feel less inhibited to be assholes there?
I'm not sure I'm reading you right, but people absolutely tend towards assholism and extremism online, far more so than IRL.
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on August 18, 2015, 07:16:01 PM
well, also does one make allowances for expertise? Like, how much would say a white professor of African Studies with a history of social activism get to say on the topic of black civil rights, compared to say a black teenager who has much day to day experience with racism but has no idea how to lead a social movement? There seems to be an assumption that based on ones race or gender that the people in the group already know what the speaker is going to contribute to the group and have already decided that it is inherently of less value than something another person might say.
Everything is context dependent. It sounds like it might just be a shitty group full of immature people.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 18, 2015, 07:38:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 18, 2015, 07:32:26 PM
I think I'm gonna hand the expertise on the subject of race over to the people with the most day-to-day experience with it.
Would you prefer to have a high rise building's tabs (the metal hangers that are used to hold the concrete slabs in place) inspected by a welder with 20 years experience, or an engineering professor with zero time in the field?
And this would also be the perfect time for questions -- specifically, the white professor asking questions of the black teens.
I would hope that a white professor of Black studies would have the depth of knowledge to understand when he is not an appropriate leader. The white expert on black culture might have some valuable contributions to a black civil rights movement, but he couldn't lead it effectively. He could make suggestions, but no matter how much he had studied, it would be terribly paternalistic for him to try to lead. "Hey black people, just do what I say and I will lead you out of white oppression".
That sounds very similar to a lot of BLM complaints about Sanders when he says, "trust me, racism is an economic issue."
Quote from: Cain on August 18, 2015, 08:19:56 PM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on August 18, 2015, 07:40:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 18, 2015, 07:34:02 PM
Quote from: President Television on August 18, 2015, 05:43:29 PM
This particular individual(though not necessarily representative of anyone else) openly stated her intention to stifle it. It's depressing as hell.
What you have there is tumblr, Sanders groupies, and my mom.
You bring up Tumblr, do you think that the medium in which these discussions happen matter? does this method just not work on the internet, since people feel less inhibited to be assholes there?
I'm not sure I'm reading you right, but people absolutely tend towards assholism and extremism online, far more so than IRL.
I guess i meant to ask, would this method work better IRL, since I've only seen it used on tumblr to start flamewars.
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on August 18, 2015, 08:50:56 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 18, 2015, 08:19:56 PM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on August 18, 2015, 07:40:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 18, 2015, 07:34:02 PM
Quote from: President Television on August 18, 2015, 05:43:29 PM
This particular individual(though not necessarily representative of anyone else) openly stated her intention to stifle it. It's depressing as hell.
What you have there is tumblr, Sanders groupies, and my mom.
You bring up Tumblr, do you think that the medium in which these discussions happen matter? does this method just not work on the internet, since people feel less inhibited to be assholes there?
I'm not sure I'm reading you right, but people absolutely tend towards assholism and extremism online, far more so than IRL.
I guess i meant to ask, would this method work better IRL, since I've only seen it used on tumblr to start flamewars.
You can't really talk to extremists. It's what makes them extremists.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 18, 2015, 08:33:18 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 18, 2015, 07:38:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 18, 2015, 07:32:26 PM
I think I'm gonna hand the expertise on the subject of race over to the people with the most day-to-day experience with it.
Would you prefer to have a high rise building's tabs (the metal hangers that are used to hold the concrete slabs in place) inspected by a welder with 20 years experience, or an engineering professor with zero time in the field?
And this would also be the perfect time for questions -- specifically, the white professor asking questions of the black teens.
I would hope that a white professor of Black studies would have the depth of knowledge to understand when he is not an appropriate leader. The white expert on black culture might have some valuable contributions to a black civil rights movement, but he couldn't lead it effectively. He could make suggestions, but no matter how much he had studied, it would be terribly paternalistic for him to try to lead. "Hey black people, just do what I say and I will lead you out of white oppression".
so basically the professor would need to be less Arthur, more Merlin.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 18, 2015, 07:44:32 PM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on August 18, 2015, 07:40:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 18, 2015, 07:34:02 PM
Quote from: President Television on August 18, 2015, 05:43:29 PM
This particular individual(though not necessarily representative of anyone else) openly stated her intention to stifle it. It's depressing as hell.
What you have there is tumblr, Sanders groupies, and my mom.
You bring up Tumblr, do you think that the medium in which these discussions happen matter? does this method just not work on the internet, since people feel less inhibited to be assholes there?
The fart blanket occurs at any time in which only one opinion can be expressed. It is best described by tumblr, upon which only comments allowed by the blog owner see daylight. Any time that occurs, IRL, internet, whatever, it becomes a downward spiral of extremism.
For non-SJW types doing this, go to a Sanders page on FB and express any sort of opinion that doesn't involve Sanders sweeping the nation in both the primary and the general election.
Wear a hard hat.
I'm going to have to disagree with your assertion that only comments allowed by the blog owner will see daylight. Tumblr isn't set up that. Once a post is made on Tumblr anyone who reblogs that post can make whatever comments they want, and can currently edit the text of the original and any other reblogged comments. It's a fart blanket because it's easy for anyone who doesn't make the original post to only see comments made by blogs they follow, or those comments that are being targeted for a call-out.
Tumblr is like Twitter but with no character limit.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 18, 2015, 08:38:51 PM
That sounds very similar to a lot of BLM complaints about Sanders when he says, "trust me, racism is an economic issue."
Yes, very much.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 18, 2015, 08:26:28 PM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on August 18, 2015, 07:16:01 PM
well, also does one make allowances for expertise? Like, how much would say a white professor of African Studies with a history of social activism get to say on the topic of black civil rights, compared to say a black teenager who has much day to day experience with racism but has no idea how to lead a social movement? There seems to be an assumption that based on ones race or gender that the people in the group already know what the speaker is going to contribute to the group and have already decided that it is inherently of less value than something another person might say.
Everything is context dependent. It sounds like it might just be a shitty group full of immature people.
This reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIvwupbScpM
see, i've been thinking about this and this is what bothers me, is that, this sort of rule about who can speak most makes the exercise into a sort of social game where everyone is fighting to be the least privileged person in the discussion because we're still monkeys and love being the top monkey most of all. Or, failing that, they will make up things to be victimized for (see Otherkin, Fictives) because hey, social status right?
but at the same time, I don't really see another alternative. Old school Socratic discourse maybe, but i don't see that catching on. Ideally i just wish that instead of a hard and fast rule that can be used as a cudgel to shut up people you don't agree with, there was just a general understanding that discussions like this are like visiting a foreign country. You go to France or where ever to absorb a new kind of cultural experience, so it's best to sit back and absorb it as much as you can. Drink the wine taste the food, and for gods sake, don't go on about how in America, the pasta is deep fried and comes with unlimited breadsticks.
I wish people could talk to each other like that, without being assholes, but then again i also wish for unicorns to piss rainbows and for everything to taste like chocolate, soo......
Man, if only there was a internet forum where you we're only judged off what you posted, with no prior prejudices from race, gender, past, etc.
Oh wait, there is, and it's a shit hole.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 11, 2015, 01:29:05 AM
Article 5 Freedom from ... Degrading Treatment
I would tweak this one. It is sufficient for the amount of degrading treatment to be equal for all; that it be specifically
zero for all is unnecessarily specific and probably conducive to narcissism.
BUMP: http://www.dailydot.com/geek/steven-universe-fanartist-bullied-controversy/
Quote
Steven Universe is a beloved animated children's show known for its smart and progressive depictions of its diverse and lovable cast of characters.
But these positive qualities in the show itself have led to a very ugly turn of events in the Steven Universe fandom, after a beleaguered fanartist said she attempted suicide after being bullied by members of the fandom who felt her art was problematic. In a bizarre turn of events prompted by the ensuing debate over what kinds of fanart are acceptable, some fans have now turned even against the show's creative team, including show creator Rebecca Sugar.
It all started last week when a fanartist going by the name Zamii caused a scare on Tumblr when she posted an apparent final note to her Tumblr, then disappeared for three days. When she re-emerged, it was to post a tearful video she claimed was being filmed at a hospital where she said she was getting the help she needed.
QuoteOn the other side of the issue, plenty of people have insisted that it's more important to continue calling out what they see as problematic behavior—even if that extends to the kind of social ostracism that led to all this to begin with. "Me not being a pushover for oppression makes ME toxic??" wrote one user. "Fuck that."
People need to learn to ignore social justice warriors like they would any other moron or troll.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on November 04, 2015, 03:26:56 AM
People need to learn to ignore social justice warriors like they would any other moron or troll.
Tumblr is rather full of mentally unstable people though.
Quote from: thewake on November 04, 2015, 11:32:11 PM
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on November 04, 2015, 03:26:56 AM
People need to learn to ignore social justice warriors like they would any other moron or troll.
Tumblr is rather full of mentally unstable people though.
Anywebsite that has a userbase that can be stereotyped liked that tbh fam.
Not to mention I'm pretty sure there was like 200+ tumblr sites that sprang up overnight, just to harass and bully her.
I mean, I've got a pretty thick skin, and I don't mind people getting wound up by what I write (I write about politics and am on Twitter, after all. I get shit on just for accepting the fact that there is violence between Israel and Palestine. Not for taking any side, just for knowing it exists. Let alone the crazy shit I get for writing about ISIS, the PKK, the Caucasian Emirate, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey etc. I manage to offend nationalists, salafists, Russians, conspiracy theoriests, neocons, leftists and liberal interventionists all at the same time). Not to mention in 10+ years of being a complete trolling asshat on the interbutts, I've been seriously threatened a few times, so I'm not exactly concerned about having my feelings hurt by people with a literacy level somewhere around Youtube comments.
Even then, if I had 200 odd people flooding my inbox with their insanity, in the midst of a larger internet hate campaign, I'd probably say "enjoy screeching at your screen for a week and fuck y'all" and take a break from social media. Speaking as a well adjusted adult, I don't have time for that shit. And I sort of expect a level of attention to be paid to my work anyway, it's one of the reasons I write and that means dealing with the public, with reactions to it and so on. I also know, no matter what the idiots say, that yes, I am actually pretty knowledgeable on what I write. I have credentials, endorsements, work history and features to prove it, and I research the hell out of whatever I put my name to.
This on the other hand is a teenager on their personal blog. Drawing fanart. Yes, yes, stereotyping is bad, mmkay, but I think we know the kind of people who do those sort of things. Quiet, shy, probably low self-esteem. She probably hasn't taken any precautions with her social media accounts, and has probably been doxxed to hell and back. And if there is any segment of the internet that is more vindictive and has more spare time than the tinfoil hat brigade ("ISIS is a false flag op! Here is a 200+ page dossier compiled from shitty Russian propaganda sites I am now going to spew at you and if you cannot answer each made-up point to my satisfaction you are nothing more than a JEWISH NEOCON SHILL FOR ALLAH") it's teenagers. If she's been using the internet to make friends online, as she probably has, she's now cut off from that social network, and it's possible her IRL friends and family are also getting shit from the online hate mob. She's going to feel isolated and vulnerable with absolutely no support. And as previous internet storms show, saying "ignore the trolls" is much easier than actually, you know, doing it. Hell, I can speak from personal experience on that part.
It's also a lot easier to ignore the trolls when you have someone else to be. I swear, when I was a kid everyone was all up on us about not using real names, not posting pics, etc. If you failed hard enough to get one of these shitshows, you just make a new identity and move on with your life. Sure sometimes sockpuppets were used to continue monitoring the drama, which is not healthy or productive, and sometimes your socks get outted or whatever, but this persistent identity bullshit that Corporate Internet are pushing is killing the only troll ignoring strategy that worked.
Yeah, very true. Not to mention all the other problems of persistent identities online...the tech companies really need to rethink that.
Why do they always pick on the weak ones?
There's plenty of actually racist SU blogs, yet they drive some poor girl to suicide over causes she supports.
Quote from: Meunster on November 05, 2015, 03:43:02 PM
Why do they always pick on the weak ones?
There's plenty of actually racist SU blogs, yet they drive some poor girl to suicide over causes she supports.
Low hanging fruit.
I just read the article, and that sounds JUST LIKE the tumblr I know and hate.
Quote from: Meunster on November 05, 2015, 03:43:02 PM
Why do they always pick on the weak ones?
There's plenty of actually racist SU blogs, yet they drive some poor girl to suicide over causes she supports.
Because, to tumblr, someone that ALMOST agrees with them is 300 times worse than an actual oppressor.
This is why tumblr is hilarious, and why the people that use it are monsters.
"We must purge the right-deviationists, then the liberals (and their tears!), then the social fascists and then, finally, we will purge the real fascists." - Actual strategy of the Soviet Union circa 1930. As you may recall, it didn't turn out so great for them.
Jesus christ. How horrifying.
Well, time to revise how I make my strawmen.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 05, 2015, 03:54:10 PM
Quote from: Meunster on November 05, 2015, 03:43:02 PM
Why do they always pick on the weak ones?
There's plenty of actually racist SU blogs, yet they drive some poor girl to suicide over causes she supports.
Low hanging fruit.
This.
It's way less threatening to gang-hate on a troubled young woman (notice how it's usually, though not always, a younger woman or trans person) than to take on, say, Stormfront or anyone else who might be able to defend themselves.
because yelling at people is the same as making meaningful change, right?
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on November 06, 2015, 03:14:25 AM
because yelling at people is the same as making meaningful change, right?
Marginalizing
yourself is meaningful change. Because it's all about you.
I have in mind one particular PD member who essentially ran herself off in a fit of martyrdom.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 05, 2015, 03:55:46 PM
This is why tumblr is hilarious, and why the people that use it are monsters.
Can confirm. It's where I get 90% of my fetish porn.
Quote from: thewake on November 06, 2015, 06:20:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 05, 2015, 03:55:46 PM
This is why tumblr is hilarious, and why the people that use it are monsters.
Can confirm. It's where I get 90% of my fetish porn.
Haha, fuck you. All the good fetish artists get shut down by tumblrinas.
Sad panda or nhentai that shit yo. Or if youre into 3d just use torrents and 8chan.
Bailing. You two wankmeisters enjoy the thread together.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 05, 2015, 02:55:15 PM
It's also a lot easier to ignore the trolls when you have someone else to be. I swear, when I was a kid everyone was all up on us about not using real names, not posting pics, etc. If you failed hard enough to get one of these shitshows, you just make a new identity and move on with your life. Sure sometimes sockpuppets were used to continue monitoring the drama, which is not healthy or productive, and sometimes your socks get outted or whatever, but this persistent identity bullshit that Corporate Internet are pushing is killing the only troll ignoring strategy that worked.
Wound up expanding on this idea a bit. I think I may have gone a little hyperbolic in the title, and I would have been on more solid footing if there was a real increase in suicide rates, but the point isn't completely garbage: https://rebelnews.com/annageoffroy/corporate-internets-persistent-identity-fetish-is-killing-teens/
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 07, 2015, 12:57:09 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 05, 2015, 02:55:15 PM
It's also a lot easier to ignore the trolls when you have someone else to be. I swear, when I was a kid everyone was all up on us about not using real names, not posting pics, etc. If you failed hard enough to get one of these shitshows, you just make a new identity and move on with your life. Sure sometimes sockpuppets were used to continue monitoring the drama, which is not healthy or productive, and sometimes your socks get outted or whatever, but this persistent identity bullshit that Corporate Internet are pushing is killing the only troll ignoring strategy that worked.
Wound up expanding on this idea a bit. I think I may have gone a little hyperbolic in the title, and I would have been on more solid footing if there was a real increase in suicide rates, but the point isn't completely garbage: https://rebelnews.com/annageoffroy/corporate-internets-persistent-identity-fetish-is-killing-teens/
I love this article. You rock.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 07, 2015, 12:57:09 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 05, 2015, 02:55:15 PM
It's also a lot easier to ignore the trolls when you have someone else to be. I swear, when I was a kid everyone was all up on us about not using real names, not posting pics, etc. If you failed hard enough to get one of these shitshows, you just make a new identity and move on with your life. Sure sometimes sockpuppets were used to continue monitoring the drama, which is not healthy or productive, and sometimes your socks get outted or whatever, but this persistent identity bullshit that Corporate Internet are pushing is killing the only troll ignoring strategy that worked.
Wound up expanding on this idea a bit. I think I may have gone a little hyperbolic in the title, and I would have been on more solid footing if there was a real increase in suicide rates, but the point isn't completely garbage: https://rebelnews.com/annageoffroy/corporate-internets-persistent-identity-fetish-is-killing-teens/
Yeah. I agree. People really need to stop using their real names online. I don't even use mine when registering for sites where it theoretically won't be seen by other users.
On a related note I do run into problems if I want to display a piece of art I did or a thing I've written on multiple sites. I still haven't figured out a good way of keeping people from connecting the two usernames. I try to rewrite things like story ideas in different words, but things like images or finished stories are more problematic.
Shit, I didn't even use my real name on my Kroger card till I started working there and had to to get the discount.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on July 14, 2015, 03:53:42 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 14, 2015, 03:48:25 PM
I mean, what if a woman laughed and was like "Oh, LOL, you're a man? I didn't notice!"
Shift the context just a little, and people will take it as an insult. NOT NOTICING who people are isn't flattering, it isn't nice, it isn't post-racism. It's just being a dick, unless you authentically have brain damage or a disorder that makes it difficult for you to perceive physical attributes of individual people.
I think I've mentioned before that my dad is horrifically racist.
He claims he's not because one of his best friends is Greek - and as he puts it, "You'd never know the guy is Greek unless you go to his house because he keeps all that stuff behind closed doors where it doesn't bother anybody! That's the good kind of immigration right there!"
The 'I don't see race' idea always reminds me of that. "You can have a different heritage so long as it doesn't offend me, the mainstream majority, by being obviously different."
I know I'm late to the party here, but are Greeks not considered "white people" where you're from?
Because that's pretty weird.
Anyone from southern Europe is pretty much considered half-white at best. Spainairds, Italians and Greeks are all suspect as fuck, and probably have covert Turkish/Moorish blood running in them.
It's a bit of an older person's prejudice though, from when a lot of Italian and Greek workers came to the UK in the 50s as part of the rebuilding after the war. There was a very similar prejudice in Australia against Italians and Greeks, too.
White people is a racist term tbh.
There's so many different kinds of white, and a jew has about as much similarity to a slav as a black has to a mexican. So why is one grouped together and the other isn't?
Quote from: Meunster on November 10, 2015, 12:14:35 AM
White people is a racist term tbh.
There's so many different kinds of white, and a jew has about as much similarity to a slav as a black has to a mexican. So why is one grouped together and the other isn't?
That's actually something I've wondered about for a long time. But then, race is stupid anyway.
Also, Mexican isn't a race, it's an emotion.
Quote from: Meunster on November 10, 2015, 12:14:35 AM
White people is a racist term tbh.
There's so many different kinds of white, and a jew has about as much similarity to a slav as a black has to a mexican. So why is one grouped together and the other isn't?
It kinda reminds me of something a black friend of mine once said, about how they were uncomfortable with the widespread use of the term PoC because it lumps all non-white people together, implying that they're all one big happy family when clearly they're not. Specifically, they cited a friend whose Chinese grandparents, upon hearing she was moving to Toronto, warned her to "watch out for all the n***ers."
White people do benefit from the social structures in most places in ways other people don't, but the entire designation of "white" vs. "non-white" is still kinda nonsensical, as you said, when you cut it away from its context. I think historically, "whiteness" has simply been an imperialist way of designating who counts as a member of the dominant in-group; I recall someone on this very site describing the way the Irish were considered "non-white" when they were still widely discriminated against, in spite of the pastiness of their usual complexion. Hell, I've read of 19th-century racialist theories that tried to claim the Irish were descended from Africans, based on phrenology. Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised if Cold-War-era anti-Soviet propaganda played up the Asian component of Russia's racial makeup, though I haven't looked into it much.
As someone primarily of German and Irish ancestry, I find "white" to be the most convenient way of describing my racial background, since I benefit from all the privileges the category of "whiteness" entails and find experiences of "whiteness" to be relatable and consistent with my own; I know I'd be laughed at at best if I described myself as "mixed-race." I take no issue with this in an immediate sense, since I have no business pretending to face the challenges mixed-race people of non-white descent do, but I have to agree that the circumstances leading to all these designations are pretty fucked up to begin with.
White privilege is kinda bullshit imo.
Most points about it that people make are illogical.
It's a oppressive term tbh. I can't think critically because I'm white? I can't feel marginalized because I'm white? I can't have empathy because I'm white?
The only privileged I see that I have because I'm white is that cops don't hassle me as much. Which is a problem with how cops are trained not the entirety of society.
Quote from: Meunster on November 10, 2015, 04:20:45 AM
White privilege is kinda bullshit imo.
Most points about it that people make are illogical.
It's a oppressive term tbh. I can't think critically because I'm white? I can't feel marginalized because I'm white? I can't have empathy because I'm white?
The only privileged I see that I have because I'm white is that cops don't hassle me as much. Which is a problem with how cops are trained not the entirety of society.
Here we go again.
:roll:
At this point, I can:
1. Point Meunster at the million threads in which this was explained.
2. Explain it the way it was explained to me.
3. Do nothing, because he'll just shitpost any response. As always.
I'd like 2.
I can do 1 on my own, and 3 I havn't done in awhile.
Quote from: Meunster on November 10, 2015, 04:28:14 AM
I'd like 2.
I can do 1 on my own, and 3 I havn't done in awhile.
I'd like a million bucks and a blowjob from Carly Simon, circa 1975. That ain't gonna happen either.
And who cares if you've done it in a while? I wouldn't know. I haven't even bothered with PD, because between you, PDS, and LuciferX, it's basically 4 Chan retardation in this bitch.
hey, 4chan isn't all retarded. There's some great Anons who I love like family.
There's also about 25% of anons who are retarded and need to be kicked in the head.
It's unfair to judge a sight based off a few boards or a few posts.
It'd be like judging this forum based off all of my posts.
Quote from: Meunster on November 10, 2015, 04:20:45 AM
White privilege is kinda bullshit imo.
Most points about it that people make are illogical.
It's a oppressive term tbh. I can't think critically because I'm white? I can't feel marginalized because I'm white? I can't have empathy because I'm white?
But none of those claims are actually part of the definition of "white privilege." Like, I'm white, but I'm also mentally ill, poor, and bi, and all those things do indeed create problems for me that wouldn't exist if I were sane, rich, and straight. At the same time, I'd be worse off if I also weren't white. I'm not exactly proud of this, but I don't feel guilty about it either. You're attacking a strawman, possibly based on distortions of the concept bred on tumblr and deliberate misrepresentations on /pol/ feeding into each other and twisting it into something stupid.
Quote from: President Television on November 10, 2015, 04:53:45 AM
Quote from: Meunster on November 10, 2015, 04:20:45 AM
White privilege is kinda bullshit imo.
Most points about it that people make are illogical.
It's a oppressive term tbh. I can't think critically because I'm white? I can't feel marginalized because I'm white? I can't have empathy because I'm white?
But none of those claims are actually part of the definition of "white privilege." Like, I'm white, but I'm also mentally ill, poor, and bi, and all those things do indeed create problems for me that wouldn't exist if I were sane, rich, and straight. At the same time, I'd be worse off if I also weren't white. I'm not exactly proud of this, but I don't feel guilty about it either. You're attacking a strawman, possibly based on distortions of the concept bred on tumblr and deliberate misrepresentations on /pol/ feeding into each other and twisting it into something stupid.
How would you have it worse off if you weren't white though?
There's a bias towards non whites right now at least on college campuses and in young people.
He could have to live with the possibility of being harassed or killed by cops at any point in his day. He could have his access to things like housing and credit and GODDAMN GROCERY STORES severely hamstringed. Hell it would probably be faster to list the things that PT wouldnt have worse off. Namely, people would assume he can dance and has a huge penis.
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on November 10, 2015, 06:43:51 AM
He could have to live with the possibility of being harassed or killed by cops at any point in his day. He could have his access to things like housing and credit and GODDAMN GROCERY STORES severely hamstringed. Hell it would probably be faster to list the things that PT wouldnt have worse off. Namely, people would assume he can dance and has a huge penis.
I don't get outside much, and I live in small college town kansas, but im 90% sure not all cops are blood thristy racists. That bankers care more about fucking your money over than your skin color, and that the only the lowest rung of society actually are stupid enough to belive in steriotypes.
I've met fucking kkk members who are more respectful to blacks then you think the average person is.
Quote from: Cain on November 09, 2015, 11:31:43 PM
Anyone from southern Europe is pretty much considered half-white at best.
Wooohoo! :banana:
Quote from: Faust on November 10, 2015, 07:58:39 AM
Quote from: Cain on November 09, 2015, 11:31:43 PM
Anyone from southern Europe is pretty much considered half-white at best.
Wooohoo! :banana:
Not to mention the Irish thing...I think you're technically a black man, Faust.
I've always had racist shit said when I was in Irish Schools because of my Greek heritage. Its funny because a couple of times over the last year in Essex I've gotten comments about being Irish and how "laid back" we all are over there.
Day before yesterday the fiancée was in school and got a comment about how "good it will look on her CV to have been teaching in an English School" when we go back to Ireland and how we will teach them how to be "hard working".
I know it's not a malicious thing, just an ignorant stereotyping thing but Ireland is in the top ten for English literacy in Europe, top five for maths. While in contrast to that, and the UK is in the low twenties (out of 28 countries) respectively.*
This isn't me saying the UK kids are on average stupid by the way, the real problem is actually entirely bureaucratic, with more and more contact time taken from teachers here and fed to the OFSTED machine, less then an third of their job is actually teaching now. But it's incidental to the point at hand:
Its the assumption that schools back in Ireland must be so bad what with the lack of electricity and the huffing Poitín fumes all day that really gets my goat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24433320
Yeah, there's definitely a case of stereotyping the Irish as slow but amiable country bumpkins.
Basically, Britain has to justify everyone else as inferior to themselves. Historically, and forever. It's the only thing which justifies our own brutality.
I guess that a lot of the colonial powers would have similar.
Would I be wrong in thinking a lot of it is Britain trying to find its own cultural identity?
I mean its gone from Imperial power, leader of industry to a more data/banking/communications driven institution and with that a very connected cosmopolitan place.
So, when people talk about race being a social construct, that's what they're talking about. It only has meaning within a cultural context, and that meaning can shift across time.
It's made-up by society. It's real only in the sense of all social constructs, such as marriage, being real. It makes sense only within the framework of society.
This is what people are talking about when they say we need to change things. We actually CAN change things, because they are made up in the first place. If you think about race in these terms, it becomes very easy to understand how bullshit it is to systemically disempower, underemploy, abuse, and imprison people because of their membership in a made-up category based on skin tone.
On top of that, because of our culture's fixation on these made-up categories, every single member of society is walking around with the unconscious, implicit belief that people in certain made-up categories are better than others, whether we like it or not.
I've been telling people to embrace nihilism, but they insist on their apophenia
Quote from: Faust on November 10, 2015, 10:58:47 AM
I guess that a lot of the colonial powers would have similar.
Would I be wrong in thinking a lot of it is Britain trying to find its own cultural identity?
I mean its gone from Imperial power, leader of industry to a more data/banking/communications driven institution and with that a very connected cosmopolitan place.
Not at all, while I think some elements of the British identity are pretty well established, the collapse of Empire and rise of America and Russia seemed to hit this place pretty hard. It would explain why jingoism is such a popular method of expression of nationalism here.
I would like to pose a serious question here, which unfortunately must focus on a very old and much pored over question. I notice that in comic books in particular, whenever we discuss how male and female characters are portrayed, often there is a controversy with the way women are depicted because they are often drawn like supermodels in spandex, and claim objectification. then the male fans will chime in, saying that the male characters are just as objectified, they are also wearing spandex and are depicted as the very pinnacle of the human form in terms of physique. There is usually the counter that being so strong and capable is a male empowerment fantasy, and so the people making the comic are merely drawing the characters for the male gaze, and not even allowing for the possibility of attracting a female audience, and are only there to please the men. But the question i pose is this, if comic books, and mediums like them are about empowerment fantasies, of identifying with characters which are far above what we as normal people could be, can we assume that looking like a supermodel might be part of that fantasy, at least for some women? I mean i realize that many comic artists are men, and that they may just want to draw sexy looking women because boobs, but if we follow the argument to its full extent, that would imply that if suddenly all our female characters looked less supernaturally attractive and more "realistic", that all the women who read comics would still find them as "cool" as they did before. I'm not sure if thats true, mainly because i've seen fan artists try to reimagine superhero costumes to be less sexy and provocative, and to be honest, they just dont look "cool". they end up looking like either women in normal clothes, or like some kind of figure skater with a vigilante complex. Is the fantasy of being attractive something that attracts women to certain characters, in the same way that young girls love the idea of being princesses? would they like the characters just as much if they were something different? is indulging in these kinds of empowerment fantasies, whether for men or women, kind of the point of the medium? If so, is it really a problem in the way that we think it is?
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on November 30, 2015, 04:56:41 AM
I would like to pose a serious question here, which unfortunately must focus on a very old and much pored over question. I notice that in comic books in particular, whenever we discuss how male and female characters are portrayed, often there is a controversy with the way women are depicted because they are often drawn like supermodels in spandex, and claim objectification. then the male fans will chime in, saying that the male characters are just as objectified, they are also wearing spandex and are depicted as the very pinnacle of the human form in terms of physique. There is usually the counter that being so strong and capable is a male empowerment fantasy, and so the people making the comic are merely drawing the characters for the male gaze, and not even allowing for the possibility of attracting a female audience, and are only there to please the men. But the question i pose is this, if comic books, and mediums like them are about empowerment fantasies, of identifying with characters which are far above what we as normal people could be, can we assume that looking like a supermodel might be part of that fantasy, at least for some women? I mean i realize that many comic artists are men, and that they may just want to draw sexy looking women because boobs, but if we follow the argument to its full extent, that would imply that if suddenly all our female characters looked less supernaturally attractive and more "realistic", that all the women who read comics would still find them as "cool" as they did before. I'm not sure if thats true, mainly because i've seen fan artists try to reimagine superhero costumes to be less sexy and provocative, and to be honest, they just dont look "cool". they end up looking like either women in normal clothes, or like some kind of figure skater with a vigilante complex. Is the fantasy of being attractive something that attracts women to certain characters, in the same way that young girls love the idea of being princesses? would they like the characters just as much if they were something different? is indulging in these kinds of empowerment fantasies, whether for men or women, kind of the point of the medium? If so, is it really a problem in the way that we think it is?
They don't look cool
to you. If the issue is correcting for the male gaze issue, whether a female super hero looks cool
to you as a male is entirely beside the point.
Tfw zero relatable male super heros.
I want both: The portrayal should be true to the character.
I wouldn't want Emma frost to dress like Dust, and vice versa.
Incidentally, both characters are from the same team, one is one of the most sexualised characters in the marvel universe, the other wears traditional Muslim garb.
The inequality comes in how the characters are handled: Emma frost has had complex character development, even been the leader of the X-men, while Dust is a bit character, mostly relegated to small side stories.
Quote from: Meunster on November 30, 2015, 02:51:06 PM
Tfw zero relatable male super heros.
I think birdman would suit you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJfLoE6hanc
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 30, 2015, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on November 30, 2015, 04:56:41 AM
I would like to pose a serious question here, which unfortunately must focus on a very old and much pored over question. I notice that in comic books in particular, whenever we discuss how male and female characters are portrayed, often there is a controversy with the way women are depicted because they are often drawn like supermodels in spandex, and claim objectification. then the male fans will chime in, saying that the male characters are just as objectified, they are also wearing spandex and are depicted as the very pinnacle of the human form in terms of physique. There is usually the counter that being so strong and capable is a male empowerment fantasy, and so the people making the comic are merely drawing the characters for the male gaze, and not even allowing for the possibility of attracting a female audience, and are only there to please the men. But the question i pose is this, if comic books, and mediums like them are about empowerment fantasies, of identifying with characters which are far above what we as normal people could be, can we assume that looking like a supermodel might be part of that fantasy, at least for some women? I mean i realize that many comic artists are men, and that they may just want to draw sexy looking women because boobs, but if we follow the argument to its full extent, that would imply that if suddenly all our female characters looked less supernaturally attractive and more "realistic", that all the women who read comics would still find them as "cool" as they did before. I'm not sure if thats true, mainly because i've seen fan artists try to reimagine superhero costumes to be less sexy and provocative, and to be honest, they just dont look "cool". they end up looking like either women in normal clothes, or like some kind of figure skater with a vigilante complex. Is the fantasy of being attractive something that attracts women to certain characters, in the same way that young girls love the idea of being princesses? would they like the characters just as much if they were something different? is indulging in these kinds of empowerment fantasies, whether for men or women, kind of the point of the medium? If so, is it really a problem in the way that we think it is?
They don't look cool to you. If the issue is correcting for the male gaze issue, whether a female super hero looks cool to you as a male is entirely beside the point.
Yea, but i guess that part of what i'm asking, since whenever they seem to try to address the costume issue, it seems to be met with a sarcastic whoop-de-friggin-doo at best and a fanboyish screeching against any sort of change at worst. I mean its entirely possible i could be wrong and female fans loved when they changed wonder womans costume to include pants and I just missed it cuz the only people i heard commenting on it were men, but thats why i'm asking, does this sort of thing actually add or subtract from a female fans enjoyment of a particular character?
like, hypothetically, if they changed it so Emma Frost only wears nicely tailored white business suits, would that really do anything for a women who likes that character?
The Wonderwoman Pants thing was experimental, aesthetically it sucked. It was labelled a gender issue because of the media attention it got but when it came down to it, it was just kind of bad costume design.
With that in mind: at another point they replaced the hotpants with a Knee length leather skirt, a lot less sexualised then those ridiculous hotpants, and no one said a word because it was good character design, it was just accepted.
With Emma frost in a white suit, they occasionally do put her in that. Now admittedly despite being much more professional it still screams Diva Dominatrix. It still fits the character, but is a lot more modest because its not blatantly putting her jugs on display.
so then, is part of the male/female empowerment fantasy about stuff that looks cool and identifying with whatever "cool" looks like to you, whether male or female, and that usually involves looking desirable. Objectification doesn't necessarily need to be a part of it, but there is a lot of overlap since there's not exactly a clear dividing line between looking sexy and being sexualized. This might be different from other forms of media, since comics do tend to focus on idealized power fantasies more than other mediums which tend to value "gritty realism"
I think the dividing line between sexy and sexualized depends who is viewing it.
The extremes of people who look for sexual shit(perverts and sjws) will always see it as sexualized. The normal person will just see it as sexy.
Jessica Jones vs Jade. Hell, the Netflix show even calls it out, explicitly.
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on December 01, 2015, 05:11:59 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 30, 2015, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on November 30, 2015, 04:56:41 AM
I would like to pose a serious question here, which unfortunately must focus on a very old and much pored over question. I notice that in comic books in particular, whenever we discuss how male and female characters are portrayed, often there is a controversy with the way women are depicted because they are often drawn like supermodels in spandex, and claim objectification. then the male fans will chime in, saying that the male characters are just as objectified, they are also wearing spandex and are depicted as the very pinnacle of the human form in terms of physique. There is usually the counter that being so strong and capable is a male empowerment fantasy, and so the people making the comic are merely drawing the characters for the male gaze, and not even allowing for the possibility of attracting a female audience, and are only there to please the men. But the question i pose is this, if comic books, and mediums like them are about empowerment fantasies, of identifying with characters which are far above what we as normal people could be, can we assume that looking like a supermodel might be part of that fantasy, at least for some women? I mean i realize that many comic artists are men, and that they may just want to draw sexy looking women because boobs, but if we follow the argument to its full extent, that would imply that if suddenly all our female characters looked less supernaturally attractive and more "realistic", that all the women who read comics would still find them as "cool" as they did before. I'm not sure if thats true, mainly because i've seen fan artists try to reimagine superhero costumes to be less sexy and provocative, and to be honest, they just dont look "cool". they end up looking like either women in normal clothes, or like some kind of figure skater with a vigilante complex. Is the fantasy of being attractive something that attracts women to certain characters, in the same way that young girls love the idea of being princesses? would they like the characters just as much if they were something different? is indulging in these kinds of empowerment fantasies, whether for men or women, kind of the point of the medium? If so, is it really a problem in the way that we think it is?
They don't look cool to you. If the issue is correcting for the male gaze issue, whether a female super hero looks cool to you as a male is entirely beside the point.
Yea, but i guess that part of what i'm asking, since whenever they seem to try to address the costume issue, it seems to be met with a sarcastic whoop-de-friggin-doo at best and a fanboyish screeching against any sort of change at worst. I mean its entirely possible i could be wrong and female fans loved when they changed wonder womans costume to include pants and I just missed it cuz the only people i heard commenting on it were men, but thats why i'm asking, does this sort of thing actually add or subtract from a female fans enjoyment of a particular character?
like, hypothetically, if they changed it so Emma Frost only wears nicely tailored white business suits, would that really do anything for a women who likes that character?
Well, for one I'd actually be more likely to cosplay Emma Frost in a business suit.
A lot of sexualisation has to do with posing as well. Men aren't usually posed like romance novel covers. Women, however, are drawn in weird poses, often to have both boobs and butt in frame.
Tumblr feed for this type of thing:
http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/ (http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/)
I'm pretty fed up with guys who are all "Sexism? I don't see it". It's in the same category with white people who don't see racism.
If it's not directed at you, AND you can't see it, then shut the fuck up and listen to the people it is directed at.
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 05, 2015, 04:14:02 PM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on December 01, 2015, 05:11:59 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on November 30, 2015, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on November 30, 2015, 04:56:41 AM
I would like to pose a serious question here, which unfortunately must focus on a very old and much pored over question. I notice that in comic books in particular, whenever we discuss how male and female characters are portrayed, often there is a controversy with the way women are depicted because they are often drawn like supermodels in spandex, and claim objectification. then the male fans will chime in, saying that the male characters are just as objectified, they are also wearing spandex and are depicted as the very pinnacle of the human form in terms of physique. There is usually the counter that being so strong and capable is a male empowerment fantasy, and so the people making the comic are merely drawing the characters for the male gaze, and not even allowing for the possibility of attracting a female audience, and are only there to please the men. But the question i pose is this, if comic books, and mediums like them are about empowerment fantasies, of identifying with characters which are far above what we as normal people could be, can we assume that looking like a supermodel might be part of that fantasy, at least for some women? I mean i realize that many comic artists are men, and that they may just want to draw sexy looking women because boobs, but if we follow the argument to its full extent, that would imply that if suddenly all our female characters looked less supernaturally attractive and more "realistic", that all the women who read comics would still find them as "cool" as they did before. I'm not sure if thats true, mainly because i've seen fan artists try to reimagine superhero costumes to be less sexy and provocative, and to be honest, they just dont look "cool". they end up looking like either women in normal clothes, or like some kind of figure skater with a vigilante complex. Is the fantasy of being attractive something that attracts women to certain characters, in the same way that young girls love the idea of being princesses? would they like the characters just as much if they were something different? is indulging in these kinds of empowerment fantasies, whether for men or women, kind of the point of the medium? If so, is it really a problem in the way that we think it is?
They don't look cool to you. If the issue is correcting for the male gaze issue, whether a female super hero looks cool to you as a male is entirely beside the point.
Yea, but i guess that part of what i'm asking, since whenever they seem to try to address the costume issue, it seems to be met with a sarcastic whoop-de-friggin-doo at best and a fanboyish screeching against any sort of change at worst. I mean its entirely possible i could be wrong and female fans loved when they changed wonder womans costume to include pants and I just missed it cuz the only people i heard commenting on it were men, but thats why i'm asking, does this sort of thing actually add or subtract from a female fans enjoyment of a particular character?
like, hypothetically, if they changed it so Emma Frost only wears nicely tailored white business suits, would that really do anything for a women who likes that character?
Well, for one I'd actually be more likely to cosplay Emma Frost in a business suit.
A lot of sexualisation has to do with posing as well. Men aren't usually posed like romance novel covers. Women, however, are drawn in weird poses, often to have both boobs and butt in frame.
Tumblr feed for this type of thing:
http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/ (http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/)
Chirst. I saw those around the time of that horrible catwoman cover. The most stupid thing is, while sexualised, not one of those is sexy.
The cosplay thing touches on an important point though, there are very few positive female rolemodels in superhero comics. You have some iconic examples like Batwoman, but they are an exception to the rule. Having sexualised characters wouldnt be an issue if there was a diverse portrayal of women in different roles in comics. If I had a daughter I wouldn't want her cosplaying as most of the female superheros :(
Quote from: Trivial <insert joke> on December 05, 2015, 04:14:02 PM
A lot of sexualisation has to do with posing as well. Men aren't usually posed like romance novel covers.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but yet another reason that JoJo's Bizarre Adventure is love and life.
(http://static.tumblr.com/bfeef01b67d7776bf5b8a429b8d619e4/gdda5ct/PJdnxq86r/tumblr_static_5qjb0gtiousc08gw4go4ow4ow.png)