I was never into the L5R CCG, I knew about the RPG, and really liked the miniatures, it was nearly the only supplier of Samurai figures in 28mm at the time.
As I understand it the narrative of the game was considered by the players, to be just as important as the deck building and playing aspect. With lore changes being impacted by organized play.
Sarkeesian would probably characterize that as a "male constructionist power fantasy" not regarding that one of the most powerful characters in the lore and game is a woman, and she would decry dragons as "deep seated fascination with phallic iconography", because of the serpent-like portrayal of Asian-style dragons.
Manchu wrote: I agree it wan't a universally beloved tradition. But it was a tradition. It was something practiced to create a sense of unity and participation. It was successful for some and a non-issue for others. But it had never been a justification of 20th-century Japanese war crimes until one looney racist demanded that it was and a bumbling reviewer misunderstood this and rebroadcast it as an issue of cultural insensitivity. That is what killed it, not shy people who would prefer to avoid yelling in public.
The final cause of death isn't the issue, it's whyFFG gave in so easily. Looking at how easy it was to kill something that wasn't very popular in the first place doesn't tell you how easy it would be to do the same against something that is actually popular. Try the same tactic against GW and demand that space marines be removed because having an all-male army is sexist and I guarantee that GW isn't going to care one bit about what the critics have to say.
Just for reference, in FFG's relaunch the same powerful female characters are still around and at least one important, powerful character was genderswapped to be female, without changing the character's love interest (making this character a woman sexually attracted to another woman). No complaints on my part, she (Doji Hotaru) is one of my favorite characters in new L5R (and I'm a Lion btw).
I can agree that GW is unlikely to budge on all-male SMs. The company is not vulnerable on that front. Extortionists have to pick their targets for weakness.
You make a game that deliberately references tentacle Hentai and you're going to have problems, even if your game doesn't include nudity or anything in and of itself nasty.
You push the edge, it gets you free publicity and that usually works out to your benefit. But sometimes whatever private company you're working with decides they're not cool with it (possibly helped along by irate advocates), and that is their call. Find another venue.
Sorry. If you make a game that is called "march to the ovens" with an iron cross on it, you deserve every bit of hate you get, even if it is about a struggling early morning muffin baker.
KS did an instant 180 on Tentacle Bento. It had been listed as one of their promoted products in the morning and they pulled the plug by the afternoon.
Manchu wrote: I can agree that GW is unlikely to budge on all-male SMs. The company is not vulnerable on that front. Extortionists have to pick their targets for weakness.
But then what exactly are we supposed to be afraid of? If the "extortionists" can only change the weakest targets, the things we care the least about, why is this a major issue? Someone previously had it right. If you had to make a list of the top 10 threats to video games "no more bikini outfits" isn't going to rank anywhere near day one DLC and loot crates and such.
I mean, presumably you don't care about XYZ but I do, or vice versa.
I backed Tentacle Bento and eventually managed to get a copy. This was a little game by a little (esp at the time) publisher. It being vulnerable to the flakeyness of Kickstarter doesn't mean "we" care the least about it.
Manchu wrote: KS did an instant 180 on Tentacle Bento. It had been listed as one of their promoted products in the morning and they pulled the plug by the afternoon.
As far as edgy goes, Tentacle Bento just wasn't.
Could be someone showed them a few select "tentacle" images and they realized just what the joke was. The rapid 180 suggests it wasn't a hard decision. I admit some concern about the power of internet pressure groups (like the Gamergate crowd for example, or Anita and co), but as you said, they mostly go after low hanging fruit.
Manchu wrote: I can agree that GW is unlikely to budge on all-male SMs. The company is not vulnerable on that front. Extortionists have to pick their targets for weakness.
But then what exactly are we supposed to be afraid of? If the "extortionists" can only change the weakest targets, the things we care the least about, why is this a major issue? Someone previously had it right. If you had to make a list of the top 10 threats to video games "no more bikini outfits" isn't going to rank anywhere near day one DLC and loot crates and such.
We're supposed to be afraid of the patriarchy, duh.
Manchu wrote: Who is this "we" that cares the least about XYZ?
The community. You've given examples of a niche-market game that still got published, and FFG killing off something that, by your own admission, most players didn't care about. Yeah, it sucks if you're one of the minority who does care, but change happens all the time and sometimes people don't like it. The hobby as a whole will continue on, and is in no danger. It's not like the community stopped to consider the feelings of the people who enjoyed loot crates when they were celebrating killing them off by lobbying EA into making changes with a massive bad publicity campaign.
So "community" means "the majority." And while it sucks that minorities lose out, it does not ultimately matter so long as the majority is on board. Is that the argument?
Manchu wrote: So "community" means "the majority." And while it sucks that minorities lose out, it does not ultimately matter. Is that the argument?
No, community means the community. A majority of the community didn't care about the chant. And no, it doesn't really matter when small parts of the community lose out, not compared to the hyperbolic claims of impending censorship and destruction of the hobby. This is not an existential threat to the games we love, it's the normal changes that happen all of the time. Some people don't like them, and there's nothing you can do about it. You might as well complain that GW giving in to criticism and making conscripts 4ppm was the dystopian future we have all feared, where the poor martyred IG players have lost everything.
You say 'no' but don't offer an alternative explanation. In fact, you doubled down on the irrelevance of minorities losing out. I think we probably effectively agree on that issue when it comes to, say, FFG having a different scale for Legion compared to Imperial Assault. I guess it sucks that people who wanted to use their Imperial Assault models in Legion feel like they can't but it doesn't matter to Legion's success.
But that's not the issue to hand, regarding the use of radical political tactics to embarass companies into doing whatever it is some activist wants. On that point, I think it's also not an existential threat, at least not directly, but so long as we're talking about community, where that term includes everyone and not just the majority, the indirect threat of hyper polarization resulting from such tactics bothers me.
Manchu wrote: So into this fragile time and in the context of a backhanded review we blunderinly inject a potential narrative explosion via an influenced with a relatuvely huge following. No one put a gun to Christian Petersen's head but the situation was clearly, this is not a hill we should die on. Esepcially since the hill was a molehill that could easily become a mountain.
But you can also look at it the other way around. FFG was in a delicate situation with a customer base wary of their beloved game's future. Why pick removing the chant as the hill to die on and accept a backlash from their existing customers?
I think the issue is the whole idea that something as stupid as "banzai controversy" could become "hill to die on".
"Banzai" simply means "hooray" and has nothing to do with Japanese crimes against humanity in WW2. In fact whole expression is originally a Chinese custom.
One could just as well argue that "For the Emperor!" in 40k is also promoting Japanese imperialism. Where do we draw the line that this claim is too stupid?
Part of me can't help but respect Anita for keeping this going. I remember back when "those" videos came out. It just looked like badly made content, with cherry-picked studies and examples and would thus quickly head into obscurity again. The fact that she's still a thing so much time later is frankly baffling.
It is a shame that she's invading Tabletop now tough. She inevitably turns any sort of environment into one where there are only two sides, and everybody is left dumber for it.
On the other hand, it probably shouldnt be too surprising. It was only a matter of time before this whole stupidity dipped over from video games into practically everything else you can imagine.
Manchu wrote: You say 'no' but don't offer an alternative explanation.
I did. "Community" means all of the players, not just the majority. The majority is a subset of the community. The community, surveyed as a whole, did not care about XYZ feature.
But that's not the issue to hand, regarding the use of radical political tactics to embarass companies into doing whatever it is some activist wants.
How is that any different from anything else people do to drive change? I mean, angry gamers used the same tactics to force EA to drop loot crates from the latest Battlefront game. They blew it up into a huge PR debacle, pressured Disney with the threat of bad PR to encourage them to say "drop loot crates or lose the license", and forced EA to give in to their demands. And yet this is celebrated as a victory for the community, with no concern for the people (few as they may be) who liked loot crates and are sad to see them go. Do you think that this was inappropriate, and the anti-loot-crates players should have made their own game instead of complaining about the game someone else likes?
On that point, I think it's also not an existential threat, at least not directly, but so long as we're talking about community, where that term includes everyone and not just the majority, the indirect threat of hyper polarization resulting from such tactics bothers me.
So what, people should just shut up about things they don't like about a game because it might be polarizing if they are honest about it? What happened to this supposed free speech issue, where pressure to stay quiet about something is bad?
Stuebi wrote: turns any sort of environment into one where there are only two sides, and everybody is left dumber for it
Yeah, this is my concern. The GamerGate controversy was overhwhelmimgly a bad moment IMO.
IME it's not a bad thing to stay quiet about something you don't like so long as the only way you can think to express yourself is by slandering a lot of other people. In a world with only two sides, I have to pick which of the slanderers with whom I am least embarassed to ally? No thanks, I will pass on this false dichotomy.
And I think vague terms like "community" are code words for that dichotomy.
Stuebi wrote: Part of me can't help but respect Anita for keeping this going. I remember back when "those" videos came out. It just looked like badly made content, with cherry-picked studies and examples and would thus quickly head into obscurity again. The fact that she's still a thing so much time later is frankly baffling.
It is a shame that she's invading Tabletop now tough. She inevitably turns any sort of environment into one where there are only two sides, and everybody is left dumber for it.
On the other hand, it probably shouldnt be too surprising. It was only a matter of time before this whole stupidity dipped over from video games into practically everything else you can imagine.
Eeeeh. She tried to run another crowdfunding scam involving an animated series about women in history but people had caught on by that point so it wasn't very successful if I recall. (Edit: Iwas wrong, she raised $200,000 for "post-production". What is wrong with people?)
She's probably decided to hit up the tabletop game market because no other activists have really managed to get their foot in the door the same way as she did with the video game industry. She's probably looking to get hired as a "consultant" like EA did when they hired her to talk to DICE.
Backfire, I guess the line in question is not a line in the sand between reasonablness and absurdity but a line drawn between two points, having your good name threatened by radicals and defusing the blackmail, and that line is going to be the shortest distance/path of least resistance, which can come out to caving to ignorance and racism and absurdity.
Manchu wrote: IME it's not a bad thing to stay quiet about something you don't like so long as the only way you can think to express yourself is by slandering a lot of other people. In a world with only two sides, I have to pick which of the slanderers with whom I am least embarassed to ally? No thanks, I will pass on this false dichotomy.
Calling it "slander" implies that the criticism is not true. This is clearly something we do not agree on.
And I think vague terms like "community" are code words for that dichotomy.
Do you have a better term for "the group of people who typically show up at a L5R tournament and participate in activities related to it"? Because it sure seems like "community" is the correct word there.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, do you have any comment on the EA/Battlefront example? Was this a glorious triumph to celebrate, or an example of extortion and bad behavior that we should condemn?
SimLife, I think you are on the right track. Smells like career development.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think the people who buy your product and participate in your marketing events are best described as your customer base. That probably makes the 'only the majority matters' argument a bit clearer.
I have laid out the difference between what I call extortion and product criticism. The EA example clearly fits in the latter category.
Manchu wrote: I think the people who buy your product and participate in your marketing events are best described as your customer base. That probably makes the 'only the majority matters' argument a bit clearer.
That's not really the same, because people in the customer base don't necessarily participate (especially in the context of organized play events). For example, a person buying L5R as a gift is in the customer base but is not part of the community. Inversely, a person who has a bunch of old stuff and keeps playing without buying new products is part of the community, but not part of the customer base.
I have laid out the difference between what I call extortion and product criticism. The EA example clearly fits in the latter category.
So, making a massive show of outrage with the explicitly stated intent of giving Disney a PR debacle to deal with, hopefully resulting in Disney telling EA to cut loot crates or lose the Star Wars license as the easiest means of defusing the PR debacle, is just "product criticism"? How is that any different from the things you call extortion?
Manchu wrote: Backfire, I guess the line in question is not a line in the sand between reasonablness and absurdity but a line drawn between two points, having your good name threatened by radicals and defusing the blackmail, and that line is going to be the shortest distance/path of least resistance, which can come out to caving to ignorance and racism and absurdity.
Back in the '90s some people raised a fit over demons and occult symbols in Magic: the Gathering. As a result, WotC removed all cards with the word 'demon' in it, pentagrams from card art and any card which mimicked occult (like Contract from Below).
Nowadays demons are occult references are back. What changed? The people who were offended by those cards still exist, WotC simply decided they were no longer important enough for their opinion to matter. It was no longer trendy to raise moral panics over occult references.
Stuebi wrote: turns any sort of environment into one where there are only two sides, and everybody is left dumber for it
Yeah, this is my concern. The GamerGate controversy was overhwhelmimgly a bad moment IMO.
IME it's not a bad thing to stay quiet about something you don't like so long as the only way you can think to express yourself is by slandering a lot of other people. In a world with only two sides, I have to pick which of the slanderers with whom I am least embarassed to ally? No thanks, I will pass on this false dichotomy.
And I think vague terms like "community" are code words for that dichotomy.
It's not the term that's the problem. It's the fact that we've reached a point where a single line, post, tweet or response labels people forever.
I agree, GG was awful. Not because I disagree with either side. But because ever since there has been a big trench in the middle of places I used to go for discussing things. Everyone is either red or blue. You're not allowed to be yellow or green.
You're either a big smelly basement-dweller, dedicating every fibre of your being for hating women, and fighting to ensure that they continue to be objectified, threatened, and kept out of certain hobbies. Or you are a screeching White Knight/Feminist, doing the exact opposite by hating men and destroying everything they love.
I remember back when "Echochamber" forums were the exception, not the rule. I also remember a time when I could go Online without being put into a box and labeled a variety of insulsts by people who have never met, or talked to me.
Not being terribly up on "Gamergate" or this Anita Sarkosian person, I googled "Worst Anita S quotes" to see just how bad she was After all, if you want to know the worst about someone, you can be sure their enemies will have the dirt on them. This was the first result:
Uhh - well, I wasn't that impressed by the outrage. I didn't see her saying "All gamers are sexist" or "All men Suck". While I can see why some of those quotes might trigger a person who is big into men's rights, they are overall pretty minimal. If they're freaking you out, you must have a much tamer female friends on facebook than I do.
Then I considered her possible threat to my hobby. Not gonna lie - I like my 28mm heroic boobs, although I disapprove of 35mm ones.. It is quite likely she wouldn't approve of some my armies on any one of a number of grounds. So what? My grandmother wouldn't approve either. Does it mean either she or I is an awful person? Not really. Might she argue that miniatures companies should produce more sensibly dressed female figures or even, (Horror of Horrors) no topless ones? Sure. Here's the thing though - when I first started collecting sketchy miniatures I had to work at finding them. Now I can't even keep up with the steady stream of companies vying for my tiny harem budget. More sensible heroines? Sure. I like more realistic figures in some contexts. I very much doubt my access to smexy 28mm figures will be curtailed even slightly while more sensible ones are produced in addition. I think it will improve the range of figures I have access to. Miniatures companies are gonna keep expanding to reach more markets - both the topless and the sensible.
Could she or her pals dox me, spam my topless heroines over my work account and cause me serious problems or even ruin - eh, maybe. But that is pure gamegate crap and the kind of risk you run doing anything on the internet even vaguely off color.
Is she gonna trash Manufacturia and Brother Vinni? Probably. And they'll be crying all the way to the bank from the free publicity. Try Ebaying "28mm Female" and see what comes up. And frankly, although I sort of like some of their stuff, it isn't unreasonable to trash them. The day somebody can't say "Gee, I find Manufacturia pretty sick" without being accused of trying to destroy a hobby is a sad day. Might she try to run Manufacturia off of Ebay? Sure. Might slow down their progress to becoming millionaires a bit. I think people have a right to speak up about what they see as objectionable as long as it stays at the "speech" level. Society can, and collectively should, enforce some standards through peer pressure. Does that mean I'll never feel comfortable parading my ladies at the local art show? Sure, and that bothers me not at all.
xraytango wrote: There is no such thing as "rape culture". Literally, there is no one saying that rape is a good thing and advocating it.
The thing you describe in sentence one, and the thing you describe in sentence two are not the same thing. I also would agree that rape culture doesn't exist if we invent a definition for it in which it means something else.
Also there is currently someone running for political office in the USA who does advocate rape.
Not every customer is part of your customer base. Your customer base is a more focused group. They buy the product for their own use, especially (in this context) for organized marketing events like tournaments.
But as to the EA thing we can say customer, customer base, or community. In that example, the customer base/community loudly complained about the product marketed to them, specifically about the way content worked. The goal was to change that. In the Tentacle Bento example, someone with no interest in or knowledge of the game beyond their interpretation of the game as dangerous and immoral appeared to torpedo the lifeline the product had to its actual customer base/community.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Backfire: good point, the moral police may change from far right to far left but the phenomenon remains
kestral wrote: Not being terribly up on "Gamergate" or this Anita Sarkosian person, I googled "Worst Anita S quotes" to see just how bad she was After all, if you want to know the worst about someone, you can be sure their enemies will have the dirt on them. This was the first result:
Uhh - well, I wasn't that impressed by the outrage. I didn't see her saying "All gamers are sexist" or "All men Suck". While I can see why some of those quotes might trigger a person who is big into men's rights, they are overall pretty minimal. If they're freaking you out, you must have a much tamer female friends on facebook than I do.
The whole thing was always blown completely out of proportion. The irony that she would'nt ever have gotten traction if people didnt get so stark raving mad about her, was pointed out countless times.
Your example is actually pretty neat, I've seen numerous FB-Posts that were about ten times as insulting/generalizing as anything Anita has ever written, said, or done.
Malus: if you mean the guy in VA, yeah we have a low threshold as to who can run (guy would not be able to run barring Democrat governor changing law so felons can) - but probably a subject best left to US Politics
Stuebi: when people don't feel strongly or feel strongly positive the Warp (i.e., the internet) is placid - only strong negativity stirs the ethereal waves lol
Sim-Life wrote: The WORST thing about this is that Peregrine will defend this.
Welcome to the free market. The people giving that money knew exactly what they were getting, and exactly how weak of a guarantee of quality products that Kickstarter offers. We should be praising Anita Sarkeesian for a successful business venture, identifying a target market and extracting as much money as possible from it. She's hardly the first business to make a ton of money off selling low-quality products to people who over-pay for them.
Now, would I personally give her money? no. Her product isn't worth anything to me, so I'm not buying.
Can't even summon any sort of outrage for the KS she started. Not after all the Early-Access and other Kickstarter Projects I've seen, that sometimes devoured millions and turned them into absolutely bloody nothing.
As sad as it is: A bunch of 5 minute videos for 200'000 Bucks is actually ahead of the curve in a lot of KS-cases. And part of me is tempted to agree with peregrine, this is probably more the fault of those idiots that still pay for moronities like this.
Manchu wrote: Not every customer is part of your customer base. Your customer base is a more focused group. They buy the product for their own use, especially (in this context) for organized marketing events like tournaments.
So now you're at the point of nitpicking terms. Can you at least admit that the use of "community" is simply a relevant description of the group of people in question, even if it is not the specific term that you would consider most perfect, and not some kind of coded message as you initially claimed?
In that example, the customer base/community loudly complained about the product marketed to them, specifically about the way content worked.
This is a huge assumption to make. I'm sure some actual customers were involved, but can you seriously argue that it didn't draw in people who were not customers but object to loot crates on principle? Or who hate EA and were eager to score a win against them, even if it didn't involve a game they had any interest in playing?
And in either case your claim was that "extortion" tactics were wrong. Now you're moving the goalposts to "extortion tactics are wrong, unless you're a customer in which case it's ok".
kestral wrote: Not being terribly up on "Gamergate" or this Anita Sarkosian person, I googled "Worst Anita S quotes" to see just how bad she was After all, if you want to know the worst about someone, you can be sure their enemies will have the dirt on them. This was the first result:
Uhh - well, I wasn't that impressed by the outrage. I didn't see her saying "All gamers are sexist" or "All men Suck". While I can see why some of those quotes might trigger a person who is big into men's rights, they are overall pretty minimal. If they're freaking you out, you must have a much tamer female friends on facebook than I do.
The whole thing was always blown completely out of proportion. The irony that she would'nt ever have gotten traction if people didnt get so stark raving mad about her, was pointed out countless times.
Your example is actually pretty neat, I've seen numerous FB-Posts that were about ten times as insulting/generalizing as anything Anita has ever written, said, or done.
But how many of those FB posts have a cabal of journalists to back them up or talk at the UN or get hired to talk to game devs.
Also that "FACT: I am an expert on women in video games." picture is hilarious. It says a lot about how she views herself.
Peregrine, we've talked about this for pages on end and either you're pretending not to understand or you can't and in either case I don't much care anymore.
Manchu wrote: Peregrine, we've talked about this for pages on end and either you're pretending not to understand or you can't and in either case I don't much care anymore.
Oh, I understand very well. I'm just trying to get you to admit in quotable form that the difference between using "extortion" tactics against EA over loot crates and using "extortion" tactics against bikini outfits is that you (and a lot of other people) feel that loot crates are a bad thing, but don't feel the same way about the bikini outfits. It's the exact same tactic being used in both cases, the only difference is the particular game element being targeted.
Manchu wrote: Just for reference, in FFG's relaunch the same powerful female characters are still around and at least one important, powerful character was genderswapped to be female, without changing the character's love interest (making this character a woman sexually attracted to another woman). No complaints on my part, she (Doji Hotaru) is one of my favorite characters in new L5R (and I'm a Lion btw).
Oh, wow. Didn't even know of the reboot.
So what about Dairu?
kestral wrote: Not being terribly up on "Gamergate" or this Anita Sarkosian person, I googled "Worst Anita S quotes" to see just how bad she was After all, if you want to know the worst about someone, you can be sure their enemies will have the dirt on them. This was the first result:
Uhh - well, I wasn't that impressed by the outrage. I didn't see her saying "All gamers are sexist" or "All men Suck". While I can see why some of those quotes might trigger a person who is big into men's rights, they are overall pretty minimal. If they're freaking you out, you must have a much tamer female friends on facebook than I do.
The whole thing was always blown completely out of proportion. The irony that she would'nt ever have gotten traction if people didnt get so stark raving mad about her, was pointed out countless times.
Your example is actually pretty neat, I've seen numerous FB-Posts that were about ten times as insulting/generalizing as anything Anita has ever written, said, or done.
But how many of those FB posts have a cabal of journalists to back them up or talk at the UN or get hired to talk to game devs.
Also that "FACT: I am an expert on women in video games." picture is hilarious. It says a lot about how she views herself.
You're not wrong, but her success came entirely from riding the wave of negativity that was flooded at her back when she made her trope-videos. She is a living, breathing example of "Don't feed the Troll".
I'm not trying to say that she is worth listening to, god know. It's a waste of time and braincells, there are plenty of smarter people that talked in more creative ways about the same subjects. But I'm not sure wether I wouldnt have taken advantage if I ended up in the same situation.
If so many idiots were willing to give me attention, and more importantly MONEY, I'd be hard pressed not to try to profit off of it.
kestral wrote: Not being terribly up on "Gamergate" or this Anita Sarkosian person, I googled "Worst Anita S quotes" to see just how bad she was After all, if you want to know the worst about someone, you can be sure their enemies will have the dirt on them. This was the first result:
Uhh - well, I wasn't that impressed by the outrage. I didn't see her saying "All gamers are sexist" or "All men Suck". While I can see why some of those quotes might trigger a person who is big into men's rights, they are overall pretty minimal. If they're freaking you out, you must have a much tamer female friends on facebook than I do.
The whole thing was always blown completely out of proportion. The irony that she would'nt ever have gotten traction if people didnt get so stark raving mad about her, was pointed out countless times.
Your example is actually pretty neat, I've seen numerous FB-Posts that were about ten times as insulting/generalizing as anything Anita has ever written, said, or done.
I'd also point out that number 8 is wrong. Her tweets don't say that the police have made arrests or tracked the people harassing her. All she says is that she is contacting the authorities, then minutes later says she is safe, the authorities have been contacted and that she is staying with friends.
I didnt even click the link. I would not be surprised if one of the 10 points is that Anita once tried to summon Femanyothep, the Dark God of Women's rights, to kill every male gamer on the planet.
Manchu wrote: Backfire, barring magic, I guess he will not exist. Or if he does, he will have different parents.
Oh, too bad. He was major aspect of the story.
Can't say I fault FFG for rebooting the lore as such, it had become a mess. If anything, making the Clan Wars lore a bit less Kachiko-centric is a boon. But I digress, sorry for the interruption. Everyone continue to hurl insults.
Why are people seriously considering what AgeoftheShitlords post. Their agenda is so blantant they might as well hit you in the face with a baseball bat with the words "evul feminiztz everywhere!" On it.
I must have missed not seeing the link posted and a discussion on the contents, my bad!
Not taking it seriously, just pointing out that even when they are criticising her tweets, and have the tweets right there on their page, they still manage to misrepresent what it is that she actually said.
I must have missed not seeing the link posted and a discussion on the contents, my bad!
Not taking it seriously, just pointing out that even when they are criticising her tweets, and have the tweets right there on their page, they still manage to misrepresent what it is that she actually said.
That was just you though. Bringing up pages like that to show what a horrible person she is and accuse her of cherrypicking (note this in in general about people arguing against her) is frankly ironic considering the source used.
Either side has a clear interest in no nuance on Sarkeesian as a person.
I must have missed not seeing the link posted and a discussion on the contents, my bad!
Not taking it seriously, just pointing out that even when they are criticising her tweets, and have the tweets right there on their page, they still manage to misrepresent what it is that she actually said.
That was just you though. Bringing up pages like that to show what a horrible person she is and accuse her of cherrypicking (note this in in general about people arguing against her) is frankly ironic considering the source used.
Either side has a clear interest in no nuance on Sarkeesian as a person.
Again, go reread the post that posted the link because I don't think you understood why it was used. Irony thy name is Dakka.
I saw why it was used. But even if its the enemy its still presenting her as badly as possible without nuance and a sprinkle of lies. You can't just go well I will take a look at what her opponents say and it doesn't look that bad. Its still making it out to be worse than it actually is. Should I say casually discussing then? Was that the issue?
I will make it more clear, I don't think we should spend time even considering what comes out of that website as they clearly have an agenda to push and no inclination for even trying to be objective.
She's only relevant and famous because people hate her.
People hate her because she lies and distorts the truth.
She wants people to hate her because that brings media attention and sympathy.
Media attention and sympathy attracts donations and public speaking opportunities.
She's the Kim Kardashian of gaming.
I'd much rather listen to Liana Kerzner (who I've been subscribed to on Youtube since Gamergate) because I perceive her to be much more honest and knowledgeable on gaming in general.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I saw why it was used. But even if its the enemy its still presenting her as badly as possible without nuance and a sprinkle of lies. You can't just go well I will take a look at what her opponents say and it doesn't look that bad. Its still making it out to be worse than it actually is. Should I say casually discussing then? Was that the issue?
I will make it more clear, I don't think we should spend time even considering what comes out of that website as they clearly have an agenda to push and no inclination for even trying to be objective.
But this whole thing is about bias. r/GamerGhazi and the Gamergate Wiki are both incredibly biased sources but you didn't raise a stink about them being used. I also think someone had a go at /tg/ at one point and that's probably one of the most liberal boards on 4chan.
Anita very clearly is pushing an agenda but you agree with it so that's okay? This AGAIN is exactly why people don't like Anita. She has never (to my knowledge) actually defended her position in an actual discussion because she doesn't want to hear dissenting opinions. Just like you want to shut down discussion of AgeofGaklords or whatever. This is what fuels anger in the community because the portion of the community that LIKES booby sliders and swimsuits feels like they're being attacked and they aren't given a voice to defend themselves with and when they DO try to make themselves heard they get attacked with further accusations of being sexist and misogynist.
By silencing your opponents all you do is reaffirm their views, force them into extreme positions and drive them underground. When you close a bunch of nazis in a box with each other and put a blanket over it when you lift the cover they're not going to have suddenly changed their minds.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I saw why it was used. But even if its the enemy its still presenting her as badly as possible without nuance and a sprinkle of lies. You can't just go well I will take a look at what her opponents say and it doesn't look that bad. Its still making it out to be worse than it actually is. Should I say casually discussing then? Was that the issue?
I will make it more clear, I don't think we should spend time even considering what comes out of that website as they clearly have an agenda to push and no inclination for even trying to be objective.
But this whole thing is about bias. r/GamerGhazi and the Gamergate Wiki are both incredibly biased sources but you didn't raise a stink about them being used. I also think someone had a go at /tg/ at one point and that's probably one of the most liberal boards on 4chan.
Anita very clearly is pushing an agenda but you agree with it so that's okay? This AGAIN is exactly why people don't like Anita. She has never (to my knowledge) actually defended her position in an actual discussion because she doesn't want to hear dissenting opinions. Just like you want to shut down discussion of AgeofGaklords or whatever. This is what fuels anger in the community because the portion of the community that LIKES booby sliders and swimsuits feels like they're being attacked and they aren't given a voice to defend themselves with and when they DO try to make themselves heard they get attacked with further accusations of being sexist and misogynist.
By silencing your opponents all you do is reaffirm their views, force them into extreme positions and drive them underground. When you close a bunch of nazis in a box with each other and put a blanket over it when you lift the cover they're not going to have suddenly changed their minds.
I didn't notice that they were used and that is on me, the thread is moving quite fast at times. But yes both of those have the same issues. People raise all kinds of stinkers from the factual feminist to the reddit threads.
And Anita is pushing an agenda, I never denied that. I have even said that viewing her material its very basic and she is a terrible advocate for the things she tries to accomplish. She is a women pushing an opinion being met with an incredible amount of hate. I'm not going to bring up the lords stuff to show Sarkeesian is bad anymore then I'm going to bring up Sarkeesian to show why everyone here is terrible. The issue is that when the 'community' defends itself, normal people are actually on the same side as the mysogynists in the hobby defending it, whether the normal element likes it or not. This is why arguments of Sarkeesian have mainstream traction, the mysogynists do exist in the hobby and we should drive them out. The bile from the bad eggs is what gives people like her traction in the first place.
I'm not trying to silence anyone, I say let them rant and rave in their little internet corner. They aren't going to change their views, pushing them out of the hobby is what actually accomplishes defending it. Not having them stay in the opinion loop as somehow relevant.
Sim-Life wrote: This is what fuels anger in the community because the portion of the community that LIKES booby sliders and swimsuits feels like they're being attacked and they aren't given a voice to defend themselves with and when they DO try to make themselves heard they get attacked with further accusations of being sexist and misogynist.
I'm not really seeing the problem here. It's sexist garbage, and the people who like it should feel bad about it. If they don't want to be accused of sexism then perhaps they shouldn't be guilty of it?
When you close a bunch of nazis in a box with each other and put a blanket over it when you lift the cover they're not going to have suddenly changed their minds.
This is why you never open the box of Nazis. Lock the box, throw away the key, throw the box to the bottom of the ocean.
Sim-Life wrote: This is what fuels anger in the community because the portion of the community that LIKES booby sliders and swimsuits feels like they're being attacked and they aren't given a voice to defend themselves with and when they DO try to make themselves heard they get attacked with further accusations of being sexist and misogynist.
I'm not really seeing the problem here. It's sexist garbage, and the people who like it should feel bad about it. If they don't want to be accused of sexism then perhaps they shouldn't be guilty of it?
When you close a bunch of nazis in a box with each other and put a blanket over it when you lift the cover they're not going to have suddenly changed their minds.
This is why you never open the box of Nazis. Lock the box, throw away the key, throw the box to the bottom of the ocean.
What about the ones who are not guilty of it and still accused of it, and no matter how they try to deny it they are ignored because they are obviously lying sexists.
We can sit and argue the merits and flaws of Anita's arguments and do the same for the people who criticize her on the internet until we're blue in the face. I think instead we should focus on the relevant:
She's held ONE seat at a panel similar to this, and her behavior was unprofessional, predatory, and outright toxic. I don't care if an audience member that made 100 videos debunking her own videos is sitting right there, he was saying nothing and she attacked him. Additionally, she verbally attacked another member of the panel.
In addition, of the many women in the tabletop industry that have both contributed to gaming and worked to make a tolerant sub-culture- she is probably the least qualified. If nothing else, it goes without saying that there are plenty of better options.
Based on these factors alone, she shouldn't be there. But then again, she's faded so fast from relevance, she's probably desperate for a buck so she could be very well doing this for a sandwich and a Sprite.
Giving some thought to Manchu's statement about per-emptively loading her onto the panel to defend against the raging mob accusing them of being sexist has some merit. After all, that seems to be the reaction to anything on the internet- if you're hosting an event or selling a product, rest assured some pearl-clutching gooniebeard or neon-haired white girl is looking for it to be bigoted and raise hell and make a stink about it (whether or not they are actually interested in the event, service, or product). I have no idea why, I guess everyone has their hobbies and I think some folks are sexually aroused by faux outrages and nothingburger nontroversies. That, and I'm also pretty convinced that less credible media sources have these little agents and sock accounts trawling the web looking for their next moral panic, just to create some Twitter drama for some clickbait site.
Based on what I read of the Origins incident regarding Larry Correia, I'm utterly convinced these sorts of conventions are cesspits that should be just ignored by the majority of sane adults. The sorts of people who gravitate toward this kind of virtue-posturing madness eventually break down and create their little hierarchies and then proceed to eat one another alive in the Oppression Olympics, while the rest of civilization looks on with a chuckle and continues to have fun and enjoy their lives.
I am reminded of a little cluster of hipsters that once haunted one of the larger FLGS stores. They were, quite honestly, the closest thing to "Social Justice Warriors" I've ever seen, and this was before the little surge of them online. They were always looking for something to be offended by and upset by, but they were just profitable enough that the owner didn't want to hurl them into the streets- or perhaps more accurately, he was terrified of the online reviews they'd leave on Social Media (because they were known to stink the Facebook page up). Eventually, the policy was 'ignore them'. If they spoke to you, about you, or anything- you just pretended they were background noise. Turn your back on them. Eventually, they isolated themselves in a corner of the FLGS (literally, the corner) and because they had no one else to bully, they turned on one another like hungry jackals.
That's how I genuinely hope these crazy little cons turn out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote: What about the ones who are not guilty of it and still accused of it, and no matter how they try to deny it they are ignored because they are obviously lying sexists.
Brother, I smashed the 'ignore' button on the Salty One last night and I have no regrets. He's certainly not worth speaking to, because all he wants to do is get riled up and virtue signal. Leave him be, he'll tucker out and find something else to do.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: She's held ONE seat at a panel similar to this, and her behavior was unprofessional, predatory, and outright toxic. I don't care if an audience member that made 100 videos debunking her own videos is sitting right there, he was saying nothing and she attacked him. Additionally, she verbally attacked another member of the panel.
A man who is actually a very vulnerable person who has struggled with severe physical and mental health problems, I might add.
Formosa wrote: What about the ones who are not guilty of it and still accused of it, and no matter how they try to deny it they are ignored because they are obviously lying sexists.
"WTF? I don't want bikini outfits, what are you talking about?"
If someone denies the sexist behavior and is accused of lying about it with no evidence behind the accusation, well, it should be obvious how to treat the people making the accusation. Note, however, that this is not the same thing as denying being a sexist while engaging in sexist behavior. That isn't a lack of guilt, it's a lack of willingness to acknowledge guilt.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: A man who is actually a very vulnerable person who has struggled with severe physical and mental health problems, I might add.
Yeah, Boogie's story is pretty sad. But his individual situation only makes it that much worse.
I can tell you, I've been to speaking events for officials and industry persons. If there was that kind of conflict and behavior from any panel members- they'd be disinvited from all future speaking panels at that event, future events, and the host of the event would issue a public statement regarding their toxic behavior and make it clear that it wasn't tolerated.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I don't care if an audience member that made 100 videos debunking her own videos is sitting right there, he was saying nothing and she attacked him.
Again, this is the equivalent of punching someone in the face and demanding that they not respond because at that moment you are no longer punching them in the face. Sargon of Akkad is a , even if he wasn't actively causing trouble at that exact moment, and he doesn't get a cease fire for it. And let's be honest here, he wasn't being quiet in the audience because of a genuine desire to rebuild his relationship with the speaker or out of respect for her, he was doing it so he could play the martyr and claim "I WASN'T DOING ANYTHING" if she said anything in reaction to his trolling attempt.
Peregrine wrote: Only because we define "rape" as "a stranger jumps out of the bushes and drags a victim (preferably young, white, attractive, and a pious virgin) off by force and rapes them as they scream NO as loudly as possible" and insist that things like getting someone drunk and having sex with them while they are unable to consent are just "regretting it the morning after" and not really rape.
In general and in particular laws and not opinions shape the legality of things, one can ascribe things to the laws that the laws do not have, or twist the language to have another meaning from what the mainstream understand, but it is dishonest, misleading the majority of people who have an understanding what a word mean to believe what you mean, when you mean something entirely different.
Peregrine wrote: The actual statistics on this disagree with you. False accusations exist, but they are rare.
Are they? I saw statistics supporting both narratives, but the recent stories like the infamous "mattress saga" show that false accusations are not only an issue, but they get showcased a lot.
Peregrine wrote: Because it's almost inevitably a concept that doesn't exist in the real world. Yes, in some hypothetical porn game where everyone, male or female or not human at all or whatever, is sexy and the game is all about sex having sexy miniatures wouldn't be sexist. But in the real world we're inevitably talking about bikini outfits in a game where the men are wearing practical clothes, and the obvious intent is to make sexy women for the enjoyment of male customers. It presents the sexist message that men are the relevant characters, and women are there as decorative objects.
It does not represent that message, or at least not to somebody that does not want to see this message, what somebody gets from something says more about them and their understanding of the world than to the subject they observe, for the record what is sexy and what is sexist varies to each person and more importantly what is sexy varies, there are several good and honest explanation from industry insiders in each thread about female models in each iteration of it on why female models are designed the way they are, beyond this sells (which is a good reason by itself) illustrating visual limitations of scale, medium and other factors, but they are been ignored for the narrative
Sexy and not sexist is not a concept that does not exist in the real world it exists, but more so the same model can be any combination of not sexy/ sexy, not sexist/ sexist regardless of its outfit from complete naked to fully clothed depending on the observer, there is no universal consensus and it will never be because humans are individuals and not a hive group thinking entity.
Manchu wrote:I can agree that GW is unlikely to budge on all-male SMs. The company is not vulnerable on that front. Extortionists have to pick their targets for weakness.
And yet people try, who knows maybe someday they will succeed like they did with Marvel comics, it will probably take the same rout of failure, then they will accuse the paying customers of been bigots instead of accepting it was not a good idea.
kestral wrote:I'm not really feeling Tentacle Benito's pain.
You make a game that deliberately references tentacle Hentai and you're going to have problems, even if your game doesn't include nudity or anything in and of itself nasty.
You push the edge, it gets you free publicity and that usually works out to your benefit. But sometimes whatever private company you're working with decides they're not cool with it (possibly helped along by irate advocates), and that is their call. Find another venue.
Sorry. If you make a game that is called "march to the ovens" with an iron cross on it, you deserve every bit of hate you get, even if it is about a struggling early morning muffin baker.
The pain is that a minority of people bullied their way to make kickstarter censor the creator instead of using the advice they give usually to people "don't like it don't buy it" it is a double standard seen quite often lately, tentacle bento did not push any edge and was quite mild, but some individuals needed to be morally outraged of what they thought it is, not what it is, honestly let the market decide not push a then growing and vulnerable kickstarter to censor creators, if people did not like it they would not back it, I would say it falls under disruptive interference, but who would push for that really?
Stuebi wrote:Part of me can't help but respect Anita for keeping this going. I remember back when "those" videos came out. It just looked like badly made content, with cherry-picked studies and examples and would thus quickly head into obscurity again. The fact that she's still a thing so much time later is frankly baffling.
It is a shame that she's invading Tabletop now tough. She inevitably turns any sort of environment into one where there are only two sides, and everybody is left dumber for it.
On the other hand, it probably shouldnt be too surprising. It was only a matter of time before this whole stupidity dipped over from video games into practically everything else you can imagine.
Well it is her job, if she stopped doing it or trying to be relevant she would need to find some other job.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: A man who is actually a very vulnerable person who has struggled with severe physical and mental health problems, I might add.
Yeah, Boogie's story is pretty sad. But his individual situation only makes it that much worse.
I can tell you, I've been to speaking events for officials and industry persons. If there was that kind of conflict and behavior from any panel members- they'd be disinvited from all future speaking panels at that event, future events, and the host of the event would issue a public statement regarding their toxic behavior and make it clear that it wasn't tolerated.
Yeah but you see, Anita Sarkeesian is a member of an oppressed minority, whereas Boogie is a PrivilegedTMstraight while male.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: She's held ONE seat at a panel similar to this, and her behavior was unprofessional, predatory, and outright toxic. I don't care if an audience member that made 100 videos debunking her own videos is sitting right there, he was saying nothing and she attacked him. Additionally, she verbally attacked another member of the panel.
A man who is actually a very vulnerable person who has struggled with severe physical and mental health problems, I might add.
And if that is the case, she is only discrediting herself, but part of the community is throwing so much shade that this no longer speaks for itself. Self inflicted injury.
I'm in a strange position because I like bikini suits but I don't like them in my serious videogames/comics/movies, because when I try to take a strong female character serious its hard to do it when she wears plate bikini. It breaks my inmersion. (Sisters of Battle, for example. I have no problem with boob-plate, I think as long as isn't too exagerated is a middle ground to make the feminine form more clear. Plus, tradition on how is the design of the faction. But I don't have a problem with normal plate armour for females.)
In the other hand, if the product is comical/the costume fits the character/ its an erotic/porn product I have no problems with it.
PsychoticStorm wrote: In general and in particular laws and not opinions shape the legality of things, one can ascribe things to the laws that the laws do not have, or twist the language to have another meaning from what the mainstream understand, but it is dishonest, misleading the majority of people who have an understanding what a word mean to believe what you mean, when you mean something entirely different.
I honestly do not understand what you are talking about here, and the tangent was declared off-topic by a moderator. Feel free to take this to an OT thread.
It does not represent that message, or at least not to somebody that does not want to see this message, what somebody gets from something says more about them and their understanding of the world than to the subject they observe, for the record what is sexy and what is sexist varies to each person and more importantly what is sexy varies, there are several good and honest explanation from industry insiders in each thread about female models in each iteration of it on why female models are designed the way they are, beyond this sells (which is a good reason by itself) illustrating visual limitations of scale, medium and other factors, but they are been ignored for the narrative.
Yeah, sure, https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/758234.page is totally not about sex. I'm sure there's some entirely plausible non-sex reason why the creator modified her costume to have a skin-tight corset complete with easy-access boob holes, and seems to exclusively post models of mostly-naked women that require censoring to be allowed on dakka. Tell me about how it's "limitations of scale" driving it, especially when these are much larger than typical 28mm miniatures.
The simple fact is that if you aren't completely oblivious (whether out of ignorance or sheer stubborn desire to refuse to see the hints) to social conventions and messages a sexy miniature is very easy to identify. I understand that many gamers have trouble with social cues like this, but trust me, it's not nearly as ambiguous as you're pretending it is. The average sexy miniature is well outside any gray area between sexuality and non-sexual nudity. And appealing to some abstract philosophical argument about universal beliefs does not change the fact that if you show the average sexy miniature to a typical person in the US in 2018 (the largest market for miniatures games) they will say "yep, that's supposed to be sexy" because they recognize all of the cues.
honestly let the market decide
The market did decide. The fact that you don't like the market's decision does not mean that it didn't decide. Kickstarter weighed the relative financial merits of continuing a business partnership with the creators vs. cutting it off, concluded that the profits to be gained from continuing were not sufficient, and ended it. The creators then took their business elsewhere and sold the game. Had the market taken a more favorable view of the situation Kickstarter would never have dropped it, and would have simply told the critics to STFU while placing an order for the swimming pool to hold all of the money they were about to make.
What you are arguing for here is not "let the market decide", it's "first, remove all market forces that could produce an outcome I don't like, and then let the market reach the conclusion that I have picked for it" and insisting that people refrain from commenting on a product because any negativity might cause a tiny niche-market game to fail.
Manchu wrote:I can agree that GW is unlikely to budge on all-male SMs. The company is not vulnerable on that front. Extortionists have to pick their targets for weakness.
And yet people try, who knows maybe someday they will succeed like they did with Marvel comics, it will probably take the same rout of failure, then they will accuse the paying customers of been bigots instead of accepting it was not a good idea.
They will budge the moment there is money in it. For all of the community pretending fluff/lore is sacred, GW unceremoniously dumped WH fantasy as a decade spanning community staple because of their bottom line. The second GW sniffs money in female SM without pissing off too many people its going to happen.
Galas wrote: I'm in a strange position because I like bikini suits but I don't like them in my serious videogames/comics/movies, because when I try to take a strong female character serious its hard to do it when she wears plate bikini. It breaks my inmersion. (Sisters of Battle, for example. I have no problem with boob-plate, I think as long as isn't too exagerated is a middle ground to make the feminine form more clear. Plus, tradition on how is the design of the faction. But I don't have a problem with normal plate armour for females.)
In the other hand, if the product is comical/the costume fits the character/ its an erotic/porn product I have no problems with it.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying the aesthetics of the female body at all, even a fictionalized and romanticized or outright unrealistic version. Life is a work of art in its own, and you're welcome to enjoy all the works within it. Of course I don't mean starting at women or behaving inappropriately in public or being rude with your admiration. But even if you are sexually aroused by breasts, that doesn't make you wrong- that makes you a normal heterosexual male.
Don't get me wrong, I have the same thing. I can appreciate the novelty of a scantily clad woman in artwork, but if I'm making a character in a video game I kind of want a nice balance between feminine and practical.
Manchu wrote:I can agree that GW is unlikely to budge on all-male SMs. The company is not vulnerable on that front. Extortionists have to pick their targets for weakness.
And yet people try, who knows maybe someday they will succeed like they did with Marvel comics, it will probably take the same rout of failure, then they will accuse the paying customers of been bigots instead of accepting it was not a good idea.
They will budge the moment there is money in it. For all of the community pretending fluff/lore is sacred, GW unceremoniously dumped WH fantasy as a decade spanning community staple because of their bottom line. The second GW sniffs money in female SM without pissing off too many people its going to happen.
Disciple of Fate wrote: They will budge the moment there is money in it. For all of the community pretending fluff/lore is sacred, GW unceremoniously dumped WH fantasy as a decade spanning community staple because of their bottom line. The second GW sniffs money in female SM without pissing off too many people its going to happen.
Eh, dude, I wouldn't say that WFB was a big money-maker. I played it quite a bit in the 90's, but after a few years it was rare to see a game. That's a whole new can of worms, but basically it was actually more expensive than 40k and it wasn't as good at bringing in new players.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I don't care if an audience member that made 100 videos debunking her own videos is sitting right there, he was saying nothing and she attacked him.
Again, this is the equivalent of punching someone in the face and demanding that they not respond because at that moment you are no longer punching them in the face. Sargon of Akkad is a , even if he wasn't actively causing trouble at that exact moment, and he doesn't get a cease fire for it. And let's be honest here, he wasn't being quiet in the audience because of a genuine desire to rebuild his relationship with the speaker or out of respect for her, he was doing it so he could play the martyr and claim "I WASN'T DOING ANYTHING" if she said anything in reaction to his trolling attempt.
Like him or not, her outburst was vile toxic and against the code of conduct of the convention, the fact she was allowed to continue tells a lot about the convention organisers and their biases, there are several ways she could handled it including offering a dialogue, that would automatically elevate her regardless of the dialogue outcome, she decided to attack him and deny him any form of defending himself.
Now we can go a long way discussing if he was provocative just by been there, well as I said many pages ago, public persons have no right to complain about people critiquing them in any way shape or form, especially when they choose to be public in the political spectrum, it is a conscious choice they made and this comes with the baggage, it was a public panel and he and all the others payed to be there, she signed a contract to be there in no part of the contract, I know of, there was a clause she got to choose who would be there, she did sign to abide tot he code of contact of the convention though that she clearly violated.
Like it or not her performance was abysmal there and shows a fear of been challenged for her ideology, the easiest thing one can do is to ignore the persons they do not like, I could justify and outburst if she was challenged inappropriately, but they were just sitting there.
This IS how politics go you say something the opposition deconstructs it, tearing it apart, you then must do the same to your opposition deconstruction and then they do the same and whoever managed to persuade the majority of the audience wins for their political side and agenda, there is no ideological superiority that allows somebody to remain unchallenged.
In your example both were engaged in several boxing matches in the past and then she punched out of the boxing ring to an opponent that was sitting with the audience.
Disciple of Fate wrote: They will budge the moment there is money in it. For all of the community pretending fluff/lore is sacred, GW unceremoniously dumped WH fantasy as a decade spanning community staple because of their bottom line. The second GW sniffs money in female SM without pissing off too many people its going to happen.
Eh, dude, I wouldn't say that WFB was a big money-maker. I played it quite a bit in the 90's, but after a few years it was rare to see a game. That's a whole new can of worms, but basically it was actually more expensive than 40k and it wasn't as good at bringing in new players.
I never said it was a big money maker. I said fantasy as fluff/lore was a decade spanning institution in the hobby dumped overboard because of money. The community holds thing sacred, but the business is business. Female space marines might seem like heresy to the community, but in 10 years if there is money to be made guess what faction will show up.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I don't care if an audience member that made 100 videos debunking her own videos is sitting right there, he was saying nothing and she attacked him.
Again, this is the equivalent of punching someone in the face and demanding that they not respond because at that moment you are no longer punching them in the face. Sargon of Akkad is a , even if he wasn't actively causing trouble at that exact moment, and he doesn't get a cease fire for it. And let's be honest here, he wasn't being quiet in the audience because of a genuine desire to rebuild his relationship with the speaker or out of respect for her, he was doing it so he could play the martyr and claim "I WASN'T DOING ANYTHING" if she said anything in reaction to his trolling attempt.
Like him or not, her outburst was vile toxic and against the code of conduct of the convention, the fact she was allowed to continue tells a lot about the convention organisers and their biases, there are several ways she could handled it including offering a dialogue, that would automatically elevate her regardless of the dialogue outcome, she decided to attack him and deny him any form of defending himself.
Now we can go a long way discussing if he was provocative just by been there, well as I said many pages ago, public persons have no right to complain about people critiquing them in any way shape or form, especially when they choose to be public in the political spectrum, it is a conscious choice they made and this comes with the baggage, it was a public panel and he and all the others payed to be there, she signed a contract to be there in no part of the contract, I know of, there was a clause she got to choose who would be there, she did sign to abide tot he code of contact of the convention though that she clearly violated.
Like it or not her performance was abysmal there and shows a fear of been challenged for her ideology, the easiest thing one can do is to ignore the persons they do not like, I could justify and outburst if she was challenged inappropriately, but they were just sitting there.
This IS how politics go you say something the opposition deconstructs it, tearing it apart, you then must do the same to your opposition deconstruction and then they do the same and whoever managed to persuade the majority of the audience wins for their political side and agenda, there is no ideological superiority that allows somebody to remain unchallenged.
In your example both were engaged in several boxing matches in the past and then she punched out of the boxing ring to an opponent that was sitting with the audience.
People have the right to complain when people misrepresent their views. Which is what Sargon does.
Disciple of Fate wrote: They will budge the moment there is money in it. For all of the community pretending fluff/lore is sacred, GW unceremoniously dumped WH fantasy as a decade spanning community staple because of their bottom line. The second GW sniffs money in female SM without pissing off too many people its going to happen.
Eh, dude, I wouldn't say that WFB was a big money-maker. I played it quite a bit in the 90's, but after a few years it was rare to see a game. That's a whole new can of worms, but basically it was actually more expensive than 40k and it wasn't as good at bringing in new players.
Formosa wrote: What about the ones who are not guilty of it and still accused of it, and no matter how they try to deny it they are ignored because they are obviously lying sexists.
"WTF? I don't want bikini outfits, what are you talking about?"
If someone denies the sexist behavior and is accused of lying about it with no evidence behind the accusation, well, it should be obvious how to treat the people making the accusation. Note, however, that this is not the same thing as denying being a sexist while engaging in sexist behavior. That isn't a lack of guilt, it's a lack of willingness to acknowledge guilt.
So you agree that wrongly accusing someone of sexism is very bad, and ignoring their pleas and evidence that they are not sexist is also bad, and the pleas are ignored based on the original accusation of sexism even though it’s been proven to be false, do you agree that also bad?
Disciple of Fate wrote: I never said it was a big money maker. I said fantasy as fluff/lore was a decade spanning institution in the hobby dumped overboard because of money. The community holds thing sacred, but the business is business. Female space marines might seem like heresy to the community, but in 10 years if there is money to be made guess what faction will show up.
Fair enough. And if the free market demands it, then it'll happen. I've also yet to find someone who says the AoS lore is 'better' than the Old World lore. Still not sure why they didn't just go with "Chaos kicked everyone's ass, very few large armies remain, so Sigmar made the Stormcast dudes to save the world". It could have been just a new chapter in the classic setting, but I digress. I'm the weirdo who thinks Stormcast are actually cool, but I hate the AoS lore.
TBH people who don't want female Space Marines in their army can just sell them to people who obsess over them. And people who want female Marines now can do whatever they want with their property and contribute to some of the outstanding third-party bit sellers.
Peregrine wrote:
I honestly do not understand what you are talking about here, and the tangent was declared off-topic by a moderator. Feel free to take this to an OT thread.
Sorry must have missed it, PM me if you want further details, but what I said is out there.
Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, sure, https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/758234.page is totally not about sex. I'm sure there's some entirely plausible non-sex reason why the creator modified her costume to have a skin-tight corset complete with easy-access boob holes, and seems to exclusively post models of mostly-naked women that require censoring to be allowed on dakka. Tell me about how it's "limitations of scale" driving it, especially when these are much larger than typical 28mm miniatures.
The simple fact is that if you aren't completely oblivious (whether out of ignorance or sheer stubborn desire to refuse to see the hints) to social conventions and messages a sexy miniature is very easy to identify. I understand that many gamers have trouble with social cues like this, but trust me, it's not nearly as ambiguous as you're pretending it is. The average sexy miniature is well outside any gray area between sexuality and non-sexual nudity. And appealing to some abstract philosophical argument about universal beliefs does not change the fact that if you show the average sexy miniature to a typical person in the US in 2018 (the largest market for miniatures games) they will say "yep, that's supposed to be sexy" because they recognize all of the cues.
Congratulations! you found an example of an out of context model, created for an out of context market, that out of context supports your view, I am sorry I am not going to fall that low for an out of context rebuttal, its a nice model and well made, nice for the company that makes it to acknowledge and serve a market segment that values this product and their continued existence means they are successful with a healthy market segment, not a model I care for, but I can appreciate the craft put into it.
Good for them, more choice is always good.
Now on the second part, the average sexy miniature is unknown, what is and is not sexy is to the observer and not the miniature, or even the artist, some people think SoB are sexy I find them not sexy at all, even the repentia Jess did a rally good job in creating a stylised creation that manages to not be sexy while including a powered armour breast-less corset, others believe it is sexy and sexist because it has elements that should make it sexy and sexist in their list, people need not be oblivious, ignorant or seer stubborn to see the truth, they simply do not share your worldview and after a few conversations still do not share your world view, there is no reason why your worldview is more correct than theirs.
I would argue that the "typical person" in the US would not care for you to show them a miniature, but I would also argue there is not "typical person" on the planet.
Peregrine wrote:
The market did decide. The fact that you don't like the market's decision does not mean that it didn't decide. Kickstarter weighed the relative financial merits of continuing a business partnership with the creators vs. cutting it off, concluded that the profits to be gained from continuing were not sufficient, and ended it. The creators then took their business elsewhere and sold the game. Had the market taken a more favorable view of the situation Kickstarter would never have dropped it, and would have simply told the critics to STFU while placing an order for the swimming pool to hold all of the money they were about to make.
What you are arguing for here is not "let the market decide", it's "first, remove all market forces that could produce an outcome I don't like, and then let the market reach the conclusion that I have picked for it" and insisting that people refrain from commenting on a product because any negativity might cause a tiny niche-market game to fail.
I do not think the market decided, Kickstarter decided indeed that it was a risk for their then new platform and hence it was a bullying of the platform, muck like how now patreon is pushed to a certain politically correctness by outside forces, but the game sold, kickstarter was robbed from the funds it would make from the project and whoever creators back then wanted to make similar products, now that kickstarter is established and can ignore social critics they do allow similar and indeed edgier projects and market indeed decides there are money to be made from these, but there is no calculation on how damaging for kickstarter was this initial decision and how many competitors spawned up because there was that pressure.
Free market is relatively "simple" in this regard, if there is a demand they will supply it until the demand ceases to exist, if they try to supply something there is no demand they will fail, for example the recent grand failure of marvel comics, even if the ridiculous accusations of the customer base been bigots for not buying the products is real, the fact is the market decided the products they offer are not in demand.
If tentacle bento was allowed to go on and flopped then the market would indeed decide there is no place for this product, but it was not allowed to because of outside forces interfering with kickstarter and creator.
Manchu wrote:I can agree that GW is unlikely to budge on all-male SMs. The company is not vulnerable on that front. Extortionists have to pick their targets for weakness.
And yet people try, who knows maybe someday they will succeed like they did with Marvel comics, it will probably take the same rout of failure, then they will accuse the paying customers of been bigots instead of accepting it was not a good idea.
They will budge the moment there is money in it. For all of the community pretending fluff/lore is sacred, GW unceremoniously dumped WH fantasy as a decade spanning community staple because of their bottom line. The second GW sniffs money in female SM without pissing off too many people its going to happen.
Most probably and then we will see the real test of how "sacred" the lore is, depending on the buyers reactions.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I don't care if an audience member that made 100 videos debunking her own videos is sitting right there, he was saying nothing and she attacked him.
Again, this is the equivalent of punching someone in the face and demanding that they not respond because at that moment you are no longer punching them in the face. Sargon of Akkad is a , even if he wasn't actively causing trouble at that exact moment, and he doesn't get a cease fire for it. And let's be honest here, he wasn't being quiet in the audience because of a genuine desire to rebuild his relationship with the speaker or out of respect for her, he was doing it so he could play the martyr and claim "I WASN'T DOING ANYTHING" if she said anything in reaction to his trolling attempt.
Like him or not, her outburst was vile toxic and against the code of conduct of the convention, the fact she was allowed to continue tells a lot about the convention organisers and their biases, there are several ways she could handled it including offering a dialogue, that would automatically elevate her regardless of the dialogue outcome, she decided to attack him and deny him any form of defending himself.
Now we can go a long way discussing if he was provocative just by been there, well as I said many pages ago, public persons have no right to complain about people critiquing them in any way shape or form, especially when they choose to be public in the political spectrum, it is a conscious choice they made and this comes with the baggage, it was a public panel and he and all the others payed to be there, she signed a contract to be there in no part of the contract, I know of, there was a clause she got to choose who would be there, she did sign to abide tot he code of contact of the convention though that she clearly violated.
Like it or not her performance was abysmal there and shows a fear of been challenged for her ideology, the easiest thing one can do is to ignore the persons they do not like, I could justify and outburst if she was challenged inappropriately, but they were just sitting there.
This IS how politics go you say something the opposition deconstructs it, tearing it apart, you then must do the same to your opposition deconstruction and then they do the same and whoever managed to persuade the majority of the audience wins for their political side and agenda, there is no ideological superiority that allows somebody to remain unchallenged.
In your example both were engaged in several boxing matches in the past and then she punched out of the boxing ring to an opponent that was sitting with the audience.
People have the right to complain when people misrepresent their views. Which is what Sargon does.
Yes, she can
A Make counter argument videos about him misrepresenting her
B Make videos explaining better her case
C Make videos to debunk his debunking of her
D In a public forum challenge him in a debate to intellectually spar their world view ideology
E At the very least complain in a polite manner that follows the terms of service to the public forum you are part of.
She
insulted him in violation of the code of conduct of the convention and denied him the microphone to defend himself, that is disingenuous and shows weakness.
Remember when somebody misrepresents you it is your obligation to prove them wrong.
Nurglitch wrote: Everything you've posted is suddenly in very sharp focus.
I'm a very moderate libertarian and a hunter. If this troubles you, then that's a personal issue for you. Identity politics on all sides are stupid to me. People looking to be part of a special group because of their skin, genitals, etc.- not because of their character, their actions, or their achievements.
I feel like someone's character, actions, and especially their achievements depend on context. When I was 12, for example, I swam the fastest 100m butterfly in Canada for my age-group. However... It was a slow year, I had had my growth spurt that year, and I was a mediocre athlete competing in a field of mediocre athletes because swimming is a very expensive, and very 'white' sport. My achievement was that thousands of better athletes were off playing other sports.
Likewise my character, and hence my actions, have been shaped by how I was raised, the advantages I had given to me, the battles that were fought on my behalf, and so on.
I feel like context matters. When you say you're a libertarian and a hunter that gives context to why you hold your opinions. If you're a libertarian, for example, then you're going to believe what someone does with what they were given is more important than what they were given. Is that fair? As a 'moderate' you're unlikely to believe that the market will correct for bad actors, like the snake-oil salesmen of the 19th centuries selling quack cures because they could get away with it. You see a place for things like taxes for roads and defense, but not for healthcare or a basic minimum income. Likewise as a hunter you're probably pretty invested in the notion of self-reliance and independence. Is that reasonable to assume?
These things also suggest things about your socio-economic status. You can afford to hunt, for example, and haven't been bankrupted yet. Possibly you can afford to run your own business rather than seeking employment. Maybe you can afford to pick up and move to more prosperous areas, or you can afford to remain in an area where you can hunt rather than seeking work in a city.
What I'm getting at, is that you have a position in life. You have a certain amount of economic power. You have certain physical advantages like not menstruating (I'm assuming you're a man), and people with your colour of skin are associated with a particular take on history as well as that history (I'm English by descent, for example. We're not simply 'white,' but we're 'White.'). You've had advantages, and you've had disadvantages. It's about imagining yourself in another's shoes, which is tricky to do when you haven't shared a personal experience by dint of your position in life. It's not impossible, but it requires a considerable amount of sympathy for people who are unlike you.
Which is, I think, how the Left (to over-generalize) came to what's called "Identity Politics" because the presumption of equality has some pretty nasty results when people aren't actually equal. And its amazing how many ways people can be advantaged or disadvantage. Some differences are so powerful, like requiring the use of a wheel-chair that you can't help but acknowledge them. And once you've noticed something, you tend to notice it more often. So you need to acknowledge that people not only have different abilities, but different cultures and experiences in life, and that people sharing a broad-enough set of these things have an identity.
Which is where intersectionality comes in. My favourite example being some women in a factory being told they couldn't represent black workers because they were women, and they couldn't represent women because they were black. The intersection of being black women marginalized them, it prevented them from being representatives and having a seat at the table where their concerns could be raised and perhaps addressed.
Like the whole "healthy heterosexual men like bikini-girls" thing. Okay, so do some healthy heterosexual women for some reason. Others are annoyed by being constantly represented as sexual objects, and don't see a compromise between sexy and practical representations because their position in life is such that 'sexy' representations of women are a constant pervasive annoyance. Maybe they are a minority, and the best way to maximize the profit of such products is to ignore their comfort and cash in favour of a larger demographic that doesn't consider their comfort. Politically speaking I think we found early on that minorities occasionally needed protections from the majority like constitutional guarantees of rights.
I don't think it's about censoring your enjoyment of sexualized depictions of women, so much as trying to be considerate of the annoyance it causes to women trying to enjoy the same product those depictions have been shoe-horned into.
It is about censoring, removing options is censoring, if you believe that this is the problem why not advocate for a new creation to accommodate what you believe instead of demanding the established that people enjoy to change to your world view.
Change is positive, not negative, demanding less is negative creating more is positive.
That's the weird thing about rights, in that they constrained one person's actions to enable another. Giving me the right to vote, for example, devalues your vote. Being prevented from defaming you censors me, but even if all of me and mine really enjoy defaming you it's worth constraining us to protect you.
In this particular instance it's about requesting consideration on the part of private producers rather than bringing the power of gov't to bear. Which is, I think, what censorship is; the power of the gov't to control and redact content (the ancient office of the Roman Republic's Censor, for example, maintained the lists of social class and hence eligibility for office and so on). Asking private entities if they would tone it down isn't censorship. I could, for example, be banned from Dakka and have all of my posts removed but that wouldn't be censorship because Dakka is not a gov't entity and would simply be showing me the door.
Although, now that you mention it, I am personally creating something new to accommodate women who don't want sexualized depictions of women in their gaming. I was very pleased with the number of women at a recent Game Designer Meet-up that thanked me for not making the Titan models with boob-plate, for example. I'm likewise pleased that Anita Sarkeesian is being given a soapbox by GenCon. In fact, the only thing I'm irked about is that I didn't have my eggs in a row to exhibit at GenCon 2018 because that would have been great.
JmOz01 wrote:Change is neutral, not positive or negative...pet peeve of mine
You are correct, I should have given context.
Nurglitch wrote:That's the weird thing about rights, in that they constrained one person's actions to enable another. Giving me the right to vote, for example, devalues your vote. Being prevented from defaming you censors me, but even if all of me and mine really enjoy defaming you it's worth constraining us to protect you.
In this particular instance it's about requesting consideration on the part of private producers rather than bringing the power of gov't to bear. Which is, I think, what censorship is; the power of the gov't to control and redact content (the ancient office of the Roman Republic's Censor, for example, maintained the lists of social class and hence eligibility for office and so on). Asking private entities if they would tone it down isn't censorship. I could, for example, be banned from Dakka and have all of my posts removed but that wouldn't be censorship because Dakka is not a gov't entity and would simply be showing me the door.
Although, now that you mention it, I am personally creating something new to accommodate women who don't want sexualized depictions of women in their gaming. I was very pleased with the number of women at a recent Game Designer Meet-up that thanked me for not making the Titan models with boob-plate, for example. I'm likewise pleased that Anita Sarkeesian is being given a soapbox by GenCon. In fact, the only thing I'm irked about is that I didn't have my eggs in a row to exhibit at GenCon 2018 because that would have been great.
Why on earth should rights been exclusionary? who in his right mind advocates for that especially under the banner of "been inclusive", laws can be constraining, but laws are not rights, they are the contracts we have to make sure our society works, they are not perfect, but they work, if you are for example defaming me, I can use the law to stop you assuming the law agrees that you are defaming me and it is not my perception that you do.
You touch a really tough subject on the "free speech" unfortunately we are not from the same countries and not on the same laws and philosophy about it, I feel personally that the "free speech" US citizens evangelise is an outdated and out of touch law that creates more problems than it solves now, technology and society has evolved and now the main censorship happens between individuals and corporations, not the government and their citizens, what constitutes free speech and what constitutes a public platform needs to be redefined, I am not sure I would like to be the one that this will fall in their shoulders.
I know what you do and I applaud it, you do what I advocate, want something to conform your world view and ideas, make your own, don't change the things that already exist to match your worldview.
Formosa wrote: What about the ones who are not guilty of it and still accused of it, and no matter how they try to deny it they are ignored because they are obviously lying sexists.
"WTF? I don't want bikini outfits, what are you talking about?"
If someone denies the sexist behavior and is accused of lying about it with no evidence behind the accusation, well, it should be obvious how to treat the people making the accusation. Note, however, that this is not the same thing as denying being a sexist while engaging in sexist behavior. That isn't a lack of guilt, it's a lack of willingness to acknowledge guilt.
In what twisted and evil universe of yours does liking bikini outfits equate sexism?
Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
And many people also have the sex-positive view that there is nothing morally wrong with depictions of the bikini-clad female form.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
Google "He-Man".
It's cleavage on miniatures. Not any more sexualizing or unrealistic than the biceps of Conan the Barbarian.
It's fantasy universies. Not real. Imaginary. "Unrealistic" should be the least of your worries. Otherwise I am very angry they don't make miniatures of weak nerds with thick glasses. It's probably because of objectification. Or maybe because it does not sell.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
And many people also have the sex-positive view that there is nothing morally wrong with depictions of the bikini-clad female form.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
And many people also have the sex-positive view that there is nothing morally wrong with depictions of the bikini-clad female form.
Sexism and morality are not the same thing.
It's boobs. Every woman has two. Men like them because instinct of reproduction of the human species. That's the end of their story. There is absolutely nothing sexist about liking boobs. Quit tossing strong words on every single topic otherwise they lose their power all too soon. Keep the sexism bomb for when it is really needed.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
And many people also have the sex-positive view that there is nothing morally wrong with depictions of the bikini-clad female form.
Sexism and morality are not the same thing.
No one is harmed by the sale and purchase of nude/naked/whatever figurines. There’s no sexism present.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
Google "He-Man".
It's cleavage on miniatures. Not any more sexualizing or unrealistic than the biceps of Conan the Barbarian.
It's fantasy universies. Not real. Imaginary. "Unrealistic" should be the least of your worries. Otherwise I am very angry they don't make miniatures of weak nerds with thick glasses. It's probably because of objectification. Or maybe because it does not sell.
Really that is your response? He-man? Yes he represents another form which people consider sexist, the fact that the hero always has to be the big muscly guy. Its Conan the Barbarian level stereotyping.
So handwaving it away with fantasy universes? Aren't you one of the same people complaing over in the SW threads that Rey was a Mary Sue because what she did was unrealistic. Methinks this smells of having your cake and eating it too.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
And many people also have the sex-positive view that there is nothing morally wrong with depictions of the bikini-clad female form.
Sexism and morality are not the same thing.
It's boobs. Every woman has two. Men like them because instinct of reproduction of the human species. That's the end of their story. There is absolutely nothing sexist about liking boobs. Quit tossing strong words on every single topic otherwise they lose their power all too soon. Keep the sexism bomb for when it is really needed.
Uh everyone has two boobs? Look down, they are just more pronounced on women. There is nothing sexist about liking boobs, however it is sexist to treat women like they are nothin more than a pair of boobs in games such as the infamous DoA Beach Volleybal.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
And many people also have the sex-positive view that there is nothing morally wrong with depictions of the bikini-clad female form.
Sexism and morality are not the same thing.
No one is harmed by the sale and purchase of nude/naked/whatever figurines. There’s no sexism present.
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
I feel like someone's character, actions, and especially their achievements depend on context. When I was 12, for example, I swam the fastest 100m butterfly in Canada for my age-group. However... It was a slow year, I had had my growth spurt that year, and I was a mediocre athlete competing in a field of mediocre athletes because swimming is a very expensive, and very 'white' sport. My achievement was that thousands of better athletes were off playing other sports.
Likewise my character, and hence my actions, have been shaped by how I was raised, the advantages I had given to me, the battles that were fought on my behalf, and so on.
I feel like context matters. When you say you're a libertarian and a hunter that gives context to why you hold your opinions. If you're a libertarian, for example, then you're going to believe what someone does with what they were given is more important than what they were given. Is that fair? As a 'moderate' you're unlikely to believe that the market will correct for bad actors, like the snake-oil salesmen of the 19th centuries selling quack cures because they could get away with it. You see a place for things like taxes for roads and defense, but not for healthcare or a basic minimum income. Likewise as a hunter you're probably pretty invested in the notion of self-reliance and independence. Is that reasonable to assume?
These things also suggest things about your socio-economic status. You can afford to hunt, for example, and haven't been bankrupted yet. Possibly you can afford to run your own business rather than seeking employment. Maybe you can afford to pick up and move to more prosperous areas, or you can afford to remain in an area where you can hunt rather than seeking work in a city.
What I'm getting at, is that you have a position in life. You have a certain amount of economic power. You have certain physical advantages like not menstruating (I'm assuming you're a man), and people with your colour of skin are associated with a particular take on history as well as that history (I'm English by descent, for example. We're not simply 'white,' but we're 'White.'). You've had advantages, and you've had disadvantages. It's about imagining yourself in another's shoes, which is tricky to do when you haven't shared a personal experience by dint of your position in life. It's not impossible, but it requires a considerable amount of sympathy for people who are unlike you.
Which is, I think, how the Left (to over-generalize) came to what's called "Identity Politics" because the presumption of equality has some pretty nasty results when people aren't actually equal. And its amazing how many ways people can be advantaged or disadvantage. Some differences are so powerful, like requiring the use of a wheel-chair that you can't help but acknowledge them. And once you've noticed something, you tend to notice it more often. So you need to acknowledge that people not only have different abilities, but different cultures and experiences in life, and that people sharing a broad-enough set of these things have an identity.
Which is where intersectionality comes in. My favourite example being some women in a factory being told they couldn't represent black workers because they were women, and they couldn't represent women because they were black. The intersection of being black women marginalized them, it prevented them from being representatives and having a seat at the table where their concerns could be raised and perhaps addressed.
Like the whole "healthy heterosexual men like bikini-girls" thing. Okay, so do some healthy heterosexual women for some reason. Others are annoyed by being constantly represented as sexual objects, and don't see a compromise between sexy and practical representations because their position in life is such that 'sexy' representations of women are a constant pervasive annoyance. Maybe they are a minority, and the best way to maximize the profit of such products is to ignore their comfort and cash in favour of a larger demographic that doesn't consider their comfort. Politically speaking I think we found early on that minorities occasionally needed protections from the majority like constitutional guarantees of rights.
I don't think it's about censoring your enjoyment of sexualized depictions of women, so much as trying to be considerate of the annoyance it causes to women trying to enjoy the same product those depictions have been shoe-horned into.
I'm going to stop you: At no point in any civilized person's life should they be looking at people and making wild assumptions about who they are based on arbitrary features they can see or even little things. "Wealthy enough to hunt?" My father inherited a bolt-action rifle that was nearly 80 years old and used it to put food on our table so we didn't starve- we weren't scheduling trips to the Savanna to bag a Lion for the trophy room in the Hamptons. You know nothing about me. You don't know my actual race, or if I'm even a mixed race. You don't know my sexual orientation, my financial situation, my personal history, or anything. Assuming like you've done, based on this imaginary privilege stack is intellectually lazy. You're assuming things, based on what you've experienced at best- you're using stereotypes to categorize someone and engage with them. This is no different than assuming a black guy hasn't been educated, or that a Hispanic guy is an illegal immigrant. It's pathetic soft bigotry.
Simply put, "We can stereotype people as long as it works in their favor".
Horse-puckey. The point of NOT generalizing people is that peoples' identities are formed more by their experiences in life, and without knowing someone as an individual- you deny yourself knowing their situation. You say you think we should 'stop and consider and check our privilege'? All right, what if I told you- that maybe you should do the same. Not every white dude has an easy life. Not every black woman grew up poor and uneducated.
Stop being a bigot with your lower expectations for people who aren't white. Don't assume by default that a white dude is just set up for life. Maybe you were, but not everyone had it so easy. Not everyone had it so hard. Don't cheapen individuals by just lazily assuming things based on minimal information. Humanity- your neighbors- deserve better than that. Instead of assuming things based on stereotypes and trying to determine someone's privilege position, you could try something else: Don't be a coward and actually try to get to know someone as an individual.
Simply put- I do see everyone as an equal: A blank slate. I don't put a label on them. I want them to show me who they are. That's their right, and it's what I want. Let them demonstrate who they are by the content of their character, without me just making wild judgements about them like some kind of actual bigot.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
Meanwhile in the real world of actual adults, people understand that human beings are, by their very nature, sexual beings and admiration of the female or male form is entirely acceptable. And in the case of little plastic dollies or digital avatars- they're not really people, and anyone who sees this and comes unhinged has two options- ignore it, deal with it, or seek psychiatric help.
If some woman sees a cartoon drawing and gets upset over it, that's a personal problem. The world isn't going to adapt to every emotionally fragile snowflake, just because they whine about it. In fact, I take absolute delight in the fact that the real world tends to eat them alive.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
Meanwhile in the real world of actual adults, people understand that human beings are, by their very nature, sexual beings and admiration of the female or male form is entirely acceptable. And in the case of little plastic dollies or digital avatars- they're not really people, and anyone who sees this and comes unhinged has two options- ignore it, deal with it, or seek psychiatric help.
Yes admiration is entirely acceptable. Making stick avatars with boobs so large it would break their spine is a whole seperate class from the female form, just as He-Man steroid monsters are for men. Those people might need a human anatomy lesson as opposed to professional help depending on how sexual a bunch of pixels are going to get to them.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
Google "He-Man".
It's cleavage on miniatures. Not any more sexualizing or unrealistic than the biceps of Conan the Barbarian.
It's fantasy universies. Not real. Imaginary. "Unrealistic" should be the least of your worries. Otherwise I am very angry they don't make miniatures of weak nerds with thick glasses. It's probably because of objectification. Or maybe because it does not sell.
Really that is your response? He-man? Yes he represents another form which people consider sexist, the fact that the hero always has to be the big muscly guy. Its Conan the Barbarian level stereotyping.
So handwaving it away with fantasy universes? Aren't you one of the same people complaing over in the SW threads that Rey was a Mary Sue because what she did was unrealistic. Methinks this smells of having your cake and eating it too.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
And many people also have the sex-positive view that there is nothing morally wrong with depictions of the bikini-clad female form.
Sexism and morality are not the same thing.
It's boobs. Every woman has two. Men like them because instinct of reproduction of the human species. That's the end of their story. There is absolutely nothing sexist about liking boobs. Quit tossing strong words on every single topic otherwise they lose their power all too soon. Keep the sexism bomb for when it is really needed.
Uh everyone has two boobs? Look down, they are just more pronounced on women. There is nothing sexist about liking boobs, however it is sexist to treat women like they are nothin more than a pair of boobs in games such as the infamous DoA Beach Volleybal.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
And many people also have the sex-positive view that there is nothing morally wrong with depictions of the bikini-clad female form.
Sexism and morality are not the same thing.
No one is harmed by the sale and purchase of nude/naked/whatever figurines. There’s no sexism present.
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
But in fact I do understand what you’re trying to say- Figuirines can objectify women, and thus be detrimental to female empowerment. Which I disagree with. They don’t shout, “Women are objects, and should be treated as such”. They’re objects. They’re more akin to fertility fetishes. All people like attractive people, and attractive representations of people. There is nothing wrong with that, not purchasing, selling, or making them. They’re objects- they can’t objectify anything.
Yes admiration is entirely acceptable. Making stick avatars with boobs so large it would break their spine is a whole seperate class from the female form, just as He-Man steroid monsters are for men. Those people might need a human anatomy lesson as opposed to professional help depending on how sexual a bunch of pixels are going to get to them.
Who are you to judge someone's preference? Don't like it? Don't use it. Ignore it. Walk away. Express your dislike, if you feel entitled to do so but don't expect them to give a damn.
Be. An. Adult.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sinful Hero wrote: But in fact I do understand what you’re trying to say- Figuirines can objectify women, and thus be detrimental to female empowerment. Which I disagree with. They don’t shout, “Women are objects, and should be treated as such”. They’re objects. They’re more akin to fertility fetishes. Both men and women like attractive people, and attractive representations of people. There is nothing wrong with that, not purchasing, selling, or making them. They’re objects- they can’t objectify anything.
My favorite part of these discussions is how people who claim to care about women and want to empower them... always seem to speak for them like they're emotionally and psychologically fragile children that can't cope with the world.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
Google "He-Man".
It's cleavage on miniatures. Not any more sexualizing or unrealistic than the biceps of Conan the Barbarian.
It's fantasy universies. Not real. Imaginary. "Unrealistic" should be the least of your worries. Otherwise I am very angry they don't make miniatures of weak nerds with thick glasses. It's probably because of objectification. Or maybe because it does not sell.
Really that is your response? He-man? Yes he represents another form which people consider sexist, the fact that the hero always has to be the big muscly guy. Its Conan the Barbarian level stereotyping.
So handwaving it away with fantasy universes? Aren't you one of the same people complaing over in the SW threads that Rey was a Mary Sue because what she did was unrealistic. Methinks this smells of having your cake and eating it too.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
And many people also have the sex-positive view that there is nothing morally wrong with depictions of the bikini-clad female form.
Sexism and morality are not the same thing.
It's boobs. Every woman has two. Men like them because instinct of reproduction of the human species. That's the end of their story. There is absolutely nothing sexist about liking boobs. Quit tossing strong words on every single topic otherwise they lose their power all too soon. Keep the sexism bomb for when it is really needed.
Uh everyone has two boobs? Look down, they are just more pronounced on women. There is nothing sexist about liking boobs, however it is sexist to treat women like they are nothin more than a pair of boobs in games such as the infamous DoA Beach Volleybal.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
And many people also have the sex-positive view that there is nothing morally wrong with depictions of the bikini-clad female form.
Sexism and morality are not the same thing.
No one is harmed by the sale and purchase of nude/naked/whatever figurines. There’s no sexism present.
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
But in fact I do understand what you’re trying to say- Figuirines can objectify women, and thus be detrimental to female empowerment. Which I disagree with. They don’t shout, “Women are objects, and should be treated as such”. They’re objects. They’re more akin to fertility fetishes. Both men and women like attractive people, and attractive representations of people. There is nothing wrong with that, not purchasing, selling, or making them. They’re objects- they can’t objectify anything.
its not that they shout they should be treated as such, its the underlying idea that the female body is a commodity to sell your stuff with. And to be honest, most sexualized figures or game avatars look absolutely horrific due to the attitude of slapping a pair of tits on and people will buy it. We have all seen the examples of that on Dakka.
Personally I fall on the side of, I don't care if people want to do it over there, just don't try to push it into my part when it comes to the above. For heaven's sake, Warhammer Total War has people calling for sexier female units or that this or that female character looks like a man in drags. Its Total War jeez!
Yes admiration is entirely acceptable. Making stick avatars with boobs so large it would break their spine is a whole seperate class from the female form, just as He-Man steroid monsters are for men. Those people might need a human anatomy lesson as opposed to professional help depending on how sexual a bunch of pixels are going to get to them.
Who are you to judge someone's preference? Don't like it? Don't use it. Ignore it. Walk away. Express your dislike, if you feel entitled to do so but don't expect them to give a damn.
Disciple of Fate wrote: its not that they shout they should be treated as such, its the underlying idea that the female body is a commodity to sell your stuff with. And to be honest, most sexualized figures or game avatars look absolutely horrific due to the attitude of slapping a pair of tits on and people will buy it. We have all seen the examples of that on Dakka.
Are you kink-shaming?
No, really- I'm waiting for you to tell me who you are to judge people based upon what they like.
If my 'preference' bothers someone, why should I care? Or do we need to stop having certain things because certain groups are uncomfortable with it? Oh, the Fundamentalist Christians will eat that up!
My favorite part of these discussions is how people who claim to care about women and want to empower them... always seem to speak for them like they're emotionally and psychologically fragile children that can't cope with the world.
I can put my partner on, but I don't think the mods could cope with that.
Disciple of Fate wrote: its not that they shout they should be treated as such, its the underlying idea that the female body is a commodity to sell your stuff with. And to be honest, most sexualized figures or game avatars look absolutely horrific due to the attitude of slapping a pair of tits on and people will buy it. We have all seen the examples of that on Dakka.
Are you kink-shaming?
No, really- I'm waiting for you to tell me who you are to judge people based upon what they like.
If my 'preference' bothers someone, why should I care? Or do we need to stop having certain things because certain groups are uncomfortable with it? Oh, the Fundamentalist Christians will eat that up!
Everything can be framed as a kink, do you want to go down that road?
Good, then as an adult: "If this piece of plastic/resin/metal offends you then please kindly piss off, because I don't care. I like it and I don't need your permission to enjoy it. I owe you nothing." And then they can go cry about it for all I care.
I am not in the business of trying to curb my entertainment to appease unstable snowflakes. I understand some degree of social decency (I wouldn't put nude models or something lewd on a table at the FLGS), but if someone takes issue with me owning, liking, or desiring something- then I am under no obligation to care what they think, they can go be mad about it somewhere else.
Galas wrote: I'm in a strange position because I like bikini suits but I don't like them in my serious videogames/comics/movies, because when I try to take a strong female character serious its hard to do it when she wears plate bikini. It breaks my inmersion. (Sisters of Battle, for example. I have no problem with boob-plate, I think as long as isn't too exagerated is a middle ground to make the feminine form more clear. Plus, tradition on how is the design of the faction. But I don't have a problem with normal plate armour for females.)
In the other hand, if the product is comical/the costume fits the character/ its an erotic/porn product I have no problems with it.
I feel the same way. I'm cool with KDM being KDM, but never want to see a Sister of Battle in a Prodos-style armored thong. For me, the issue is when people push for sexy when sexy isn't called for.
Its hilarious though, we're arguing right now that if the people on one side have to be adults and shut up about it while at the same time arguing one side shouldn't have their hobby exposed to other opinions like adults.
@Disciple of Fate
(I’m on mobile, so I’m avoiding that unwieldy reply chain)
Lol, we’ve all seen terrible representions of the sexes, and there’s a lot out there.
My issue is your assertion that figures are somehow reinforcing that women are objects- “the idea that the female body is a commodity to sell your stuff with”. That’s not the intention at all. It’s merely that it’s an (usually)attractive representation of the female form, would you like to purchase it?
Haven’t delved into the Total War thing, but wanting more attractive people in games isn’t a crime, nor an example of the desire to objectify women. Everyone wants to see attractive people, and if that’s a market that Total War wants to cater to they will.
Not often I write a bunch of stuff, look at it before hitting "submit" and think it is a bunch of BS on my part and erase it all.
Anita is decent looking person who presents reasonably well thought out views on pretty controversial material from a female viewpoint.
I think I tend to react to extremes and it always is from an exclusive and divisive slant.
That picture with her post of "Dear dudes, Please don't surreptitiously take photos of women without their knowledge or consent.", I think that taking pictures of "anyone" of that nature is more valid.
I realize that any beef I may have about her is really observing that she is leveraging what "privilege" she has to the max and getting attention.
We can admire, be jealous of or out and out dislike her work but it gets her recognized nonetheless.
I am impressed how fast and far this topic has gone.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its hilarious though, we're arguing right now that if the people on one side have to be adults and shut up about it while at the same time arguing one side shouldn't have their hobby exposed to other opinions like adults.
Oh, no- they are absolutely free to have their opinions and express them openly.
And I'm just as free to call them a fragile child and tell them to shove their opinion sideways up their ass and talk a walk into the interstate.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its hilarious though, we're arguing right now that if the people on one side have to be adults and shut up about it while at the same time arguing one side shouldn't have their hobby exposed to other opinions like adults.
Oh, no- they are absolutely free to have their opinions and express them openly.
And I'm just as free to call them a fragile child and tell them to shove their opinion sideways up their ass and talk a walk into the interstate.
Oh, they're totally free to be 'political' at the table. And I'm free to, once again, tell them to shove it up their ass and go bother someone else or have the establishment hurl them out into the streets for violating their rules. It's not about what they can or can't do. It's about what I will and won't tolerate. You can do anything you want, just don't get buttmad when the response isn't a nod, a hug, and a booty-pat with reassurances that you're right.
Just because you have a right to it, doesn't mean you have a right to a warm reception or even respect.
Sinful Hero wrote: @Disciple of Fate
(I’m on mobile, so I’m avoiding that unwieldy reply chain)
Lol, we’ve all seen terrible representions of the sexes, and there’s a lot out there.
My issue is your assertion that figures are somehow reinforcing that women are objects- “the idea that the female body is a commodity to sell your stuff with”. That’s not the intention at all. It’s merely that it’s an (usually)attractive representation of the female form, would you like to purchase it?
Haven’t delved into the Total War thing, but wanting more attractive people in games isn’t a crime, nor an example of the desire to objectify women. Everyone wants to see attractive people, and if that’s a market that Total War wants to cater to they will.
Its frequently an unusually attractive representation of the female form designed to sell on the basis of that attractiveness. If its not just boobs on a SM that is. Rememver that thread?
Its people from the other side pushing their agenda just as much as Sarkeesian with sexist language such as it looks like a man in drag or a dog. And its not a crime, but its fething stupid in a game where these characters are a few pixles big at most times. But they already seems to have settled on the fact that they aren't attractive? Who decides that? The people calling female characters men in drag in the first place?
Oh, they're totally free to be 'political' at the table. And I'm free to, once again, tell them to shove it up their ass and go bother someone else or have the establishment hurl them out into the streets for violating their rules. It's not about what they can or can't do. It's about what I will and won't tolerate. You can do anything you want, just don't get buttmad when the response isn't a nod, a hug, and a booty-pat with reassurances that you're right.
Just because you have a right to it, doesn't mean you have a right to a warm reception or even respect.
But you're not the only person in the thread or the hobby. I think I have a decent idea of your gaming club attitude based on yesterday. It was more of a general statement.
Sinful Hero wrote: @Disciple of Fate
(I’m on mobile, so I’m avoiding that unwieldy reply chain)
Lol, we’ve all seen terrible representions of the sexes, and there’s a lot out there.
My issue is your assertion that figures are somehow reinforcing that women are objects- “the idea that the female body is a commodity to sell your stuff with”. That’s not the intention at all. It’s merely that it’s an (usually)attractive representation of the female form, would you like to purchase it?
Haven’t delved into the Total War thing, but wanting more attractive people in games isn’t a crime, nor an example of the desire to objectify women. Everyone wants to see attractive people, and if that’s a market that Total War wants to cater to they will.
Its frequently an unusually attractive representation of the female form designed to sell on the basis of that attractiveness. If its not just boobs on a SM that is.
Its people from the other side pushing their agenda just as much as Sarkeesian with sexist language such as it looks like a man in drag or a dog. And its not a crime, but its fething stupid in a game where these characters are a few pixles big at most times. But they already seems to have settled on the fact that they aren't attractive? Who decides that? The people calling female characters men in drag in the first place?
Oh, they're totally free to be 'political' at the table. And I'm free to, once again, tell them to shove it up their ass and go bother someone else or have the establishment hurl them out into the streets for violating their rules. It's not about what they can or can't do. It's about what I will and won't tolerate. You can do anything you want, just don't get buttmad when the response isn't a nod, a hug, and a booty-pat with reassurances that you're right.
Just because you have a right to it, doesn't mean you have a right to a warm reception or even respect.
But you're not the only person in the thread or the hobby. I think I have a decent idea of your gaming club attitude based on yesterday. It was more of a general statement.
Pretty sure I don’t want to try to argue what is and isn’t attractive, being as subjective as it is. It wasn’t my point, either. Objects are not objectification. No one is being reduced to being an object by an object used to represent a person.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Laws that differ from coubtry to country. Even the age of consent is different between Western countries. Illegal is a terrible argument.
I'm just going to let you know now, you don't want to go down this road because I automatically get suspicious about people who express skepticism about 'age of consent' laws. So, you might wanna just make a hard turn away from this topic.
But you're not the only person in the thread or the hobby. I think I have a decent idea of your gaming club attitude based on yesterday. It was more of a general statement.
You're right. I'm not. Nor am I concerned about appeasing literally every single person in the hobby. And if something as trivial as me liking a boob model (which, I don't have any, but hypothetically) triggers someone and upsets them- then good. They can be mad. They can be an adult and kick rocks and go find someone else to play with. I have effectively acted as a deterrent to the exact sort of person I want nothing to do with. This is a feature, not a bug; and quite frankly I have absolutely no intention to change it, especially because some fragile snowflake can't distinguish fantasy from reality.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
And those same people are oddly silent on the same thing happening to men
Pretty sure I don’t want to try to argue what is and isn’t attractive, being as subjective as it is. It wasn’t my point, either. Objects are not objectification. No one is being reduced to being an object by an object used to represent a person.
And my point wasn't that women are reduced to objects either, its that in parts of the hobby the female body becomes/is treated as an object.
My Total War example is that the subjectivity of attractiveness can also be hiding misogyny.
To tie in to my overall overall point, the issue is not adressing these topics allows misogynists to hide in our community. You aren't one for liking the figures mind you in my view. But the group that feels most attacked will quickly show their real face. It happened to Sarkeesian the first time and they are seemingly coming out of the woodworks on other sites as well. Not adressing it will only allow the bad eggs to fester and damage the community. Take these people out of the community and when people like Sarkeesian show up she would be flailing against the wind, because she isn't going to be validated by the bad eggs we removed.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lol, twisted and evil universe. Meanwhile in the real world plenty of people see the objectification and unrealistic sexualized treatment of female bodies as sexist.
And those same people are oddly silent on the same thing happening to men
Because feminism is all about putting men first amiright
Disciple of Fate wrote: Laws that differ from coubtry to country. Even the age of consent is different between Western countries. Illegal is a terrible argument.
I'm just going to let you know now, you don't want to go down this road because I automatically get suspicious about people who express skepticism about 'age of consent' laws. So, you might wanna just make a hard turn away from this topic.
So to try an win the argument you're going to try and throw some sort of child molester shade at me, classy man. I think this conversation is over. You know what I meant.
Good argument. 9/10, could have used an armpit noise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: So to try an win the argument you're going to try and throw some sort of child molester shade at me, classy man. I think this conversation is over. You know what I meant.
I didn't choose the hill for you to die on, man. I was giving you fair warning.
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?
Pretty sure I don’t want to try to argue what is and isn’t attractive, being as subjective as it is. It wasn’t my point, either. Objects are not objectification. No one is being reduced to being an object by an object used to represent a person.
And my point wasn't that women are reduced to objects either, its that in parts of the hobby the female body becomes/is treated as an object.
My Total War example is that the subjectivity of attractiveness can also be hiding misogyny.
To tie in to my overall overall point, the issue is not adressing these topics allows misogynists to hide in our community. You aren't one for liking the figures mind you in my view. But the group that feels most attacked will quickly show their real face. It happened to Sarkeesian the first time and they are seemingly coming out of the woodworks on other sites as well. Not adressing it will only allow the bad eggs to fester and damage the community. Take these people out of the community and when people like Sarkeesian show up she would be flailing against the wind, because she isn't going to be validated by the bad eggs we removed.
I don’t believe anyone could argue against ostracizing misogynists from tabletop games, aside from situations where they could see problems with their worldview.
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?
Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.
Feminism wants equality as a final goal. And for that to happen, they believe the way to do it is with women's empowerment, because they are in a position of inferiority. So yeah, feminism is all about women.
(Not saying I agree with this, but thats how general feminism works)
Catering to male issues is a secondary thing that isn't in the core of the feminist theory and objetive.
Pretty sure I don’t want to try to argue what is and isn’t attractive, being as subjective as it is. It wasn’t my point, either. Objects are not objectification. No one is being reduced to being an object by an object used to represent a person.
And my point wasn't that women are reduced to objects either, its that in parts of the hobby the female body becomes/is treated as an object.
My Total War example is that the subjectivity of attractiveness can also be hiding misogyny.
To tie in to my overall overall point, the issue is not adressing these topics allows misogynists to hide in our community. You aren't one for liking the figures mind you in my view. But the group that feels most attacked will quickly show their real face. It happened to Sarkeesian the first time and they are seemingly coming out of the woodworks on other sites as well. Not adressing it will only allow the bad eggs to fester and damage the community. Take these people out of the community and when people like Sarkeesian show up she would be flailing against the wind, because she isn't going to be validated by the bad eggs we removed.
I don’t believe anyone could argue against ostracizing misogynists from tabletop games, aside from situations where they could see problems with their worldview.
Yeah, but how are we to ostracize them if we don't talk about it untill they explode publically and drag us all down?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Laws that differ from coubtry to country. Even the age of consent is different between Western countries. Illegal is a terrible argument.
I'm just going to let you know now, you don't want to go down this road because I automatically get suspicious about people who express skepticism about 'age of consent' laws. So, you might wanna just make a hard turn away from this topic.
So to try an win the argument you're going to try and throw some sort of child molester shade at me, classy man. I think this conversation is over. You know what I meant.
Google feminism. Its about pulling harder on female issues to get them to an equal level as men. But laugh all you want I guess
I didn't know the core of feminism was so controversial to you.
You know if I google feminism I’m gonna get 10 different answers right? It’s one of the issues with the movement these days, they don’t even know what they want, but I’m pretty simple so I’m going with the true meaning, equality for woman AND men ...
And I rightly laughed at your stupid gaff, because it was funny.
Sinful Hero wrote: I don’t believe anyone could argue against ostracizing misogynists from tabletop games, aside from situations where they could see problems with their worldview.
Odd fact: No one wants to keep racists around. No one wants to keep misogynists around. No one wants to keep women out of gaming. No one wants bigots, bullies, or bad apples. Absolutely no sane person wants any of this, except maybe other bigots, bullies, and bad apples that have been ejected from the community.
Every reasonable person across the spectrum agrees that these sorts of people are unwelcome. You would think that'd be a good thing and that it'd be enough...
... but it seems awfully peculiar that one side of the argument has quite a few players that want to shift the definitions of bigots, bullies, and bad apples to fit people they disagree with about trivial things. Almost like they're redefining these words for the purposes of gatekeeping...
Galas wrote: I'm in a strange position because I like bikini suits but I don't like them in my serious videogames/comics/movies, because when I try to take a strong female character serious its hard to do it when she wears plate bikini. It breaks my inmersion. (Sisters of Battle, for example. I have no problem with boob-plate, I think as long as isn't too exagerated is a middle ground to make the feminine form more clear. Plus, tradition on how is the design of the faction. But I don't have a problem with normal plate armour for females.)
In the other hand, if the product is comical/the costume fits the character/ its an erotic/porn product I have no problems with it.
I feel the same way. I'm cool with KDM being KDM, but never want to see a Sister of Battle in a Prodos-style armored thong. For me, the issue is when people push for sexy when sexy isn't called for.
This. If you are going for a parody, having characters running around wearing exactly one mink and constantly flexing is great. If you want to be taken seriously, stick them in Gambeson.
Where things get a little trickier, in my opinion, is with stuff like Infinity. Male figures, and robots are reasonably serious (if highly anime-esque), but the vast majority of female models are basically pinups in 28mm pewter. While this is very appropriate for the heavily anime-inspired designs, the game as a whole isn't quite over-the-top enough (a la Gurren Laggan) for this to be a seamless fit.
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?
Depends on how hard you’re adhering to the definition. Technically they’re more like representations.
Google feminism. Its about pulling harder on female issues to get them to an equal level as men. But laugh all you want I guess
I didn't know the core of feminism was so controversial to you.
You know if I google feminism I’m gonna get 10 different answers right? It’s one of the issues with the movement these days, they don’t even know what they want, but I’m pretty simple so I’m going with the true meaning, equality for woman AND men ...
And I rightly laughed at your stupid gaff, because it was funny.
So you pick out the one specifically uncaring about men?
Galas wrote: I'm in a strange position because I like bikini suits but I don't like them in my serious videogames/comics/movies, because when I try to take a strong female character serious its hard to do it when she wears plate bikini. It breaks my inmersion. (Sisters of Battle, for example. I have no problem with boob-plate, I think as long as isn't too exagerated is a middle ground to make the feminine form more clear. Plus, tradition on how is the design of the faction. But I don't have a problem with normal plate armour for females.)
In the other hand, if the product is comical/the costume fits the character/ its an erotic/porn product I have no problems with it.
I feel the same way. I'm cool with KDM being KDM, but never want to see a Sister of Battle in a Prodos-style armored thong. For me, the issue is when people push for sexy when sexy isn't called for.
This. If you are going for a parody, having characters running around wearing exactly one mink and constantly flexing is great. If you want to be taken seriously, stick them in Gambeson.
Where things get a little trickier, in my opinion, is with stuff like Infinity. Male figures, and robots are reasonably serious (if highly anime-esque), but the vast majority of female models are basically pinups in 28mm pewter. While this is very appropriate for the heavily anime-inspired designs, the game as a whole isn't quite over-the-top enough (a la Gurren Laggan) for this to be a seamless fit.
Infinity clearlies objetify women and uses it as an appeal for their customers.
BUT, and this is a big but.
I don't believe is bad to do that. They are free to design whatever they want, and if it sells it sells. I don't like too much sexuality in my serious hobbies because I believe its a cheap marketing practice, but whatever.
Personally, I believe the biggest problem is the lack of sexualized male figures. You just need to watch perfume ads, videoclips, etc... the ratio of sexualized males to sexualized females is very very different. And I believe this comes from a social idea about how men are the "activelly sexual" gender and females are the pasive ones, so the big companies don't find market value in cathering to female sexual desires.
Of course, as 50 shades of Grey showns, they are very wrong in that regard, and I'm sure things will change in the future, with no less but even more sexualization, the difference is that it will be cattered to females too.
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?
Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.
I would argue no figure objectifies women. They’re objects, they’re inanimate. They can’t force women to act a certain way. The idea that these figures have power over anyone is ridiculous. You can ascribe whatever narrative to a Brother Vinni sculpt you want, but at the end of the day it’s still an object. Objects don’t objectify women- people do. If want to argue people use figures to objectify women, I ask how? By making them fit a specific ideal? By representations of bound or wounded women? They’re still objects that make no statements. No flesh and blood woman was objectified, which is my core point. No harm or detriment was made.
Infinity clearlies objetify women and uses it as an appeal for their customers.
BUT, and this is a big but.
I don't believe is bad to do that. They are free to design whatever they want, and if it sells it sells. I don't like too much sexuality in my serious hobbies because I believe its a cheap marketing practice, but whatever.
Personally, I believe the biggest problem is the lack of sexualized male figures. You just need to watch perfume ads, videoclips, etc... the ratio of sexualized males to sexualized females is very very different. And I believe this comes from a social idea about how men are the "activelly sexual" gender and females are the pasive ones, so they big companies don't find market value in cathering to female sexual desires.
Of course, as 50 shades of Grey showns, they are very wrong, and I'm sure things will change in the future, with no less but even more sexualization, the difference is that it will be cattered to females too.
Black Library's Horus Heresy series is pretty 'sexualizing' I guess you could say about SM. I think the issue with sexualizing males that the line between power fantasy and sexual is pretty hard to identify.
As for sexuality in serious hobbies, I think I stand where you do on it. Its possible, but the further you go with it the more the hobby starts to feel as the thing bolted on.
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?
Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.
I would argue no figure objectifies women. They’re objects, they’re inanimate. They can’t force women to act a certain way. The idea that these figures have power over anyone is ridiculous. You can ascribe whatever narrative to a Brother Vinni sculpt you want, but at the end of the day it’s still an object. Objects don’t objectify women- people do. If want to argue people use figures to objectify women, I ask how? By making them fit a specific ideal? By representations of bound or wounded women? They’re still objects that make no statements. No flesh and blood woman was objectified, which is my core point. No harm or detriment was made.
I'm sure the guy that did this did work for Corvus Belli.
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?
Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.
I would argue no figure objectifies women. They’re objects, they’re inanimate. They can’t force women to act a certain way. The idea that these figures have power over anyone is ridiculous. You can ascribe whatever narrative to a Brother Vinni sculpt you want, but at the end of the day it’s still an object. Objects don’t objectify women- people do. If want to argue people use figures to objectify women, I ask how? By making them fit a specific ideal? By representations of bound or wounded women? They’re still objects that make no statements. No flesh and blood woman was objectified, which is my core point. No harm or detriment was made.
They can't force it no, but it can be a representation of what the sculptor/costumer expects what a woman needs to look like to be a woman so to speak. Going back to my Total War example, just because they were not attractive enough it immediately made them men to some people.
At the end of the day it still indeed is an object. But its not as if we don't project on objects. Every representation of people that aren't real are objects, it doesn't mean that there isn't any thought behind it.
I think this is the main point of contention, is the underlying mentality behind the object harmful? I would argue in certain cases of the community it is.
Disciple of Fate wrote: At the end of the day it still indeed is an object. But its not as if we don't project on objects. Every representation of people that aren't real are objects, it doesn't mean that there isn't any thought behind it.
I don't think you understand: So WHAT if this is what he expects a woman to look like? Exactly whose problem is this? If someone doesn't meet his standards, that's just their own problem to sort out. If he spends his life thinking a woman should look like an anime doll, then that's his issue to sort out.
You do not get to own another human being's preferences or likes.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think this is the main point of contention, is the underlying mentality behind the object harmful? I would argue in certain cases of the community it is.
No, it isn't. Not with healthy, normal, rational adults. The 'community' is not one thing, it is many things. If people like things you don't, then kick rocks and find other people to spend time with. Stop demanding people change everything to accommodate someone's personal insecurities.
What next, are we gonna complain that Batman is 'problematic' because he's rich and we're not?
Really that is your response? He-man? Yes he represents another form which people consider sexist, the fact that the hero always has to be the big muscly guy. Its Conan the Barbarian level stereotyping.
So handwaving it away with fantasy universes? Aren't you one of the same people complaing over in the SW threads that Rey was a Mary Sue because what she did was unrealistic. Methinks this smells of having your cake and eating it too.
I think Rey is a Mary Sue because I did not get to see her character develop, unlike Luke, not because "what she did was unrealistic". She started the game with max level. All I got was a "I have never seen so much raw power". Well thanks a fracking bunch, director. Did you do Exposition 101 in director academy? Show me, don't tell me. Methinks you are assuming too much.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Uh everyone has two boobs? Look down, they are just more pronounced on women. There is nothing sexist about liking boobs, however it is sexist to treat women like they are nothin more than a pair of boobs in games such as the infamous DoA Beach Volleybal.
No, everyone has two nipples. Only women have boobs. And men are programmed to like them. Same way -to my knowledge- that women are programmed to like male b.u.t.t.s. It's almost as if humans have this thing for liking curves. Nobody treats women like they are a pair of boobs. They treat their plastic miniatures as having huge boobs. Plastic miniatures, not real women. In the case of the video game, regardless of what BuzzFeed would have you believe, the playerbase of "DoA Beach Volleyball" (like, all 65 of them) do not shape global male attitude towards women in real life. Playing a videogame about girls in bikinis does not make them sexist, any more than playing Farming Simulator makes me a farmer.
Disciple of Fate wrote: No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
Cast companies do not make boob miniatures in order to objectify women, jesus. They make them because they sell. It's a very simple equation really. Most of the miniature collectors/painters/gamers are men. Men like boobs. Put boobs on the miniatures and they will sell more. Funny side effect. Even if people hated boobs, putting them would also increase sales. Just like most people here hate Sarkishian but this thread managed 35 pages in 4 days. Love and hate are opposites to lovers, not corporations. A company's job is to stimulate want through any means necessary, and there is only so many stimulants that are stronger than hate.
There is not a board of fat unfullfilled men plotting daily on how to destroy womankind by introducing boob miniatures. There are statistics that show boobs sell. Space marines sell more than tyranids because people want to play the hero more than they want to play the villain in their games. The market is not sexist. The market is what it is. Supply and demand.
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?
Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.
I would argue no figure objectifies women. They’re objects, they’re inanimate. They can’t force women to act a certain way. The idea that these figures have power over anyone is ridiculous. You can ascribe whatever narrative to a Brother Vinni sculpt you want, but at the end of the day it’s still an object. Objects don’t objectify women- people do. If want to argue people use figures to objectify women, I ask how? By making them fit a specific ideal? By representations of bound or wounded women? They’re still objects that make no statements. No flesh and blood woman was objectified, which is my core point. No harm or detriment was made.
They can't force it no, but it can be a representation of what the sculptor/costumer expects what a woman needs to look like to be a woman so to speak. Going back to my Total War example, just because they were not attractive enough it immediately made them men to some people.
At the end of the day it still indeed is an object. But its not as if we don't project on objects. Every representation of people that aren't real are objects, it doesn't mean that there isn't any thought behind it.
I think this is the main point of contention, is the underlying mentality behind the object harmful? I would argue in certain cases of the community it is.
If a miniature producer makes figures of nude women that are bound- do you assume the producer is a misogynist?
Galas wrote: I'm in a strange position because I like bikini suits but I don't like them in my serious videogames/comics/movies, because when I try to take a strong female character serious its hard to do it when she wears plate bikini. It breaks my inmersion. (Sisters of Battle, for example. I have no problem with boob-plate, I think as long as isn't too exagerated is a middle ground to make the feminine form more clear. Plus, tradition on how is the design of the faction. But I don't have a problem with normal plate armour for females.)
In the other hand, if the product is comical/the costume fits the character/ its an erotic/porn product I have no problems with it.
I feel the same way. I'm cool with KDM being KDM, but never want to see a Sister of Battle in a Prodos-style armored thong. For me, the issue is when people push for sexy when sexy isn't called for.
This. If you are going for a parody, having characters running around wearing exactly one mink and constantly flexing is great. If you want to be taken seriously, stick them in Gambeson.
Where things get a little trickier, in my opinion, is with stuff like Infinity. Male figures, and robots are reasonably serious (if highly anime-esque), but the vast majority of female models are basically pinups in 28mm pewter. While this is very appropriate for the heavily anime-inspired designs, the game as a whole isn't quite over-the-top enough (a la Gurren Laggan) for this to be a seamless fit.
Infinity clearlies objetify women and uses it as an appeal for their customers.
BUT, and this is a big but.
I don't believe is bad to do that. They are free to design whatever they want, and if it sells it sells. I don't like too much sexuality in my serious hobbies because I believe its a cheap marketing practice, but whatever.
Personally, I believe the biggest problem is the lack of sexualized male figures. You just need to watch perfume ads, videoclips, etc... the ratio of sexualized males to sexualized females is very very different. And I believe this comes from a social idea about how men are the "activelly sexual" gender and females are the pasive ones, so the big companies don't find market value in cathering to female sexual desires.
Of course, as 50 shades of Grey showns, they are very wrong in that regard, and I'm sure things will change in the future, with no less but even more sexualization, the difference is that it will be cattered to females too.
Marvel films, of all things, have catered pretty well to the desires of women without it becoming obtrusive for male viewers, and vice-versa. Maybe everything should be more like Marvel movies.
For me, Infinity looks a lot like Maxim magazine. It portrays women just sexualized enough for me not to take it seriously or want to buy it, but it takes itself too seriously or is not sexualized enough to compete in the market(s) I would group it with. But it clearly sells, so they must be doing something right.
Pretty sure I don’t want to try to argue what is and isn’t attractive, being as subjective as it is. It wasn’t my point, either. Objects are not objectification. No one is being reduced to being an object by an object used to represent a person.
And my point wasn't that women are reduced to objects either, its that in parts of the hobby the female body becomes/is treated as an object.
My Total War example is that the subjectivity of attractiveness can also be hiding misogyny.
To tie in to my overall overall point, the issue is not adressing these topics allows misogynists to hide in our community. You aren't one for liking the figures mind you in my view. But the group that feels most attacked will quickly show their real face. It happened to Sarkeesian the first time and they are seemingly coming out of the woodworks on other sites as well. Not adressing it will only allow the bad eggs to fester and damage the community. Take these people out of the community and when people like Sarkeesian show up she would be flailing against the wind, because she isn't going to be validated by the bad eggs we removed.
I don’t believe anyone could argue against ostracizing misogynists from tabletop games, aside from situations where they could see problems with their worldview.
Yeah, but how are we to ostracize them if we don't talk about it untill they explode publically and drag us all down?
Oh, I know, I know, call them bigots and "baskets of deplorables". That will help. It did before. /s
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?
Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.
I would argue no figure objectifies women. They’re objects, they’re inanimate. They can’t force women to act a certain way. The idea that these figures have power over anyone is ridiculous. You can ascribe whatever narrative to a Brother Vinni sculpt you want, but at the end of the day it’s still an object. Objects don’t objectify women- people do. If want to argue people use figures to objectify women, I ask how? By making them fit a specific ideal? By representations of bound or wounded women? They’re still objects that make no statements. No flesh and blood woman was objectified, which is my core point. No harm or detriment was made.
They can't force it no, but it can be a representation of what the sculptor/costumer expects what a woman needs to look like to be a woman so to speak. Going back to my Total War example, just because they were not attractive enough it immediately made them men to some people.
At the end of the day it still indeed is an object. But its not as if we don't project on objects. Every representation of people that aren't real are objects, it doesn't mean that there isn't any thought behind it.
I think this is the main point of contention, is the underlying mentality behind the object harmful? I would argue in certain cases of the community it is.
If a miniature producer makes figures of nude women that are bound- do you assume the producer is a misogynist?
No, I would think its not to my taste, but as I can't read minds I would need a conversation.
Google feminism. Its about pulling harder on female issues to get them to an equal level as men. But laugh all you want I guess
I didn't know the core of feminism was so controversial to you.
You know if I google feminism I’m gonna get 10 different answers right? It’s one of the issues with the movement these days, they don’t even know what they want, but I’m pretty simple so I’m going with the true meaning, equality for woman AND men ...
And I rightly laughed at your stupid gaff, because it was funny.
So you pick out the one specifically uncaring about men?
The one you picked you mean I ascribe to the one that care about both
I thought you had made a mistake, now I know it was intentional it’s even funnier
Please never change, even in then slightest, you have provided me with hours of entertainment
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?
Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.
I would argue no figure objectifies women. They’re objects, they’re inanimate. They can’t force women to act a certain way. The idea that these figures have power over anyone is ridiculous. You can ascribe whatever narrative to a Brother Vinni sculpt you want, but at the end of the day it’s still an object. Objects don’t objectify women- people do. If want to argue people use figures to objectify women, I ask how? By making them fit a specific ideal? By representations of bound or wounded women? They’re still objects that make no statements. No flesh and blood woman was objectified, which is my core point. No harm or detriment was made.
They can't force it no, but it can be a representation of what the sculptor/costumer expects what a woman needs to look like to be a woman so to speak. Going back to my Total War example, just because they were not attractive enough it immediately made them men to some people.
At the end of the day it still indeed is an object. But its not as if we don't project on objects. Every representation of people that aren't real are objects, it doesn't mean that there isn't any thought behind it.
I think this is the main point of contention, is the underlying mentality behind the object harmful? I would argue in certain cases of the community it is.
If a miniature producer makes figures of nude women that are bound- do you assume the producer is a misogynist?
No, I would think its not to my taste, but as I can't read minds I would need a conversation.
Then when could you identify a miniature as objectification? Or the mentality behind it harmful?
Really that is your response? He-man? Yes he represents another form which people consider sexist, the fact that the hero always has to be the big muscly guy. Its Conan the Barbarian level stereotyping.
So handwaving it away with fantasy universes? Aren't you one of the same people complaing over in the SW threads that Rey was a Mary Sue because what she did was unrealistic. Methinks this smells of having your cake and eating it too.
I think Rey is a Mary Sue because I did not get to see her character develop, unlike Luke, not because "what she did was unrealistic". She started the game with max level. All I got was a "I have never seen so much raw power". Well thanks a fracking bunch, director. Did you do Exposition 101 in director academy? Show me, don't tell me. Methinks you are assuming too much.
Ok, having your cake and eating it too, got it. Your opinion is formed by the fact that you find it illogical or unreal, yet when I argue that certain stereotypical depictions are illogical or unreal its the fantasy handwave.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Uh everyone has two boobs? Look down, they are just more pronounced on women. There is nothing sexist about liking boobs, however it is sexist to treat women like they are nothin more than a pair of boobs in games such as the infamous DoA Beach Volleybal.
No, everyone has two nipples. Only women have boobs. And men are programmed to like them. Same way -to my knowledge- that women are programmed to like male b.u.t.t.s. It's almost as if humans have this thing for liking curves. Nobody treats women like they are a pair of boobs. They treat their plastic miniatures as having huge boobs. Plastic miniatures, not real women. In the case of the video game, regardless of what BuzzFeed would have you believe, the playerbase of "DoA Beach Volleyball" (like, all 65 of them) do not shape global male attitude towards women in real life. Playing a videogame about girls in bikinis does not make them sexist, any more than playing Farming Simulator makes me a farmer.
I honestly don't know what to say... you think men don't have breasts? What do you think our nipples are attached to?
Plastic miniatures that almost always turn out to be women uf they aren't boob monsters. You can claim that men have no breasts in one sentence and state that those miniatures with big boobs are not depictions of women in the next?
And again, I'm not arguing its all men, I have been firmly arguing about bad eggs... That comparison makes no sense.
Disciple of Fate wrote: No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
Cast companies do not make boob miniatures in order to objectify women, jesus. They make them because they sell. It's a very simple equation really. Most of the miniature collectors/painters/gamers are men. Men like boobs. Put boobs on the miniatures and they will sell more. Funny side effect. Even if people hated boobs, putting them would also increase sales. Just like most people here hate Sarkishian but this thread managed 35 pages in 4 days. Love and hate are opposites to lovers, not corporations. A company's job is to stimulate want through any means necessary, and there is only so many stimulants that are stronger than hate.
There is not a board of fat unfullfilled men plotting daily on how to destroy womankind by introducing boob miniatures. There are statistics that show boobs sell. Space marines sell more than tyranids because people want to play the hero more than they want to play the villain in their games. The market is not sexist. The market is what it is. Supply and demand.
They sell because sex sells. Which clearly says something about why these miniatures get made. That doesn't me all of them expressions of misogyny, but its silly to pretend that it isn't about hot women.
I never said there was a plotting group. Again, bad eggs, read what I'm arguing. As for the market not being sexist, that is an amazing claim to make overall. Sexism can be a part of the market, because its a societal mindset. That doesn't make the whole market sexist, it just means that sexism might find a spot in it.
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?
Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.
I would argue no figure objectifies women. They’re objects, they’re inanimate. They can’t force women to act a certain way. The idea that these figures have power over anyone is ridiculous. You can ascribe whatever narrative to a Brother Vinni sculpt you want, but at the end of the day it’s still an object. Objects don’t objectify women- people do. If want to argue people use figures to objectify women, I ask how? By making them fit a specific ideal? By representations of bound or wounded women? They’re still objects that make no statements. No flesh and blood woman was objectified, which is my core point. No harm or detriment was made.
They can't force it no, but it can be a representation of what the sculptor/costumer expects what a woman needs to look like to be a woman so to speak. Going back to my Total War example, just because they were not attractive enough it immediately made them men to some people.
At the end of the day it still indeed is an object. But its not as if we don't project on objects. Every representation of people that aren't real are objects, it doesn't mean that there isn't any thought behind it.
I think this is the main point of contention, is the underlying mentality behind the object harmful? I would argue in certain cases of the community it is.
If a miniature producer makes figures of nude women that are bound- do you assume the producer is a misogynist?
No, I would think its not to my taste, but as I can't read minds I would need a conversation.
Then when could you identify a miniature as objectification? Or the mentality behind it harmful?
By having said conversation? Look at the internet about Sarkeesian now, a lot of the bad eggs are getting drawn out outside of Dakka.
Google feminism. Its about pulling harder on female issues to get them to an equal level as men. But laugh all you want I guess
I didn't know the core of feminism was so controversial to you.
You know if I google feminism I’m gonna get 10 different answers right? It’s one of the issues with the movement these days, they don’t even know what they want, but I’m pretty simple so I’m going with the true meaning, equality for woman AND men ...
And I rightly laughed at your stupid gaff, because it was funny.
So you pick out the one specifically uncaring about men?
The one you picked you mean I ascribe to the one that care about both
I thought you had made a mistake, now I know it was intentional it’s even funnier
Please never change, even in then slightest, you have provided me with hours of entertainment
But feminism that equally cares about both men and women isn't feminism. You're turning it into something that goes against thw core of the idea behind it.
Pretty sure I don’t want to try to argue what is and isn’t attractive, being as subjective as it is. It wasn’t my point, either. Objects are not objectification. No one is being reduced to being an object by an object used to represent a person.
And my point wasn't that women are reduced to objects either, its that in parts of the hobby the female body becomes/is treated as an object.
My Total War example is that the subjectivity of attractiveness can also be hiding misogyny.
To tie in to my overall overall point, the issue is not adressing these topics allows misogynists to hide in our community. You aren't one for liking the figures mind you in my view. But the group that feels most attacked will quickly show their real face. It happened to Sarkeesian the first time and they are seemingly coming out of the woodworks on other sites as well. Not adressing it will only allow the bad eggs to fester and damage the community. Take these people out of the community and when people like Sarkeesian show up she would be flailing against the wind, because she isn't going to be validated by the bad eggs we removed.
I don’t believe anyone could argue against ostracizing misogynists from tabletop games, aside from situations where they could see problems with their worldview.
Yeah, but how are we to ostracize them if we don't talk about it untill they explode publically and drag us all down?
Oh, I know, I know, call them bigots and "baskets of deplorables". That will help. It did before. /s
Unless you want to share the community with people who think sending rape threats are funny? It doesn't have to help, I just want them out.
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?
Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.
I would argue no figure objectifies women. They’re objects, they’re inanimate. They can’t force women to act a certain way. The idea that these figures have power over anyone is ridiculous. You can ascribe whatever narrative to a Brother Vinni sculpt you want, but at the end of the day it’s still an object. Objects don’t objectify women- people do. If want to argue people use figures to objectify women, I ask how? By making them fit a specific ideal? By representations of bound or wounded women? They’re still objects that make no statements. No flesh and blood woman was objectified, which is my core point. No harm or detriment was made.
They can't force it no, but it can be a representation of what the sculptor/costumer expects what a woman needs to look like to be a woman so to speak. Going back to my Total War example, just because they were not attractive enough it immediately made them men to some people.
At the end of the day it still indeed is an object. But its not as if we don't project on objects. Every representation of people that aren't real are objects, it doesn't mean that there isn't any thought behind it.
I think this is the main point of contention, is the underlying mentality behind the object harmful? I would argue in certain cases of the community it is.
If a miniature producer makes figures of nude women that are bound- do you assume the producer is a misogynist?
No, I would think its not to my taste, but as I can't read minds I would need a conversation.
Then when could you identify a miniature as objectification? Or the mentality behind it harmful?
A miniature is never harmful, except if you choose to see it this way. A miniature is not a voodoo doll. You can't poke it and suddenly women are oppressed. The only mentality behind making a miniature is the need to sell it and get money to buy your grocceries. The job mentality if you would have it. Some casters make super human soldiers in full plate killing space aliens. They do it because there are fans of this idea and they want to buy the miniatures. Some casters make boob miniatures. They do it because there are fans of this idea and they want to buy the miniatures.
Little girls don't look at wargame miniatures featuring huge boobs and think "woa now I have to be like it otherwise I am a failure". This is just not a scenario that happens. Do you know what harmful mentality do little girls get exposed to (and nobody protests it)? Disney princesses. Promising them the happy ending just by virtue of being lucky or beautiful. Heck there are even Disney princesses who don't even have to be alive to get the guy (sleeping beauty).
Unless you want to share the community with people who think sending rape threats are funny? It doesn't have to help, I just want them out.
I very much don't. However shouting and cursing will not help. And throwing the sexist grenade to everyone who disagrees with you will DEFINITELY not help either. And finally, if someone likes and buys a boob miniature it does not mean that they are sexist.
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?
Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.
I would argue no figure objectifies women. They’re objects, they’re inanimate. They can’t force women to act a certain way. The idea that these figures have power over anyone is ridiculous. You can ascribe whatever narrative to a Brother Vinni sculpt you want, but at the end of the day it’s still an object. Objects don’t objectify women- people do. If want to argue people use figures to objectify women, I ask how? By making them fit a specific ideal? By representations of bound or wounded women? They’re still objects that make no statements. No flesh and blood woman was objectified, which is my core point. No harm or detriment was made.
They can't force it no, but it can be a representation of what the sculptor/costumer expects what a woman needs to look like to be a woman so to speak. Going back to my Total War example, just because they were not attractive enough it immediately made them men to some people.
At the end of the day it still indeed is an object. But its not as if we don't project on objects. Every representation of people that aren't real are objects, it doesn't mean that there isn't any thought behind it.
I think this is the main point of contention, is the underlying mentality behind the object harmful? I would argue in certain cases of the community it is.
If a miniature producer makes figures of nude women that are bound- do you assume the producer is a misogynist?
No, I would think its not to my taste, but as I can't read minds I would need a conversation.
Then when could you identify a miniature as objectification? Or the mentality behind it harmful?
A miniature is never harmful, except if you choose to see it this way. A miniature is not a voodoo doll. You can't poke it and suddenly women are oppressed. The only mentality behind making a miniature is the need to sell it and get money to buy your grocceries. The job mentality if you would have it. Some casters make super human soldiers in full plate killing space aliens. They do it because there are fans of this idea and they want to buy the miniatures. Some casters make boob miniatures. They do it because there are fans of this idea and they want to buy the miniatures.
Little girls don't look at wargame miniatures featuring huge boobs and think "woa now I have to be like it otherwise I am a failure". This is just not a scenario that happens. Do you know what harmful mentality do little girls get exposed to (and nobody protests it)? Disney princesses. Promising them the happy ending just by virtue of being lucky or beautiful. Heck there are even Disney princesses who don't even have to be alive to get the guy (sleeping beauty).
Unless you want to share the community with people who think sending rape threats are funny? It doesn't have to help, I just want them out.
I very much don't. However shouting and cursing will not help. And throwing the sexist grenade to everyone who disagrees with you will DEFINITELY not help either.
Good thing I said the mentality behind it can be harmful then right. And no, throwing it to everyone certainly does not help.
Mulan is the Disney movie with the best message for girls. And boys, everybody in general.
Mulan is a girl that does what she does not because of romantic love or because stupid motivations but because she wants to save his father's life. He works hard, is brave, and at the end of the day, she doesn't saves the day doing "men" things (Thats something many stories get wrong, the idea of a woman that becomes strong just because she behaves like a man), but because of her cleverness and inteligence (The palace scene).
And the movie in general is the most mature one of disney, showing a military conflict with tons of people dying, yeah, out of scene but what do you want.
And Shan Yu has no musical scene because Shan Yu is invading the fething china and killin people left and right. The "How many men are needed to deliver a message" left that clear.
People that says "Brave" is the feminist Disney's movie are just ignorant. Mulan is the real deal.
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?
Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.
I would argue no figure objectifies women. They’re objects, they’re inanimate. They can’t force women to act a certain way. The idea that these figures have power over anyone is ridiculous. You can ascribe whatever narrative to a Brother Vinni sculpt you want, but at the end of the day it’s still an object. Objects don’t objectify women- people do. If want to argue people use figures to objectify women, I ask how? By making them fit a specific ideal? By representations of bound or wounded women? They’re still objects that make no statements. No flesh and blood woman was objectified, which is my core point. No harm or detriment was made.
They can't force it no, but it can be a representation of what the sculptor/costumer expects what a woman needs to look like to be a woman so to speak. Going back to my Total War example, just because they were not attractive enough it immediately made them men to some people.
At the end of the day it still indeed is an object. But its not as if we don't project on objects. Every representation of people that aren't real are objects, it doesn't mean that there isn't any thought behind it.
I think this is the main point of contention, is the underlying mentality behind the object harmful? I would argue in certain cases of the community it is.
If a miniature producer makes figures of nude women that are bound- do you assume the producer is a misogynist?
No, I would think its not to my taste, but as I can't read minds I would need a conversation.
Then when could you identify a miniature as objectification? Or the mentality behind it harmful?
A miniature is never harmful, except if you choose to see it this way. A miniature is not a voodoo doll. You can't poke it and suddenly women are oppressed. The only mentality behind making a miniature is the need to sell it and get money to buy your grocceries. The job mentality if you would have it. Some casters make super human soldiers in full plate killing space aliens. They do it because there are fans of this idea and they want to buy the miniatures. Some casters make boob miniatures. They do it because there are fans of this idea and they want to buy the miniatures.
Little girls don't look at wargame miniatures featuring huge boobs and think "woa now I have to be like it otherwise I am a failure". This is just not a scenario that happens. Do you know what harmful mentality do little girls get exposed to (and nobody protests it)? Disney princesses. Promising them the happy ending just by virtue of being lucky or beautiful. Heck there are even Disney princesses who don't even have to be alive to get the guy (sleeping beauty).
Unless you want to share the community with people who think sending rape threats are funny? It doesn't have to help, I just want them out.
I very much don't. However shouting and cursing will not help. And throwing the sexist grenade to everyone who disagrees with you will DEFINITELY not help either.
Good thing I said the mentality behind it can be harmful then right. And no, throwing it to everyone certainly does not help.
How do you identify the mentality behind a miniature as harmful tho?
Sinful Hero wrote: How do you identify the mentality behind a miniature as harmful tho?
Somewhere, on some 3D imaging program, a man is making tiddy commando girls. He twirls his mustache, wrings his hands, and licks his lips. "Muahahahaha! I'll make her have big titties, just to hurt little girls! Because I hate girls! Because REASONS!"
Thunder claps, and lightning strikes in the distance, while unsettling organ music plays.
Disciple swings, he misses, he proves Formosa correct again and the crowd goes miiiiiild
feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, or are you gonna say the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong eh?
equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iːˈkwɒlɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.
So that’s making both sexes equal, not men above woman’s and not woman’s above men, therefore by its very difintion feminism should promote men’s rights equally as it promotes woman’s, so again by its very definition.... disciple is not a feminist hahah
Sinful Hero wrote: How do you identify the mentality behind a miniature as harmful tho?
That's a great question. Wikipedia is a great place to start, particularly good articles where you can follow up with sources listed in the bibliographies.
Nurglitch wrote: That's a great question. Wikipedia is a great place to start, particularly good articles where you can follow up with sources listed in the bibliographies.
So, at a certain point you may need to mull this one over, dude.
If something like a figurine, that people are free not to purchase, is 'harmful' because it's 'sexist'- something that trivial...
... you can't act shocked when you've watered down the definition of 'sexist' and people stop caring about it altogether.
Let's face it- miniature figures? Video game girls? Swimsuit ads? Cartoon drawings? It's starting to sound like all of these things are harmful and sexist unless we throw a tarp over every woman or make her morbidly obese.
I'd rather just be called 'sexist' by the emotionally fragile fringes of society than start censoring art. I can deal with that, because they're going to find some damned reason to do it anyway.
No one is harmed, except the objectification of women continues. You do realize that is one of the points right, just because nobody is harmed doesn't mean its ok. Opinions differ, selling boobie miniatures isn't going to be banned. Just realize where people are coming from on the other side.
Wouldn't literally any miniature be an objectification of something?
Of course, but that isn't what is meant by the objectification of the female body. Not all figures do that, but its hard to argue that those that do don't exist.
I would argue no figure objectifies women. They’re objects, they’re inanimate. They can’t force women to act a certain way. The idea that these figures have power over anyone is ridiculous. You can ascribe whatever narrative to a Brother Vinni sculpt you want, but at the end of the day it’s still an object. Objects don’t objectify women- people do. If want to argue people use figures to objectify women, I ask how? By making them fit a specific ideal? By representations of bound or wounded women? They’re still objects that make no statements. No flesh and blood woman was objectified, which is my core point. No harm or detriment was made.
They can't force it no, but it can be a representation of what the sculptor/costumer expects what a woman needs to look like to be a woman so to speak. Going back to my Total War example, just because they were not attractive enough it immediately made them men to some people.
At the end of the day it still indeed is an object. But its not as if we don't project on objects. Every representation of people that aren't real are objects, it doesn't mean that there isn't any thought behind it.
I think this is the main point of contention, is the underlying mentality behind the object harmful? I would argue in certain cases of the community it is.
If a miniature producer makes figures of nude women that are bound- do you assume the producer is a misogynist?
No, I would think its not to my taste, but as I can't read minds I would need a conversation.
Then when could you identify a miniature as objectification? Or the mentality behind it harmful?
A miniature is never harmful, except if you choose to see it this way. A miniature is not a voodoo doll. You can't poke it and suddenly women are oppressed. The only mentality behind making a miniature is the need to sell it and get money to buy your grocceries. The job mentality if you would have it. Some casters make super human soldiers in full plate killing space aliens. They do it because there are fans of this idea and they want to buy the miniatures. Some casters make boob miniatures. They do it because there are fans of this idea and they want to buy the miniatures.
Little girls don't look at wargame miniatures featuring huge boobs and think "woa now I have to be like it otherwise I am a failure". This is just not a scenario that happens. Do you know what harmful mentality do little girls get exposed to (and nobody protests it)? Disney princesses. Promising them the happy ending just by virtue of being lucky or beautiful. Heck there are even Disney princesses who don't even have to be alive to get the guy (sleeping beauty).
Unless you want to share the community with people who think sending rape threats are funny? It doesn't have to help, I just want them out.
I very much don't. However shouting and cursing will not help. And throwing the sexist grenade to everyone who disagrees with you will DEFINITELY not help either.
Good thing I said the mentality behind it can be harmful then right. And no, throwing it to everyone certainly does not help.
How do you identify the mentality behind a miniature as harmful tho?
PsychoticStorm wrote: If you want to see and understand how males should look sexualised look at the male pinups from KDM.
Adam is doing something right with those models. I know my wife loves them. I’m quite fond of them myself.
Well they are blunt sexualised depictions of the male form, Adam was adamant he will not make male pinups until he found an artist to make proper male sexualised miniatures.
Now according to the logic sexualisation = bad (or worse) there should be an uproar, at least equal to the uproar female pinups got, but everybody seem to like them so double standards on the morality of sexualised human form?
Personally I like them they are quite well made and avoid been the caricatures people think "male power fantasy" is about.
Sinful Hero wrote: How do you identify the mentality behind a miniature as harmful tho?
That's a great question. Wikipedia is a great place to start, particularly good articles where you can follow up with sources listed in the bibliographies.
Nurglitch wrote: That's a great question. Wikipedia is a great place to start, particularly good articles where you can follow up with sources listed in the bibliographies.
So, at a certain point you may need to mull this one over, dude.
If something like a figurine, that people are free not to purchase, is 'harmful' because it's 'sexist'- something that trivial...
... you can't act shocked when you've watered down the definition of 'sexist' and people stop caring about it altogether.
Let's face it- miniature figures? Video game girls? Swimsuit ads? Cartoon drawings? It's starting to sound like all of these things are harmful and sexist unless we throw a tarp over every woman or make her morbidly obese.
I'd rather just be called 'sexist' by the emotionally fragile fringes of society than start censoring art. I can deal with that, because they're going to find some damned reason to do it anyway.
But Dorito... a sister of battle is only str3, we are limiting her rights and ability to wound a MALE space marines ! repression!!!’
Formosa wrote: Disciple swings, he misses, he proves Formosa correct again and the crowd goes miiiiiild
feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, or are you gonna say the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong eh?
equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iːˈkwɒlɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.
So that’s making both sexes equal, not men above woman’s and not woman’s above men, therefore by its very difintion feminism should promote men’s rights equally as it promotes woman’s, so again by its very definition.... disciple is not a feminist hahah
You do realize that women have a longer way to go to equality right? This is like showing up to a Black Lives Matter rally and saying "I agree, but don't All Lives Matter?". You're missing the point by quoting a dictionary. It even says right there "the advocacy of WOMEN'S rights on the ground of the equality"
Nurglitch wrote: That's a great question. Wikipedia is a great place to start, particularly good articles where you can follow up with sources listed in the bibliographies.
So, at a certain point you may need to mull this one over, dude.
If something like a figurine, that people are free not to purchase, is 'harmful' because it's 'sexist'- something that trivial...
... you can't act shocked when you've watered down the definition of 'sexist' and people stop caring about it altogether.
Let's face it- miniature figures? Video game girls? Swimsuit ads? Cartoon drawings? It's starting to sound like all of these things are harmful and sexist unless we throw a tarp over every woman or make her morbidly obese.
I'd rather just be called 'sexist' by the emotionally fragile fringes of society than start censoring art. I can deal with that, because they're going to find some damned reason to do it anyway.
I have mulled it over. Here's what I figure, that people are free to buy what they want. But, as noted, part of the problem with sexism is its pervasiveness. Miniatures, video games, advertisements, cartoons, and that's the tip of the iceberg. All these things add up. And sexualizing endomorphs as well as other body shapes and sizes, or 'throwing a tarp over every woman' is beside the point. The point is that it's more like constant, pervasive gnawing rudeness. People who are being sexist are being asked not to be so constantly rude, so to speak, and it would be funny to see the response except that the response is just more sexism. It's like yes, I know you like chewing with your mouth open. You like doing it, and it's a free country, but it would be considerate of some of us if you wouldn't.
So I'm sorry we're emotionally fragile and that we upset you by asking if you wouldn't rub it in quite so much and maybe be considerate of others. And yes, once you stop being sexist, I'm going to presume it's because you've decided to be considerate of others, and I'm going to follow up with other requests based on your newfound consideration for others.
Incidentally, English also needs a plural second person pronoun besides you (and I'll settle for 'youse' or 'y'all').
So I'm sorry we're emotionally fragile and that we upset you by asking if you wouldn't rub it in quite so much and maybe be considerate of others. And yes, once you stop being sexist, I'm going to presume it's because you've decided to be considerate of others, and I'm going to follow up with other requests based on your newfound consideration for others.
Incidentally, English also needs a plural second person pronoun besides you (and I'll settle for 'youse' or 'y'all').
"Youse" works if you're from the Northeastern US. You can splash in some profanity to make it more authentic.
But are you emotionally fragile? Let me show you something, please hear me out here:
Being considerate of someone's feelings: Bob does not like my third-party bikini model, he just politely tells me he's not comfortable with it if I want to play a game with him. That's pretty fair- I can elect to either swap the model, or just play with someone else. All is civil, everybody wins.
Being emotionally fragile: Bob does not like my third-party bikini model and demands I never use it, and proceeds to berate me for having something that harms women. Bob is not being civil, Bob is being a snowflake.
In the former, I'm pretty sure that gives everyone involved a right to 'agree to disagree' and people can choose what they do. In the latter, someone's just screaming at me- he can shove it and play in the highway, and I'm pretty sure this would make him rather unwelcome around the community.
PsychoticStorm wrote: If you want to see and understand how males should look sexualised look at the male pinups from KDM.
Adam is doing something right with those models. I know my wife loves them. I’m quite fond of them myself.
Well they are blunt sexualised depictions of the male form, Adam was adamant he will not make male pinups until he found an artist to make proper male sexualised miniatures.
Now according to the logic sexualisation = bad (or worse) there should be an uproar, at least equal to the uproar female pinups got, but everybody seem to like them so double standards on the morality of sexualised human form?
Personally I like them they are quite well made and avoid been the caricatures people think "male power fantasy" is about.
I put the people that claims "all sexualisation=bad" at the same level as religious prudes claiming the same thing 50-60 years ago.
I can understand people that complaints that only one gender is over-sexualized while the other isn't. Thats why I claim for more sexualization in general, not in specific (There could be products that only show one gender sexualized because their target is the opposite gender/homosexuals), so I believe products cattering for the other gender should exist too. And I'm glad that they are becoming more popular, as Bobtheinquisitor said with Marvel and KMD shows.
Formosa wrote: Disciple swings, he misses, he proves Formosa correct again and the crowd goes miiiiiild
feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, or are you gonna say the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong eh?
equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iːˈkwɒlɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.
So that’s making both sexes equal, not men above woman’s and not woman’s above men, therefore by its very difintion feminism should promote men’s rights equally as it promotes woman’s, so again by its very definition.... disciple is not a feminist hahah
You do realize that women have a longer way to go to equality right? This is like showing up to a Black Lives Matter rally and saying "I agree, but don't All Lives Matter?". You're missing the point by quoting a dictionary. It even says right there "the advocacy of WOMEN'S rights on the ground of the equality"
In a game whose setting so prominently features demon worship, actual demons, armored super-freaks, soccer hooligans, all-consuming bioweapon hordes, Terminator robots, the Inquisition, and a god devoted to blood and skulls, one may be forgiven for not being conscious of the niceties of social equity.
So I'm sorry we're emotionally fragile and that we upset you by asking if you wouldn't rub it in quite so much and maybe be considerate of others. And yes, once you stop being sexist, I'm going to presume it's because you've decided to be considerate of others, and I'm going to follow up with other requests based on your newfound consideration for others.
Incidentally, English also needs a plural second person pronoun besides you (and I'll settle for 'youse' or 'y'all').
"Youse" works if you're from the Northeastern US. You can splash in some profanity to make it more authentic.
But are you emotionally fragile? Let me show you something, please hear me out here:
Being considerate of someone's feelings: Bob does not like my third-party bikini model, he just politely tells me he's not comfortable with it if I want to play a game with him. That's pretty fair- I can elect to either swap the model, or just play with someone else. All is civil, everybody wins.
Being emotionally fragile: Bob does not like my third-party bikini model and demands I never use it, and proceeds to berate me for having something that harms women. Bob is not being civil, Bob is being a snowflake.
In the former, I'm pretty sure that gives everyone involved a right to 'agree to disagree' and people can choose what they do. In the latter, someone's just screaming at me- he can shove it and play in the highway, and I'm pretty sure this would make him rather unwelcome around the community.
Exactly. I'm hoping for a world in which the guy showing up with the sexist miniatures at the local gaming shop is treated just like the guy that loses his temper when confronted by someone he doesn't like, and is unwelcome in the shop or club. Much like how people sporting Nazi symbology on their miniatures currently are.
Formosa wrote: Disciple swings, he misses, he proves Formosa correct again and the crowd goes miiiiiild
feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, or are you gonna say the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong eh?
equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iːˈkwɒlɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.
So that’s making both sexes equal, not men above woman’s and not woman’s above men, therefore by its very difintion feminism should promote men’s rights equally as it promotes woman’s, so again by its very definition.... disciple is not a feminist hahah
You do realize that women have a longer way to go to equality right? This is like showing up to a Black Lives Matter rally and saying "I agree, but don't All Lives Matter?". You're missing the point by quoting a dictionary. It even says right there "the advocacy of WOMEN'S rights on the ground of the equality"
Haha I knew you would try to argue with the LITERAL meaning of femisim, you continue to prove me right every time you open your mouth, you don’t even know the meaning of the thing you are professing to support.
Wanna hear a secret though .... lean closer .... I live with a feminist lesbian couple, they are in their late 50’s and easily the best people I’ve ever known, I known what a real feminist is from them, from their stories, they had a real fight, real issues to push against, being gay in Northern Ireland in the troubles is likely the biggest issue they faced... they are fething heroes and modern day “feminists” are pathetic shadows of these great pioneers, they are god damn inspirations!
And that is why I mock you, your not a feminist, your a bored man trying to look good in you’re peir group, you’ve likely never fought... really fought for anything in your life.
Yes I’m being harsh, but at least I’m being honest.
Formosa wrote: Disciple swings, he misses, he proves Formosa correct again and the crowd goes miiiiiild
feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, or are you gonna say the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong eh?
equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iːˈkwɒlɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.
So that’s making both sexes equal, not men above woman’s and not woman’s above men, therefore by its very difintion feminism should promote men’s rights equally as it promotes woman’s, so again by its very definition.... disciple is not a feminist hahah
You do realize that women have a longer way to go to equality right? This is like showing up to a Black Lives Matter rally and saying "I agree, but don't All Lives Matter?". You're missing the point by quoting a dictionary. It even says right there "the advocacy of WOMEN'S rights on the ground of the equality"
In a game whose setting so prominently features demon worship, actual demons, armored super-freaks, soccer hooligans, all-consuming bioweapon hordes, Terminator robots, the Inquisition, and a god devoted to blood and skulls, one may be forgiven for not being conscious of the niceties of social equity.
“Black and white learned a long time ago to gang up on green”
So I'm sorry we're emotionally fragile and that we upset you by asking if you wouldn't rub it in quite so much and maybe be considerate of others. And yes, once you stop being sexist, I'm going to presume it's because you've decided to be considerate of others, and I'm going to follow up with other requests based on your newfound consideration for others.
Incidentally, English also needs a plural second person pronoun besides you (and I'll settle for 'youse' or 'y'all').
"Youse" works if you're from the Northeastern US. You can splash in some profanity to make it more authentic.
But are you emotionally fragile? Let me show you something, please hear me out here:
Being considerate of someone's feelings: Bob does not like my third-party bikini model, he just politely tells me he's not comfortable with it if I want to play a game with him. That's pretty fair- I can elect to either swap the model, or just play with someone else. All is civil, everybody wins.
Being emotionally fragile: Bob does not like my third-party bikini model and demands I never use it, and proceeds to berate me for having something that harms women. Bob is not being civil, Bob is being a snowflake.
In the former, I'm pretty sure that gives everyone involved a right to 'agree to disagree' and people can choose what they do. In the latter, someone's just screaming at me- he can shove it and play in the highway, and I'm pretty sure this would make him rather unwelcome around the community.
Exactly. I'm hoping for a world in which the guy showing up with the sexist miniatures at the local gaming shop is treated just like the guy that loses his temper when confronted by someone he doesn't like, and is unwelcome in the shop or club. Much like how people sporting Nazi symbology on their miniatures currently are.
You keep bringing up sexist miniatures, but what are some examples? What’s wrong with the naked male or female form, if that’s what you’re referring to?
Actually, I don’t think I’m going to continue that tangent.
Nurglitch wrote: Exactly. I'm hoping for a world in which the guy showing up with the sexist miniatures at the local gaming shop is treated just like the guy that loses his temper when confronted by someone he doesn't like, and is unwelcome in the shop or club. Much like how people sporting Nazi symbology on their miniatures currently are.
That's the problem. You're calling it 'sexist'. It's sexist to you. That doesn't make it universal. That doesn't mean everyone feels the same way. How about this- embrace this insane concept:
Maybe we should leave it to the individuals interacting with one another to work out what they're comfortable with on the table, provided it falls within what the shop owner determines is acceptable.
I know, it's crazy- asking adults to be adults and be amicable, both of them having different preferences and all. But hear me out here- and it's going to get crazy, so buckle up for a wild ride:
Women have always been gaming. There have always been models like this. People have always managed to work out what they'll tolerate in their own groups. None of this is brand new, I promise.
I just don't want someone's idea of sexism to get on that slippery slope. And again, as I said, sexist to you. Maybe your line is bare breasts. Maybe the next person is a little more unhinged and doesn't like a bare midriff. Maybe someone else doesn't like tight-fitting or any revealing clothing at all.
Because, Nurglitch- I'll be frank with you. I have absolutely no desire to deal with any more damned pearl-clutching puritans in the hobby, and much of the feminist rhetoric is hardly distinguishable from the moral panics from the pulpit.
Can't deal with someone's models? Talk to them, or the shop owner. If neither of them see it your way, then perhaps you need to find another place that's more suited to your preferences.
Nurglitch wrote: Exactly. I'm hoping for a world in which the guy showing up with the sexist miniatures at the local gaming shop is treated just like the guy that loses his temper when confronted by someone he doesn't like, and is unwelcome in the shop or club. Much like how people sporting Nazi symbology on their miniatures currently are.
That's the problem. You're calling it 'sexist'. It's sexist to you. That doesn't make it universal. That doesn't mean everyone feels the same way. How about this- embrace this insane concept:
Maybe we should leave it to the individuals interacting with one another to work out what they're comfortable with on the table, provided it falls within what the shop owner determines is acceptable.
I know, it's crazy- asking adults to be adults and be amicable, both of them having different preferences and all. But hear me out here- and it's going to get crazy, so buckle up for a wild ride:
Women have always been gaming. There have always been models like this. People have always managed to work out what they'll tolerate in their own groups. None of this is brand new, I promise.
I just don't want someone's idea of sexism to get on that slippery slope. And again, as I said, sexist to you. Maybe your line is bare breasts. Maybe the next person is a little more unhinged and doesn't like a bare midriff. Maybe someone else doesn't like tight-fitting or any revealing clothing at all.
Because, Nurglitch- I'll be frank with you. I have absolutely no desire to deal with any more damned pearl-clutching puritans in the hobby, and much of the feminist rhetoric is hardly distinguishable from the moral panics from the pulpit.
Can't deal with someone's models? Talk to them, or the shop owner. If neither of them see it your way, then perhaps you need to find another place that's more suited to your preferences.
Be. An. Adult.
That's why I posted the Wikipedia page on sexism so that you can learn how to objectively identify sexism. Because I've been gaming for 25 years and I'm also tired inconsiderate, entitled, emotionally fragile boys actingtheir appalling behaviour is somehow valid in public.
She's like the WBC, if people would just ignore her, she would go away. She craves money, and she gets a lot of it from her support base.
It's like a troll, the more you bitch at her or about her, the more she benefits. Just ignore her, and she will leave and find some other group to mess with.
That being said, the above argument about boobies on models being sexist is fething hilarious to read. It is almost as if america is heading back into the age of super conservative ideals regarding sex and sexuality.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: That's the problem. You're calling it 'sexist'. It's sexist to you. That doesn't make it universal. That doesn't mean everyone feels the same way.
Because there can't be objective measures of sexism? Man, what an "insane concept." Lul. I hate to take on the phrasing of the right, but, here goes:
"Sorry snowflake, your feelings don't matter. Objective facts matter."
So often people parrot this idea of, "If we start making rules, it'll ruin everything because then more rules might get made!" Except they only tend to apply it to certain things that they dislike, selective readings and selective offense. That's all this is.
Nurglitch wrote: That's why I posted the Wikipedia page on sexism so that you can learn how to objectively identify sexism. Because I've been gaming for 25 years and I'm also tired inconsiderate, entitled, emotionally fragile boys actingtheir appalling behaviour is somehow valid in public.
And that is on the store owner to determine, if you mean the FLGS is 'public' (it's really not, because it's not funded by taxpayers and it's still property of someone). If your store owner determines bare breasts to be inappropriate, you can scream and jump up and down and call it sexist all you want... but don't be shocked if your tantrum is relocated to the street outside while everyone ignores you.
Works both ways, though. I'm not going to flop a giant purple rubber penis on the table with arms and boobs green stuff'd to it and call it my Slaaneshi daemon and expect everyone to just accept it, and if I want to throw a tantrum about it- well, I can jump up and down in the street with my big rubber purple penis waggling about as I have a hissy fit.
You can say, "Go learn" all you want, but clearly there's a line with it that you are either afraid to acknowledge or wish to move the goalposts for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HuskyWarhammer wrote: Because there can't be objective measures of sexism? Man, what an "insane concept." Lul.
I'm not sure where you misunderstood- I was making it clear that many people may have varying measures of what is 'sexist' to them. I don't think there's a solid, bold, black and white objective sexism short of 'actively discriminating against someone based on their gender'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote: That being said, the above argument about boobies on models being sexist is fething hilarious to read. It is almost as if america is heading back into the age of super conservative ideals regarding sex and sexuality.
As someone who was raised in this sort of nightmarish theocratic hellscape of Puritanical views- women who showed flesh above the elbow, knees, and below the collarbone were 'whores'. Crazy church-wives ripped lingerie sections out of the JCPenney catalogue so their sons wouldn't find it and masturbate. Couples weren't allowed to date without a chaperone until they were 18 and living on their own. Jewelry, tight-fitting clothing, even freaking JEANS were considered inappropriate. Any sort of cartoon with a woman that had breasts was 'perversion'.
Yeah, I'm sorry- my family gave that kind of insane cult the middle finger back in the early 1990's. I'll be damned if someone thinks I'll trade Moral Authoritarians for Jesus out for Moral Authoritarians for Feminism.
Formosa wrote: Disciple swings, he misses, he proves Formosa correct again and the crowd goes miiiiiild
feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, or are you gonna say the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong eh?
equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iːˈkwɒlɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.
So that’s making both sexes equal, not men above woman’s and not woman’s above men, therefore by its very difintion feminism should promote men’s rights equally as it promotes woman’s, so again by its very definition.... disciple is not a feminist hahah
You do realize that women have a longer way to go to equality right? This is like showing up to a Black Lives Matter rally and saying "I agree, but don't All Lives Matter?". You're missing the point by quoting a dictionary. It even says right there "the advocacy of WOMEN'S rights on the ground of the equality"
Haha I knew you would try to argue with the LITERAL meaning of femisim, you continue to prove me right every time you open your mouth, you don’t even know the meaning of the thing you are professing to support.
Wanna hear a secret though .... lean closer .... I live with a feminist lesbian couple, they are in their late 50’s and easily the best people I’ve ever known, I known what a real feminist is from them, from their stories, they had a real fight, real issues to push against, being gay in Northern Ireland in the troubles is likely the biggest issue they faced... they are fething heroes and modern day “feminists” are pathetic shadows of these great pioneers, they are god damn inspirations!
And that is why I mock you, your not a feminist, your a bored man trying to look good in you’re peir group, you’ve likely never fought... really fought for anything in your life.
Yes I’m being harsh, but at least I’m being honest.
Really, first you go "are you going to say the Oxford English dictionary is wrong" and then you move to "the LITERAL meaning". Like you weren't just the guy using an actual dictionary and trying to claim it backed you up? I mean just wow, I have seen quite some dishonesty on Dakka, but this immediate and all too obvious pivot is really something.
But good for your anacdotal evidence I guess, I live with a feminist too so I guess that's that.
Nurglitch wrote: That's why I posted the Wikipedia page on sexism so that you can learn how to objectively identify sexism. Because I've been gaming for 25 years and I'm also tired inconsiderate, entitled, emotionally fragile boys actingtheir appalling behaviour is somehow valid in public.
And that is on the store owner to determine, if you mean the FLGS is 'public' (it's really not, because it's not funded by taxpayers and it's still property of someone). If your store owner determines bare breasts to be inappropriate, you can scream and jump up and down and call it sexist all you want... but don't be shocked if your tantrum is relocated to the street outside while everyone ignores you.
Works both ways, though. I'm not going to flop a giant purple rubber penis on the table with arms and boobs green stuff'd to it and call it my Slaaneshi daemon and expect everyone to just accept it, and if I want to throw a tantrum about it- well, I can jump up and down in the street with my big rubber purple penis waggling about as I have a hissy fit.
You can say, "Go learn" all you want, but clearly there's a line with it that you are either afraid to acknowledge or wish to move the goalposts for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HuskyWarhammer wrote: Because there can't be objective measures of sexism? Man, what an "insane concept." Lul.
I'm not sure where you misunderstood- I was making it clear that many people may have varying measures of what is 'sexist' to them. I don't think there's a solid, bold, black and white objective sexism short of 'actively discriminating against someone based on their gender'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote: That being said, the above argument about boobies on models being sexist is fething hilarious to read. It is almost as if america is heading back into the age of super conservative ideals regarding sex and sexuality.
As someone who was raised in this sort of nightmarish theocratic hellscape of Puritanical views- women who showed flesh above the elbow, knees, and below the collarbone were 'whores'. Crazy church-wives ripped lingerie sections out of the JCPenney catalogue so their sons wouldn't find it and masturbate. Couples weren't allowed to date without a chaperone until they were 18 and living on their own. Jewelry, tight-fitting clothing, even freaking JEANS were considered inappropriate. Any sort of cartoon with a woman that had breasts was 'perversion'.
Yeah, I'm sorry- my family gave that kind of insane cult the middle finger back in the early 1990's. I'll be damned if someone thinks I'll trade Moral Authoritarians for Jesus out for Moral Authoritarians for Feminism.
Same nonsense, just different words.
I too was raised in such an environment for a few years, until my parents decided it was a detriment.
Showing skin, male or female is natural. Trying to hide it away under cloth is only going to make the problem worse in the long run. Remember what happened with Milo Manera and the Spiderman Cover a few years back?
"Sexism: prejudicial attitudes and discrimination against women on the basis of their sex. Sexism ranges from the individual to the institutional level and includes (a) beliefs, (b) behaviors, (c) use of language and (d) policies reflecting and conveying a pervasive view that women are inferior."
-- Linguist Phil Herbst
The usual, sexist response to this is Nigel Tufnel's "What's wrong with being sexy?" The answer, I think, is comparing On Our Backs to Playboy since they're both porn. Playboy pictorials depict women as being displayed for the viewer, and what are particular kind of male viewer wants to see (Penthouse picked up the slack in that department...). On Our Backs pictorials depicted lesbian couples as they wanted their relationship and sexuality to be seen.
Maybe a military analogy would help. There's overt 'shock and awe' sexism and there's 'british east india' sexism.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: That's the problem. You're calling it 'sexist'. It's sexist to you. That doesn't make it universal. That doesn't mean everyone feels the same way.
Because there can't be objective measures of sexism? Man, what an "insane concept." Lul. I hate to take on the phrasing of the right, but, here goes:
"Sorry snowflake, your feelings don't matter. Objective facts matter."
So often people parrot this idea of, "If we start making rules, it'll ruin everything because then more rules might get made!" Except they only tend to apply it to certain things that they dislike, selective readings and selective offense. That's all this is.
That’s a really good question, so here goes.
In an ideal world, yes, I agree that there should be an objective measure for sexism, my personal feelings on the matter are fairly black and white.
In the real world however, no, there isn’t, and no matter how much kicking and screaming you want to do (collective, not specific you) about it, that won’t change, there are places in the world where you would be killed for trying such a thing, there are also cultures that we in the West would consider sexist, but they consider it normal and think we are the wrong ones, we have no inherent right to stop them practicing their culture no matter how abhorrent we find it.
The military memebers here can back me up here, and fair warning, this is pretty nasty for the faint hearted.
So in a certain culture and certain country there are these things called dancing boys, you can probably work it out, we were under DIRECT orders not to interfere with said culture, it’s fething disgusting and several times several people had to be taken off the ground otherwise there would have been casualties... let that sink in..
I have been purposefully vague on that subject because if I was clear, I would breach dakkas code of conduct, but you can read between the lines people.
Another story, a person was speaking with a local national, said local national was found out, she was then dragged through the street and this caused an incident, nearly resulting in the deaths of the local national and several involved parties, including the force protection.
The world is a gak place, and poking your nose into other cultures can get it bitten off... and sadly most of the time there isn’t a god damn thing you can do about it, so grow up (general, not you) and stop being offended by the little things and start trying to do something about the big things.
Togusa wrote: I too was raised in such an environment for a few years, until my parents decided it was a detriment.
If your parents were like mine, there was a moment of clarity or someone that helped them realize how destructive it was to make people feel like they were just surrounded by awful, disgusting people all the time... and terrify them by making them think that perfectly normal and natural things were evil and made you a terrible person.
It's kind of why I hate this particular brand of feminism. It's not healthy to just convince people they're surrounded by 'evil' and that everything is their enemy and destroying them, and that enjoying normal things like an appealing physique or even a nude body are 'wrong'. It creates this perpetual state of guilt and self-loathing, and forces people to strive harder and harder to 'cleanse' themselves and prove they're not evil.
I mean, I get it. I don't want to see bare tiddies and penises on the table at a gaming store where people bring families. That's fair and reasonable. But if a grown adult has an entire army of Nurgle Penises being rode into battle by naked STD Hookers at his house? It's none of my business. (Actually, I take that back- I want to see that). But no one has any right to tell him he's wrong or evil or awful for it.
Togusa wrote: Remember what happened with Milo Manera and the Spiderman Cover a few years back?
Vaguely. I remember people being freaked out because a guy that draws erotica drew a character in an erotic pose. I'm not sure what they expected, maybe those are the kind of people that would be shocked that Stormfront isn't going to give polite responses when asked about minority crime statistics.
Formosa wrote: Disciple swings, he misses, he proves Formosa correct again and the crowd goes miiiiiild
feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, or are you gonna say the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong eh?
equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iːˈkwɒlɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.
So that’s making both sexes equal, not men above woman’s and not woman’s above men, therefore by its very difintion feminism should promote men’s rights equally as it promotes woman’s, so again by its very definition.... disciple is not a feminist hahah
You do realize that women have a longer way to go to equality right? This is like showing up to a Black Lives Matter rally and saying "I agree, but don't All Lives Matter?". You're missing the point by quoting a dictionary. It even says right there "the advocacy of WOMEN'S rights on the ground of the equality"
Haha I knew you would try to argue with the LITERAL meaning of femisim, you continue to prove me right every time you open your mouth, you don’t even know the meaning of the thing you are professing to support.
Wanna hear a secret though .... lean closer .... I live with a feminist lesbian couple, they are in their late 50’s and easily the best people I’ve ever known, I known what a real feminist is from them, from their stories, they had a real fight, real issues to push against, being gay in Northern Ireland in the troubles is likely the biggest issue they faced... they are fething heroes and modern day “feminists” are pathetic shadows of these great pioneers, they are god damn inspirations!
And that is why I mock you, your not a feminist, your a bored man trying to look good in you’re peir group, you’ve likely never fought... really fought for anything in your life.
Yes I’m being harsh, but at least I’m being honest.
Really, first you go "are you going to say the Oxford English dictionary is wrong" and then you move to "the LITERAL meaning". Like you weren't just the guy using an actual dictionary and trying to claim it backed you up? I mean just wow, I have seen quite some dishonesty on Dakka, but this immediate and all too obvious pivot is really something.
But good for your anacdotal evidence I guess, I live with a feminist too so I guess that's that.
What’s wrong, upset I took the whole sentence into account rather than cherry picking like you.... awww ...bless, also upset I taught you want feminism means? Upset that it’s not what you think it is? For shame
I’m going to stop mocking you now, got to give other people a chance at it!
The military memebers here can back me up here, and fair warning, this is pretty nasty for the faint hearted.
It's probably one of the most haunting things you'll ever see with your own eyes. One of the few things that made me just have to step off and smoke about a pack of cigarettes and cry.
Your point about what is sexist for some and not so for others-
There are places where magazines featuring topless women are open and available on the news stand. You can just flip the book open, bam- tiddies. Act offended all you want, it doesn't matter. The teenage boys next to you are going to look at you like you're an idiot. Because it's just boobs to them, no big deal. If you're bothered by them, then by all means- stay away from the boobs, the rest of us will enjoy them. And if a woman's bothered by them, then she might not want to look inside her shirt... or perhaps she really, really needs to sort out her personal insecurities. That's just the way those people see things.
North America and parts of the UK tend to have folks that want to be prudes about it. Some of the way people talk about these images are just a few notches better than what I've heard hardcore Imams say about womens' modesty.
A 'no nudity' policy in a store is fine, I respect that. It's the shop owner's prerogative what he wants to allow. But if you're going to try and guilt-trip me for enjoying such things, then you'll have to be prepared for me to laugh at you. Because to me, the idea that I should be offended by some boobs because it could unhinge someone with severe insecurities or sexual repression? Absurd. Like, clowns farting on a tambourine levels of absurd.
In the real world however, no, there isn’t, and no matter how much kicking and screaming you want to do (collective, not specific you) about it, that won’t change, there are places in the world where you would be killed for trying such a thing, there are also cultures that we in the West would consider sexist, but they consider it normal and think we are the wrong ones, we have no inherent right to stop them practicing their culture no matter how abhorrent we find it.
The military memebers here can back me up here, and fair warning, this is pretty nasty for the faint hearted.
So in a certain culture and certain country there are these things called dancing boys, you can probably work it out, we were under DIRECT orders not to interfere with said culture, it’s fething disgusting and several times several people had to be taken off the ground otherwise there would have been casualties... let that sink in..
This is a pretty terrible example. NATO doesn't adress it because its desperate to get the hell out. If you consider human rights to be inalienable you certainly do have the right to stop them. Do we have no inherent right to stop people killing homosexuals for their sexuality or stone people to death over adultery? If you believe a person has human rights you certainly do have the right to stop it. That the West turns a blind eye out of convenience doesn't mean its normal.
Togusa wrote: I too was raised in such an environment for a few years, until my parents decided it was a detriment.
If your parents were like mine, there was a moment of clarity or someone that helped them realize how destructive it was to make people feel like they were just surrounded by awful, disgusting people all the time... and terrify them by making them think that perfectly normal and natural things were evil and made you a terrible person.
It's kind of why I hate this particular brand of feminism. It's not healthy to just convince people they're surrounded by 'evil' and that everything is their enemy and destroying them, and that enjoying normal things like an appealing physique or even a nude body are 'wrong'. It creates this perpetual state of guilt and self-loathing, and forces people to strive harder and harder to 'cleanse' themselves and prove they're not evil.
I mean, I get it. I don't want to see bare tiddies and penises on the table at a gaming store where people bring families. That's fair and reasonable. But if a grown adult has an entire army of Nurgle Penises being rode into battle by naked STD Hookers at his house? It's none of my business. (Actually, I take that back- I want to see that). But no one has any right to tell him he's wrong or evil or awful for it.
Togusa wrote: Remember what happened with Milo Manera and the Spiderman Cover a few years back?
Vaguely. I remember people being freaked out because a guy that draws erotica drew a character in an erotic pose. I'm not sure what they expected, maybe those are the kind of people that would be shocked that Stormfront isn't going to give polite responses when asked about minority crime statistics.
My parents were the first generation in my family to earn their college education, if that makes it more clear. My mother being a highly educated 40 year veteran nurse, and my father a highly educated earth and environmental science instructor.
But yes, its more than that. Milo was a veteran artist, with a very unique style. He was loved for the fact that his art has always been a celebration of the human body. The cover controversy was just silly, and many people realized that and failed to feed the trolls. But it didn't stop them from trying to oust him and ruin his career.
And I agree, I wouldn't bring nudies into a gaming store with children under the age of 17. Ever. But I also wouldn't jump on someone for having some anime hentai statues at their house. It's their right, and having them doesn't automatically make them a horrible sexist. In fact, most people I know who have big ass titty anime statues, are women. No idea why, but I'm not going to knock them for it.
Formosa wrote: Disciple swings, he misses, he proves Formosa correct again and the crowd goes miiiiiild
feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, or are you gonna say the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong eh?
equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iːˈkwɒlɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.
So that’s making both sexes equal, not men above woman’s and not woman’s above men, therefore by its very difintion feminism should promote men’s rights equally as it promotes woman’s, so again by its very definition.... disciple is not a feminist hahah
You do realize that women have a longer way to go to equality right? This is like showing up to a Black Lives Matter rally and saying "I agree, but don't All Lives Matter?". You're missing the point by quoting a dictionary. It even says right there "the advocacy of WOMEN'S rights on the ground of the equality"
Haha I knew you would try to argue with the LITERAL meaning of femisim, you continue to prove me right every time you open your mouth, you don’t even know the meaning of the thing you are professing to support.
Wanna hear a secret though .... lean closer .... I live with a feminist lesbian couple, they are in their late 50’s and easily the best people I’ve ever known, I known what a real feminist is from them, from their stories, they had a real fight, real issues to push against, being gay in Northern Ireland in the troubles is likely the biggest issue they faced... they are fething heroes and modern day “feminists” are pathetic shadows of these great pioneers, they are god damn inspirations!
And that is why I mock you, your not a feminist, your a bored man trying to look good in you’re peir group, you’ve likely never fought... really fought for anything in your life.
Yes I’m being harsh, but at least I’m being honest.
Really, first you go "are you going to say the Oxford English dictionary is wrong" and then you move to "the LITERAL meaning". Like you weren't just the guy using an actual dictionary and trying to claim it backed you up? I mean just wow, I have seen quite some dishonesty on Dakka, but this immediate and all too obvious pivot is really something.
But good for your anacdotal evidence I guess, I live with a feminist too so I guess that's that.
What’s wrong, upset I took the whole sentence into account rather than cherry picking like you.... awww ...bless, also upset I taught you want feminism means? Upset that it’s not what you think it is? For shame
I’m going to stop mocking you now, got to give other people a chance at it!
It literally says advocating women's rights at the start, not men and women, just women. Its sad that you conflate equalism with feminism though, it shows how far feminism still has to go. Are you really going to stand here and pretend we already have full equality?
Adeptus Doritos wrote: That's the problem. You're calling it 'sexist'. It's sexist to you. That doesn't make it universal. That doesn't mean everyone feels the same way.
Because there can't be objective measures of sexism? Man, what an "insane concept." Lul. I hate to take on the phrasing of the right, but, here goes:
"Sorry snowflake, your feelings don't matter. Objective facts matter."
So often people parrot this idea of, "If we start making rules, it'll ruin everything because then more rules might get made!" Except they only tend to apply it to certain things that they dislike, selective readings and selective offense. That's all this is.
That’s a really good question, so here goes.
In an ideal world, yes, I agree that there should be an objective measure for sexism, my personal feelings on the matter are fairly black and white.
In the real world however, no, there isn’t, and no matter how much kicking and screaming you want to do (collective, not specific you) about it, that won’t change, there are places in the world where you would be killed for trying such a thing, there are also cultures that we in the West would consider sexist, but they consider it normal and think we are the wrong ones, we have no inherent right to stop them practicing their culture no matter how abhorrent we find it.
The military memebers here can back me up here, and fair warning, this is pretty nasty for the faint hearted.
So in a certain culture and certain country there are these things called dancing boys, you can probably work it out, we were under DIRECT orders not to interfere with said culture, it’s fething disgusting and several times several people had to be taken off the ground otherwise there would have been casualties... let that sink in..
I ha
The world is a gak place, and poking your nose into other cultures can get it bitten off... and sadly most of the time there isn’t a god damn thing you can do about it, so grow up (general, not you) and stop being offended by the little things and start trying to do something about the big things.
One of my Marine friends was in this situation in Afghanistan. He and two buddies dealt with the situation while on patrol with the offending Afghan Officer a week later. Premature weapon discharges are very unfortunate, friendly fire is seldom friendly.
Nurglitch wrote: Exactly. I'm hoping for a world in which the guy showing up with the sexist miniatures at the local gaming shop is treated just like the guy that loses his temper when confronted by someone he doesn't like, and is unwelcome in the shop or club.
*quietly puts his Daughter of Khaine miniatures back in the case*
Togusa wrote: And I agree, I wouldn't bring nudies into a gaming store with children under the age of 17. Ever. But I also wouldn't jump on someone for having some anime hentai statues at their house. It's their right, and having them doesn't automatically make them a horrible sexist. In fact, most people I know who have big ass titty anime statues, are women. No idea why, but I'm not going to knock them for it.
...yeah. I know quite a few female artists that... are really, really into tiddies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its sad that you conflate equalism with feminism though, it shows how far feminism still has to go.
Feminism: Because apparently, 'equality' isn't good enough.
Tell me again why I should respect this cult?
(I'm aware there are several flavors that are less insane, but this is the one that seems to keep coming up as 'actual feminism')
Nurglitch wrote: Exactly. I'm hoping for a world in which the guy showing up with the sexist miniatures at the local gaming shop is treated just like the guy that loses his temper when confronted by someone he doesn't like, and is unwelcome in the shop or club.
*quietly puts his Daughter of Khaine miniatures back in the case*
You're welcome to come to our store, and I will say any store where that happens, is a store you probably don't want to play games at in the first place.
Togusa wrote: One of my Marine friends was in this situation in Afghanistan. He and two buddies dealt with the situation while on patrol with the offending Afghan Officer a week later. Premature weapon discharges are very unfortunate, friendly fire is seldom friendly.
Is this the part of the feminism thread where we promote murder?
Nurglitch wrote: "Sexism: prejudicial attitudes and discrimination against women on the basis of their sex. Sexism ranges from the individual to the institutional level and includes (a) beliefs, (b) behaviors, (c) use of language and (d) policies reflecting and conveying a pervasive view that women are inferior."
-- Linguist Phil Herbst
The usual, sexist response to this is Nigel Tufnel's "What's wrong with being sexy?" The answer, I think, is comparing On Our Backs to Playboy since they're both porn. Playboy pictorials depict women as being displayed for the viewer, and what are particular kind of male viewer wants to see (Penthouse picked up the slack in that department...). On Our Backs pictorials depicted lesbian couples as they wanted their relationship and sexuality to be seen.
Maybe a military analogy would help. There's overt 'shock and awe' sexism and there's 'british east india' sexism.
So sexism can only happen against women. I'm pretty sure I will give lots of credibility on "Linguist Phil Herbst".
Togusa wrote: You're welcome to come to our store, and I will say any store where that happens, is a store you probably don't want to play games at in the first place.
Likewise. Our store simply doesn't allow nude models.
And it's amazing how that works- stores that would do something like that are cesspits of the exact sort of persons I want nothing to do with. People who would take issues with those models are pretty much informing me that they're the first person I need to show to the door.
Togusa wrote: And I agree, I wouldn't bring nudies into a gaming store with children under the age of 17. Ever. But I also wouldn't jump on someone for having some anime hentai statues at their house. It's their right, and having them doesn't automatically make them a horrible sexist. In fact, most people I know who have big ass titty anime statues, are women. No idea why, but I'm not going to knock them for it.
...yeah. I know quite a few female artists that... are really, really into tiddies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its sad that you conflate equalism with feminism though, it shows how far feminism still has to go.
Feminism: Because apparently, 'equality' isn't good enough.
Tell me again why I should respect this cult?
(I'm aware there are several flavors that are less insane, but this is the one that seems to keep coming up as 'actual feminism')
Actually, most of the female artists I know who draw a lot of hentai are quite talented at the titty drawing. Unrealistic mind you, but they love it. It makes me happy to see that they can express themselves without being shot down for being "white sis het male sexist pig monsters" or whatever buzzwords some of the more vocal young lefties use these days.
Togusa wrote: One of my Marine friends was in this situation in Afghanistan. He and two buddies dealt with the situation while on patrol with the offending Afghan Officer a week later. Premature weapon discharges are very unfortunate, friendly fire is seldom friendly.
Is this the part of the feminism thread where we promote murder?
Not at all, there was no murder. It was an accident.
War is hell, and bad things happen in war. Guns misfire and kill their users or others near them more often than you think.
Togusa wrote: Actually, most of the female artists I know who draw a lot of hentai are quite talented at the titty drawing. Unrealistic mind you, but they love it. It makes me happy to see that they can express themselves without being shot down for being "white sis het male sexist pig monsters" or whatever buzzwords some of the more vocal young lefties use these days.
One of my personal favorite friends that does this would get some feminist lashing out at her on her NSFW art site every now and then and calling her some 'basement dwelling pervert' or something along those lines. Since this girl wasn't ashamed of her own, uh... assets... she would write "Sorry, [Insert Feminist Name]" right across her own bare bust and post it on there.
Togusa wrote: Actually, most of the female artists I know who draw a lot of hentai are quite talented at the titty drawing. Unrealistic mind you, but they love it. It makes me happy to see that they can express themselves without being shot down for being "white sis het male sexist pig monsters" or whatever buzzwords some of the more vocal young lefties use these days.
One of my personal favorite friends that does this would get some feminist lashing out at her on her NSFW art site every now and then and calling her some 'basement dwelling pervert' or something along those lines. Since this girl wasn't ashamed of her own, uh... assets... she would write "Sorry, [Insert Feminist Name]" right across her own bare bust and post it on there.
They don't even really have like, nipples though. Just boob-shaped chest meat.
Haha, that's funny.
Most females I know, tend to be pretty anti third wave feminism. I'm not sure if that is because the vast majority of women in my life are highly educated in the sciences, far beyond the masters level, and they tend to think for themselves, rather than joining a groupthink or if they do it out of spite for SS majors.
They don't even really have like, nipples though. Just boob-shaped chest meat.
EDIT: I'm wrong about the Daemonettes. I've just not seen them before IRL. As far as the Medusae, I thought they wore tops.
They have nipples. I like to just stare at them all day long, objectifying them in a particularly gendered sort of way. I'm looking for a Lord of Slaanesh on Daemonic Mount so that I can oppress women even more. Once I get that and a Keeper of Secrets, my domination of the weaker sex will be complete.
Sqorgar wrote: I like to just stare at them all day long, objectifying them in a particularly gendered sort of way. I'm looking for a Lord of Slaanesh on Daemonic Mount so that I can oppress women even more.
That thing gets 6 2+ tiddy attacks vs. anything with the [GENDER EQUALITY] keyword!
They don't even really have like, nipples though. Just boob-shaped chest meat.
EDIT: I'm wrong about the Daemonettes. I've just not seen them before IRL. As far as the Medusae, I thought they wore tops.
They have nipples. I like to just stare at them all day long, objectifying them in a particularly gendered sort of way. I'm looking for a Lord of Slaanesh on Daemonic Mount so that I can oppress women even more. Once I get that and a Keeper of Secrets, my domination of the weaker sex will be complete.
Magnus has nipples. In fact he has THE nipples. The nipplehorns. He also has a belly button. Magnus model objectifies Daemon Prince Primarchs :(
An Actual Englishman wrote: Next two codexes are announced, along with AOS second edition updates and new information on Middle Earth = roughly ten pages.
A certain woman is an industry GOH at Gencon = almost forty pages.
You should post in those threads. Drum up some discussion. This thread has had lots of stuff to talk about. Right now, we’re discussing tactical nipples.
Formosa wrote: Disciple swings, he misses, he proves Formosa correct again and the crowd goes miiiiiild
feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, or are you gonna say the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong eh?
equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iːˈkwɒlɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.
So that’s making both sexes equal, not men above woman’s and not woman’s above men, therefore by its very difintion feminism should promote men’s rights equally as it promotes woman’s, so again by its very definition.... disciple is not a feminist hahah
You do realize that women have a longer way to go to equality right? This is like showing up to a Black Lives Matter rally and saying "I agree, but don't All Lives Matter?". You're missing the point by quoting a dictionary. It even says right there "the advocacy of WOMEN'S rights on the ground of the equality"
Haha I knew you would try to argue with the LITERAL meaning of femisim, you continue to prove me right every time you open your mouth, you don’t even know the meaning of the thing you are professing to support.
Wanna hear a secret though .... lean closer .... I live with a feminist lesbian couple, they are in their late 50’s and easily the best people I’ve ever known, I known what a real feminist is from them, from their stories, they had a real fight, real issues to push against, being gay in Northern Ireland in the troubles is likely the biggest issue they faced... they are fething heroes and modern day “feminists” are pathetic shadows of these great pioneers, they are god damn inspirations!
And that is why I mock you, your not a feminist, your a bored man trying to look good in you’re peir group, you’ve likely never fought... really fought for anything in your life.
Yes I’m being harsh, but at least I’m being honest.
Really, first you go "are you going to say the Oxford English dictionary is wrong" and then you move to "the LITERAL meaning". Like you weren't just the guy using an actual dictionary and trying to claim it backed you up? I mean just wow, I have seen quite some dishonesty on Dakka, but this immediate and all too obvious pivot is really something.
But good for your anacdotal evidence I guess, I live with a feminist too so I guess that's that.
What’s wrong, upset I took the whole sentence into account rather than cherry picking like you.... awww ...bless, also upset I taught you want feminism means? Upset that it’s not what you think it is? For shame
I’m going to stop mocking you now, got to give other people a chance at it!
It literally says advocating women's rights at the start, not men and women, just women. Its sad that you conflate equalism with feminism though, it shows how far feminism still has to go. Are you really going to stand here and pretend we already have full equality?
Re reads post...
Hmmm me thinks one is seeing what one wants to see, I get comprehension isn’t your thing son, but your lack of ability to understand a clear statement is pretty impressive
Feminism is defined as equality, EQUALITY, so treating both in an EQUAL manner, that’s NOT putting one before the other, if you don’t do that... your not a feminist, your a sexist.
Feminism isn't defined as equality, the dictionary you brought up literally states advocating women's rights, not both, women's on the basis of equality. If you want to blame someone for having bad reading comprehension you shouldn't pick a source that directly contradicts you.
Feminism is defined as equality, EQUALITY, so treating both in an EQUAL manner, that’s NOT putting one before the other, if you don’t do that... your not a feminist, your a sexist.
The original feminist movements were equality movements campaigning for women rights, there is a strong case to be made about modern feminism to not be the same as the feminism of old.
One can argue that the main objectives of the proto feminism and original feminism movement have been achieved and a rough equality has been achieved, modern feminist fight more obscure and convoluted wars hence why they admit equality is not in their agenda.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Feminism isn't defined as equality, the dictionary you brought up literally states advocating women's rights, not both, women's on the basis of equality. If you want to blame someone for having bad reading comprehension you shouldn't pick a source that directly contradicts you.
Yes it is watch this.
The advocacy of woman’s rights. On the grounds of eqaulity of the sexes.
That would make you correct, but!!!!
The advocacy of woman’s rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes.
Wow, so when you look at the whole sentence, it’s almost like it’s saying that you have advocate woman’s rights based on equality of the sexes... but shucks, how can we do that if we are trying to raise woman above men or just put men down? Hmmm it’s Almost like you can’t... and if you do... your not a feminist.... well gee wizz
Feminism is defined as equality, EQUALITY, so treating both in an EQUAL manner, that’s NOT putting one before the other, if you don’t do that... your not a feminist, your a sexist.
The original feminist movements were equality movements campaigning for women rights, there is a strong case to be made about modern feminism to not be the same as the feminism of old.
One can argue that the main objectives of the proto feminism and original feminism movement have been achieved and a rough equality has been achieved, modern feminist fight more obscure and convoluted wars hence why they admit equality is not in their agenda.
It would be nice to know what that agenda was, because they don’t even seem to know themselves.
It does make me curious how many normal woman actually take them seriously though, I know that at the ground level here in the UK most woman don’t give a crap about modern feminism, they have real issues like Work, family, friends and the other distractions of life.. same as most
Men.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Feminism isn't defined as equality, the dictionary you brought up literally states advocating women's rights, not both, women's on the basis of equality. If you want to blame someone for having bad reading comprehension you shouldn't pick a source that directly contradicts you.
Yes it is watch this.
The advocacy of woman’s rights. On the grounds of eqaulity of the sexes.
That would make you correct, but!!!!
The advocacy of woman’s rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes.
Wow, so when you look at the whole sentence, it’s almost like it’s saying that you have advocate woman’s rights based on equality of the sexes... but shucks, how can we do that if we are trying to raise woman above men or just put men down? Hmmm it’s Almost like you can’t... and if you do... your not a feminist.... well gee wizz
Its the advocacy of women's rights that both sexes should be equal. Feminism works from the understanding that this currently isn't the case but should be. If Feminism would champion both men and women's rights equally they would never attain equality as they will always stay a step behind. They aren't trying to raise women above men, they are working to get women to the same level as men, hence the advocating women's rights part. I mean what do you think "advocacy of women's rights" actually means in the context?
PsychoticStorm wrote: If you want to see and understand how males should look sexualised look at the male pinups from KDM.
Adam is doing something right with those models. I know my wife loves them. I’m quite fond of them myself.
Well they are blunt sexualised depictions of the male form, Adam was adamant he will not make male pinups until he found an artist to make proper male sexualised miniatures.
Now according to the logic sexualisation = bad (or worse) there should be an uproar, at least equal to the uproar female pinups got, but everybody seem to like them so double standards on the morality of sexualised human form?
Personally I like them they are quite well made and avoid been the caricatures people think "male power fantasy" is about.
More like they are appropriate minis for the range. If they just showed up in Warmachine or Frostgrave or something , people would be confused and some of them likely upset.
For many, sexualization is bad when it isn't appropriate, or when it is the only option in a market. If the only Imperial Guard minis available were a bunch of oiled-up guys in speedos, I'd be pretty peeved at that, too. Kind of like in real life, human sexuality is great when it doesn't surprise me at the hobby store. (Or in the grocery store, on the bus, etc.)
Feminism is defined as equality, EQUALITY, so treating both in an EQUAL manner, that’s NOT putting one before the other, if you don’t do that... your not a feminist, your a sexist.
The original feminist movements were equality movements campaigning for women rights, there is a strong case to be made about modern feminism to not be the same as the feminism of old.
One can argue that the main objectives of the proto feminism and original feminism movement have been achieved and a rough equality has been achieved, modern feminist fight more obscure and convoluted wars hence why they admit equality is not in their agenda.
It would be nice to know what that agenda was, because they don’t even seem to know themselves.
It does make me curious how many normal woman actually take them seriously though, I know that at the ground level here in the UK most woman don’t give a crap about modern feminism, they have real issues like Work, family, friends and the other distractions of life.. same as most Men.
There's an interesting phenomenon that happens with people in that they have different perspectives of a topic depending on if you ask them about it broadly or about its characteristics, even though it's the same thing in the end.
Example: people in the US tend to be much less friendly of the ACA/Obamacare if you just ask, "Do you like Obamacare?" versus asking them, "Do you like [all components of the ACA separately]?" which they overwhelmingly approve of. I really suspect something like that is true of feminism: people will report less support if you ask them if they approve of feminism as a whole, but will overwhelmingly approve of its purpose/goals.
I imagine it's just a side effect of negative propaganda in both cases, but you never know.
Whilst I'm not attending GenCon so it's currently a non-issue for me I don't think from what I've seen that I would appreciate Anita Sarkeesian's input on Tabletop Gaming, or possibly any topic. She strikes me as the equivalent of a televangelist, pushing a particular message for revenue.
Now if the GenCon organizers wish to discuss the hobby through a feminist lens and want to invite one of the many talented RPG authors or board game designers who have tackled this in their work? Sure. There's relevance and informed, invested perspective which is what I feel I'd want from GenCon. I wouldn't be looking for an outside perspective round table discussion at this event as it seems to sort of defeat the celebration of the hobby, but I appreciate that all things can benefit from outside perspective from time to time.
Zond wrote: Now if the GenCon organizers wish to discuss the hobby through a feminist lens and want to invite one of the many talented RPG authors or board game designers who have tackled this in their work? Sure. There's relevance and informed, invested perspective which is what I feel I'd want from GenCon. I wouldn't be looking for an outside perspective round table discussion at this event as it seems to sort of defeat the celebration of the hobby, but I appreciate that all things can benefit from outside perspective from time to time.
In the video game arena, Amy Henning (industry vet, wrote Uncharted) said that she didn’t see the sexism everybody was talking about, and that the rhetoric may actually driving women away from game development - and they crucified her. You can get banned on ResetEra for quoting her (sexism argumentation). If they won’t allow an actual, accomplished woman game designer to share her experience as a woman in the game industry, it’s about a specific narrative. Truth and relevance are immaterial.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Feminism isn't defined as equality, the dictionary you brought up literally states advocating women's rights, not both, women's on the basis of equality. If you want to blame someone for having bad reading comprehension you shouldn't pick a source that directly contradicts you.
Yes it is watch this.
The advocacy of woman’s rights. On the grounds of eqaulity of the sexes.
That would make you correct, but!!!!
The advocacy of woman’s rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes.
Wow, so when you look at the whole sentence, it’s almost like it’s saying that you have advocate woman’s rights based on equality of the sexes... but shucks, how can we do that if we are trying to raise woman above men or just put men down? Hmmm it’s Almost like you can’t... and if you do... your not a feminist.... well gee wizz
Its the advocacy of women's rights that both sexes should be equal. Feminism works from the understanding that this currently isn't the case but should be. If Feminism would champion both men and women's rights equally they would never attain equality as they will always stay a step behind. They aren't trying to raise women above men, they are working to get women to the same level as men, hence the advocating women's rights part. I mean what do you think "advocacy of women's rights" actually means in the context?
Aaaaaaaaaaaand wrong again, you have already stated it’s not about equality, therefore it must be about becoming superior, you have stated that it’s not about equality and are now saying it is, so which is it? See.. you can’t even remain consistent with yourself, never mind All the brands of modern feminism that are out there.
advocacy
ˈadvəkəsi/Submit
noun
1.
public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy.
Clearly doesn’t mean what you think it does, I don’t see broad public support for 3rd wave feminism.
Feminism is defined as equality, EQUALITY, so treating both in an EQUAL manner, that’s NOT putting one before the other, if you don’t do that... your not a feminist, your a sexist.
The original feminist movements were equality movements campaigning for women rights, there is a strong case to be made about modern feminism to not be the same as the feminism of old.
One can argue that the main objectives of the proto feminism and original feminism movement have been achieved and a rough equality has been achieved, modern feminist fight more obscure and convoluted wars hence why they admit equality is not in their agenda.
It would be nice to know what that agenda was, because they don’t even seem to know themselves.
It does make me curious how many normal woman actually take them seriously though, I know that at the ground level here in the UK most woman don’t give a crap about modern feminism, they have real issues like Work, family, friends and the other distractions of life.. same as most
Men.
There's an interesting phenomenon that happens with people in that they have different perspectives of a topic depending on if you ask them about it broadly or about its characteristics, even though it's the same thing in the end.
Example: people in the US tend to be much less friendly of the ACA/Obamacare if you just ask, "Do you like Obamacare?" versus asking them, "Do you like [all components of the ACA separately]?" which they overwhelmingly approve of. I really suspect something like that is true of feminism: people will report less support if you ask them if they approve of feminism as a whole, but will overwhelmingly approve of its purpose/goals.
I imagine it's just a side effect of negative propaganda in both cases, but you never know.
There is also the case of approving the goals as understood by the commonly accepted version of the English language but disapproving the methods of reaching there or the language used means different things than the common definition by the language.
Do you approve equality between X and Z?
In the common language this means do you think X and Z should have the same rights?
It does not mean do you think X should give up some of its rights and be penalised on top of that to give Z an advantage in order to bridge a perceived historical inequality that at the moment does not exist.
One can support the question, but according to their understanding of the question, not the definition that is not explained to them.
Comics have been the next target for a while now (they even have a ComicsGate). Watch what happens to them so you can see what tabletop has in store for the near future. Why argue about progressive destruction of nerd hobbies when you can watch it happen in real time?
Comics have been the next target for a while now (they even have a ComicsGate). Watch what happens to them so you can see what tabletop has in store for the near future. Why argue about progressive destruction of nerd hobbies when you can watch it happen in real time?
Those sounds.... eh. The last one sounds amusing if only because it's Jesus and Christianity....
Comics have been the next target for a while now (they even have a ComicsGate). Watch what happens to them so you can see what tabletop has in store for the near future. Why argue about progressive destruction of nerd hobbies when you can watch it happen in real time?
I fail to see the problem here. You say "make new stuff, don't change the old stuff to match your politics" and now here they are making new stuff and you still aren't happy. Somehow creating entirely new comics counts as "destruction of nerd hobbies", as if the mere existence of left-wing politics means that everything you enjoy is dead.
Comics have been the next target for a while now (they even have a ComicsGate). Watch what happens to them so you can see what tabletop has in store for the near future. Why argue about progressive destruction of nerd hobbies when you can watch it happen in real time?
I fail to see the problem here. You say "make new stuff, don't change the old stuff to match your politics" and now here they are making new stuff and you still aren't happy. Somehow creating entirely new comics counts as "destruction of nerd hobbies", as if the mere existence of left-wing politics means that everything you enjoy is dead.
I don't think that's what was meant Peregrine. I can see that they're pushing more of a left-wing view, and there is nothing wrong with that, but they do all have a trend of current politics. Again though, nothing wrong with that, as that's sort of how culture and comics work.
Some people may feel it is the beginning of some change, whether for good or ill though, and faulting them for it seems to only create more division. Which is sort of what this conversation has really become about, the division of those who do feel threatened by something changing the hobby in some way, and those who want a more progressive approach to it.
Does that make sense? Not being condescending, but genuinely curious if that clicks.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Feminism isn't defined as equality, the dictionary you brought up literally states advocating women's rights, not both, women's on the basis of equality. If you want to blame someone for having bad reading comprehension you shouldn't pick a source that directly contradicts you.
Yes it is watch this.
The advocacy of woman’s rights. On the grounds of eqaulity of the sexes.
That would make you correct, but!!!!
The advocacy of woman’s rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes.
Wow, so when you look at the whole sentence, it’s almost like it’s saying that you have advocate woman’s rights based on equality of the sexes... but shucks, how can we do that if we are trying to raise woman above men or just put men down? Hmmm it’s Almost like you can’t... and if you do... your not a feminist.... well gee wizz
Its the advocacy of women's rights that both sexes should be equal. Feminism works from the understanding that this currently isn't the case but should be. If Feminism would champion both men and women's rights equally they would never attain equality as they will always stay a step behind. They aren't trying to raise women above men, they are working to get women to the same level as men, hence the advocating women's rights part. I mean what do you think "advocacy of women's rights" actually means in the context?
Aaaaaaaaaaaand wrong again, you have already stated it’s not about equality, therefore it must be about becoming superior, you have stated that it’s not about equality and are now saying it is, so which is it? See.. you can’t even remain consistent with yourself, never mind All the brands of modern feminism that are out there.
advocacy
ˈadvəkəsi/Submit
noun
1.
public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy.
Clearly doesn’t mean what you think it does, I don’t see broad public support for 3rd wave feminism.
Really, it says public support, that doesn't say anything about broad support. For example you can say public support for the death penalty is at an all time low, then it isn't broad, but you could still have death penalty advocates, because they publically support the death penalty.
And its not just about equality, its about championing women's rights to attain equality, the womens rights part is critical, its what makes feminism. Advocacy even says a "particular cause". Otherwise things like the civil rights movement, LGBTQ rights and feminism can all be tossed on the same heap of an 'equality' movement. The distinction matters. I don't know why it bothers you so much that feminism is mainly focused on women getting to parity? If you believe in the wage gap for example, you can't say I want this much extra for women and men equally, you just focus on extra for women alone to reach the pay level of men.
And no, those advocating for women being superior are not feminists, they are female supremacists in essence. That the internet has started to label those types of people as feminists is just to slander the whole group. Imagine if you were defnined by the craziest person saying they are on your team. Its just as problematic as what Sarkeesian is doing with polarizing. Both sides feed the extremes on either side while the middle really doesn't have all that much input. Take white supremacy for example, they use rethoric including all white people, but just cause they say I'm white like you (or a feminist like you in the overall thread) that doesn't mean you want them to be part of how the overall perception of how your group is determined or that their views actually align with the larger group.
Peregrine wrote: I fail to see the problem here. You say "make new stuff, don't change the old stuff to match your politics" and now here they are making new stuff and you still aren't happy. Somehow creating entirely new comics counts as "destruction of nerd hobbies", as if the mere existence of left-wing politics means that everything you enjoy is dead.
I don't think I've said that, but I guess I don't really oppose the sentiment. I'm really more of a "if you are going to put a message into a creative work, contextualize it within the work rather than just preach at people" guy, but if people do indeed like poor attempts at literature, I guess I'm more happy when they make their own than when they ruin stuff I love. This crap is going to sell like aids.
No, the destruction of the nerd hobby I'm talking about is the obvious agenda pushing that is going on with this announcement. Comicsdom is currently in the middle of the crap that happened with the game industry. The video game industry kind of succumbed to the agenda pushing, lots of people were pushed aside and "marginalized", but eventually, the industry realized that they can't sell that agenda. There's no money there and it was actively ruining franchises and killing developers. They've slowly started crawling out of it, but it's been a long road and there's still a lot of strife. For instance, the journalists have a lost a lot of power of the industry. Steam recently made a policy that they wouldn't police content, and the journalists are up in arms about it ("but nazis!") and nobody is buying it anymore.
Comics, though. They went through the early day of feminism-ization, and have proceed to the phase where they start calling their fans names and labeling them as alt-right nazis or whatever. There's already been a "ComicsGate" in which an anti-SJW YouTuber raised a lot of money to self publish a comic book, but some people didn't like this, threatened the publishing company and got them to drop the comic. And there's a specific narrative about how people don't want that alt-right crap and that it didn't sell or that comic stores wouldn't carry it. That narrative doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but as long as they control the narrative, nobody can question it (without a fight).
This Vertigo relaunch is going to be the next battleground. I mean, you don't hire Zoe Quinn for her talent. They even paired her up with the artist of Spider-Gwen - look up the epic twitter battle between Robbi Rodriguez and Frank Cho. Rodriguez went ape-ploppies after Cho drew a picture of Spider-Gwen in the Manara Spider Woman pose. Honestly, we'll be lucky if this is just a Ghostbusters 2016 situation where it does poorly and we a bunch of articles about how white men are keeping the women back. (See also: Star Wars has a white male fandom problem, and Marvel, and you know, everything). But with those two involved, there's no way things won't get petty.
I'm not saying, hey, look, here's how the comic industry has been ruined. I'm saying watch closely what happens next. Things are coming to head over there, and since a lot of you weren't around when the video game industry get getting woke and going broke, it's worth watching.
Nurglitch wrote: "Sexism: prejudicial attitudes and discrimination against women on the basis of their sex. Sexism ranges from the individual to the institutional level and includes (a) beliefs, (b) behaviors, (c) use of language and (d) policies reflecting and conveying a pervasive view that women are inferior."
-- Linguist Phil Herbst
The usual, sexist response to this is Nigel Tufnel's "What's wrong with being sexy?" The answer, I think, is comparing On Our Backs to Playboy since they're both porn. Playboy pictorials depict women as being displayed for the viewer, and what are particular kind of male viewer wants to see (Penthouse picked up the slack in that department...). On Our Backs pictorials depicted lesbian couples as they wanted their relationship and sexuality to be seen.
Maybe a military analogy would help. There's overt 'shock and awe' sexism and there's 'british east india' sexism.
So sexism can only happen against women. I'm pretty sure I will give lots of credibility on "Linguist Phil Herbst".
I guess I'm the ignorant one here, I thought it was "misogyny=sexist/repressive against women". I guess then that would be a redundancy as you can't be sexist against males. I really need to reevaluate my life, especially with every generalization women have made against me over the years based on my sex/gender/whatever.
As far as Anita goes, if GenCon wanted to start a conversation about feminism, wouldn't this be the most extreme example they could go with?
I guess I'm the ignorant one here, I thought it was "misogyny=sexist/repressive against women". I guess then that would be a redundancy as you can't be sexist against males. I really need to reevaluate my life, especially with every generalization women have made against me over the years based on my sex/gender/whatever.
Yes that is misogyny, hatred of women, but you already specify the against women part. At the other side misandry is also a word that means hatred of men.
I think it might be one of those underlying meaning kind of debates, on if you can call prejudice/hatred against men sexism specifically. Like saying one group can't be racist but only prejudiced against the other depending on which group has traditionally been more favoured in the country's institutions/society. I guess the debate on sexism or prejudice can also be approached from the historical power/advantage manner.
Its one of those wordplay 'tricks' of the general public thinking and understanding it to mean this, but the expert going "actually" on the precise wording. Most of the general public wouldn't care and use it interchangeably. So does the largest hobby community happen to be know a guy who knows a guy who knows this guy to ask
Problem is Anita is one of those "prejudice + power = [whatever]ism" people, so women cannot be sexist, only white people can be racist, and the word 'heterophobic' might as well not exist (granted, I'd wager that last one a lot more rare than the other two).
I mean, we know she sees everything as sexist, racist and homophobic, so why would you want to know her opinion on anything?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Problem is Anita is one of those "prejudice + power = [whatever]ism" people, so women cannot be sexist, only white people can be racist, and the word 'heterophobic' might as well not exist (granted, I'd wager that last one a lot more rare than the other two).
I mean, we know she sees everything as sexist, racist and homophobic, so why would you want to know her opinion on anything?
I don't know, as I said, I think her approach is very shallow and not something we couldn't think of ourselves in a 10 minute conversation. In part its kicking down open doors like "gaming is a male dominated community", which of course is a bit of a chicken or egg story, men have been playing games for a long time as a group and gaming became mainstream in the mind of the general public with mobile gaming. And then there is the blatantly polarizing painting with a broad brush. She was a two bit youtuber like thousands or even tens of thousands of others, now she is famous I guess would be the word? Or at least something of a cult-status in the community.
I'm fine with her expressing her opinion, I don't really care that much to hear it because she is a terrible advocate for the things she tries to discuss. But I assume she sells tickets through her rep. So maybe a different question would be, does the convention sell out every year or not? And how do those previous sales compare to those during the 'controversy'?
Comics have been the next target for a while now (they even have a ComicsGate). Watch what happens to them so you can see what tabletop has in store for the near future. Why argue about progressive destruction of nerd hobbies when you can watch it happen in real time?
Comics have been the next target for a while now (they even have a ComicsGate). Watch what happens to them so you can see what tabletop has in store for the near future. Why argue about progressive destruction of nerd hobbies when you can watch it happen in real time?
What in the....
Are those real? That is a joke right?
Right?
Right?
Right?
I can't fathom any scenario where they sat in a meeting room, proposed these comics and actually thought they would ever sell.
They don't even really have like, nipples though. Just boob-shaped chest meat.
EDIT: I'm wrong about the Daemonettes. I've just not seen them before IRL. As far as the Medusae, I thought they wore tops.
They have nipples. I like to just stare at them all day long, objectifying them in a particularly gendered sort of way. I'm looking for a Lord of Slaanesh on Daemonic Mount so that I can oppress women even more. Once I get that and a Keeper of Secrets, my domination of the weaker sex will be complete.
I had a good laugh at this. But the sad part is, this is the actual image propagated by Anita and the people who follow her.
We're all just sitting in our leather chairs, stroking a (male) fluffy cat, snickering to ourselves as we plan the next step to keeping all females under our thumb. By having plastic models wear skimpy clothing. I would normally offer my GF's perspective on the matter, but her chain is sadly not long enough to reach the keyboard.
On a more serious note, what this might, but hopefully wont, do is just reignite that same witchhunt-mentaility that is present in so many other fields nowadays (If it isnt already so, I found plenty of articles already, among them one unironically named, I am sadly not kidding you, "Tabletop gaming has a white male terrorism problem"). And probably worse, guilt-trip people into actually believing any of this nonsense.
The sad part is, you could have had so much more constructive inclusions, people that would've actually offered some points, some creative ideas, or at the very least discussion. Instead they got Anita, who will almost certainly offer:
A Town Called Malus wrote: You don't think people will want to read a comic about an undercover investigation into a white nationalist gang?
Depends on how the story will be presented. I could see a comic of a guy infiltrating a neonazi base being successful. Or I could see a comic of a spy eliminating them white guys.
I don't know which one this will be, but from the collective page of all the comics I can make an uneducated guess.
I don't see how the "mexican-looking aliens causing racial resurgence to rednecks and a multi-racial group of high schoolers knowing better" would sell at all, to be honest.
This is Vertigo. It's not supposed to be socially acceptable comics. It's supposed to walk on the edge. And the Vertigo readers buy their comics for this very reason. You make this kind of turn, you are effectively trying to trade your vertigo audience with a new one who will place value in the ideas propelled. The problem here is that comic collectors are for life. It's not a hobby for months. Chances are that people who grew up without reading comics will never become avid collectors suddenly, because now comics include modern social issues.
A Town Called Malus wrote: You don't think people will want to read a comic about an undercover investigation into a white nationalist gang?
Isn't that the plot to Harry Potter And The White Supermasicts-I mean Imperium?
I read through them and the plots seem very...forced? I guess? Insincere? Hamfisted? The A.I one sounds okay even if it is a rip off of a Japanese web novel with a social justice message bolted on but the fact that Zoe Quinn is the writer doesn't really fill me with confidence. They'll likely be all the same self-congratulatory masturbation fantasies filled with unlikable preachy bores. You can read Strong Female Protagonist or Marvels brief Mockingbird comic if you want that. I shouldn't criticize them though because I'm a white male so probably a misogynist for disliking them.
A Town Called Malus wrote: You don't think people will want to read a comic about an undercover investigation into a white nationalist gang?
Depends on how the story will be presented. I could see a comic of a guy infiltrating a neonazi base being successful. Or I could see a comic of a spy eliminating them white guys.
I don't know which one this will be, but from the collective page of all the comics I can make an uneducated guess.
I don't see how the "mexican-looking aliens causing racial resurgence to rednecks and a multi-racial group of high schoolers knowing better" would sell at all, to be honest.
This is Vertigo. It's not supposed to be socially acceptable comics. It's supposed to walk on the edge. And the Vertigo readers buy their comics for this very reason. You make this kind of turn, you are effectively trying to trade your vertigo audience with a new one who will place value in the ideas propelled. The problem here is that comic collectors are for life. It's not a hobby for months. Chances are that people who grew up without reading comics will never become avid collectors suddenly, because now comics include modern social issues.
He's an ex-FBI agent, not James Bond, and it is described as a crime saga. I imagine it will be more The Departed and less Death Wish.
It isn't mexican-looking aliens. It is interdimensional beings from mexican folklore (think Chupacabra, El Coco, etc.). As for people not being interested in a diverse group of friends trying to solve the mystery, I would direct you to Stranger Things or, before that, The Goonies.
Isn't that the plot to Harry Potter And The White Supermasicts-I mean Imperium?
I read through them and the plots seem very...forced?
Some of them do sound a bit forced, but loads of plots sound forced when you are trying to distill them right down into a couple of sentences, especially in comics where the plots are often sprawling and, frankly, ridiculous.
It isn't mexican-looking aliens. It is interdimensional beings from mexican folklore. As for people not being interested in a diverse group of friends trying to solve the mystery, I would direct you to Stranger Things or, before that, The Goonies.
...soo, mexican-looking aliens. And it's not the goonies who feel weird to me, it's the whole "the mexican-looking aliens make the locals go racist". This strikes too close to the fence. Why read this Vertigo comic when I can read any modern blog instead? The ideas presented are the same. District 9 made a nice story out of it because they did not dress their aliens in ponchos.
It isn't mexican-looking aliens. It is interdimensional beings from mexican folklore. As for people not being interested in a diverse group of friends trying to solve the mystery, I would direct you to Stranger Things or, before that, The Goonies.
...soo, mexican-looking aliens. And it's not the goonies who feel weird to me, it's the whole "the mexican-looking aliens make the locals go racist".
Or the Chupacabra starts killing cattle and the newly arrived mexican immigrants are blamed. Or El Cuco steals children and the immigrants are blamed. Because those kinds of things have never happened.
A Town Called Malus wrote: You don't think people will want to read a comic about an undercover investigation into a white nationalist gang?
Depends on how the story will be presented. I could see a comic of a guy infiltrating a neonazi base being successful. Or I could see a comic of a spy eliminating them white guys.
I don't know which one this will be, but from the collective page of all the comics I can make an uneducated guess.
I don't see how the "mexican-looking aliens causing racial resurgence to rednecks and a multi-racial group of high schoolers knowing better" would sell at all, to be honest.
This is Vertigo. It's not supposed to be socially acceptable comics. It's supposed to walk on the edge. And the Vertigo readers buy their comics for this very reason. You make this kind of turn, you are effectively trying to trade your vertigo audience with a new one who will place value in the ideas propelled. The problem here is that comic collectors are for life. It's not a hobby for months. Chances are that people who grew up without reading comics will never become avid collectors suddenly, because now comics include modern social issues.
He's an ex-FBI agent, not James Bond, and it is described as a crime saga. I imagine it will be more The Departed and less Death Wish.
It isn't mexican-looking aliens. It is interdimensional beings from mexican folklore (think Chupacabra, El Coco, etc.). As for people not being interested in a diverse group of friends trying to solve the mystery, I would direct you to Stranger Things or, before that, The Goonies.
Isn't that the plot to Harry Potter And The White Supermasicts-I mean Imperium?
I read through them and the plots seem very...forced?
Some of them do sound a bit forced, but loads of plots sound forced when you are trying to distill them right down into a couple of sentences, especially in comics where the plots are often sprawling and, frankly, ridiculous.
The Mexican folklore one literally has a character quote saying "God-danged foreigners." or something to that effect in the summery. They may as well have just gone full tilt and have the summery be "Watch Mexican monster kids yell at racists and give alt-righters their comeuppance with super powers."
It isn't mexican-looking aliens. It is interdimensional beings from mexican folklore. As for people not being interested in a diverse group of friends trying to solve the mystery, I would direct you to Stranger Things or, before that, The Goonies.
...soo, mexican-looking aliens. And it's not the goonies who feel weird to me, it's the whole "the mexican-looking aliens make the locals go racist".
Or the Chupacabra starts killing cattle and the newly arrived mexican immigrants are blamed. Or El Cuco steals children and the immigrants are blamed. Because those kinds of things have never happened.
It's not about if they happened or not. It about the fact that comics are not real life. And even though it is perfectly fine to represent real life in comics, that's usually not why people buy them. Comic readers want to be immersed in worlds that are not reality. They dig into comics because they want something difference from their daily internet feed.
The other problem is that it's vertigo. Changing course will alienate your favorite fans. Not unlikely the new Star Wars. It's like owning a milk company, selling milk for 40 years, and then suddenly you change your business and you only sell chocolate milk instead. You can't really hope that the people who have been buying your milk for 40 years will continue to do so, just because your label is the same.
Is it that different from how Captain America got started? Yelling at Nazis and giving them their comeuppance through superpowers? This was even before the US even got dragged into the war mind. That could certainly be argued to be pretty political.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Is it that different from how Captain America got started? Yelling at Nazis and giving them their comeuppance through superpowers? This was even before the US even got dragged into the war mind. That could certainly be argued to be pretty political.
Remember, it's only "political" if it's expressing an opinion you don't like. If you agree with the message it's just a fun story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
topaxygouroun i wrote: It's not about if they happened or not. It about the fact that comics are not real life. And even though it is perfectly fine to represent real life in comics, that's usually not why people buy them. Comic readers want to be immersed in worlds that are not reality. They dig into comics because they want something difference from their daily internet feed.
That's a very narrow definition of the medium and its audience. It's the kind of attitude that leads to milking the cash cow with repeats of the same characters and plots, because they have name recognition and trying anything new is scary. I'm not sure why you think it's a good idea to draw a line and declare certain subjects off limits.
The other problem is that it's vertigo. Changing course will alienate your favorite fans. Not unlikely the new Star Wars. It's like owning a milk company, selling milk for 40 years, and then suddenly you change your business and you only sell chocolate milk instead. You can't really hope that the people who have been buying your milk for 40 years will continue to do so, just because your label is the same.
Are we seriously complaining about a comic book brand rebooting its concept? In the industry with a long history of regular reboots of its characters and stories, coming up with "new" identities for its product lines as a marketing tool so regularly that the only question is when the publisher will scrap the entire current story and start over from the beginning, not if? The comic book industry regularly bets that its customers will keep buying after the reboot, and they're regularly proved to be correct.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Is it that different from how Captain America got started? Yelling at Nazis and giving them their comeuppance through superpowers? This was even before the US even got dragged into the war mind. That could certainly be argued to be pretty political.
Remember, it's only "political" if it's expressing an opinion you don't like. If you agree with the message it's just a fun story.
Its a pretty odd argument. The creator/company goes in a different direction and creates a new story instead of 'shoehorning' it into the existing ones and it still a problem. So we have moved from if you want to do your thing make up your own new stuff instead if inserting it, to make up your own new stuff instead of inserting it unless you're a company that has been around for a while in which case your content has to be frozen in whatever time period the company was created. The same side arguing against Sarkeesian calling us a hive mind is somehow constructing the idea that the company's readers are a hive mind set against it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Problem is Anita is one of those "prejudice + power = [whatever]ism" people, so women cannot be sexist, only white people can be racist, and the word 'heterophobic' might as well not exist (granted, I'd wager that last one a lot more rare than the other two).
Well yes, that would be the definition of the word. Racism/sexism/etc are defined as systemic bias/oppression against a group. An individual black person can hate all white people, but that would be an extreme outlier that is nowhere near common enough to have any effect on white people as a group. One might fire you for being white, but you can almost certainly find another job where nobody would even consider being biased against you for your race. That one event, bad as it may be, is unlikely to ever happen again. On the other hand, non-white people can expect to regularly encounter poor treatment because of their race. It isn't one isolated incident, it's a pattern of events that has a statistically significant effect on the group as a whole.
Now, women/non-white people/etc can certainly be prejudiced, and that prejudice is in no way ok. A woman who hates all men is still a even though their awful belief is defined as prejudice instead of sexism. But calling it sexism instead of prejudice is a common misuse of the term. It's common enough that IMO it's not really worth fighting over, but she's still correct.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Is it that different from how Captain America got started? Yelling at Nazis and giving them their comeuppance through superpowers? This was even before the US even got dragged into the war mind. That could certainly be argued to be pretty political.
But Hydra were portrayed clearly as fascist warmongers, they did not focus on them being white supremacists. If anything, they were completely covered in masks and led by a guy with a Red Skull and no skin whatsoever.
At any rate, I am not opposed at all on making political based comics, or even modern social issues comics. Do it under a different firm though. Even Vertigo 2 if you like. But i want my 100 bullets man.
topaxygouroun i wrote: But Hydra were portrayed clearly as fascist warmongers, they did not focus on them being white supremacists. If anything, they were completely covered in masks and led by a guy with a Red Skull and no skin whatsoever.
No, we're talking about literally fighting Nazis. Not Hydra, not some thinly-veiled Nazi equivalents, actual real-world Nazis.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Problem is Anita is one of those "prejudice + power = [whatever]ism" people, so women cannot be sexist, only white people can be racist, and the word 'heterophobic' might as well not exist (granted, I'd wager that last one a lot more rare than the other two).
Well yes, that would be the definition of the word. Racism/sexism/etc are defined as systemic bias/oppression against a group. An individual black person can hate all white people, but that would be an extreme outlier that is nowhere near common enough to have any effect on white people as a group. One might fire you for being white, but you can almost certainly find another job where nobody would even consider being biased against you for your race. That one event, bad as it may be, is unlikely to ever happen again. On the other hand, non-white people can expect to regularly encounter poor treatment because of their race. It isn't one isolated incident, it's a pattern of events that has a statistically significant effect on the group as a whole.
Now, women/non-white people/etc can certainly be prejudiced, and that prejudice is in no way ok. A woman who hates all men is still a even though their awful belief is defined as prejudice instead of sexism. But calling it sexism instead of prejudice is a common misuse of the term. It's common enough that IMO it's not really worth fighting over, but she's still correct.
What about if many black persons hate all white people? What if many women hate all men? When does OK become not OK?
Also,
non-white people can expect to regularly encounter poor treatment because of their race.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Is it that different from how Captain America got started? Yelling at Nazis and giving them their comeuppance through superpowers? This was even before the US even got dragged into the war mind. That could certainly be argued to be pretty political.
But Hydra were portrayed clearly as fascist warmongers, they did not focus on them being white supremacists. If anything, they were completely covered in masks and led by a guy with a Red Skull and no skin whatsoever.
At any rate, I am not opposed at all on making political based comics, or even modern social issues comics. Do it under a different firm though. Even Vertigo 2 if you like. But i want my 100 bullets man.
It was specifically started against Nazis, even the creators stated that. When Nazis got beaten in 45 they needed something new and got into the more nebulous stuff.
But why a different firm? We're arguing that Sarkeesian shouldn't push her agenda on these companies in this thread and now you turn around and push your agenda on them as well. How is that any different? A business is a business, they control what they do and no one else gets to decide for them.
What about if many black persons hate all white people? What if many women hate all men? When does OK become not OK?
Its about institutional and societal power dynamics. In a hypothetical world where one half is a matriarchy and the other a patriarchy and they both opress the other side, one half could be said to be sexist against men and the other half against women. Its down to specific terminology, most people don't care to make the disctinction, but people like the linguist are making it because as a linguist its kind of his job.
topaxygouroun i wrote: What about if many black persons hate all white people? What if many women hate all men?
If "many" became enough that it was a systemic problem and not a few isolated individuals then it would become racism/sexism. However, we're nowhere near that point in the real world and it's not a very relevant hypothetical situation.
When does OK become not OK?
It's never ok. I already said this. Prejudice is wrong even if it isn't racism/sexism, and we should not approve of those beliefs or the s who hold them.
Also,
non-white people can expect to regularly encounter poor treatment because of their race.
Any proof of this claim?
Are you ing kidding? Are you honestly asking for proof of something this extremely obvious because you somehow aren't aware of it, or is this just an attempt to spam "WHERE IS PROOF" demands until the other side gets tired of googling the obvious for you and gives up?
Are you ing kidding? Are you honestly asking for proof of something this extremely obvious because you somehow aren't aware of it, or is this just an attempt to spam "WHERE IS PROOF" demands until the other side gets tired of googling the obvious for you and gives up?
I am very serious and do not intend to spam in the slightest. What you claim is not my experience in everyday life at all. If you would, it would help if you elaborate on "regurarly encountering poor treatment because of their race." In 2018 terms please, not in 1960 ones.
Are you ing kidding? Are you honestly asking for proof of something this extremely obvious because you somehow aren't aware of it, or is this just an attempt to spam "WHERE IS PROOF" demands until the other side gets tired of googling the obvious for you and gives up?
I am very serious and do not intend to spam in the slightest. What you claim is not my experience in everyday life at all. If you would, it would help if you elaborate on "regurarly encountering poor treatment because of their race." In 2018 terms please, not in 1960 ones.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Problem is Anita is one of those "prejudice + power = [whatever]ism" people, so women cannot be sexist, only white people can be racist, and the word 'heterophobic' might as well not exist (granted, I'd wager that last one a lot more rare than the other two).
Well yes, that would be the definition of the word. Racism/sexism/etc are defined as systemic bias/oppression against a group. An individual black person can hate all white people, but that would be an extreme outlier that is nowhere near common enough to have any effect on white people as a group. One might fire you for being white, but you can almost certainly find another job where nobody would even consider being biased against you for your race. That one event, bad as it may be, is unlikely to ever happen again. On the other hand, non-white people can expect to regularly encounter poor treatment because of their race. It isn't one isolated incident, it's a pattern of events that has a statistically significant effect on the group as a whole.
Now, women/non-white people/etc can certainly be prejudiced, and that prejudice is in no way ok. A woman who hates all men is still a even though their awful belief is defined as prejudice instead of sexism. But calling it sexism instead of prejudice is a common misuse of the term. It's common enough that IMO it's not really worth fighting over, but she's still correct.
What about if many black persons hate all white people? What if many women hate all men? When does OK become not OK?
Also,
non-white people can expect to regularly encounter poor treatment because of their race.
Any proof of this claim?
ANY day I get to quote Star Trek: Insurrection is a good day.
"How many does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong, hmm? A thousand? Ten thousand? A million?!?! HOW MANY DOES IT TAKE?!?!??!!?"
And to Peregrine, you realize the poster I quoted is from a country that may not have that issue, right? Or that as an objective eye, he doesn't see the 20 or so high profile cases that have made international news as some sort of systemic "All 'muricans haetz the brownz peeplez" racism?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Problem is Anita is one of those "prejudice + power = [whatever]ism" people, so women cannot be sexist, only white people can be racist, and the word 'heterophobic' might as well not exist (granted, I'd wager that last one a lot more rare than the other two).
Well yes, that would be the definition of the word. Racism/sexism/etc are defined as systemic bias/oppression against a group. An individual black person can hate all white people, but that would be an extreme outlier that is nowhere near common enough to have any effect on white people as a group. One might fire you for being white, but you can almost certainly find another job where nobody would even consider being biased against you for your race. That one event, bad as it may be, is unlikely to ever happen again. On the other hand, non-white people can expect to regularly encounter poor treatment because of their race. It isn't one isolated incident, it's a pattern of events that has a statistically significant effect on the group as a whole.
Now, women/non-white people/etc can certainly be prejudiced, and that prejudice is in no way ok. A woman who hates all men is still a even though their awful belief is defined as prejudice instead of sexism. But calling it sexism instead of prejudice is a common misuse of the term. It's common enough that IMO it's not really worth fighting over, but she's still correct.
What about if many black persons hate all white people? What if many women hate all men? When does OK become not OK?
Also,
non-white people can expect to regularly encounter poor treatment because of their race.
Any proof of this claim?
And to Peregrine, you realize the poster I quoted is from a country that may not have that issue, right? Or that as an objective eye, he doesn't see the 20 or so high profile cases that have made international news as some sort of systemic "All 'muricans haetz the brownz peeplez" racism?
Americans tend to assume that every country has the same society, history and culture as them. Its weird. Irish people speak english and is a tiny fraction of the size of the US so obviously the same issues and that effect us the same way.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Problem is Anita is one of those "prejudice + power = [whatever]ism" people, so women cannot be sexist, only white people can be racist, and the word 'heterophobic' might as well not exist (granted, I'd wager that last one a lot more rare than the other two).
Well yes, that would be the definition of the word. Racism/sexism/etc are defined as systemic bias/oppression against a group. An individual black person can hate all white people, but that would be an extreme outlier that is nowhere near common enough to have any effect on white people as a group. One might fire you for being white, but you can almost certainly find another job where nobody would even consider being biased against you for your race. That one event, bad as it may be, is unlikely to ever happen again. On the other hand, non-white people can expect to regularly encounter poor treatment because of their race. It isn't one isolated incident, it's a pattern of events that has a statistically significant effect on the group as a whole.
Now, women/non-white people/etc can certainly be prejudiced, and that prejudice is in no way ok. A woman who hates all men is still a even though their awful belief is defined as prejudice instead of sexism. But calling it sexism instead of prejudice is a common misuse of the term. It's common enough that IMO it's not really worth fighting over, but she's still correct.
What about if many black persons hate all white people? What if many women hate all men? When does OK become not OK?
Also,
non-white people can expect to regularly encounter poor treatment because of their race.
Any proof of this claim?
And to Peregrine, you realize the poster I quoted is from a country that may not have that issue, right? Or that as an objective eye, he doesn't see the 20 or so high profile cases that have made international news as some sort of systemic "All 'muricans haetz the brownz peeplez" racism?
Americans tend to assume that every country has the same society, history and culture as them. Its weird. Irish people speak english and is a tiny fraction of the size of the US so obviously the same issues and that effect us the same way.
Iirc Topaxygouroun said he lives in the Netherlands, but he is Greek? My country (NL) has a yearly tradition for a children's party where white Dutch people put on black face, paint their lips bright red and put on a curly black wig to play the dumb helpers of our version of santa. Meanwhile the majority insists that this is no way has any racist undertones. Make of that what you will.
Are you ing kidding? Are you honestly asking for proof of something this extremely obvious because you somehow aren't aware of it, or is this just an attempt to spam "WHERE IS PROOF" demands until the other side gets tired of googling the obvious for you and gives up?
I am very serious and do not intend to spam in the slightest. What you claim is not my experience in everyday life at all. If you would, it would help if you elaborate on "regurarly encountering poor treatment because of their race." In 2018 terms please, not in 1960 ones.
This does not help. This is just articles from the Guardian and the nytimes. I cannot verify the credibility of those articles. The first 6 articles in your search are as follows:
A 45-50 yo man complains how he was discriminated in primary school. Aka 40 years ago. Also his justification is "In elementary school I got the distinct impression that teachers didn’t like me." I can tell you no teachers liked me in elementary school as well. It was not because of my skin color.
This is a general subject in the website of usnews, featuring latest articles. Here's some of the titles:
"Racial bias in antibiotics prescribing". Article states that "research finds that" with no citing whatsoever, and continues with "While the reasons for these associations still aren't fully understood, experts say investigating the various factors that may be linked to inappropriate prescribing could help in curbing the problem." So an unconfirmed study with not understood reasons makes the news as "Racial bias". 80% of the article is about young kids and weight issues btw.
"Local Leaders are key to change, says the New Orleans mayor". In a 800 word article, the only mention of racism is this: "Although Landrieu says he thinks there is a "huge amount of common ground" between people, he doesn't turn a blind eye to the things that need to be fixed, such as racism and tension between African-Americans and law enforcement." So it's either huge amount of common ground or "regularly encountering poor treatment". Can't be both.
Also general nypost folder on racism. Some of the first results linked:
"Mayor apologizes after mom’s racist Facebook rant". An 80yo woman complained on facebook about Korean Americans. Mayor who happens to be her son had to apologize and say she "doesn't know what she is talking about". This is not a racist issue, this is an 80 year old granny being racist. Not any different than a 35 yo faminist hating me because of what I am writing right now.
"Proof that Dem's unfair race baiting doesn't add up." This one actually advocates the opposite of what you point out, that racism does not really exist. Of course it is using the argument "More white men died to police shootings than black men did so there is no racism" for which the author should be put in a mental institution if you ask me.
"Mom unleashes profane, racist tirade in subway seat fight". This is about a black woman verbally attacking an asian woman. Is this racism or it doesn't not count if the perpetrator is not white?
"Men threw hatchet at black teen" This is very, very criminal. Article does not say if the men were white, or if they threw the hatchet because the teen was black or because the teen was a nerd or an introvert. Certainly criminal, not necessary racist.
"Black boys raised in America, even in the wealthiest families and living in some of the most well-to-do neighborhoods, still earn less in adulthood than white boys with similar backgrounds, according to a sweeping new study that traced the lives of millions of children.". Interesting study. Claims to use data of over 20 million households. Looks huge. I will have to look into it in more detail.
A nytimes article about several opinions of its editors on a black professor stating that "Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson said racist stuff in their presidency". As I said, let's look into 2018, not 1900ish.
Overall your google search does not give me much, except the one study that looks huge in scope, and it will take me a couple of weeks to absorb. I promise you that I will, though.
Let me explain myself better. I'm from EU. Not many US news come over here. Most of the ones which do are usually about police shootings against black people. Usually the ones with the cop video camera footage. The first thing I feel is shocked that your policemen actually shoot people in point blank range. Most of them appear to be in panic mode also. Now all of them - except two I think- were against armed people who refused to obey direct orders from the police. Not that I think that a policeman should be allowed to go berzerk on people just cause of course. If however I was stopped by a stressed cop pointing a gun at me I would obey each and every order he gives me. I would sort things out later, when the situation was de-escalated. Now there were two videos I remember distinctly where I though were purely criminal from the police. In one case they have a guy already on the ground and under a kneebar and then another cop just waltzes in and shoots him in the back. WTF. The second is against an older fella who turns tail and runs. Then the cop casually proceeds to shoot him in the back. WTF times two.
Iirc Topaxygouroun said he lives in the Netherlands, but he is Greek? My country (NL) has a yearly tradition for a children's party where white Dutch people put on black face, paint their lips bright red and put on a curly black wig to play the dumb helpers of our version of santa. Meanwhile the majority insists that this is no way has any racist undertones. Make of that what you will.
Aaah good old zwarte piet. Well I am not Dutch, I only live here so I would not persume to judge the Dutch because I lack a lot of the background data. If however I had to choose between racism including real people and racism due to fictional characters then I would choose to live in the Netherlands rather than in Greece I suppose. I prefer to see how everyday life unfolds in the Netherlands. So far (3 years here) I have not witnessed any cases where people of color are getting discriminated as a result of the Swarte Piet custom or otherwise.
I do have a serious problem about SinterKlaas though: After 6th of December, the peppernotten availability stops. What in the heck is this? It's like Santa coming and taking the gifts away! Get your shirt together, Netherlands!
Captain America is being written by a man that called the FDNY responders at 9/11 inhuman monsters and mocked their 'machismo'. Comics are a dumpster fire right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
topaxygouroun i wrote: This is Vertigo. It's not supposed to be socially acceptable comics. It's supposed to walk on the edge. And the Vertigo readers buy their comics for this very reason. You make this kind of turn, you are effectively trying to trade your vertigo audience with a new one who will place value in the ideas propelled. The problem here is that comic collectors are for life. It's not a hobby for months. Chances are that people who grew up without reading comics will never become avid collectors suddenly, because now comics include modern social issues.
"Get woke, go broke"
The people that are behind these comics have long been gatekeepers in the industry. And we're looking at another mid-90's crash. Comic shops are closing all over and it's because no one wants to buy this garbage.
Remember when Vertigo comics were Preacher and Johnny 'Conjob' Constantine?
Iirc Topaxygouroun said he lives in the Netherlands, but he is Greek? My country (NL) has a yearly tradition for a children's party where white Dutch people put on black face, paint their lips bright red and put on a curly black wig to play the dumb helpers of our version of santa. Meanwhile the majority insists that this is no way has any racist undertones. Make of that what you will.
Aaah good old zwarte piet. Well I am not Dutch, I only live here so I would not persume to judge the Dutch because I lack a lot of the background data. If however I had to choose between racism including real people and racism due to fictional characters then I would choose to live in the Netherlands rather than in Greece I suppose. I prefer to see how everyday life unfolds in the Netherlands. So far (3 years here) I have not witnessed any cases where people of color are getting discriminated as a result of the Swarte Piet custom or otherwise.
I do have a serious problem about SinterKlaas though: After 6th of December, the peppernotten availability stops. What in the heck is this? It's like Santa coming and taking the gifts away! Get your shirt together, Netherlands!
I think the debate is if a black stereotypical caricature is racist because of what it depicts. It is pretty bad though, amazingly cringy and it certainly crosses the line I think. But as its a children's holiday adults don't really discriminate against each other, its mainly children being affected by it. There certainly is discrimination here, its less obvious, but bringing up the topic gets you no less hatemail. Yesterday I even saw people protesting a charity that tries to prevent child labor abroad because "they were taking their jobs away". Dutch people never fail to surprise me. Its a long way to go in some aspects, just giving an example to others because of the outside of the US perspective.
And thats your problem? Not that they start selling the freaking things in like august? I mean its one day a year and we have to build up to it for three months, three months! Its anarchy!
Iirc Topaxygouroun said he lives in the Netherlands, but he is Greek? My country (NL) has a yearly tradition for a children's party where white Dutch people put on black face, paint their lips bright red and put on a curly black wig to play the dumb helpers of our version of santa. Meanwhile the majority insists that this is no way has any racist undertones. Make of that what you will.
Aaah good old zwarte piet. Well I am not Dutch, I only live here so I would not persume to judge the Dutch because I lack a lot of the background data. If however I had to choose between racism including real people and racism due to fictional characters then I would choose to live in the Netherlands rather than in Greece I suppose. I prefer to see how everyday life unfolds in the Netherlands. So far (3 years here) I have not witnessed any cases where people of color are getting discriminated as a result of the Swarte Piet custom or otherwise.
I do have a serious problem about SinterKlaas though: After 6th of December, the peppernotten availability stops. What in the heck is this? It's like Santa coming and taking the gifts away! Get your shirt together, Netherlands!
I think the debate is if a black stereotypical caricature is racist because of what it depicts. It is pretty bad though, amazingly cringy. But as its a children's holiday adults don't really discriminate against each other, its mainly children being affected by it. There certainly is discrimination here, its less obvious, but bringing up the topic gets you no less hatemail. Yesterday I even saw people protesting a charity that tries to prevent child labor abroad because "they were taking their jobs away". Dutch people never fail to surprise me. Its a long way to go in some aspects, just giving an example to others because of the outside of the US perspective.
And thats your problem? Not that they start selling the freaking things in like august? I mean its one day a year and we have to build up to it for three months, three months! Its anarchy!
I am always waiting 7th in the morning in front of AH to buy 10-15 kilos of peppernotten on the discount price. I have a problem :(
Zwarte piet is really really cringy indeed. On the other hand for some reason Dutch people tend to dress carnival-like about 10 times more often than any other people I have met. bachelor party? Here's princess dresses or giant dick costumes. PSV won the Eredivisie? Look at me being dressed like a hamburger. Every weekend there's someone on the streets dressed up. Madness, madness I tell you.
Iirc Topaxygouroun said he lives in the Netherlands, but he is Greek? My country (NL) has a yearly tradition for a children's party where white Dutch people put on black face, paint their lips bright red and put on a curly black wig to play the dumb helpers of our version of santa. Meanwhile the majority insists that this is no way has any racist undertones. Make of that what you will.
Aaah good old zwarte piet. Well I am not Dutch, I only live here so I would not persume to judge the Dutch because I lack a lot of the background data. If however I had to choose between racism including real people and racism due to fictional characters then I would choose to live in the Netherlands rather than in Greece I suppose. I prefer to see how everyday life unfolds in the Netherlands. So far (3 years here) I have not witnessed any cases where people of color are getting discriminated as a result of the Swarte Piet custom or otherwise.
I do have a serious problem about SinterKlaas though: After 6th of December, the peppernotten availability stops. What in the heck is this? It's like Santa coming and taking the gifts away! Get your shirt together, Netherlands!
I think the debate is if a black stereotypical caricature is racist because of what it depicts. It is pretty bad though, amazingly cringy. But as its a children's holiday adults don't really discriminate against each other, its mainly children being affected by it. There certainly is discrimination here, its less obvious, but bringing up the topic gets you no less hatemail. Yesterday I even saw people protesting a charity that tries to prevent child labor abroad because "they were taking their jobs away". Dutch people never fail to surprise me. Its a long way to go in some aspects, just giving an example to others because of the outside of the US perspective.
And thats your problem? Not that they start selling the freaking things in like august? I mean its one day a year and we have to build up to it for three months, three months! Its anarchy!
Do the kids actually know what they're caricaturising? Do they have context? Do the parents dress them up and say "Now you look like an African person" or do the kids just think that's how Santa's helpers look? I remember when I was younger I had no idea that the gollywog on my marmalade was supposed to be a black person. I thought it was just a mascot.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Captain America is being written by a man that called the FDNY responders at 9/11 inhuman monsters and mocked their 'machismo'.
{citation needed}
I'm looking for a quote of this and finding nothing.
I thought he posted that to twitter. I've seen it mentioned in a video on Youtube but can't recall who made the video. If I could remember the name of the writer It would be easy to find.
Iirc Topaxygouroun said he lives in the Netherlands, but he is Greek? My country (NL) has a yearly tradition for a children's party where white Dutch people put on black face, paint their lips bright red and put on a curly black wig to play the dumb helpers of our version of santa. Meanwhile the majority insists that this is no way has any racist undertones. Make of that what you will.
Aaah good old zwarte piet. Well I am not Dutch, I only live here so I would not persume to judge the Dutch because I lack a lot of the background data. If however I had to choose between racism including real people and racism due to fictional characters then I would choose to live in the Netherlands rather than in Greece I suppose. I prefer to see how everyday life unfolds in the Netherlands. So far (3 years here) I have not witnessed any cases where people of color are getting discriminated as a result of the Swarte Piet custom or otherwise.
I do have a serious problem about SinterKlaas though: After 6th of December, the peppernotten availability stops. What in the heck is this? It's like Santa coming and taking the gifts away! Get your shirt together, Netherlands!
I think the debate is if a black stereotypical caricature is racist because of what it depicts. It is pretty bad though, amazingly cringy. But as its a children's holiday adults don't really discriminate against each other, its mainly children being affected by it. There certainly is discrimination here, its less obvious, but bringing up the topic gets you no less hatemail. Yesterday I even saw people protesting a charity that tries to prevent child labor abroad because "they were taking their jobs away". Dutch people never fail to surprise me. Its a long way to go in some aspects, just giving an example to others because of the outside of the US perspective.
And thats your problem? Not that they start selling the freaking things in like august? I mean its one day a year and we have to build up to it for three months, three months! Its anarchy!
Do the kids actually know what they're caricaturising? Do they have context? Do the parents dress them up and say "Now you look like an African person" or do the kids just think that's how Santa's helpers look? I remember when I was younger I had no idea that the gollywog on my marmalade was supposed to be a black person. I thought it was just a mascot.
Kids don't get dressed up as Zwawrte Piet. Adults do and they bring gifts to the children. Zwarte Piet is the Dutch version of the Santa's elves in a sense. I don't think the kids think "here's my african bringing my my PS4". I think they are more like the mascot analogy.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: The people that are behind these comics have long been gatekeepers in the industry.
So releasing a new product line is somehow "gatekeeping"? You complain when they change stuff, you complain when they release new stuff, it's clear that the only acceptable answer for you is one in which left-wing politics is erased from existence.
Comic shops are closing all over and it's because no one wants to buy this garbage.
Alternatively, comic shops are closing all over because retail in general is a dying business model and you can buy comics online without the hassle of going to a retail store. Why would you expect comic shops to survive in a world where bookstores in general are nearly dead outside of a large chain or two?
Sim-Life wrote: Do the kids actually know what they're caricaturising? Do they have context? Do the parents dress them up and say "Now you look like an African person" or do the kids just think that's how Santa's helpers look? I remember when I was younger I had no idea that the gollywog on my marmalade was supposed to be a black person. I thought it was just a mascot.
Different but similar: I used to think the Confederate flag just meant that the person really liked Dukes of Hazzard.
I am always waiting 7th in the morning in front of AH to buy 10-15 kilos of peppernotten on the discount price. I have a problem :(
Zwarte piet is really really cringy indeed. On the other hand for some reason Dutch people tend to dress carnival-like about 10 times more often than any other people I have met. bachelor party? Here's princess dresses or giant dick costumes. PSV won the Eredivisie? Look at me being dressed like a hamburger. Every weekend there's someone on the streets dressed up. Madness, madness I tell you.
Nah plenty of people do that, those things keep forever as well so you can stock up for the year.
As for dressing up, yeah people tend to find any excuse to get drunk and look silly. Mostly the drunk part haha.
Iirc Topaxygouroun said he lives in the Netherlands, but he is Greek? My country (NL) has a yearly tradition for a children's party where white Dutch people put on black face, paint their lips bright red and put on a curly black wig to play the dumb helpers of our version of santa. Meanwhile the majority insists that this is no way has any racist undertones. Make of that what you will.
Aaah good old zwarte piet. Well I am not Dutch, I only live here so I would not persume to judge the Dutch because I lack a lot of the background data. If however I had to choose between racism including real people and racism due to fictional characters then I would choose to live in the Netherlands rather than in Greece I suppose. I prefer to see how everyday life unfolds in the Netherlands. So far (3 years here) I have not witnessed any cases where people of color are getting discriminated as a result of the Swarte Piet custom or otherwise.
I do have a serious problem about SinterKlaas though: After 6th of December, the peppernotten availability stops. What in the heck is this? It's like Santa coming and taking the gifts away! Get your shirt together, Netherlands!
I think the debate is if a black stereotypical caricature is racist because of what it depicts. It is pretty bad though, amazingly cringy. But as its a children's holiday adults don't really discriminate against each other, its mainly children being affected by it. There certainly is discrimination here, its less obvious, but bringing up the topic gets you no less hatemail. Yesterday I even saw people protesting a charity that tries to prevent child labor abroad because "they were taking their jobs away". Dutch people never fail to surprise me. Its a long way to go in some aspects, just giving an example to others because of the outside of the US perspective.
And thats your problem? Not that they start selling the freaking things in like august? I mean its one day a year and we have to build up to it for three months, three months! Its anarchy!
Do the kids actually know what they're caricaturising? Do they have context? Do the parents dress them up and say "Now you look like an African person" or do the kids just think that's how Santa's helpers look? I remember when I was younger I had no idea that the gollywog on my marmalade was supposed to be a black person. I thought it was just a mascot.
Its supposed to be a mascot/little hekper, but what originally started the modern tradition was a book that made it just a little boy that looked North African. Somewhere along the line that turned into black shoepolish, red lipstick, fake golden earrings and curly black wigs.
As for the kids, no they don't get dressed up, but children of African descent get bullied because of it. Considering we have quite a decent sized African descendent minority due to our colonial past its a bit of a sore subject. You think the Sarkeesian thing is bad, you haven't seen nothing yet when it comes to violent emotional outbursts and threats...
So if we ignore the context of the wider work (which was nominated for a Pulitzer) and cut out a single sentence quoted in a conservatives review of the book and use the same interpretation as that review (which is not the only interpretation, especially when you consider the context in which such a sentence appears) then he can be painted as hating the police and firefighters on 9/11.
Of course that doesn't take into account the wider themes of the work, such as the effect that interactions with authority (be it the police, or schools, or gangs) as a member of a minority group can have on such a persons outlook on those power structures.
His usage of the phrase "They were not human to me. Black, white, or whatever, they were menaces of nature; they were the fire, the comet, the storm, which could — with no justification — shatter my body." was not actually about those specific police and firefighters, but about the authority they represent and the experiences of dealing with that authority when you approach it as a black man. When you have been systemically abused by the members of a group then you will stop seeing people belonging to that group as people, but rather instruments of the power structure. People living in a community in which the police inflict unjustified violence upon them will not see an individual police officer, but rather the physical presence of violence. They will see the gun, the cuffs, the boot, the baton.
Beat me to it. It's an out of context quote that doesn't even say what AD claims it does. It is about fear of the police/firefighters, not hate, and doesn't say anything about the machismo that AD claimed.
A Town Called Malus wrote: His usage of the phrase "They were not human to me. Black, white, or whatever, they were menaces of nature; they were the fire, the comet, the storm, which could — with no justification — shatter my body." was not actually about those specific police and firefighters, but about the authority they represent and the experiences of dealing with that authority when you approach it as a black man.
9/11 firefighters.
Yeah, sorry. He's a piece of garbage and a racist that has no business writing Captain America. Additionally, he sides with domestic terrorists like Anitfa. But hey, I'm not the target audience. I don't like it, I don't buy it- I just watch their little circle-jerk burn and mock them at every opportunity.
Sympathize if you want. I don't admire the 'wider works' of David Duke or Richard Spencer, I'm not about to start with a different shade of bigot.
(EDIT: You can keep replying if you like, Peregrine- all I see is 'ignored post by Peregrine'. So feel free to throw your tantrums. This forum has been considerably more interesting with you silenced).
Never understood why USAians are so quick to slap the hero badge on people for doing their jobs. What's different in a 9/11 firefighter compared to a forest fire firefighter?
I mean, thank Tzeentch that the public servicemen were there to help save lives of course. I just don't get the hero thing.
Oh and the dude is stupid, regardless of what he meant or intended. Pretty sure he will be calling the fire department if his gak is on fire. Or will he stay put in fear of "the menaces of nature"? Or will he refuse the help if white firefighters come to save his ass?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: You mean domestic heroes doing god's work in fighting Nazis, something Captain America would approve of entirely.
An inspiration to us all.
Not entirely sure which god you are trying to put in the discussion, but the widespread American one has made it pretty clear that killing people is a big no no.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Never understood why USAians are so quick to slap the hero badge on people for doing their jobs. What's different in a 9/11 firefighter compared to a forest fire firefighter?
I mean, thank Tzeentch that the public servicemen were there to help save lives of course. I just don't get the hero thing.
Oh and the dude is stupid, regardless of what he meant or intended. Pretty sure he will be calling the fire department if his gak is on fire. Or will he stay put in fear of "the menaces of nature"? Or will he refuse the help if white firefighters come to save his ass?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: You mean domestic heroes doing god's work in fighting Nazis, something Captain America would approve of entirely.
An inspiration to us all.
Not entirely sure which god you are trying to put in the discussion, but the widespread American one has made it pretty clear that killing people is a big no no.
Nothing seperates them, all are heroic deeds, going into a collapsing building to rescue people, hero, running into a burning forest to rescue people, hero, maybe we are a bit simple like that I suppose (not sarcasm)
topaxygouroun i wrote: Not entirely sure which god you are trying to put in the discussion, but the widespread American one has made it pretty clear that killing people is a big no no.
The more accurate translation of the phrase is thou shalt not murder, it wasn't supposed to apply to legitimate killing like soldiers fighting in a war. The bible is full of justified killing, especially at god's command. And I think we all, regardless of political party, can agree that killing Nazis is a moral virtue and any god that may exist will 100% approve as he sends them to burn in hell forever.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Never understood why USAians are so quick to slap the hero badge on people for doing their jobs. What's different in a 9/11 firefighter compared to a forest fire firefighter?
Well, the attack killed nearly 3000 innocent people and 19 vermin murderers. People are a bit sensitive about the whole thing. It's not like a bunch of trees caught on fire. The firefighters were sifting through the rubble and already in the buildings before they collapsed. Danger level was a bit higher than a forest fire, but I do respect all first responders.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Oh and the dude is stupid, regardless of what he meant or intended. Pretty sure he will be calling the fire department if his gak is on fire. Or will he stay put in fear of "the menaces of nature"?
He's provocative, and that's what Marvel wants to go for. They've been pretty... volatile lately. Not sure what audience they're trying to appeal to, because the sales aren't doing so good. Odd hill for them to die on, but they chose it. Then again, Marvel's always been, IMHO, for younger readers than DC. And DC can still crank out solid stories.
DC wasn't going full REEEEE when some Anti-SJW Youtuber launched his own comic. The funny part is that all these 'pros' at Marvel were constantly screaming, "If you don't like it, don't buy it, and if you think you can do better, go make your own and prove it!" -well, the dude did exactly that and the trash at Marvel immediately started trying to shut down his publisher and have his book banned from stores. The funny part is- his book is 100% apolitical, features a gay guy and a black woman.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Not entirely sure which god you are trying to put in the discussion, but the widespread American one has made it pretty clear that killing people is a big no no.
The more accurate translation of the phrase is thou shalt not murder, it wasn't supposed to apply to legitimate killing like soldiers fighting in a war. The bible is full of justified killing, especially at god's command. And I think we all, regardless of political party, can agree that killing Nazis is a moral virtue and any god that may exist will 100% approve as he sends them to burn in hell forever.
Yeah, no. No F-ing way. In fact in the whole new testament he repeats one and only thing, over and over again and that's "Love your enemies." And I very much disagree with killing Nazis. I disagree with killing anyone You don't solve violence with more violence. All you will manage is to make them martyrs in the eyes of the wannabe Nazis. And then you have more Nazis. You don't cure hate by perpetuating it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I mean it worked pretty well in WW2, lot less Nazis around nowadays.
Yeah, unless you shift the definition to 'anyone to the right of Bernie'. Which seems to be the case. The word 'Nazi' is kind of pointless. When I hear it, I don't expect to see a Nazi. I just expect to see an upset child that found a Republican.
The Nazi genocide was not stopped by asking them nicely, or by trying to persuade them through conversation. It was stopped by killing Nazis until the Nazis accepted that their choice was either surrender or die. And then once the Nazi army surrendered we executed the people responsible for the genocide.
But if you're such a pacifist why are you a fan of Captain America, a character created specifically to kill Nazis?
To be honest people didn't killed nazis because they where nazis but because they started a war invading poland.
Until that point nobody really cared about what they where doing in his own country. Or, well, some people cared, but nobody tried to go to germany to kill them.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I mean it worked pretty well in WW2, lot less Nazis around nowadays. Eventually they force you to take a choice.
We are not really discussing murder now, are we?
No, its self defense, Nazis work towards the goal of murdering their political enemies and those that don't fit their racial views. Would you have people just stand by and let the 1940's happen again or?
The Nazi genocide was not stopped by asking them nicely, or by trying to persuade them through conversation. It was stopped by killing Nazis until the Nazis accepted that their choice was either surrender or die. And then once the Nazi army surrendered we executed the people responsible for the genocide.
But if you're such a pacifist why are you a fan of Captain America, a character created specifically to kill Nazis?
Ok, two answers. First the funny one: Captain America in First avenger:"Do you want to kill Nazis?" - "I don't want to kill anyone. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they are from."
Second the serious one. Do you really compare wartime in 1940 with our society in 2018? In 1940 it was also customary for your beloved women (yay, women!) to not vote or be allowed to work. Do you want to go back to that too or will you only cherrypick specific era morality and ethics?
Disciple of Fate wrote: I mean it worked pretty well in WW2, lot less Nazis around nowadays. Eventually they force you to take a choice.
We are not really discussing murder now, are we?
No, its self defense, Nazis work towards the goal of murdering their political enemies and those that don't fit their racial views. Would you have people just stand by and let the 1940's happen again or?
Have many Nazis tried to kill you? As in, in real, real life 2018? You, personally. Did people with swastikas came to kill you with guns?
topaxygouroun i wrote: Ok, two answers. First the funny one: Captain America in First avenger:"Do you want to kill Nazis?" - "I don't want to kill anyone. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they are from."
You do know that Captain America has been around a lot longer than the recent movie series, right? And that he was created specifically to fight Nazis, as a pro-war political statement?
Second the serious one. Do you really compare wartime in 1940 with our society in 2018? In 1940 it was also customary for your beloved women (yay, women!) to not vote or be allowed to work. Do you want to go back to that too or will you only cherrypick specific era morality and ethics?
Of course I don't want to take everything from the 1940s. But killing Nazis is still a moral virtue, and WWII conclusively disproves your idea that you stop Nazis by talking to them. The Nazi genocide was stopped by killing Nazis, and that is the appropriate solution to anyone who wants to go down that path again. The original Captain America would approve entirely, and then go off to kill more Nazis.
Galas wrote: To be honest people didn't killed nazis because they where nazis but because they started a war invading poland.
Until that point nobody really cared about what they where doing in his own country. Or, well, some people cared, but nobody tried to go to germany to kill them.
Meanwhile they still murdered tens of thousands while nobody cared before WW2. Never again is a pretty meaningless phrase in international politics.
Wartime happened in 1940. This was 80 years ago. None of us was there. yes people died. Leave them in their rest, don't bring them into your agendas. 2018 is not 1940. If you let hate flow through you, that's how we will end up in the Dark Side again.
No, its self defense, Nazis work towards the goal of murdering their political enemies and those that don't fit their racial views. Would you have people just stand by and let the 1940's happen again or?
So, let's apply the same to Communists. They racked up a bigger body count and did the same exact thing.
Oh, wait- maybe we shouldn't just murder people until they actually act on it. Crazy, crazy thought.
Galas wrote: To be honest people didn't killed nazis because they where nazis but because they started a war invading poland.
Until that point nobody really cared about what they where doing in his own country. Or, well, some people cared, but nobody tried to go to germany to kill them.
Meanwhile they still murdered tens of thousands while nobody cared before WW2. Never again is a pretty meaningless phrase in international politics.
I agree. I was just pointing out that second ward didn's started because of some moral imperative to stop the nazis for doing what they where doing. It was a war started by one country invading other, like many others.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I mean it worked pretty well in WW2, lot less Nazis around nowadays. Eventually they force you to take a choice.
We are not really discussing murder now, are we?
No, its self defense, Nazis work towards the goal of murdering their political enemies and those that don't fit their racial views. Would you have people just stand by and let the 1940's happen again or?
Have many Nazis tried to kill you? As in, in real, real life 2018? You, personally. Did people with swastikas came to kill you with guns?
Are you denying that there are parts of society that still believe in it? You should ask those German police officers who die in the line of duty against people clinging to the laws of the Reich in Germany. Its a dangerous ideology. Once they get into power its open season on a lot of people, at that point they have the right to defend themselves. Nazis have murdered people in recent years. We're not killing them for their beliefs right now are we?
I'll leave them in their rest when people stop parading around with Nazi flags and talking about the need for genocide to create a white nation and how Hitler was a hero. Until then the political statement made by the original Captain America remains true: Nazis are evil, and killing them is a moral virtue.
no. Her product isn't worth anything to me, so I'm not buying.
