221 réponses à ce sujet

[Commander Rpg]

Oh bigots, they must love this

 

[Billy-the-Squid]

In the 1980s, Andrea Dworkin was regularly interviewed, and her brand of feminism was treated as legitimate by the media, because she was being given a voice and reaching many people.

 

Eventually, after she was constantly moving goalposts, backtracking, and complaining any time an interviewer tried to question her about her statements, news and media outlets gradually stopped interviewing her. She still wrote books, and still spoke publicly, but the reduced media attention severely limited her impact. By the nineties, they weren't even reporting about her, anymore. Most people didn't know who she was, and her brand of feminism, while it didn't disappear, was given so little traction that it contracted. It was barely present in the media for the better part of two decades, until media outlets started paying attention to Anita Sarkeesian et al. And now, it's back.

 

People can argue about whatever they want, online, I don't really care. But when mainstream news outlets give crazy bigots a voice to reach the people, problems arise. When they stop, those problems shrink, even if they don't disappear entirely.

 

Angela Dworkin's Achilles heel was her complete insanity. The lack of media attention certainly diminished her position, yet what stepped into the void was the insidious victim mentality of radical third wave feminists, and the left wing "liberals" jumped on the sensationalist headline click bait rubbish with glee. 

 

Look at what we see now, the proliferation of the tawdry idea of a gender wage gap, deranged reports of "rape", on campus "harassment" institutionalised "sexism/misogyny, toxic masculinity etc. it's all bandied around in the media at large and parroted by the politicians. The idea that the internet and on-line interactions are irrelevant is vastly short-sighted and naive, given that most television is consumed on-line and most newspapers have on-line presence precisely because the internet and on-line activity is where the majority of news content is consumed. 

 

The reason it's go this far is because these deranged radicals have never been challenged, media proliferation of the idea has seeped into politics and pushed it's way into society whereby how men are viewed in their interactions as a potential threat, mentioned above, gender being a social construct, diversity trumps meritocracy and all the other associated whinnying which is completely divorced from reality. 

 

Ignoring these people has caused this problem, allowing them to misdirect and use pseudo science to guilt and coerce people to accept their claim, rather than examine it. Allowing any of it air time is de facto complicity, challenging them and revealing their claims as complete rubbish is the only way to turn the tide of "safe space" insanity where disagreement and criticism is "harassment"

[Jock Cranley]

Gotta get offended about something.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Oh bigots, they must love this

 

 

It was an OK anti-nazi cartoon. Why would someone find it offensive?

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

What.....seriously?

 

They would hinder firefighting to satisfy their ego?

seriously this was in the 90s when they tried to get manholes turned in to Personholes.

[o Ventus]

 

Or that's my take. I'm half white.. so still kind of consider myself a "racial minority". To me, they're embarrassing spokespeople for racial relations. 

 

 

So you're half Satan, is what you're saying?

[AventuroLegendary]

It was an OK anti-nazi cartoon. Why would someone find it offensive?

 

Dunno. Their point might be that portrayal =/ promotion.

 

To answer your question, the Japanese stereotyping is cringeworthy in hindsight.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Dunno. Their point might be that portrayal =/ promotion.

 

To answer your question, the Japanese stereotyping is cringeworthy in hindsight.

 

lol that

[Commander Rpg]

It was an OK anti-nazi cartoon. Why would someone find it offensive?

Before the XXI century, Disney had been censoring/hiding this stuff because it was considered offensive. There really was people considering that offensive, now people has come to the total opposite front, they don't get shocked on anything.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Before the XXI century, Disney had been censoring/hiding this stuff because it was considered offensive. There really was people considering that offensive, now people has come to the total opposite front, they don't get shocked on anything.

 

Maybe because those who've been there are mostly dead.

[Commander Rpg]

Maybe because those who've been there are mostly dead.

Bigots of all age were and are still alive when these cartoons were censored or hidden. Back in the '80, no one was aware (except very few) that this kind of stuff existed.

[BroBear Berbil]

It's weird to me that people can get so offended and worked up over historical words, especially from a history that wasn't theirs.

 

These hypersensitive hipsters need to close their eyes and cover their ears when it comes to games outside of their indie garbage.

 

The giantess did nothing wrong.

[Naughty Bear]

I don't even know what an apartheid is.

[Commander Rpg]

I don't even know what an apartheid is.

How old are you?

[Giantdeathrobot]

People on the internet saying stupid stuff. More news at 11.

 

Those hated SJWs are but a symptom, not a cause. They are the symptom of news media (both on and off-line) going for ratings above all else, and nothing attracts ratings quite like ''controversies'' such as this one, started by a tiny number of vocal numbnuts and echoed way out of any proportion. By their adepts, who want to hear their drivel, but also by their foes, who are only too glad for the hate sink.

[Naughty Bear]

Commander RPG: I am 21.

[Sigma Tauri]

Commander RPG: I am 21.

 

The point behind Commander RPG's question is obvious snark. You not knowing apartheid is kinda sad, not even in an elitist ivory tower standpoint.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Sjw's continue the Struggle against Nothing by getting offended at a term that will likely never be in the game, and was simply used as a descriptor.

 

One would think the people who equate being asked not to wear fur costumes in public "Genocide" and being an employee in which work is required to receive pay is "Slavery", and any male character who isn't weak and doesn't cry like a big baby every 5 seconds "Toxic Masculinity", and consider two people being treated equally with their genders being considered a non-factor to be "Structural Misogynistic Patriarchy" and not being completely in love with someone but tolerant and accepting of them "1950's Jim Crow Racism", might not want to make this a battle of using inappropriate terms.

 

But such is the way of the Struggle of Nothing. Standards are a myth, Consistency is a Joke. We're all just puppets of something far greater. Privilage, the DNA of the Dank Meme.

[SmilesJA]

So these people want games to "grow up" (I don't understand why they're even obsessed with that.) so when Deus ex wants to explore themes like racism they get all offended over the term "mechanical apartheid?" If we are to consider games as art, then we need to understand that art isn't meant to conform to your feelings. It is meant to evoke and explore and at times be daring and controversial. If you can't handle the fact game developers are willing to tackle deep themes just because of a (admittedly silly) term mechanical apartheid, then I don't think you don't want games to grow up. You just want the developers to create safe and boring games. If these people believe in social justice and have a desire to have games to expand, then they need to encourage developers to take risks and explore themes like sexism and racism and allow them to portray ugliness of it. That means using terms like mechanical apartheid and extreme violence. Overall I'm not sure that they don't want the developers to explore themes and be creative. They just want to pressure them to create shallow and repetitive games that aren't meaningful and just scratch the surface on major themes rather than burst it open.

[Dio Demon]

The point behind Commander RPG's question is obvious snark. You not knowing apartheid is kinda sad, not even in an elitist ivory tower standpoint.

Or it just might not be a point of interest within Naughty Bear's culture that is considered important enough to be in their education system.

 

Have you heard about the Stolen Generation? If not then that's kinda sad.

[slimgrin]

People on the internet saying stupid stuff. More news at 11.

 

Those hated SJWs are but a symptom, not a cause. They are the symptom of news media (both on and off-line) going for ratings above all else, and nothing attracts ratings quite like ''controversies'' such as this one, started by a tiny number of vocal numbnuts and echoed way out of any proportion. By their adepts, who want to hear their drivel, but also by their foes, who are only too glad for the hate sink.

With the media, this is true. Not so much with the perpetually offended SJWs our universities are churning out, mindless zombies who only know social inequality through text books. That's a bigger problem.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Grow up please!

 

Also Misogyny always existed... even the strongest woman ever wasn't immune to it!

 

 

lol

[Hellamarian]

Some people live their lives trying to get offended.

[The Love Runner]

Some people live their lives trying to get offended.

They try too hard in some cases.

[Cainhurst Crow]

So these people want games to "grow up" (I don't understand why they're even obsessed with that.) so when Deus ex wants to explore themes like racism they get all offended over the term "mechanical apartheid?" If we are to consider games as art, then we need to understand that art isn't meant to conform to your feelings. It is meant to evoke and explore and at times be daring and controversial. If you can't handle the fact game developers are willing to tackle deep themes just because of a (admittedly silly) term mechanical apartheid, then I don't think you don't want games to grow up. You just want the developers to create safe and boring games. If these people believe in social justice and have a desire to have games to expand, then they need to encourage developers to take risks and explore themes like sexism and racism and allow them to portray ugliness of it. That means using terms like mechanical apartheid and extreme violence. Overall I'm not sure that they don't want the developers to explore themes and be creative. They just want to pressure them to create shallow and repetitive games that aren't meaningful and just scratch the surface on major themes rather than burst it open.

 

It's worse then that really. They want games where they have complete control of the message and agree 100% with it. They want a game with LGBT characters, but don't anyone dare make a game where there's an LGBT character who isn't a tortured silent protagonist or your trivializing their struggle. They want games to empower women, as long as there isn't any white or male or non-indie writers, animators, producers, or staff involved. They want games that explore how cruel the white man is to minorities, but you better not show anything that could depict cruelty or you're a shitlord who should be censored. And by god, don't even try to depict LGBT, Women, or Minorities as negative, possessing negative character traits of any kind, or equal in any way to White Men, or you're a bigot who wants to marginalize peoples real life experience.

 

Unless you're a friend or run in the same social circles, then you're an edgy innovator who everyone should strive to be more like.

 

They want to have their cake, and eat it to. Have challenging stories that shock people, and have nothing shock them as well. Because why would they need to be shocked at something? They already know everything. They went to college and got that degree in philosophy and a minor in sound engineering. They already know what it means to struggle against the white-male-privileged structural hegemonic patriarchy of toxicness.

 

If you make something that shocks them, that challenges them. Then all you are, is anti-humanitarian.

 

Or in other words,