|
Post by mook on May 8, 2016 10:08:09 GMT -8
I think construing my pointing out that not all feminists agree with Greer's philosophy as "marginalizing her because she's old" is quite a stretch. I also think it sounds like you're saying that anyone who does not agree with Greer's obviously radical positions couldn't possibly be a real feminist. I also see you reply with "it's foolish to think we can change what people think and to start to go down that road is dangerous," when what I clearly wrote was, "We don't give a fuck what you keep thinking, but keep your idiocy to yourself."
In short, you're either not understanding what I'm writing, or are purposely twisting it to respond to things I'm not saying. Either way, there's really no point in continuing to engage.
And with all due respect to Mr. Freeman... I'm not sure "let's pretend racism doesn't exist and it will magically go away" is all that effective. Kind of sounds like a head in the sand approach, one which he, personally, can enjoy because he's Morgan Freeman. Some young dude refused service at a restaurant because the owner thinks he looks like a thug, not so much.
Of course we all want a world where I don't call him black and he doesn't call me white. But pretending that world is already here when it pretty clearly isn't doesn't seem to do much in the way of actually getting it here.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 8, 2016 11:41:07 GMT -8
The trick is to behave as if we already do have that world - I feel uncomfortable using race to describe anyone, not because it's controversial but because it's not relevant. A person is person is a person and they're either an arse or not an arse, nothing else matters. I do apologise for misunderstanding what you wrote - it was a misunderstanding not a deliberate misconstruing. I don't think Greer is he only way but I do feel she is frequently, and unjustly, marginalised by her own movement and I suppose I'm a bit touchy about that. I admire the her and it really annoys me that her contribution is being almost systematically edited out by some quarters. I'm also very touchy about the 'thought police', I don't know what it's like in the USA but there is certain unwelcome level of it in the UK . . . Aaron PS: week 2 of kicking that filthy habit - smoking - so yeah, I'm a bit touchy - not angry it's more like having a discussion/disagreement is distracting enough so that I don't get angry in real life (angry in real life was last week and I didn't like it).
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on May 9, 2016 12:19:41 GMT -8
This is what I think when I see stuff like that. Maybe I've curated by Facebook feed to the point where I filter these people out -- I don't know. But very often when there are rants about some bigotry/racism/sexism, I realize I've never seen the original tirade that spawned the indignant response -- UNTIL someone provides a link so I know what they're ranting about.
And I have to wonder: WHY link to hate speech? What's the purpose? Aren't you helping the guy disseminate his message? Isn't that kind of like going to a Klan rally and turning up the PA system out of righteous indignation?
BTW, Wheaton and Felicia Day were at Faire on Sunday. I didn't see them, but several friends did.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 9, 2016 13:29:08 GMT -8
This is what I think when I see stuff like that. Maybe I've curated by Facebook feed to the point where I filter these people out -- I don't know. But very often when there are rants about some bigotry/racism/sexism, I realize I've never seen the original tirade that spawned the indignant response -- UNTIL someone provides a link so I know what they're ranting about. And I have to wonder: WHY link to hate speech? What's the purpose? Aren't you helping the guy disseminate his message? Isn't that kind of like going to a Klan rally and turning up the PA system out of righteous indignation? BTW, Wheaton and Felicia Day were at Faire on Sunday. I didn't see them, but several friends did. Because linking to the original would have missed the point - yeah the guy was obnoxious, and as I noted above I started to watch him with the intent of disagreeing with him, but then I saw (beyond the manner of delivery) a very real criticism. TBH I started out watching it with the intention of agreeing with Wil Wheaton . . . People shouldn't evaluate the validity of an argument purely on its presentation - being persuaded (or not) by style over substance is a sin we are all guilty of. Ignore the style of his presentation and that's when one begins to think, well maybe . . . its like the Troubles in Northern Ireland, I agreed with many of the reasons on both sides I just never agreed with the methods they used. Aaron PS I been watching a lota stuff I hate at that moment because . . . not smoking: it lets me vent
|
|
|
Post by Kenigma23 on May 10, 2016 8:51:21 GMT -8
OY... he may have some good points, I dunno. I literally couldn't get past the first 60 seconds of the video lol. YouTubers: If you're trying to call someone out because you think they're obnoxious... try not to be so obnoxious doing it. I lasted 80 seconds I don't think I made it to the 1 minute mark... the voice...ugh.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 10, 2016 9:34:11 GMT -8
Kain,
You're not precisely wrong... In a perfect world, presentation of an idea wouldn't matter. But this is hardly a perfect world. If you obfuscate your idea by making access to it difficult (either by not proofreading your work, or presenting it in a way that makes people not want to hear your message) then it's on you. It's up to the presenter to make their presentation accessible.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 10, 2016 10:22:26 GMT -8
I feel uncomfortable using race to describe anyone, not because it's controversial but because it's not relevant. A person is person is a person and they're either an arse or not an arse, nothing else matters. I forgot about wanting to address this as well... Why? Are you uncomfortable mentioning someone's hair colour? Their gender? Their facial adornments, or hairstyle? If they have tattoos or piercings? It's all in why you're using that descriptor. If you're using it to denigrate them, then yah, you're in the wrong. If it's a valid descriptor used to responsibly differentiate them from someone else, then fuck it... Intent is what matters.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 10, 2016 11:53:59 GMT -8
I feel uncomfortable using race to describe anyone, not because it's controversial but because it's not relevant. A person is person is a person and they're either an arse or not an arse, nothing else matters. I forgot about wanting to address this as well... Why? Are you uncomfortable mentioning someone's hair colour? Their gender? Their facial adornments, or hairstyle? If they have tattoos or piercings? It's all in why you're using that descriptor. If you're using it to denigrate them, then yah, you're in the wrong. If it's a valid descriptor used to responsibly differentiate them from someone else, then fuck it... Intent is what matters. Because it's not relevant - I should have been more specific, in "describing a person" I intended to refer more to a descriptions of their character or my relationship with them - basically my assessment of them. It was a poor choice of words on my behalf and I should have been more specific. For example if I was asked to describe a friendship I wouldn't use a racial descriptor to describe it BUT (your point taken) if I had to instead describe someone so they can be identified by stranger then, yeah, of course skin colour etc would come into it. Even then I would probably default to using a cultural descriptor first eg "XYZ is a alright, but she can be a pain in the arse sometimes when it comes to the Manchester Arts Scene", "How will I know her?", "An older, tall British Jamaican lady usually well dressed".ie: 'British Jamaican' rather than 'Black' - though, intellectually, I don't have problem with the word 'Black' as a factual descriptor it's just 'me' (perhaps I've worked too long in healthcare where cultural specifics are more important because of potential health issues associated with particular demographics which tend to be linked to both cultural lifestyle and genetic predisposition; such as the significantly higher risk of heart disease in the older male Pakistan community in the UK related in part to their diet as their traditional cooking methods utilize high proportions of ingredients like ghee) Aaron
|
|
|
Post by gandalftheplaid on May 10, 2016 19:21:28 GMT -8
I don't think I made it to the 1 minute mark... the voice...ugh. Yeah I got about 80 seconds in and decided to skip ahead a bit to see if he improved. He didn't. He struck me as a guy who just doesn't like Wil, (that's fine, lots of people don't) and went out of his way to misinterpret what he said. More nerd on nerd hate.
|
|
SirGuido
Supporter
Drizztmas Santa
Ask me about the Drizztmas Exchange!
Posts: 2,127
Preferred Game Systems: L5R, Traveller, Fate Accelerated, Masks
Currently Playing: Nothing.
Currently Running: Nothing.
Favorite Species of Monkey: Anything in a Cage.
|
Post by SirGuido on May 13, 2016 20:30:59 GMT -8
Did you listen to his critique of Wheaton though . . . he was on the money - Wheaton was WRONG. I haven't heard ANYONE complain about The Force Awakens is the manner Wheaton claims people have. ... Aaron Here's the thing... I don't care that Wheaton is wrong, and because of this guy's attitude I don't care what he has to say either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 22:36:24 GMT -8
The only part I give a crap about is the end where Will essentially tells white men they have it made. Yeah, what the fuck. Just because we don't have giant issues as group doesn't mean that we all don't have our individual struggles, just like anyone else. It's not as if we all have a trust fund and six figure income waiting for us. I'm tired of being the go to villain of these pricks.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 14, 2016 1:40:58 GMT -8
Did you listen to his critique of Wheaton though . . . he was on the money - Wheaton was WRONG. I haven't heard ANYONE complain about The Force Awakens is the manner Wheaton claims people have. ... Aaron Here's the thing... I don't care that Wheaton is wrong, and because of this guy's attitude I don't care what he has to say either. And there is the real problem with nerd culture - the unwillingness of people to enter into discourse and the total apathy. I say both of them are wrong - Wheaton for what he implies and the original guy for how he said it. But we should care: we should care that the only way get any discussion going on stuff like this is to have obnoxious people get the ball rolling in the first place rather than just letting it slide because it's not important - nerds will discuss continuity errors in movies more willingly than issues that impact how they are perceived by the real world. The other problem nerd culture has is that, all too often, it lets it's celebrities act on its behalf without any sort of censure or caveats or criticism simply because of who they are eg: Stan Lee appears to have done no wrong and commands the adulation of many who consider him near enough to a God of the nerds. But many of us remember the Stan Lee of the 1970's and 1980's and a friend to nerd culture he was not, nor was his conduct admirable in any way, especially towards the writers and artists on the Marvel staff: I remember when Stan Lee was the problem with the comics industry not the solution but he gets a pass on that because nerd culture is just too apathetic to care about things that actually affect people. Stan Lee was monster to many creative talents and his behaviour affected those people in the real world in real ways. That's what I don't get, nerds will argue more passionately about whether FATE is actually a RPG or just how far is too far for the Marvel movie universe to stray from the Marvel comic universe canon, but if it's real world politics (not to be confused with electoral politics) nerds are suddenly very quiet. Maybe some nerds are 'privilaged' but I know enough who struggle with the day to day practicalities of existence, eg having enough money to pay the bills, to say that's an unfair assumption. I also know enough nerds who have their leftwing liberal hall passes that to portray all nerds the way the are portrayed is also both an insult and an assumption. I don't believe the vocal few speak for the majority - on either side - but I do believe the majority is too silent by half. That if it doesn't start talking and engaging (not confronting: engaging) it'll never drown out the extremists. Aaron
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 2:10:00 GMT -8
I divide my discourses by how appropriate they are to a given group. Thusly, when all I have in common with people is that we both play games, I don't assume politics is going to go over well. Unlike politicians in the USA, I don't want my group of friends to be polarized. Maybe it's that the group I'm part of is seen as the bad guys of the world, but I just don't want to open an uncomfortable can of worms. I don't see it as my job to nitpick every movie, comic, book, or other kind of media. If you don't like something then vote with your dollars. That's a lot more effective then talking about it on a forum.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on May 14, 2016 3:51:01 GMT -8
Not talking politics like voting etc, talking everyday politics - because we are all political in the choices we make from brand of underarm we choose to buy to the games we choose to see. I'm using the broad definition of politics: if I have a discussion with a friend and our opinions differ that is a politic discussion. Knowing that that is what it is means that, even if we don't reach detente, we remain friends. Also, to clarify, what I mean by engage and not confront is that Wheaton is confronting rather than engaging. I would have preferred he use his status to reasonably discuss, and either accept or reject, the issues he claims to be opposed to. The whole discourse would have been very very different had Wheaton and the YouTuber sat and discussed their points - but Wheaton shoots off a video that makes assumptions, without challenge, and the YouTuber reacts badly. If Wheaton had instead done a little fact checking first and maybe entered into a dialogue a detente might have been reached - because some of what Wil said was just plain wrong and how the YouTuber reacted was not constructive. But if neither side talks then this is exactly what happens. Assumptions are made, opinions disinfrancised and nothing good comes of it . . . As to voting with dollars - exactly. TFA was an astounding success so why make an issue that clearly doesn't exist in a real world sense . . . Which is what Wil Wheaton has done, he's made it an issue. Some random YouTuber or Reddit guy/gal can spout on all they want, unfortunately Wil Wheaton isn't just 'some random guy/gal' he's a celebrity and, as such, has more accountability than 'random guy/gal' - and accountability sometimes means actually being held to account. Aaron
|
|