The thing that amuses me most about online forums, is that unless someone writes something perfectly and leaves no room for ambiguity, there is an assumption that because they didn't explicitly write something, then they obviously believe the opposite and need to be called up on it.
Personally, I like to read things and infer their obvious intent, rather than worry about the exact wording
We joke about technically correct being the best kind of correct, but that is obviously sarcasm, as it's patently the worst...
Personally, I like to read things and infer their obvious intent, rather than worry about the exact wording
We joke about technically correct being the best kind of correct, but that is obviously sarcasm, as it's patently the worst... 
Future Warrior wrote:
Mr Dave wrote:
Which is, as mentioned, quite tiring to deal with.
Yes, you're right. It is tiring for me too. It won't stop me though. You know what to do if you don't like it though.
Yeah, wait it out. From experience, it either goes one of two ways: You surround yourself with similarly radical people who reinforce the behaviour, and begin to ignore your existing friends in favour of new shiny ones who you don't find tiring, or you calm down and look back with a little embarrassment. Either way it resolves itself, albeit one of them in a way that makes me feel rather more abandoned.
The irony* being, that people don't tend to like being preached at in a judgmental fashion (unless they happen to be the choir), so such preaching has little effect other than hardening them to the views being expressed. i.e. the very opposite of what you're trying to achieve. There are better ways than being forceful.
* - dramatic irony, naturally.
Trooper wrote:
Personally, I like to read things and infer their obvious intent, rather than worry about the exact wording
Why do you hate precision, Trooper? Do you roam the streets hunting down English teachers?
Cras wrote:
Trooper wrote:
Personally, I like to read things and infer their obvious intent, rather than worry about the exact wording
Why do you hate precision, Trooper? Do you roam the streets hunting down English teachers?
What do you have against English teachers? What about other teachers? Do they not deserve to be hunted down too?
Future Warrior wrote:
-edit- also, your analogy isn't quite accurate. It's more like someone being a Christian all their life but keeping it to themselves because they've been conditioned to think it's abnormal and not being a 'real man' etc. I've always hated 'lad-culture', racism etc. But I've stood idly by in the past and even tried to fit in with that due to peer pressure, but it's just not me. I've been through the realisation stage and now I'm at the stage where I'm confident calling it out when I see it. I won't always be right, but I will challenge what I deem to be unacceptable. It helps that due to issues like Ched Evans and GG I've managed to find a raft of like-minded people and it's given me the confidence to be more open about it.
Yeah, which is why I said Born again Christian. Many of whom were always Christians, but just hadn't gone to the right churc before.
You're saying nothing to make me think the analogy isn't entirely apt.
(And for what it's worth, do you think I've ever been part of lad-culture, or even tried to be a 'real-man' by those standards? And racism is a very hard thing to paint me with. It's not that I disagree with your ideals - anything but. I'm just less than convinced by your methods)
Mr Dave wrote:
Future Warrior wrote:
Mr Dave wrote:
Which is, as mentioned, quite tiring to deal with.
Yes, you're right. It is tiring for me too. It won't stop me though. You know what to do if you don't like it though.
Yeah, wait it out. From experience, it either goes one of two ways: You surround yourself with similarly radical people who reinforce the behaviour, and begin to ignore your existing friends in favour of new shiny ones who you don't find tiring, or you calm down and look back with a little embarrassment. Either way it resolves itself, albeit one of them in a way that makes me feel rather more abandoned.
The irony* being, that people don't tend to like being preached at in a judgmental fashion (unless they happen to be the choir), so such preaching has little effect other than hardening them to the views being expressed. i.e. the very opposite of what you're trying to achieve. There are better ways than being forceful.
* - dramatic irony, naturally.
Nice condescension here. I'm not some teenager who's just discovered leftism, I've known my own mind for a long time and I'm just happy vocalising it now. If you see that as judgemental then that's your own problem. I'll leave it to my friends and family to decide whether they find someone standing up for what they believe in a bad trait or not.
Also you do realise you just preached at me in a judgemental fashion about preaching in a judgemental fashion? That's the real irony* here.
* dramatic
Mr Dave wrote:
(And for what it's worth, do you think I've ever been part of lad-culture, or even tried to be a 'real-man' by those standards? And racism is a very hard thing to paint me with. It's not that I disagree with your ideals - anything but. I'm just less than convinced by your methods)
Idly standing by and letting others be casually misogynistic and racist (often without realising) does nothing to challenge their beliefs and so the status quo remains. You are complicit in your inaction.
Future Warrior wrote:
Also you do realise you just preached at me in a judgemental fashion about preaching in a judgemental fashion?
Did you like it?
Grim... wrote:
Future Warrior wrote:
Also you do realise you just preached at me in a judgemental fashion about preaching in a judgemental fashion?
Did you like it?
I was indifferent to it. If it's something he feels strongly about then I fully support his right to express those views, even if I disagree.
Future Warrior wrote:
That's the real irony* here.
* dramatic
Future Warrior wrote:
Mr Dave wrote:
(And for what it's worth, do you think I've ever been part of lad-culture, or even tried to be a 'real-man' by those standards? And racism is a very hard thing to paint me with. It's not that I disagree with your ideals - anything but. I'm just less than convinced by your methods)
Idly standing by and letting others be casually misogynistic and racist (often without realising) does nothing to challenge their beliefs and so the status quo remains. You are complicit in your inaction.
But that's not what you did here. You jumped on something that was in no way mysogenistic or racist, and forced racist connotations into it to give yourself something to rail against.
Cras wrote:
But that's not what you did here. You jumped on something that was in no way mysogenistic or racist, and forced racist connotations into it to give yourself something to rail against.
I disagreed with the term 'entirely correct' to cast white people in non-white roles. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Future Warrior wrote:
Cras wrote:
But that's not what you did here. You jumped on something that was in no way mysogenistic or racist, and forced racist connotations into it to give yourself something to rail against.
I disagreed with the term 'entirely correct' to cast white people in non-white roles. I don't think that's unreasonable.
But you deliberately ignored that I was talking about it being a financial thing. Where it's (currently) entirely correct.
Grim... wrote:
Future Warrior wrote:
Cras wrote:
But that's not what you did here. You jumped on something that was in no way mysogenistic or racist, and forced racist connotations into it to give yourself something to rail against.
I disagreed with the term 'entirely correct' to cast white people in non-white roles. I don't think that's unreasonable.
But you deliberately ignored that I was talking about it being a financial thing. Where it's (currently) entirely correct.
So it was entirely correct about one small facet of a complex issue? Ok then.
Look, I sometimes block people I fundamentally disagree with on here, even if I enjoy their company in real life. If you don't like it, you can feel free to use that option - I won't get upset.
Also, it's ok to enjoy things while finding certain aspects of them troubling. Life isn't black and white.
Future Warrior wrote:
So it was entirely correct about one small facet of a complex issue? Ok then.
No, it was entirely correct with regards to exactly what we were talking about.
Future Warrior wrote:
Also, it's ok to enjoy things while finding certain aspects of them troubling. Life isn't black and white.
I'm not sure who you're talking to now, but you're quite right. Step forward meat and porn.
And date rape.
Grim... wrote:
And date rape.
ANYWAY GHOST IN THE SHELL MOVIE IS COMING.
Grim... wrote:
ANYWAY GHOST IN THE SHELL MOVIE IS COMING.
And it has ScarJo in it, I wouldn't have watched it otherwise...
... because i'm racist.
Grim... wrote:
Future Warrior wrote:
So it was entirely correct about one small facet of a complex issue? Ok then.
No, it was entirely correct with regards to exactly what we were talking about.
We're talking about white people being cast in non-white roles! Of course race has something to do with it and it's a bit disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I wasn't calling you a racist, I was questioning the language you used. Racism can be very subtle and complex and it's taken me a while to notice, but now it's impossible not to see it.
For example, a lot of people on Twitter have been saying Elba cannot be Bond as James Bond was written as a white Scotsman. This is complete rubbish, he wasn't a Scotsman until Sean Connery played him and it was worked in retrospectively. They've also been using the analogy that perhaps a white man should have played Nelson Mandela in his biopic, because obviously they are the same thing.
Also a lot of criticism for black Annie. It's depressing. You can't discuss these things in a bubble, you have to see the bigger picture.
Grim... wrote:
It's an entirely correct one.
It's also tactless and tone-deaf, of course.Quote:
We did a load of research into race in movies for ("a very big entertainment company" - Ed) and every demographic we tested was more likely to see a film the whiter the actors got.
I know, we talked about this before. When I said "Good job, everyone involved in that decision" I was including the cinema audiences in my widely cast net of +5 disdain. Future Warrior wrote:
You can't discuss these things in a bubble, you have to see the bigger picture.
You can discuss specific elements of things in a bubble though, and make the entirely correct assumption that people are already aware of the bigger picture, even if they don't mention it.
Trooper wrote:
Future Warrior wrote:
You can't discuss these things in a bubble, you have to see the bigger picture.
You can discuss specific elements of things in a bubble though, and make the entirely correct assumption that people are already aware of the bigger picture, even if they don't mention it.
My experience is that you can't.
Future Warrior wrote:
Also a lot of criticism for black Annie.
I think that was because it was dire.
Future Warrior wrote:
For example, a lot of people on Twitter have been saying Elba cannot be Bond as James Bond was written as a white Scotsman. This is complete rubbish, he wasn't a Scotsman until Sean Connery played him and it was worked in retrospectively. They've also been using the analogy that perhaps a white man should have played Nelson Mandela in his biopic, because obviously they are the same thing.
Right. And they're saying that because they're small minded and potentially racist. If the director for the upcoming bond films said 'We can't cast Idris Elba as James Bond because people wouldn't go to the cinema and watch it because they don't want a black James Bond, and that directly hits the people paying me in the pocket", he'd be entirely correct.
Also, because it's the greatest TV show on Earth
Rev Al Sharpton wrote:
The problem with that progress is it's always a day away. Tomorrow, tomorrow-you love that!-because it's always a day away. I'm here to stick out my chin today! Today! Give us an African-American Spider Man! Give us a black that can run faster than a speeding bullet and leap over tall buildings in a single bound! Not tomorrow-today! Today! The sun needs to come out today! Not tomorrow, your Honor! God Almighty! Give the American people a black Orphan Annie! God Almighty!
Future Warrior wrote:
Trooper wrote:
Future Warrior wrote:
You can't discuss these things in a bubble, you have to see the bigger picture.
You can discuss specific elements of things in a bubble though, and make the entirely correct assumption that people are already aware of the bigger picture, even if they don't mention it.
My experience is that you can't.
We're aware of that belief
Quote:
Nice condescension here. I'm not some teenager who's just discovered leftism, I've known my own mind for a long time and I'm just happy vocalising it now. If you see that as judgemental then that's your own problem. I'll leave it to my friends and family to decide whether they find someone standing up for what they believe in a bad trait or not.
Also you do realise you just preached at me in a judgemental fashion about preaching in a judgemental fashion? That's the real irony* here.
Also you do realise you just preached at me in a judgemental fashion about preaching in a judgemental fashion? That's the real irony* here.
No, you're not some teenager who's just discovered leftism. And neither are all the born again christians I've met teenagers who've just discovered christianity. An area I'm fairly sure I have more experience of than you do, having been both on the outside, inside and outside.
Also: Not being judgmental. The word 'abandoned' in their should have given you an idea as to my main issue - it was certainly the most carefully chosen. And it's neither with you of your beliefs. (Bear in mind that while you might find Born Again Christian to be some sort of pejorative*, I don't.)
Future Warrior wrote:
Idly standing by and letting others be casually misogynistic and racist (often without realising) does nothing to challenge their beliefs and so the status quo remains. You are complicit in your inaction.
Shades of grey - there are things inbetween inaction and direct challenge.
Lead by example? Just looking/behaving confused or disappointed by such things tends to discourage it I find much more than any direct challenge. Challenging beliefs and values typically has the opposite effect - argument back and the consequent searching for new counter arguments that are then taken on as new values (See: Creationism and its ilk)
It's at this point I wish I'd kept the links to the studies done on the outcome of arguments, as my google-fu is weak. Although I'd hope it's not a huge surprise to find that the outcome of "One or other party changed their mind" is very, very low indeed. Otherwise, you know, people wouldn't go on believing things like certain vaccines having certain effects long after proof otherwise. Or whoever that guy was that floated trumpets through the power of his arms.
Some people seem to like constant arguing, although it does appear to break them in one way or another.
* - I don't know. I'd hope not.
Trooper wrote:
We're aware of that belief
My experience of most white people is they think non-whites "make things about race" or they "don't see race". They don't see it because it benefits them and subconsciously it's easier and better not to talk about it - it benefits me too, but at least I'm now self-aware enough that I can see I'm playing life on the lowest difficulty level.
It's ludicrous to have a discussion about white people playing non-white film roles and to protest that I've shoehorned race into it. Laughable, in fact.
Future Warrior wrote:
For example, a lot of people on Twitter have been saying Elba cannot be Bond as James Bond was written as a white Scotsman. This is complete rubbish, he wasn't a Scotsman until Sean Connery played him and it was worked in retrospectively. They've also been using the analogy that perhaps a white man should have played Nelson Mandela in his biopic, because obviously they are the same thing.
Changing an aspirational character that a group of people can identify with to someone they can't usually has the effect of annoying said group. And people tend to identify strongly with gender, race and nationality. At the same time, I'm not sure that the new demographic will ever by and large identify with the character as the memory remains of the old.
Don't recreate something in a new image, create something new and better. (Although given Hollywood...)
Mr Dave wrote:
* - I don't know. I'd hope not.
It certainly does have its connotations in the pejorative, but knowing you I know you wouldn't mean it like that. I'm not going to abandon anyone. And I know I'm going to get a lot of flak - I get abuse on Twitter daily these days (which is part of the reason I'm going dark at the weekends in 2015). It doesn't mean I'll stop campaigning for change. You say no one changes their minds about anything, but with that attitude then black people would still be slaves and women wouldn't have the vote, so society does change, and it's not naive to hope that it can change again.
Future Warrior wrote:
Trooper wrote:
We're aware of that belief
It's ludicrous to have a discussion about white people playing non-white film roles and to protest that I've shoehorned race into it. Laughable, in fact.
But you shoe-horned it in specifically as an argument against me when I wasn't talking about race at all. That's the most ridiculous thing - you could easily have just started talking about how it's a shame they didn't get a Japanese actress and it would be perfectly on-topic, but instead you made the point of making me look like I was ignoring the issue (that I wrote about in the first place).
Future Warrior wrote:
Mr Dave wrote:
* - I don't know. I'd hope not.
It certainly does have its connotations in the pejorative, but knowing you I know you wouldn't mean it like that.
Much like the phrase "social justice warrior" or "liberal" have taken on negative meanings, when they're not at all.
Future Warrior wrote:
Trooper wrote:
We're aware of that belief
My experience of most white people is they think non-whites "make things about race" or they "don't see race". They don't see it because it benefits them and subconsciously it's easier and better not to talk about it - it benefits me too, but at least I'm now self-aware enough that I can see I'm playing life on the lowest difficulty level.
It's ludicrous to have a discussion about white people playing non-white film roles and to protest that I've shoehorned race into it. Laughable, in fact.
I think the point was that it's a fair assumption to make that everyone involved already knows it's racist, so didn't need to be told.
Grim... wrote:
Future Warrior wrote:
Mr Dave wrote:
* - I don't know. I'd hope not.
It certainly does have its connotations in the pejorative, but knowing you I know you wouldn't mean it like that.
Much like the phrase "social justice warrior" or "liberal" have taken on negative meanings, when they're not at all.
Yes, it's usually a conservative (small 'c') tactic - making something which sounds noble and turning it into an insult. It's very much part of the tactics of projection. Gamergate have been brilliant at this - they claim to be apolitical, but their debating tactics are the most politicised I've seen outside of parliament.
Future Warrior wrote:
Mr Dave wrote:
* - I don't know. I'd hope not.
It certainly does have its connotations in the pejorative, but knowing you I know you wouldn't mean it like that. I'm not going to abandon anyone. And I know I'm going to get a lot of flak - I get abuse on Twitter daily these days (which is part of the reason I'm going dark at the weekends in 2015). It doesn't mean I'll stop campaigning for change. You say no one changes their minds about anything, but with that attitude then black people would still be slaves and women wouldn't have the vote, so society does change, and it's not naive to hope that it can change again.
Society changes primarily through its youth - which still reacts better to certain methods of teaching than others. There's also a certain overall shift to be had by authoritative sources on a new issue - but I don't think you're going to be getting the daily mail campaigning your message, somehow. Also (dramatic) ironically by appealing to Identity. (No true scotsman...)
The Christian analogy surely falls down on the comparison of one thing (equality of human life) being objectively moral and the other (belief in a very specific supreme deity at the exclusion of all other possibilities) being extremely subjective.
Personally, reading the likes of Everyday Sexism, Criado-Perez and a raft of other writers has genuinely made a change in my understanding of society, and my thought processes. The current increased focus in society on the likes of sexism and racism is surely evidence of at least the start of a productive output of the sort of behaviour Myp exhibits?
Personally, reading the likes of Everyday Sexism, Criado-Perez and a raft of other writers has genuinely made a change in my understanding of society, and my thought processes. The current increased focus in society on the likes of sexism and racism is surely evidence of at least the start of a productive output of the sort of behaviour Myp exhibits?
Trooper wrote:
I think the point was that it's a fair assumption to make that everyone involved already knows it's racist, so didn't need to be told.
You don't have to be racist to use racist language, no matter how innocently.
Anyway, I think this has run its course. Putting this very carefully so as not to offend, a predominantly white, male, straight crowd is very difficult to have these discussions with, as it gets a bit defensive. You guys are better than most, especially in the gaming community (see GG for an example at the other end of the spectrum)! I don't expect most of you to agree with me now, but you will eventually, though.
I am also aware of my privilege and know that if I were black or a woman standing up making these comments today, I'd get a lot more abuse (again, not from you, in general). Most of what I've talked about today is information I've gleaned from listening to people of colour, women and transsexuals who experience discrimination every single day. So if there's one thing I'd recommend above all others is to listen to what they want to change.
Or you could drop a toaster in the bath a la Mel Gibson.
Morals are pretty subjective, dude.
[edit]FUCK YOU NEW PAGE
[edit]FUCK YOU NEW PAGE
I think it is endearing.
Future Warrior wrote:
Anyway, I think this has run its course. Putting this very carefully so as not to offend, a predominantly white, male, straight crowd is very difficult to have these discussions with, as it gets a bit defensive. You guys are better than most, especially in the gaming community (see GG for an example at the other end of the spectrum)! I don't expect most of you to agree with me now, but you will eventually, though.
Wow.
Grim... wrote:
Future Warrior wrote:
Anyway, I think this has run its course. Putting this very carefully so as not to offend, a predominantly white, male, straight crowd is very difficult to have these discussions with, as it gets a bit defensive. You guys are better than most, especially in the gaming community (see GG for an example at the other end of the spectrum)! I don't expect most of you to agree with me now, but you will eventually, though.
Wow.
Obviously I didn't do a great job of putting that very carefully. And see the winky face and Mel Gibson references as hints it may have had some tongue-in-cheek aspects.
I have to say, your recent crusade* has made me reconsider the way I see the world. In a similar way, I've had some surprisingly deep conversations with a mixed-raced work colleague. Said colleague surprised me by revealing that his surname was given to his grandfather by a passport officer in Liberia when the grandfather revealed that he didn't have one during the process to emigrate to the UK in the 40s. The officer basically said, "You need a surname for a passport" and pulled one out of the air.
*forgive the word, I'm just using shorthand here.
*forgive the word, I'm just using shorthand here.
Except we're having different debates.
You think you're having a debate about social equality.
We think we're having a debate about the fact that you seem to be trying to take every possible opportunity to proselytise, even to the point of manufacturing it. Even to the point of maneuvering a discussion about you proselytising into an opportunity for proselytising!
Your stance and opinions are totally valid, and the stand you take on such things is admirable. It's when you go looking for something to justify pulling out your soapbox that the eyebrows go up.
Proselytise.
You think you're having a debate about social equality.
We think we're having a debate about the fact that you seem to be trying to take every possible opportunity to proselytise, even to the point of manufacturing it. Even to the point of maneuvering a discussion about you proselytising into an opportunity for proselytising!
Your stance and opinions are totally valid, and the stand you take on such things is admirable. It's when you go looking for something to justify pulling out your soapbox that the eyebrows go up.
Proselytise.
DavPaz wrote:
The officer basically said, "You need a surname for a passport" and pulled one out of the air.
Tell me it was "bad-ass" or "maximum" or something.
Grim... wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
The officer basically said, "You need a surname for a passport" and pulled one out of the air.
Tell me it was "bad-ass" or "maximum" or something.
Sadly, no. The officer was white guy, y'see.
Cras wrote:
It's when you go looking for something to justify pulling out your soapbox that the eyebrows go up.
I honestly haven't done this though. It's not my fault you didn't see it.
Also don't think I haven't forgotten though that you will argue with me about everything though purely for the sake of it.
Page 2 of 5 [ 244 posts ]