Bullshit comes from both sides of the coin

[Zachary O'shea]

Thank you, Saetha, for pointing out the truth of the matter.

Snip

And as a matter of fact, I have tried to bring it up with some of the women who supported it - and got slapped with the "internalized misogyny" label. Another way of shutting down discussion and dissension, for when it comes from within the group.

Too often any sort of real discussion comes down to - well you're part of the majority, or privileged, or what have you. Thus you have no say or valid input to the discussion, because you disagree. If you do agree, well then say all you want. As a tubby person with a very Irish last name I didn't find either Fat Bastard or the Irish characters in Star Trek offensive. One was funny and the other a vehicle to tell a story. We all stereotype, it's part of human nature. It's how we tell stories, people become caricatures so they can quickly represent what the author wants them to the audience.

Now can stereotypes be offensive, oh hell yes. Take the two 'urban' autobots from Transformers 2. But stereotypes in and of themselves are not always offensive. There are just always those looking for something to take offense to, usually on someone else's behalf.

 

[RoonMian]

Snip

Women don't have a consensus yet on how they want to be represented in video games? I let them figure it out. I have no idea what it's like for them so I keep my mouth shut, listen to them and try to be empathic.

This right here. This is the heart of the issue. Ironically, while claiming that you support women (And other minorities') right to define themselves, you lump us all into one pot. You push the idea that there's a consensus to be reached, that if we just got all the women in the world and hashed it out, we could find some perfect archetype everyone should subscribe to.

But that's not how it works, and it kinda erases the variability of women (Or, other minorities) Do you think the same could be reached if it were men? Do you think that, if you asked if guy in the world what his definition of, say, a perfect representation of men was, they'd all give you the same answer? No. You'd get answers that run the whole gamut, answers that often contradict each other, answers that have wild and sometimes sexist expectations. And women would be no different. We aren't a hivemind. We aren't the bloody Geth. We fight and argue and disagree just like men do. Asking us to reach a consensus on anything is impossible.

I consider Dragon Age to be pretty much a pinnacle of how women should be represented in games - and I've had other women tell me it's sexist because of a lack of female background NPCs.

I consider Borderlands another great example of awesome female characters - and I've been told that the Angel plotline makes the whole thing misogynistic.

And as I said, it's exactly this line of thinking that brings us to YesAllWomen. To people who think that not only can women everywhere agree on something, but that they have leave to speak for those women. And as a matter of fact, I have tried to bring it up with some of the women who supported it - and got slapped with the "internalized misogyny" label. Another way of shutting down discussion and dissension, for when it comes from within the group.

I also said

I never said that all problems were easy to deal with, all questions easy to answer.

And:

I'm generalising here. It's all not that easy, we're still all individuals at some point

I know that there are no universally valid answers. All I am saying is that I'm not a part of the process of women, groups of women, some women, you alone, whoever belongs to that group, coming to their answers because I am not a member of their group.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yes, you're right. That is of course true. Just like "I'm not racist, but..." and "I have friends who are foreigners" make everything you say okay.

Look at all the trouble having a black friend has saved Stephen Colbert.

..I feel dirty now.

Lets not forget that there's conservative satire too.

This is true.

It's also worth noting that satire can often be intended not just to be offensive, but you can be mean satirically. I mean, you mention South Park and indicate the creators weren't doing so, but you can surely attack someone just to be a dick and call it satire.

Well, the "N-Word" and "cracker" is a false equivalency. The N-word became offensive. Cracker was specifically chosen to be offensive.

Well, no. We don't even have an agreed-upon etymology for cracker, so it's absurd to claim it was specifically chosen to be offensive. However, I would go the other way. It's extremely unlikely that the word was coined first as a pejorative.

I don't agree with YesAllWomen, yet they still thought it fine to slap my name on there, by dint of naming all women in the title.

Kind of a disingenuous point, as the "yesallwomen" campaign doesn't require all women to agree with it for the issue to be raised. You might disagree with its validity, but it is not presuming to speak for you, merely about you.

There's a large gap between saying all women are impacted by something and saying you are speaking for all women.

This sort of absurdity has led the show Lesbian Talk to jokingly affirm that yes, they do speak for all lesbians, by consensus.

 

[Saetha]

I know that there are no universally valid answers. All I am saying is that I'm not a part of the process of women, groups of women, some women, you alone, whoever belongs to that group, coming to their answers because I am not a member of their group.

Okay, but if you're going to support that philosophy, you'll have to explain how to make it work. If there are no universal answers, what is one to do in a situation where answers conflict, or aren't possible? We can't expect everyone to bend over backwards so we don't have feel bad at any point in our lives.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Amount of people I have seen self-identify as a "Social Justice Warrior": 0
Amount of times I'd heard the term "Social Justice Warrior" a month ago: 0
Amount of times I've heard someone rage about "Social Justice Warriors" on this website since: 1,005,764

As to the Cracked article, those Nemi-whatsits from Phantom Menace were totally readable as an offensive Chinese stereotype. I'd put them on par with the "urban" robots from Transformers 2 mentioned elsewhere in this thread for "Oh god they didn't really" level chutzpah. I'm not sure it was intentionally racist, though. Just more of Lucas being an enormous, embarrassing hack.

 

[Supdupadog]

Wow, you're really upset about a bunch of lite pop culture ribbing from the readers of a website.

I mean, if you wanna argue one or more of these things isn't offensive, well alright. But I think that is a lot of indignation towards the photoplasty of all things.

 

[vIRL Nightmare]

That's deep man. You just boiled over and spilled it out to us person to person. If I were you I'd be feeling a bit emotionally dead. Get yourself a cool drink, take some time to mellow out. Maybe get an ice cream cone, everyone loves that shit. Take this +1 and know you did good.

 

[Erttheking]

I think the topic-creator's points regarding the Cracked article are overlong and miss the mark in a few ways. That being said:

Then it hit me. Most of this tumblr "Social Justice" and racism accusations aren't meant to protect the victims of actual hate crimes and offensive representations in media. The people who unironically (and even ironically. Pissing on a cake ironically still ends with you pissing on someone's cake) go around and accuse everything they see of being racist aren't doing it for the victims, they're doing it for themselves.

I can agree with this. When I see people accuse certain works of fiction they dislike of being racist, sexist or otherwise offensive I always wonder whether or not the things they enjoy don't contain questionable (to some) elements. It seems some people feel the need to justify their preferences in entertainment by insisting that the things they dislike are morally repugnant, while the things they like are "progressive".

Then again, it's not uncommon for people to disguise expressions of their personal grudges as something more noble.

You kidding? I freaking love Metro Last Light. It's one the most brilliant games that I've ever played.

Doesn't stop it from being sexist as shit.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

I think the topic-creator's points regarding the Cracked article are overlong and miss the mark in a few ways. That being said:

Then it hit me. Most of this tumblr "Social Justice" and racism accusations aren't meant to protect the victims of actual hate crimes and offensive representations in media. The people who unironically (and even ironically. Pissing on a cake ironically still ends with you pissing on someone's cake) go around and accuse everything they see of being racist aren't doing it for the victims, they're doing it for themselves.

I can agree with this. When I see people accuse certain works of fiction they dislike of being racist, sexist or otherwise offensive I always wonder whether or not the things they enjoy don't contain questionable (to some) elements. It seems some people feel the need to justify their preferences in entertainment by insisting that the things they dislike are morally repugnant, while the things they like are "progressive".

Then again, it's not uncommon for people to disguise expressions of their personal grudges as something more noble.

You kidding? I freaking love Metro Last Light. It's one the most brilliant games that I've ever played.

Doesn't stop it from being sexist as shit.

Well, I applaud you for your integrity. I too love certain games while realizing that they might be offensive to some people (Ninja Gaiden Black, for example); but it is my experience that plenty of other people accuse games they don't like of racism/sexism/etc. because they want to mask their dislike of it as something more noble. That's what I was getting at.

 

[RoonMian]

I know that there are no universally valid answers. All I am saying is that I'm not a part of the process of women, groups of women, some women, you alone, whoever belongs to that group, coming to their answers because I am not a member of their group.

Okay, but if you're going to support that philosophy, you'll have to explain how to make it work. If there are no universal answers, what is one to do in a situation where answers conflict, or aren't possible? We can't expect everyone to bend over backwards so we don't have feel bad at any point in our lives.

What to do when conflict arises? Discuss, debate, find a consensus or agree to disagree. Like, you know... Human interaction. Guided by some basic rules like for example basic human rights and dignity. I don't believe that there are situations where it is inherently impossible to resolve conflicts between people. People might be stubborn or fanatical and refuse but then that's on them, not on a universal insolubility (I looked that word up... )