How can Tommy be female? Power Rangers

[Lisker84]

Since when is the use of the word "PC" loaded?

 

[Winnosh]

Since when is the use of the word "PC" loaded?

For quite a while now. People hear the term PC and automatically assume " Censorship " or other nasty words.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Since when is the use of the word "PC" loaded?

For quite a while now. People hear the term PC and automatically assume " Censorship " or other nasty words.

Which in and of itself is funny. Because the usual response to PC is yelling at people "STOP TALKING ABOUT YOUR OPINION OR YOUR IDEAS OR TRYING TO PROMOTE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH".

... Which, unless I'm wrong, IS actually censorship.

 

[Lisker84]

Maybe 'loaded' was the wrong choice of words, but it's not a highly politicized term like 'SJW' or especially 'cuck' where you can tell a lot about the user's political views. I've heard "pc" used by people of all political stripes, so all it really tells you is that the speaker hates political correctness.

 

[Zontar]

Maybe 'loaded' was the wrong choice of words, but it's not a highly politicized term like 'SJW' or especially 'cuck' where you can tell a lot about the user's political views. I've heard "pc" used by people of all political stripes, so all it really tells you is that the speaker hates political correctness.

I'd actually like to point out that in my irl circle of friends despite the fact half of us are shitlords and half of us are SJWs (don't ask, it's a very long and complicated story) the term "cuck" is used by all of us regardless of the fact the internet seems to only have a partisan use for it.

Maybe it's a Quebec thing?

 

[Winnosh]

Since when is the use of the word "PC" loaded?

For quite a while now. People hear the term PC and automatically assume " Censorship " or other nasty words.

Which in and of itself is funny. Because the usual response to PC is yelling at people "STOP TALKING ABOUT YOUR OPINION OR YOUR IDEAS OR TRYING TO PROMOTE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH".

... Which, unless I'm wrong, IS actually censorship.

I'd say you are. Censorship isn't asking, it's forcing, you to not share your opinion, and removing your avenues of attempting to do so. People asking you not to talk about something is never censorship, people do it all the time with friends, they just say, let's not talk about that subject. Or let's not use cursing or calling someone a racial slur That's not censorship, that's being PC

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Since when is the use of the word "PC" loaded?

For quite a while now. People hear the term PC and automatically assume " Censorship " or other nasty words.

Which in and of itself is funny. Because the usual response to PC is yelling at people "STOP TALKING ABOUT YOUR OPINION OR YOUR IDEAS OR TRYING TO PROMOTE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH".

... Which, unless I'm wrong, IS actually censorship.

I'd say you are. Censorship isn't asking, it's forcing, you to not share your opinion, and removing your avenues of attempting to do so. People asking you not to talk about something is never censorship, people do it all the time with friends, they just say, let's not talk about that subject. Or let's not use cursing or calling someone a racial slur That's not censorship, that's being PC

I left out the "the" between 'actually' and 'censorship'.

But actually, normally I'd agree with you. I personally feel that people can have different views than my own, we may discuss them, but I have no right to force my outlook on them and they have no right to force their outlook on me.

Which makes me say it is the censorship. As the current narrative of "PC is censorship" idea usually boils down that in essence of being 'PC' is to keep people from expressing their ideas due to a political agenda. The side against the PC mindset says that trying to be PC limits true feelings in order to keep people from being offended. Which is harmful in their minds, as people need to toughen up and not let a few ideas bother them so much.

That leads to Irony in my mind, because that's exactly the same as what they are doing. The idea of PC offends them, for no matter what reason. So they go on forums, podcasts, and the like and literally mirror the same actions they reportedly hate.

"I can't believe they are pushing for Diversity here! They are pushing whites aside for PC!"

"Why does the main character have to be a woman? More of the feminist SJW agenda being shoved down your throats!"

"If you sit here and allow them to change all these things, what place do you have left in this world?!"

I functionally see no difference in that public outcry calling for a change as I see the PC side calling for Diversity, Feminist Agenda, and just change from the Status Quo. It's both a group of people mad at some unseen force that feels like is stifling them. And they both have a vocal contingent who are not apart of their cause calling for them to shut up as the first party's actions bothers the contigent for whatever reason. Only with the non PC side, the term Censorship is through around so much when the PC side does the exact same thing.

So, to me, it is the Censorship. The Non-PC side does the same exact thing that the non PC side fears or hates, but labels what the PC side as Censorers, and when the Non-PC does it, they call it 'standing up for my rights' or 'not going to be bullied any more by an agenda'.

 

[Lisker84]

Maybe 'loaded' was the wrong choice of words, but it's not a highly politicized term like 'SJW' or especially 'cuck' where you can tell a lot about the user's political views. I've heard "pc" used by people of all political stripes, so all it really tells you is that the speaker hates political correctness.

I'd actually like to point out that in my irl circle of friends despite the fact half of us are shitlords and half of us are SJWs (don't ask, it's a very long and complicated story) the term "cuck" is used by all of us regardless of the fact the internet seems to only have a partisan use for it.

Maybe it's a Quebec thing?

If by that you mean you use it in a comical trollish way, then I'm right there with you. If you use it in some other manner, then I guess it must be a Quebec thing.

 

[runic knight]

Hold up. Do I have this right now?

Now your answer to those woes is to stop pandering to the niche (I agree with this part) and instead pander to a different niche. Only instead of it being the most profitable and historically reliably niche, you think they should instead concentrate on one of the least profitable demographic that they have had zero inroads in building lasting reliable audience with, and do so while continuing the problems of poor quality, going political minded instead of edgy this time, and actively driving away the few hardline fans they managed to hang onto all this time?

I never said only one group must be pandered to at a time. Pander to everyone all at once. Marvel has so many properties and characters, they can pander to everyone at once. Just looking at Marvel's Netflix shows; pandering to white dudes got me Daredevil, pandering to women got me Jessica Jones, pandering to blacks got me Luke Cage. I'd rather have that than 3 shows starring white dudes or women or black dudes. Everyone gets tired of the same stuff over time. I feel variety is naturally good as even if say 75% of your audience are white dudes, they'll get tired of constant white male protagonists, and of course, variety allows for a new audience to take a shot at one of your properties, which if they like it could lead to them trying more properties and becoming one of the hardcore fans. You have to appeal to everyone to keep a healthy and growing market.

Pandering as an applied term means to specifically target and entertain them as the audience. Pandering to the general audience isn't really the same definition of pandering as being used when criticizing companies for "pandering " to one demographic, your use has it just mean to appeal in general instead of selectively towards, which the use of pandering in these conversations nearly always relates to (usually with relation to either pandering to one group specifically being bad, or pandering to another being better, somehow).

That language issue aside though, I do agree with the overall point that variety is important, and great for longevity of properties. I don't think they should be targeting specific groups based on race or gender in the first place though. Targeting people based on that alone is both flawed in execution(often because the reliance on stereotypes assumed in audiences in doing so more often comes off as disingenuous, to say nothing of obvious, tokenism itself), and flawed in logic (the traits assumed to appeal to demographics such as "white people like this sort super hero" assumes a causation between race and the trait rather than just correlation tied to other aspects, such as overall culture liking that sort of super hero, while the culture itself is predominantly white). The overall result though is that concentrating on race and gender as traits in gaming actually does more overall harm to getting variety that is actually quality. Making the discussion so framed also has the negative effect of making people falsely belief they are fixing the issue while asctually just allowing it to be ignored while addressing symptoms. The idea of a person with lung cancer taking cough syrup instead of dealing with the underlying problem.

The result of this all though, is that trying to appeal to demographics based on race, regardless how it is done, is never a stable nor reasonable approach, and is often simply setting up for failure. Appealing to demographics that respond to traits that are actually more accurately marketable (such as, to tie into the gaming discussion, audiences that like FPS games tend to also like various traits in gameplay as well) is probably both more accurate way to target demographics, an easier way to identify traits that isolate the niches and which ones are more broadly accepted, and it doesn't have to drag identity politics into the mess in the first place. Many of the falsely assumed truthisms related to sex or race in gaming (like males don't play games where the characters are girls) are not making the discussion on the topic itself any more productive, just devolving them into a hotbed for political football. Such truthisms should be instead discarded for the battle of the sexes bullshit it has always been in the first place.

=-snipped-

Maybe the reason why people see the PC side of things as censorship is because people who make dongle jokes or wear shirts with women on them are hounded and attacked for "not respecting other people's beliefs" and lose their jobs or suffer harassment for not respecting the PC mindset in the first place?

I mean, if you want to twist that as censoring someone else, you sure can try, but lets be honest here. You are comparing people who are vocally calling out pc folks for actively censoring others to those who are actively censoring others. That isn't equating. Criticism of how people are harassing others is not censoring those they are critical of, where as getting people fired for their private jokes being overheard, or harassing a guy because the shirt they wore offended someone is.

The difference, and it seems a key one, relates to the force applied to get what they want. Criticism is one thing, but abusing outrage to get people fired or reduce them to tears solely because they offended personal political beliefs is quite another. And that difference is what defines censorship in the first place, that application of such unjust force to mandate the change wanted.

 

[klaynexas3]

See, that's half the reason this problem isn't going away any time soon: so many people don't even understand the problem. I don't care about diversity either for or against, what I care is when diversity is used to the determent of the product, and I don't even need to list off the examples of that happening given how often we've talked about them here.

You want diversity? Fine, but don't take a steaming dump on the product while you're at it like Marvel Comics can't stop doing.

I'm going to go ahead and quote you on this part alone. I know it was early in the discussion of this thread, but I saw it, and it's something that I feel the need to echo. If anything, I'm more on the opposite side of things, definitely more leftwing on social and domestic issues than you are, but I will echo this quote, and have been saying roughly the same thing for years.

If anything, I say it because I'm more leftwing, because if Ghostbusters 2016 showed us anything, it just gives executives more excuses to not have diversity in media, on top of also basically killing the chance of a third proper Ghostbusters(the chance was already slim, I understand, but if there was enough funds to put into a reboot, there could have been enough for a third movie). The movie executives won't look at it as a poorly written movie with jokes that weren't very funny and not much else going for it did poorly, but a movie with a full female cast that wasn't just there for sex appeal did not do well. Poorly done diversity sets progress back further than any alt-right individual. It's the same reason I agree with Obsidian here below:

The simple amount of aggression that most people receive from those others who throw around "SJW" and "PC" everywhere is what causes people 'not to understand'. If aggression is perceived, aggression is usually the response. It's impossible to ask of others to see past how one delivers a viewpoint to get to the root of the truth of the message, likewise is it a detriment to said message as there might be some good talking points we have to consider.

Simply put, anyone who is for PC does need to think about white straight males as much as they think about everyone else. PC is not supposed to be excluding the white race. It's just supposed to be about every human deserves equal chance, equal say, equal opportunity to succeed or fuck up, and equal shit taking for any fuck ups they commit. And it should never be anything more than that.

in that the same applies to progressives. Both sides throw around loaded terms that only muddle the point at the center of the argument, and the whole point of an argument should be persuasion. If you're only fanning the flames of aggression, no one is listening and everyone is shutting down what the other person has to say with no thought into what the actual point happens to be. I'm more likely to point this out to leftwing people because I believe in what usually behind the message, behind the aggression, in the ideas of equality, and don't want people to get turned off from the ideas of the progressive movement just because there are assholes aplenty here, and why I won't point out a conservative person being too aggressive as often, because I'm more than fine letting them go on as I see it as more harm than good for their movement.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Pandering as an applied term means to specifically target and entertain them as the audience. Pandering to the general audience isn't really the same definition of pandering as being used when criticizing companies for "pandering " to one demographic, your use has it just mean to appeal in general instead of selectively towards, which the use of pandering in these conversations nearly always relates to (usually with relation to either pandering to one group specifically being bad, or pandering to another being better, somehow).

That language issue aside though, I do agree with the overall point that variety is important, and great for longevity of properties. I don't think they should be targeting specific groups based on race or gender in the first place though. Targeting people based on that alone is both flawed in execution(often because the reliance on stereotypes assumed in audiences in doing so more often comes off as disingenuous, to say nothing of obvious, tokenism itself), and flawed in logic (the traits assumed to appeal to demographics such as "white people like this sort super hero" assumes a causation between race and the trait rather than just correlation tied to other aspects, such as overall culture liking that sort of super hero, while the culture itself is predominantly white). The overall result though is that concentrating on race and gender as traits in gaming actually does more overall harm to getting variety that is actually quality. Making the discussion so framed also has the negative effect of making people falsely belief they are fixing the issue while asctually just allowing it to be ignored while addressing symptoms. The idea of a person with lung cancer taking cough syrup instead of dealing with the underlying problem.

The result of this all though, is that trying to appeal to demographics based on race, regardless how it is done, is never a stable nor reasonable approach, and is often simply setting up for failure. Appealing to demographics that respond to traits that are actually more accurately marketable (such as, to tie into the gaming discussion, audiences that like FPS games tend to also like various traits in gameplay as well) is probably both more accurate way to target demographics, an easier way to identify traits that isolate the niches and which ones are more broadly accepted, and it doesn't have to drag identity politics into the mess in the first place. Many of the falsely assumed truthisms related to sex or race in gaming (like males don't play games where the characters are girls) are not making the discussion on the topic itself any more productive, just devolving them into a hotbed for political football. Such truthisms should be instead discarded for the battle of the sexes bullshit it has always been in the first place.

My original reply in the thread was to a poster saying SJW pandering is ruining everything. SJW pandering is pandering to basically everyone not in the majority demographic. Thus, SJW pandering is basically general pandering. I don't really care what is the best way to pander as I mainly came into say SJW pandering isn't ruining anything and whatever the SJWs "ruined" was already ruined by the "normal" pandering. So, basically bring on the SJW pandering, at least I'll get something different.

 

[runic knight]

Pandering as an applied term means to specifically target and entertain them as the audience. Pandering to the general audience isn't really the same definition of pandering as being used when criticizing companies for "pandering " to one demographic, your use has it just mean to appeal in general instead of selectively towards, which the use of pandering in these conversations nearly always relates to (usually with relation to either pandering to one group specifically being bad, or pandering to another being better, somehow).

That language issue aside though, I do agree with the overall point that variety is important, and great for longevity of properties. I don't think they should be targeting specific groups based on race or gender in the first place though. Targeting people based on that alone is both flawed in execution(often because the reliance on stereotypes assumed in audiences in doing so more often comes off as disingenuous, to say nothing of obvious, tokenism itself), and flawed in logic (the traits assumed to appeal to demographics such as "white people like this sort super hero" assumes a causation between race and the trait rather than just correlation tied to other aspects, such as overall culture liking that sort of super hero, while the culture itself is predominantly white). The overall result though is that concentrating on race and gender as traits in gaming actually does more overall harm to getting variety that is actually quality. Making the discussion so framed also has the negative effect of making people falsely belief they are fixing the issue while asctually just allowing it to be ignored while addressing symptoms. The idea of a person with lung cancer taking cough syrup instead of dealing with the underlying problem.

The result of this all though, is that trying to appeal to demographics based on race, regardless how it is done, is never a stable nor reasonable approach, and is often simply setting up for failure. Appealing to demographics that respond to traits that are actually more accurately marketable (such as, to tie into the gaming discussion, audiences that like FPS games tend to also like various traits in gameplay as well) is probably both more accurate way to target demographics, an easier way to identify traits that isolate the niches and which ones are more broadly accepted, and it doesn't have to drag identity politics into the mess in the first place. Many of the falsely assumed truthisms related to sex or race in gaming (like males don't play games where the characters are girls) are not making the discussion on the topic itself any more productive, just devolving them into a hotbed for political football. Such truthisms should be instead discarded for the battle of the sexes bullshit it has always been in the first place.

My original reply in the thread was to a poster saying SJW pandering is ruining everything. SJW pandering is pandering to basically everyone not in the majority demographic. Thus, SJW pandering is basically general pandering. I don't really care what is the best way to pander as I mainly came into say SJW pandering isn't ruining anything and whatever the SJWs "ruined" was already ruined by the "normal" pandering. So, basically bring on the SJW pandering, at least I'll get something different.

I strongly disagree that pandering to SJW is pandering to "everyone else". It is pandering to a specific political viewpoint that is very selective. This is why the issue of tokenism has been mentioned in these discussions, as in the attempt to appeal to the SJW mindset, the result is very often virtue signaling that simply alienates anyone else not of the SJW sort instead. A false display for the sake of political reasons rather than earnest ones isn't very appealing to those who want true characterizations. Just look at the mass effect backlash. Compare that to the topic of the thread itself, power rangers, where apparently they had an autistic character that was more well received.

Not pandering to any group would be appealing to everyone else. Choosing a political perspective to be pushed, such as including characters of certain races or genders solely because of it being a political message to do so, or using the art to criticize those who don't agree with the political perspective, is pandering to a group just the same.

That is the problem, SJW do not represent the majority, though they may claim to hold the same views as majority on topics relating to social justice. Appealing to them specifically, especially when done to satisfy political perspectives on what games "should" do or what quotas they should represent, only appeals to those who care about those perspectives or quotas in the first place, not everyone else.

While I agree those who are quick to call out any game for having a female character in it as pandering are dumb, the amount of those are far fewer than some like to present them as, and being critical of the intentional choices to pick one type of character over another solely to satisfy a political view is certainly not the same thing as that too.

 

[happyninja42]

And since this thread has had practically nothing to do with the original topic for 2 pages, I'm asking to have it locked. If you wish to continue your individual discussions about other topics, feel free to start your own thread about.

I got my answer basically anyway so no need for it to continue.

 

[tippy2k2]

Locked at the OPs request