So your argument is that I can't find someone contemptible because they are a woman (a view that is litteraly sexist) and that its ok for Thor to be a non person 'cause they made her enimes strawmen espousing the same point only deliberately overblown in the writers favour.
I concede the spelling of Ms Marvel's civilian identity.
Not quite - I find your way of expressing contempt sexist, and I think the contempt you hold may indicate unconscious sexism because the degree to which you dislike Sarkeesian doesn't seem reasonable.
In re: Thor, I can't even figure out what your goalposts are.
a) You can find contemptible whoever you like, but the reasons why you find that person contemptible and how you express that contempt may be more revealing about yourself than about that person. I.e. if you find them contemptible because they are a woman, or if you are using specific gendered insults (e.g. "worse than a bitch").
b) It's got nothing to do with the new Thor being a woman (though the fact is kind of used as an amplification of the point). It's that you completely lack the understanding that you pretend to have and complain about a specific feature of a story as if it was a problem. Your complaint about the lack of characterization of Thor in that series is like you complaining about an unreliable narrator. It is nonsensical and idiotic because it's the entire point of the story (so far).
Translation: 1) There is nothing wrong with referring to women as "bitches", Sarkeesian just happens to be an exception. 2) Not only is Sarkeesian sub-human, she is sub-canine. 3) By comparison, women in general are above Sarkeesian and actually do manage to qualify at the dog level.
You know, the fact that you're commenting on Thor being this way(Which is somewhat debatable itself), and yet can't seem to grasp that the fact nobody knows who she is or where she comes from is the central thrust of the the story arc so far(and really isn't subtle about it) leads me to believe that you haven't actually read the book, and you're just spitting borrowed opinions.
Though, I can see where you're coming from about it being a strawman. The people who tend to spout that kind of idiocy are usually not eight foot tall dudes who are incredibly strong and can absorb/mimic the properties of any materiel on physical contact. It's a pretty disingenuous representation.
Translation: 1) There is nothing wrong with referring to women as "bitches", Sarkeesian just happens to be an exception. 2) Not only is Sarkeesian sub-human, she is sub-canine. 3) By comparison, women in general are above Sarkeesian and actually do manage to qualify at the dog level.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that 1)-3) is literally what you intended to say; I'm getting at some of the implied subtext someone like Linkigi is referring to when they accuse you of "unconscious sexism".
The term is not necessarily misogynistic when used today, but depending on the context there can most definitely be (and often are) misogynistic undertones.
Translation: 1) There is nothing wrong with referring to women as "bitches", Sarkeesian just happens to be an exception. 2) Not only is Sarkeesian sub-human, she is sub-canine. 3) By comparison, women in general are above Sarkeesian and actually do manage to qualify at the dog level.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that 1)-3) is literally what you intended to say; I'm getting at some of the implied subtext someone like Linkigi is referring to when they accuse you of "unconscious sexism".
I'd rather not call anyone a bitch (Sarkeaian is very much a human being with all that entails). I'm saying using the term on the person in question is especially egregious.
Also, if you don't intend to mean something don't damn well say it and then play the "this is what you sound like" card.
You keep doing that thing where you stuff words in my mouth. It is a disgusting habit.
You didn't answer my question. Who is she? Why should I care about this character besides that she's now "Thor" and she's a she?
She is Thor, a super hero who swings a hammer around.
Funny how I know as much about her as I know about the old Thor. Which means enough.
Technically a god not a super hero. Also all this fuss over Thor being a women. People are glossing over the part where Loki turned into a horse to trick Thor into having sex with them, now that is something that warrants a discussion.
Are we talking about mythology? Because Loki turned into a mare so that Svaðilfari (a great dark stallion) would be distracted; Svaðilfari's owner (the builder who offered to build the Aesir a wall in exchange for Freyja and the sun and moon) spent the last night of his contract chasing down his stallion, allowing the Aesir to escape paying for the wall (because the builder had to finish it in three days).
Loki later gave birth to Sleipnir, Oðin's 8-legged horse.
Thor did not factor into it at all.
Have I got muddled up then? I thought at one point Loki tricked Thor into bed. Still Norse Thor is best Thor.
Translation: 1) There is nothing wrong with referring to women as "bitches", Sarkeesian just happens to be an exception. 2) Not only is Sarkeesian sub-human, she is sub-canine. 3) By comparison, women in general are above Sarkeesian and actually do manage to qualify at the dog level.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that 1)-3) is literally what you intended to say; I'm getting at some of the implied subtext someone like Linkigi is referring to when they accuse you of "unconscious sexism".
Also, if you don't intend to mean something don't damn well say it and then play the "this is what you sound like" card.
It was a deliberate use of hyperbole (in an amount increasing from (1) to (3)) to put my point into starker relief. I posted the second time because it occurred to me that you in particular might take me 100% literally, rather than interpreting it as hyperbole the way I expected most other people on this forum would.
That being said, make no mistake---there most probably are people who would say the same thing you said and actually mean (1), probably (2), and maybe even (3).
Here's what I really don't understand. If you're a racist, like actually skinhead/klansman racist, you don't go revealing that. You would not come in this forum, or most places, and be willing to say "kill all black people" with a straight face. Everyone would think you were a horrible piece of shit, and would rightfully hate you.
So why is it that so many people are perfectly willing to go around proudly saying misogynist garbage? I mean, you are perfectly within your rights to say such things, but the only result is that everyone here now thinks you are a piece of shit. What is there to gain by revealing your true horrible nature? I guess it's actually good that it protects the rest of us from having false beliefs about you, but wouldn't it just be in your self interest to hide the fact that you are an awful human being?
I don't think anyone really thinks they are evil. Everyone thinks that they are on the side of justice and good. What makes people monstrous is when their ideas of what are good and just are founded on dangerous/bad assumptions.
Conan thinks he is fighting the good fight, so he brings it here. It is abundantly clear to all of us that he isn't doing good because what motivates him isn't a consistent or even coherent set of problems he sees with "progressivism", but gut-level emotion (see his near spittle-flecked rants about "lunacy", "arseholes", etc.) The reason he doesn't scuttle off to some vile little hole where his vile little views would be welcome is the same reason he holds them: He isn't thinking clearly and rationally, but from a little knot of rage and bile.
What. In my best interests to lie? To kiss the arse of those I do not hold any respect?
My 'horrible true nature' is that I think there should be a discussion and a well thought out way on how to be progressive.
Not "progressive" in the limp wristed way that makes the people with power feel better whilst not doing anything.
I think certain people (some of who happen to subscribe to or espouse the previous) are right cards and I would not endeavour to help them should misfortune find them beyond calling the authorities (and help them should it preserve their life, obviously). Some of those are women.
It is what I believe to be true and to state otherwise would be to lie and deny myself.
If that makes me "a piece of shit" and an "awful human being" then, I must ask, what does it make you or anyone else who holds those views?
My 'horrible true nature' is that I think there should be a discussion and a well thought out way on how to be progressive.
At what point, anywhere in this thread, could anything that you said be even remotely considered "well thought out" discussion.
It's pretty rich that after being asked why you disagree with the Anti-GG crowd, you had nothing to offer but insults, and now, when the shoe is on the other foot, you act as though all along you merely wanted a civil, coherent discussion. I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt, but you exhausted that doubt pages ago.
If the only argument you have against some concept is you dislike the people who support it, you should really consider rethinking your position. Personal animosity is a stupid reason to hold a belief, and it probably isn't doing your own happiness much good, putting such bitter feelings on a pedestal.
You have given basically no reason to dislike Sarkeesian that I can find beyond disagreeing with her videos. Disagreement with her videos is not a reason to hold her in such ridiculous contempt that you defend it with such vigor.
Let me address some other common arguments against Sarkeesian and explain why they are wrong, bad, and dumb.
1. "She is embezzling/extorting/manipulating her backers for their money and not providing her product at the appropriate way I demand!" - The only people who have any right to complain about this are her backers, and since it is a known aspect of Kickstarter that project-starters almost always take longer to produce their product than originally intended, and Sarkeesian received significantly more money than she asked for and therefore had more content to produce, it is kind of insane for any of her backers to be violently upset she's taking so long.
2. "She misrepresents games in her arguments!" - There are a variety of debunking videos about the various "Sarkeesian lied" videos, but I'll sum up the basic point that unites them all: Sarkeesian uses each game in the way that she said she would at the start of the series. She says that she examines the use of tropes in games. She finds a trope in a game, points it out, and then on the whole, analyzes what the effect of that trope is on individuals (Often citing scientific studies). This is almost exclusively the only thing that she does in her videos, except for the few times she has pitched more feminist game ideas. Claiming that she "lied about killing strippers in Hitman because you actually lose points for doing that" ignores the fact that her video is Women as background decoration, and if most people actually ignored the strippers, that is proof of their identity as background decoration. I would sit and explain more about how what she said was not wrong even given Hitman's gameplay, but I think you get the point.
3. "She doesn't care about games! She's just doing this to get money!" - This has been explained so many times. She grew up as a young child enjoying video games, but stopped because she was discouraged from playing them since they were "boy's things." She came back later, but was embarrassed and disgusted by the lack of good female characters in most of the game she played. While in college for Women's Studies, she was not a gamer and could not present herself as such to her colleagues, many of whom hold video games and its culture in extremely low regards (Fun fact: Gamergate's actions have made more academic fields consider games an even lesser medium as far as academic research goes). After getting her Master's, she re-examined more modern games with good female leads and enjoyed them again, but was still horrified at the sexism she saw. She considers herself a lapsed gamer since she has fallen in and out, but that she began identifying as a gamer/game-player again before she made her Kickstarter. At the end of the day, she does have the breadth of knowledge and experience to make this claim. And if she didn't, being a fucking gatekeeper about who gets to claim to be a gamer is a misogynistic thing to do.
I could break down more arguments, but I think you get my point.
Do you have to like her videos or agree with them? Well, no, but unless you have a very good reason for doing so, it makes you look like a misogynistic piece of shit. I have never, ever, ever seen a decent argument that would cause someone to outright hate her, let alone call her subhuman by pointing out how much you like dogs more than her. Like, seriously man? Can't you understand how that is a fucked up thing to say? I don't want to sit here and say you have to like people, 'cause you don't, but you should strongly consider if your very knee-jerk response to her and the comparisons you make don't come from a really deep-seated, dark place.
Quite frankly, having outright burning hatred for anyone who has not proven to be some kind of murderer, flaming bigot, rapist, etc. tends to make you seem crazy. There are a lot of people I disagree with in the world, just in general, but I don't think that makes it okay for me to say whatever I want about them. People are humans first, and their politics/personality/identities second. You always go in treating someone like a human, unless/until they prove that they aren't capable of doing the same.
You have shown yourself, Conan, to not be willing or maybe even capable of treating certain people like the humans that they are, and instead hold them in such contempt you think it is okay to say horrible things about them, and this pretty much disgusts us. We are in no unfair place to find you a misogynist and a jackass, and when the general forum consensus leads towards one thing, you get to assume that either we are all awful people who force labels onto otherwise decent folk fighting for their political opinions, or that your actions are really, really that fucked up.
So please, don't sit and tell me how you should be allowed to be a shithead to people you disagree with. I'm not taking that. You fight for the world you want to see, and for me, that's a world where people actually try to be kind and respect others until that's not an option. And you? You took away that option.
A+ response Axel. I'm reminded of the quote "If ran into an asshole in the morning, you just saw an asshole. If run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."
"Failed to produce" - There are several episodes released. It is in-progress. She has not bailed on it. I don't see what the issue there is.
"Never called her a bitch" - The word bitch wasn't anywhere in my post. I made no such claim. I said you called her sub-human by thinking bitch was too nice of a term, since it put her on the level of dogs that you liked more than her. Do you deny that this was your intent, saying you thought she was less than an animal?
"False nonsense you say I posted" - I am just giving you a direct response to the posts I see and extrapolating from there. The Sarkeesian arguments are not things I claimed you said, they were pre-emptive so we didn't have to have a discussion about the merits of Sarkeesian (there's another thread about that, please don't invade it). You still posted about saying that she hasn't produced her series, even though I specifically addressed that criticism so we didn't have to.
We're not asking you to be a feminist, we're not telling you your politics are wrong, we're saying that on this forum, the language you are using to describe a person whose sole crime is producing Feminist Videos On The Internet is unacceptable. Yes, this is in fact "Tone policing." Not only are the forum's rules on this clearly available and easily deduced by reading our posts, it's really not that awful to ask you to control your tone in our presence. It is a common courtesy you extend to other people to try and not upset them. If you don't care about upsetting people whose only crime in your mind is liking and agreeing with feminists, then you are truly a jerk and prove every bad thing that is said about Gamergate, Men's Rights, and that entire culture.
Comments
I concede the spelling of Ms Marvel's civilian identity.
In re: Thor, I can't even figure out what your goalposts are.
b) It's got nothing to do with the new Thor being a woman (though the fact is kind of used as an amplification of the point). It's that you completely lack the understanding that you pretend to have and complain about a specific feature of a story as if it was a problem. Your complaint about the lack of characterization of Thor in that series is like you complaining about an unreliable narrator. It is nonsensical and idiotic because it's the entire point of the story (so far).
1) There is nothing wrong with referring to women as "bitches", Sarkeesian just happens to be an exception.
2) Not only is Sarkeesian sub-human, she is sub-canine.
3) By comparison, women in general are above Sarkeesian and actually do manage to qualify at the dog level.
Though, I can see where you're coming from about it being a strawman. The people who tend to spout that kind of idiocy are usually not eight foot tall dudes who are incredibly strong and can absorb/mimic the properties of any materiel on physical contact. It's a pretty disingenuous representation.
The term is not necessarily misogynistic when used today, but depending on the context there can most definitely be (and often are) misogynistic undertones.
Also, if you don't intend to mean something don't damn well say it and then play the "this is what you sound like" card.
That being said, make no mistake---there most probably are people who would say the same thing you said and actually mean (1), probably (2), and maybe even (3).
So why is it that so many people are perfectly willing to go around proudly saying misogynist garbage? I mean, you are perfectly within your rights to say such things, but the only result is that everyone here now thinks you are a piece of shit. What is there to gain by revealing your true horrible nature? I guess it's actually good that it protects the rest of us from having false beliefs about you, but wouldn't it just be in your self interest to hide the fact that you are an awful human being?
Conan thinks he is fighting the good fight, so he brings it here. It is abundantly clear to all of us that he isn't doing good because what motivates him isn't a consistent or even coherent set of problems he sees with "progressivism", but gut-level emotion (see his near spittle-flecked rants about "lunacy", "arseholes", etc.) The reason he doesn't scuttle off to some vile little hole where his vile little views would be welcome is the same reason he holds them: He isn't thinking clearly and rationally, but from a little knot of rage and bile.
My 'horrible true nature' is that I think there should be a discussion and a well thought out way on how to be progressive.
Not "progressive" in the limp wristed way that makes the people with power feel better whilst not doing anything.
I think certain people (some of who happen to subscribe to or espouse the previous) are right cards and I would not endeavour to help them should misfortune find them beyond calling the authorities (and help them should it preserve their life, obviously). Some of those are women.
It is what I believe to be true and to state otherwise would be to lie and deny myself.
If that makes me "a piece of shit" and an "awful human being" then, I must ask, what does it make you or anyone else who holds those views?
I think "arsehole" was apt.
It's pretty rich that after being asked why you disagree with the Anti-GG crowd, you had nothing to offer but insults, and now, when the shoe is on the other foot, you act as though all along you merely wanted a civil, coherent discussion. I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt, but you exhausted that doubt pages ago.
If the only argument you have against some concept is you dislike the people who support it, you should really consider rethinking your position. Personal animosity is a stupid reason to hold a belief, and it probably isn't doing your own happiness much good, putting such bitter feelings on a pedestal.
Let me address some other common arguments against Sarkeesian and explain why they are wrong, bad, and dumb.
1. "She is embezzling/extorting/manipulating her backers for their money and not providing her product at the appropriate way I demand!" - The only people who have any right to complain about this are her backers, and since it is a known aspect of Kickstarter that project-starters almost always take longer to produce their product than originally intended, and Sarkeesian received significantly more money than she asked for and therefore had more content to produce, it is kind of insane for any of her backers to be violently upset she's taking so long.
2. "She misrepresents games in her arguments!" - There are a variety of debunking videos about the various "Sarkeesian lied" videos, but I'll sum up the basic point that unites them all: Sarkeesian uses each game in the way that she said she would at the start of the series. She says that she examines the use of tropes in games. She finds a trope in a game, points it out, and then on the whole, analyzes what the effect of that trope is on individuals (Often citing scientific studies). This is almost exclusively the only thing that she does in her videos, except for the few times she has pitched more feminist game ideas. Claiming that she "lied about killing strippers in Hitman because you actually lose points for doing that" ignores the fact that her video is Women as background decoration, and if most people actually ignored the strippers, that is proof of their identity as background decoration. I would sit and explain more about how what she said was not wrong even given Hitman's gameplay, but I think you get the point.
3. "She doesn't care about games! She's just doing this to get money!" - This has been explained so many times. She grew up as a young child enjoying video games, but stopped because she was discouraged from playing them since they were "boy's things." She came back later, but was embarrassed and disgusted by the lack of good female characters in most of the game she played. While in college for Women's Studies, she was not a gamer and could not present herself as such to her colleagues, many of whom hold video games and its culture in extremely low regards (Fun fact: Gamergate's actions have made more academic fields consider games an even lesser medium as far as academic research goes). After getting her Master's, she re-examined more modern games with good female leads and enjoyed them again, but was still horrified at the sexism she saw. She considers herself a lapsed gamer since she has fallen in and out, but that she began identifying as a gamer/game-player again before she made her Kickstarter. At the end of the day, she does have the breadth of knowledge and experience to make this claim.
And if she didn't, being a fucking gatekeeper about who gets to claim to be a gamer is a misogynistic thing to do.
I could break down more arguments, but I think you get my point.
Do you have to like her videos or agree with them? Well, no, but unless you have a very good reason for doing so, it makes you look like a misogynistic piece of shit. I have never, ever, ever seen a decent argument that would cause someone to outright hate her, let alone call her subhuman by pointing out how much you like dogs more than her. Like, seriously man? Can't you understand how that is a fucked up thing to say? I don't want to sit here and say you have to like people, 'cause you don't, but you should strongly consider if your very knee-jerk response to her and the comparisons you make don't come from a really deep-seated, dark place.
Quite frankly, having outright burning hatred for anyone who has not proven to be some kind of murderer, flaming bigot, rapist, etc. tends to make you seem crazy. There are a lot of people I disagree with in the world, just in general, but I don't think that makes it okay for me to say whatever I want about them. People are humans first, and their politics/personality/identities second. You always go in treating someone like a human, unless/until they prove that they aren't capable of doing the same.
You have shown yourself, Conan, to not be willing or maybe even capable of treating certain people like the humans that they are, and instead hold them in such contempt you think it is okay to say horrible things about them, and this pretty much disgusts us. We are in no unfair place to find you a misogynist and a jackass, and when the general forum consensus leads towards one thing, you get to assume that either we are all awful people who force labels onto otherwise decent folk fighting for their political opinions, or that your actions are really, really that fucked up.
So please, don't sit and tell me how you should be allowed to be a shithead to people you disagree with. I'm not taking that. You fight for the world you want to see, and for me, that's a world where people actually try to be kind and respect others until that's not an option. And you? You took away that option.
I never called her a bitch and I refuse to do so. End of story.
She has failed to produce her series and that is the solid fact on the matter. That at best makes her incompetent and at worst makes her a liar.
"Never called her a bitch" - The word bitch wasn't anywhere in my post. I made no such claim. I said you called her sub-human by thinking bitch was too nice of a term, since it put her on the level of dogs that you liked more than her. Do you deny that this was your intent, saying you thought she was less than an animal?
"False nonsense you say I posted" - I am just giving you a direct response to the posts I see and extrapolating from there. The Sarkeesian arguments are not things I claimed you said, they were pre-emptive so we didn't have to have a discussion about the merits of Sarkeesian (there's another thread about that, please don't invade it). You still posted about saying that she hasn't produced her series, even though I specifically addressed that criticism so we didn't have to.
We're not asking you to be a feminist, we're not telling you your politics are wrong, we're saying that on this forum, the language you are using to describe a person whose sole crime is producing Feminist Videos On The Internet is unacceptable. Yes, this is in fact "Tone policing." Not only are the forum's rules on this clearly available and easily deduced by reading our posts, it's really not that awful to ask you to control your tone in our presence. It is a common courtesy you extend to other people to try and not upset them. If you don't care about upsetting people whose only crime in your mind is liking and agreeing with feminists, then you are truly a jerk and prove every bad thing that is said about Gamergate, Men's Rights, and that entire culture.