CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media - Page 2

post #51 of 4673
But there's a GTA mod where you can play as Marty in the Delorean WITH music and WITH time travel capabilities!

* I havent played it. Only watched the youtube vid.
post #52 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Those are pretty good. I made it all the through them because I agree with them and don't like opinions different than mine.

Me too man. The second I get a whiff that an article isn't gonna pat me on the back for already being right about everything I switch that shit *right* off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Oreo View Post

Not really a good argument to make that just because it's always been that way people shouldn't complain. It's important to take in account context: How many GTA games there has been, and the fact that people are just generally tired of playing the same shit.

I dunno, GTA games on the whole are pretty good at trying new things each time out, and there aren't *that* many compared to Call Of Duty or whatever.

Thing is, there's two separate questions here, one is whether the GTA games are acceptable in the first place, given the kinds of stuff you do in them. The other is whether they should only let you play as a majority demographic to make sure no one thinks they're making a racist statement by having them do tons of anti-social stuff, even if it's the same anti-social stuff characters in these games always do.

For the record I'm not saying people who disagree with me on this are wrong (in the end, I'm a white english dude so I'm not going to tell other people in different places how they should and shouldn't feel about things), but in general I think it's better to get people educated and able to think critically about their entertainment than encouraging entertainment to only be safe, inoffensive to avoid corrupting or upsetting anyone.

I get the argument against the characters in GTA, but at the same time, San Andreas was probably the first high profile video game to have a predominantly african american cast, which I would've thought was a win even if they're not exactly squeaky clean role model characters.
post #53 of 4673

Figured this belonged in this thread. 

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/11/salons_patton_oswalt_peace_summit/

post #54 of 4673
post #55 of 4673
Thread Starter 
I have never heard of this woman before just now, but she makes me gag. Bill Maher also brought up the whole azodicarbonamide / yoga mat thing and it seemed just as specious. Reminds me of the whole raw foodist thing and one of the guys behind it was interviewed going on about how the "negative energy from a poor Mexican kid who hates his job is just getting pressed into the processed food he's slapping together for your consumption" or somesuch nonsense. No joke, the guy said this racist / classist shit and it hit every single nerve it could have possibly hit. It was an incredible combination.

Cynicism. It may make you miserable, but it keeps assholes at arms length.
post #56 of 4673

Oh no! The same chemicals are used in many products!

 

I'm as big into keeping our food as safe and unmolested as possible but these kinds of half-educated yahoos really get on my nerves.

post #57 of 4673

Hmm...I take that woman about as seriously as I'd take anyone who refers to themselves as "The Food Babe".  Read; Not one fucking jot.  It really typifies the excess of western culture that food is so cheap and richly abundant in First World countries that people can actually make a name for themselves criticizing the making thereof without doing any actual research.

 

That Salon interview just reminded me why I love Patton Oswalt so much and why I can't fucking stand Salon all in one.  

post #58 of 4673

Apologies to all, because this is a massive DeRail.  


I've actually been thinking about our current cultural situation quite a bit.  (shocking right?) But I think what makes this site so important is that it allows people the chance to intelligently digest cinematic experiences and chew them over.  Motion Pictures, and the art of cinematic experience is being completely abused in our social media culture by malevolent agents and the ability to learn more about how cinematic techniques work is almost a fucking public service at this moment.  

I think we take it for granted that everybody here knows that directors know how to manipulate emotions and feelings in order to make a point, but these techniques are being co-opted by the corporate and political sphere and that needs to be understood.  It's an extreme example, but take ISIS and the way they make their videos.  They know what they are doing when they edit their propaganda bullshit and it's extremely effective towards their target audience; poor pissed off kids who have had no exposure to this stuff before.  It's dangerous stuff, motion picture technology, and in the wrong hands, it can be extraordinarily abused.  

I don't believe we exist in a "They Live" type environment where the masses are being puppeted by nefarious, selfish elements in society, but who knows what kind of information will be available for people down the line.  Currently, the types of manipulation being done through film are pretty tame and obvious, it's basically all commercials and advertisements but it's there and it disinforms people all the time.  People get suckered into buying all types of products because how they are presented in our Social Media, clothes, cars, food, and the physical properties of any of those products are purely disregarded.  Companies like Monsanto, GE, Investment Banks, etc.. get 45 second spots on PrimeTime TV that show off their humanitarian side and try to paint themselves as PR wet dreams while they destroy the economy and stash billions in overseas banks.  But all that gets glossed over if they show an Iowa farmer wiping the sweat of his brow as the word Monsanto gleems in the sky.  Because Monsanto means hard work.  

Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but cinema allows the viewer an illusion, we all know this, but the more cinema gets appropiated into our collective consciousness, I fear that illusion will quickly become reality.  How soon till it's all just Disneys?

post #59 of 4673
Thread Starter 
That's not a derail, it's actually totally on point w/ the purpose of the thread. Also, as I mentioned, this thread is more or less immune to derails.
post #60 of 4673

Well there was a discussion going on, just thought I'd give a heads up that my post was not about that discussion

post #61 of 4673
Thread Starter 
Patton Oswalt is a misogynist because he referenced "housewives"...http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/1077959/why-we-should-feel-sorry-for-patton-oswalt
post #62 of 4673
I feel like she and I read different Salon interviews with Patton Oswald.
post #63 of 4673
Thread Starter 
I found the Salon interview to be problematic in that it's two people talking over one another about minutiae with the idea that they're talking about BIG IDEAS.
post #64 of 4673
Thread Starter 
Also, the title of that article and the overall approach is exactly my problem with clickbait invective. It did it's job in that it got my attention, but like other pieces of its kind, it's shit journalism for LCD intellectualism. I don't think I'm striking the pose of an MRA here, but does the dictionary definition of misogynist not count for something? I wouldn't call Oswalt's comment sexist either, but surely that would be a closer to accurate label, no? It would, but it's not used because it doesn't have the same "flair" as misogynist. Sexism is a more delicate and complicated word that engenders discourse, but misogynist, now that's a word that gets your teeth grinding and your blood up. One of a number of words in the current cultural rolodex that closes the library.


Edit: This approach also flies in the face of my view of progressive ideology as a thing meant to unite and broker ideas. By labeling Oswalt a misogynist, that writer chooses to turn another progressive into an enemy because he used an analogy she didn't like. Not because it was entirely false, which it was not, but because it was gendered. He could have said something else, but he chose the image of the harried, morally righteous housewife to make his point. Okay. So then just say, "I think that's a limiting concept" and I would totally agree with that. Of course that simply isn't good enough. Not nearly enough sting to get the required clicks.
post #65 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Patton Oswalt is a misogynist because he referenced "housewives"...http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/1077959/why-we-should-feel-sorry-for-patton-oswalt

Jesus. It's not even what she's talking about that irks me, it's how she says it. It's so drenched in sarcasm and self-righteous fury that even someone who might even think Oswalt's comments were wrong would think she's full of it.

post #66 of 4673
That's usually how I gauge these things. It's not what you take offense to (within reason). It's the way you articulate it.
post #67 of 4673
"I'm not sure about the way you put that" is a phrase sorely out of vogue in this age.
post #68 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

That's usually how I gauge these things. It's not what you take offense to (within reason). It's the way you articulate it.

And it also makes me question the writer and what exactly their deal is. Like are they trying to talk about something or are they just lashing out. I do believe there are many damaged people walking around and those damaged people love to join a cause and then completely fuck it up.

post #69 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post
 

And it also makes me question the writer and what exactly their deal is. Like are they trying to talk about something or are they just lashing out. I do believe there are many damaged people walking around and those damaged people love to join a cause and then completely fuck it up.

I wouldn't say damaged. Because it's the type of thing that can, and has, happened to all of us. It's a reaction for the sake of reaction, nerd-raging at something without really taking the time to consider what we're reacting towards.

post #70 of 4673
I doubt there's anything notable about the writer, that article's a symptom of larger trends. Right now smacking people down for any lapse in ideological etiquette gets you attention, makes you part of an elite in crowd, proves your moral purity, can make you money and feels good to boot. Who can blame someone for getting swept up in the finger-pointing fun? What it *doesn't* do, as far as I can tell, is any tangible good.
post #71 of 4673

Sometimes I just want to take people like the woman that wrote that trash and drop them in Iraq, Syria or Ukraine and tell them "You want to fight injustice?  Go then, fight injustice."

 

It's fucked up how much liberals are more and more becoming like conservatives.  Only where conservatives go crazy over the bible, liberals have this unwritten and impossibly vague moral standard where being a straight white guy is the greatest evil in the whole fucking world.  I'm seriously over-generalising I know, but that does seem to be the growing trend seen online.  They're essentially becoming their own Thought Police.

post #72 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

Sometimes I just want to take people like the woman that wrote that trash and drop them in Iraq, Syria or Ukraine and tell them "You want to fight injustice?  Go then, fight injustice."

 

It's fucked up how much liberals are more and more becoming like conservatives.  Only where conservatives go crazy over the bible, liberals have this unwritten and impossibly vague moral standard where being a straight white guy is the greatest evil in the whole fucking world.  I'm seriously over-generalising I know, but that does seem to be the growing trend seen online.  They're essentially becoming their own Thought Police.

 

Come on. That's an overreaction on your part too. One must call out injustice wherever and when ever they see it. "It's worse there so shut the fuck up about here" isn't a good argument.

 

It doesn't make people like the author of that any less of an annoying, vain flake though. 

post #73 of 4673

Yeah, I am over-reacting and not serious about that but I'm pissed off with these types of people and their seeming inability to have any kind of perspective.  

 

The simple fact is, we in the 21st century have already made huge and important strides in equality.  I'm not saying things are perfect, we still have a ways to go but compared to where society was 20, 10 or even 5 years ago?  We're doing well and will continue to do well.  But to hear these shrillbots talk about it, you'd swear we were still trapped in the early 1900's.  And to see people getting hit with all kinds of mob justice for daring to make a joke about whatever issue, just feels like spitting in the face of all the positive strides we have made in equality and acceptance.  And I often wonder if this is a symptom of the broader issue of people used to getting everything they want NOW!  When realistically, it takes time for any kind of social change to take root and grow.

 

You are not going to destroy racism or misogyny or bigotry by attacking the racist, misogynist or bigot.  That just creates a wrongheaded sense of them being the victim and perhaps justified in their beliefs.  The only way to fight these problems is through education, forgiveness and compassion.  By being a better person and by showing through your own actions that your viewpoint has more merit, you will be able to make people come around to that viewpoint themselves.  That's how Nelson Mandela managed to turn an uber-conservative Apartheid country into a democratic and relatively equal opportunity country in a few decades.

post #74 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

Yeah, I am over-reacting and not serious about that but I'm pissed off with these types of people and their seeming inability to have any kind of perspective.  

 

The simple fact is, we in the 21st century have already made huge and important strides in equality.  I'm not saying things are perfect, we still have a ways to go but compared to where society was 20, 10 or even 5 years ago?  We're doing well and will continue to do well.  But to hear these shrillbots talk about it, you'd swear we were still trapped in the early 1900's.  And to see people getting hit with all kinds of mob justice for daring to make a joke about whatever issue, just feels like spitting in the face of all the positive strides we have made in equality and acceptance.  And I often wonder if this is a symptom of the broader issue of people used to getting everything they want NOW!  When realistically, it takes time for any kind of social change to take root and grow.

 

You are not going to destroy racism or misogyny or bigotry by attacking the racist, misogynist or bigot.  That just creates a wrongheaded sense of them being the victim and perhaps justified in their beliefs.  The only way to fight these problems is through education, forgiveness and compassion.  By being a better person and by showing through your own actions that your viewpoint has more merit, you will be able to make people come around to that viewpoint themselves.  That's how Nelson Mandela managed to turn an uber-conservative Apartheid country into a democratic and relatively equal opportunity country in a few decades.

Check you privilege you fucking monster.

post #75 of 4673

The white man's burden...

post #76 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

The white man's burden...

Ugh keep that smart mouth going and I will call you racist, you want that? Keep pushing me....

post #77 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post
 

Ugh keep that smart mouth going and I will call you racist, you want that? Keep pushing me....

 

Dude.  I'm a white Afrikaans guy in South Africa.  When you've been portrayed as a moustache twirling villain in Lethal Weapon 2 getting called racist is the least of your worries.  

post #78 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

 

Dude.  I'm a white Afrikaans guy in South Africa.  When you've been portrayed as a moustache twirling villain in Lethal Weapon 2 getting called racist is the least of your worries.  

Holy shit

post #79 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costco Mike View Post
 

Apologies to all, because this is a massive DeRail.  


I've actually been thinking about our current cultural situation quite a bit.  (shocking right?) But I think what makes this site so important is that it allows people the chance to intelligently digest cinematic experiences and chew them over.  Motion Pictures, and the art of cinematic experience is being completely abused in our social media culture by malevolent agents and the ability to learn more about how cinematic techniques work is almost a fucking public service at this moment.  

I think we take it for granted that everybody here knows that directors know how to manipulate emotions and feelings in order to make a point, but these techniques are being co-opted by the corporate and political sphere and that needs to be understood.  It's an extreme example, but take ISIS and the way they make their videos.  They know what they are doing when they edit their propaganda bullshit and it's extremely effective towards their target audience; poor pissed off kids who have had no exposure to this stuff before.  It's dangerous stuff, motion picture technology, and in the wrong hands, it can be extraordinarily abused.  

I don't believe we exist in a "They Live" type environment where the masses are being puppeted by nefarious, selfish elements in society, but who knows what kind of information will be available for people down the line.  Currently, the types of manipulation being done through film are pretty tame and obvious, it's basically all commercials and advertisements but it's there and it disinforms people all the time.  People get suckered into buying all types of products because how they are presented in our Social Media, clothes, cars, food, and the physical properties of any of those products are purely disregarded.  Companies like Monsanto, GE, Investment Banks, etc.. get 45 second spots on PrimeTime TV that show off their humanitarian side and try to paint themselves as PR wet dreams while they destroy the economy and stash billions in overseas banks.  But all that gets glossed over if they show an Iowa farmer wiping the sweat of his brow as the word Monsanto gleems in the sky.  Because Monsanto means hard work.  

Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but cinema allows the viewer an illusion, we all know this, but the more cinema gets appropiated into our collective consciousness, I fear that illusion will quickly become reality.  How soon till it's all just Disneys?

 

One of the things as an outsider consuming a lot of American culture that I find strange is the hero worship that is bestowed on military service personnel. The mainstream 'trash' telly, like NCIS, Hawaii Five-0 etc paint those in uniform in almost god like terms. It's difficult to explain as a Brit, that I find it rather alarming.

 

I'm from a military family, I respect those guys and gals, sure. The level that it looks like though it's almost like a recruitment campaign. I look at the shows above and all I can think of is some poor kid in the Ozarks seeing that he'll get respect and love in a place and all he has to do is throw himself into the petro-chemical driven military meat grinder. And in reality, that just won't happen. He'll end up sitting in some hell hole surrounded by people who hate him, with no clear mission until he steps on a IED and is shipped back home and abandoned on disabilty to become one of the many vets wandering around downtown homeless with serious mental health issues.

 

Same thing doesn't happen with Doctors in mainstream medical dramas or Cops in detective shows. They're shown as corrupt, ineffective, impotent in horrific systems played against them all the time.

 

I feel this is more prevalent on TV (and 'normal' TV at that)... Hollywood seems to have more range.

 

Not quite sure if that's similar to what you are saying, but I find it a potential subtle bit of "They Live" control. :) Maybe it's just me.

post #80 of 4673
I don't think you're imagining things.

Another thing to keep in mind might be what a thoroughly marginal minority (in numerical terms) active military and veterans really are here. The reason why the end of conscription in the US worked so well at disabling the anti-war movement, as a political force, is that it enabled us (to borrow some language from Trudeau) to "emotionally outsource" the work of war fighting to a relatively tiny handful who most Americans don't know personally.

Everyone, in contrast, has had experience with crooked doctors or lawyers who got into these highly privatized and lucrative fields for the wrong reasons. This probably has an impact on our cultural memes of who we shouldn't trust and who we can project our hero fantasies onto. What you're talking about could be coming from the bottom up just as much as from the top down.
post #81 of 4673
Thread Starter 
The solution...

post #82 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

You are not going to destroy racism or misogyny or bigotry by attacking the racist, misogynist or bigot.  That just creates a wrongheaded sense of them being the victim and perhaps justified in their beliefs.  The only way to fight these problems is through education, forgiveness and compassion.  By being a better person and by showing through your own actions that your viewpoint has more merit, you will be able to make people come around to that viewpoint themselves.  That's how Nelson Mandela managed to turn an uber-conservative Apartheid country into a democratic and relatively equal opportunity country in a few decades.

 

 

A million times this.  Every article online that deals with racism or bigotry always falls into that trap off blaming the racist/bigot and only makes them feel more like the victim. 

post #83 of 4673
Thread Starter 
I am confused. Yes, one can take a non-aggressive stance when confronting bigotry, but being "nice" to racists is not the responsibility of people looking to combat prejudice.

Most people with bigoted attitudes may have had their attitudes fostered by ignorance, but if you look at, for example, the SAU frat that recently made the news, they don't have an excuse. They're young, connected, and presumably privileged with access and upwards mobility, yet they CHOSE to do something they KNEW was ugly.

Do I think it's logical to deface the building where the frat was located or to issue threats of violence? No. However, there is such a thing as intelligent aggression, one's hostility can be measured.
post #84 of 4673

You don't have to be nice to them, just hold their hand while they throw a temper tantrum.  It really depends on the situation, but confronting somebody who is holding those kinds of views is going to be difficult because if you are "mean" to them then they just retreat back to their shell.  If the goal is understanding and growth, somebody has to be the bigger man.

post #85 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

I am confused. Yes, one can take a non-aggressive stance when confronting bigotry, but being "nice" to racists is not the responsibility of people looking to combat prejudice.

Most people with bigoted attitudes may have had their attitudes fostered by ignorance, but if you look at, for example, the SAU frat that recently made the news, they don't have an excuse. They're young, connected, and presumably privileged with access and upwards mobility, yet they CHOSE to do something they KNEW was ugly.

Do I think it's logical to deface the building where the frat was located or to issue threats of violence? No. However, there is such a thing as intelligent aggression, one's hostility can be measured.

 

This.

 

In most cases, I would agree that it simply isn't productive to attack individual bigots and attempt to destroy their lives.  However, some of them won't be swayed by geniality and "being the better person."  Often, these are the people who enjoy positions of power and propagate the reprehensible attitudes that society would be far better without.  In those cases, a more aggressive approach than "Well, let's have a pleasant debate about the merits of our viewpoints" isn't only preferable, it's necessary.  America's civil rights leaders from the 50s and 60s are evidence of this.

 

Does that mean undue aggression is warranted?  No, it's important to modify your approach based on who the target is.  Johnny is absolutely right in pointing out that hostility can be measured.

post #86 of 4673

What we need to do is find a bigot and try our respective approaches against said bigot, then see which is more effective. 

 

Make this shit scientific.

post #87 of 4673
I call dibs on the groin kick response experimental group!
post #88 of 4673

Interestingly, my life has just coincided with the current topic of this thread. Sorry for the length of this post...

 

Last night, I had dinner with a long time friend. Known the guy going on 20 years now. We've both been through a lot of shit, and had our worldviews changed and widened. However, he remains firmly in the conservative, evangelical side of things. He's shown me a lot of grace and understanding and patience, but at the same time, he's anti-evolution, anti-marriage equality, etc. (The anti-evolution part is really a puzzler for me, since he's an engineer, and quite good at approaching things scientifically or empirically). 

 

Anyway, last night, we ended up kibitzing about THE WALKING DEAD, a show we both watch and enjoy. (He less ironically than me.) Unprompted, he started going on about "that kiss" - meaning the affection that Aaron showed his partner (character name escapes me at the moment), how he had no idea it was coming, that it was really upsettting, etc.

 

Now, this friend and I have had discussion about related topics prior. He knows I'm pro-marriage equality and civil rights equality for everyone, regardless of gender, orientation, etc. But trust me that he wasn't baiting me; he was simply expressing himself and I think he sort of forgot I wasn't "in the club" with him as far as finding expressions of affection between same sex partners off-putting.

 

The real plot twist: recently a very close family member came out to me. This person shared that they self-identify as pansexual (a term I know thanks to Dan Savage!), and bravely told me about it, with the goal not only gaining my support (which I gladly gave) but to not "surprise" me if they had a future relationship with someone of the same sex or somewhere along the gender spectrum other than cis.

 

So when my friend was telling me about his horror at GAYS KISSING ALL OVER TV SCREEN, all I could think of was, "Dude, you're shitting on someone in my family. And just being shitty."

 

However, my being confrontational wouldn't have changed his mind (his objections are rooted in religious belief). And, despite this being your (the reader of this post) only glimpse of him, I assure you he's not a monster or dick or awful human being (quite the contrary). In addition, while this family member had come out to me, I wasn't sure how they would feel if I outed them in the context of this conversation, and I wasn't sure how I felt about using them as a potential stick to beat my friend with.

 

So I basically listened to his mini-rant about Aaron's kissing his partner, then promptly changed the subject. My friend pivoted with me, and the topic never came up again.

 

Was I being a coward? Was I right to feel protective about my family member? I wasn't sure then, and am not now.

post #89 of 4673
I think you handled it very well. Our lives are full of these negotiations with ourselves. You can't live with nothing but shrugs or nothing but confrontations.
post #90 of 4673
Maybe the zombies are bigots and they don't eat the gays. We'll be outnumbered, then they strike!

GAYPOCALYPSE!!!!!111!!
post #91 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightning Slim View Post

I think you handled it very well. Our lives are full of these negotiations with ourselves. You can't live with nothing but shrugs or nothing but confrontations.

 

Thanks. I've been pretty vocal about these issues for a while now, but it can be tricky navigating one-on-one situations with folks who disagree.

post #92 of 4673
Thread Starter 
On one hand, you've known the guy for twenty years and I think that counts for something when a subject like that comes up, so you could have said something. On the other hand, you've known the guy for twenty years, so you know how he is, but it was presumably late, and sometimes you just don't have the energy to have that conversation.

It's been a long time since I've had to have that conversation with someone because, frankly, there are some people who just do not exist in my circle of friends, even though I like to think I can get along with almost anyone. I may be in a different boat as I would generally begin and end with: Oh really? Well, I like men, women, and transgendered women. I'm sure you think that's strange. Good for you. I don't care.
post #93 of 4673

As I wrote, I've staked out my position pretty clearly with him in previous conversations. I truly think what he said was essentially him not thinking/forgetting that I'm no longer part of that world (he would consider himself an evangelical Christian; suffice it to say that I do not, whatever I do or don't believe on a given day).

 

My two biggest hesitations came down to these. First, his remark came at the end of a nearly 90 minute conversation, during much of which he patiently listened to my litany of woes and struggles, and offered non-judgmental encouragement and suggestions (some helpful, some not). So throwing down the outraged progressive card would've felt a bit like a sucker punch. Second, as I wrote above, I had some qualms about feeling like I was using my family member as a means to an end.

 

If it happens again, I may say something along the lines of, "I understand it made you uncomfortable. What you may not know is XX [he knows this family member of mine] has come out as pansexual, and it's hurtful for you to talk so dismissively of affection between two people. You might be surprised who has close friends or family members who don't identify as purely hetero, and I'd encourage you to consider your words before expressing heartfelt disgust at two gay people kissing."

 

Or I might just say, "Dude, not cool. It was a kiss between actors on a show featuring graphic disembowelment. Perhaps there are other things to be dismayed by."

post #94 of 4673
Thread Starter 
Sounds good to me. I wasn't judging your reaction, I mean how many people can extemporaneously deliver an on point rebuttal? My way of dealing with conflict is in short bursts and I've found that my disposition and tone (sometimes icy and blunt) tends to make those conflicts really, really brief. This doesn't mean that I've "won" or necessarily changed anyone's opinion, but I know for a fact that it makes people wary of my response in the future. To be 100% honest, sometimes that's all I want or care about.
post #95 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post

Sometimes I just want to take people like the woman that wrote that trash and drop them in Iraq, Syria or Ukraine and tell them "You want to fight injustice?  Go then, fight injustice."

It's fucked up how much liberals are more and more becoming like conservatives.  Only where conservatives go crazy over the bible, liberals have this unwritten and impossibly vague moral standard where being a straight white guy is the greatest evil in the whole fucking world.  I'm seriously over-generalising I know, but that does seem to be the growing trend seen online.  They're essentially becoming their own Thought Police.

I'm reminded of a FB conversation I had about tgis article recently...

http://www.reaxxion.com/6150/booth-babes-and-sexy-cosplayers-are-in-danger-of-being-completely-banned-from-events

Fear of the male gaze and freedom of self expression are at odds at time. So is my POV as a male and as a husband/father. Always good to have a conversation about it, but I hate the accusations that I'm a sexist pig because I wanna put the breaks on more rules.

I'm mixed on the original article. I tend to distrust alarmist thinking from groups, but also want conventions to be kid-safe and woman-safe. "Provocative dress is no excuse for sexual assault, but we better make sure we get rid of it just in case" is a near-mixed message. Objectification is a sticky subject, depending on who advocates/displays it.

As a dad I've chosen to wait till my daughter was 9 before bringing her to a con because of provocative or scary content and costumes. With that said, I am amused that this type of censorship shifted from far right to far left over the years (I'm right in the middle because logic). Comics Code Authority vs EC..... to this.

But I learned a new phrase... "slut-shaming".

It's weird living in a post-sexual-revolution era. The amount of flipflopping on what's culturally acceptable and encouraged. How Americans treat sexuality in general is strange. TV shows get away with plenty, and people love to enjoy it in the privacy of their DVRs, but then there needs to policy changes for necklines and hem lengths at pop culture related events? "Women, take back your sexuality! Gays, fight for your rights! But, please keep that stuff on shameful Reality television where it belongs. See ya there! And please, dont make me feel bad about myself because you get negative sexual attention and I dont.... Oh yeah, think of the children!"

But, like I said... internal conflict, hypocrisy, etc etc.

if_i_don__t_get_pants__nobody_gets_pants_by_theamat-d4rhdnz.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint View Post

One of the things as an outsider consuming a lot of American culture that I find strange is the hero worship that is bestowed on military service personnel. The mainstream 'trash' telly, like NCIS, Hawaii Five-0 etc paint those in uniform in almost god like terms. It's difficult to explain as a Brit, that I find it rather alarming.

I'm from a military family, I respect those guys and gals, sure. The level that it looks like though it's almost like a recruitment campaign. I look at the shows above and all I can think of is some poor kid in the Ozarks seeing that he'll get respect and love in a place and all he has to do is throw himself into the petro-chemical driven military meat grinder. And in reality, that just won't happen. He'll end up sitting in some hell hole surrounded by people who hate him, with no clear mission until he steps on a IED and is shipped back home and abandoned on disabilty to become one of the many vets wandering around downtown homeless with serious mental health issues.

Same thing doesn't happen with Doctors in mainstream medical dramas or Cops in detective shows. They're shown as corrupt, ineffective, impotent in horrific systems played against them all the time.

I feel this is more prevalent on TV (and 'normal' TV at that)... Hollywood seems to have more range.

Not quite sure if that's similar to what you are saying, but I find it a potential subtle bit of "They Live" control. smile.gif Maybe it's just me.

I work at Disney and this past week, drew a Middle Eastern oncologist who had moved his family ti Canada. He really wanted to get into it with me about how broken the American system is (especially medicine, due to his background). I have strong opinions, sit in the middle politically (depending on the issue), and can't/ shouldnt get into these types of conversations with guests, even if you agree (he had good points and I also distrust Big Pharm). But his biggest complaint was about inflated US military spending and involvement. He liked his Dr-themed picture and had me draw his kids afterwards.

The theme of his son's picture? Military. Driving a tank. The kid love's Call of Duty, Battlefront, Halo.
Edited by DARKMITE8 - 3/20/15 at 9:14am
post #96 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

Interestingly, my life has just coincided with the current topic of this thread. Sorry for the length of this post...

 

....

 

Was I being a coward? Was I right to feel protective about my family member? I wasn't sure then, and am not now.

 

Been there, done that. Honestly, the older I get, the more I appreciate old friends. The harder it is for me to casually meet people in social circles other than the office. You appreciate the company you keep as it gets harder and harder to build those friendships up.

 

I've read several social media tracts, especially with regards to feminism about 'not being a bro'. Basically, calling out your friend when they are being inappropriate. And yeah, I don't hang out with the kind of of guys who wolf whistle at ladies from their white vans, lynch gay people or burn crosses on interacial couple's lawns... but they all say inappropriate things at times. Pick a topic, muslims, gays, whatever. Everyone is 'problematic' about something at some time.

 

Do I get all confrontational and in their face about it? Not that often, no. Unless the topic at hand is encouraging that debate (in which case awesome!), I don't stop the flow of conversation and bring a light hearted chat about (for example a tv show) into a heavy lecturing and kill the mood. It just means people like that won't want to talk to you and you just shut yourself off more and more socially.

 

So yeah, I make sort of wry face, wave it off and say something non-comittal like "eh... I don't know about that..." Then move on quickly. Most people get the hint.

 

A proper liberal/conservative would tell you that if those people really think like that you should challenge their views or you shouldn't be their friend. But I don't measure my friendships purely by political or philosophical alignments. I don't think that makes me a coward, but I'm sure plenty of people would disagree.

 

But it's likely I'm not going to be friends with them... ;)

post #97 of 4673
Quote:

Originally Posted by flint View Post

 

Do I get all confrontational and in their face about it? Not that often, no. Unless the topic at hand is encouraging that debate (in which case awesome!), I don't stop the flow of conversation and bring a light hearted chat about (for example a tv show) into a heavy lecturing and kill the mood. It just means people like that won't want to talk to you and you just shut yourself off more and more socially.

 

So yeah, I make sort of wry face, wave it off and say something non-comittal like "eh... I don't know about that..." Then move on quickly. Most people get the hint.

 

A proper liberal/conservative would tell you that if those people really think like that you should challenge their views or you shouldn't be their friend. But I don't measure my friendships purely by political or philosophical alignments. I don't think that makes me a coward, but I'm sure plenty of people would disagree.

 

I emphasized part of your post. Yep. My three closest friends are ones I've had for a minimum of 20 years. (One I've known for 30 years.) We've all grown and changed; marriages, kids, divorces, remarrying. Job changes. Etc. And while none of us are in the exact same place, belief-wise, that we were in 1995, I've been the one to diverge the most significantly. Hard, far left on many social and poltical issues. Depending on the day, I'm an atheist, agnostic, or vaguely Christian. My friends have remained my friends, by their own choice, through all the growth and changes. And they put up with my shit to a remarkable degree, without trying to change me or make me feel bad. 

 

These are good guys, but they're unfortunately chained down in some crucial areas by the "logic" of what I consider faulty or just false belief systems or chains of assumptions. Thanks to CHUD and social media, I have a great community of friends who are much more like-minded, so I don't feel isolated or alone.

 

There are times and places for calling someone out on awful comments. And there are times and places for just turning away from it, either physically or verbally. It can be hard to know when, though.

post #98 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post


I'm reminded of a FB conversation I had about tgis article recently...

http://www.reaxxion.com/6150/booth-babes-and-sexy-cosplayers-are-in-danger-of-being-completely-banned-from-events

Fear of the male gaze and freedom of self expression are at odds at time. So is my POV as a male and as a husband/father. Always good to have a conversation about it, but I hate the accusations that I'm a sexist pig because I wanna put the breaks on more rules.

I'm mixed on the original article. I tend to distrust alarmist thinking from groups, but also want conventions to be kid-safe and woman-safe. "Provocative dress is no excuse for sexual assault, but we better make sure we get rid of it just in case" is a near-mixed message. Objectification is a sticky subject, depending on who advocates/displays it.

As a dad I've chosen to wait till my daughter was 9 before bringing her to a con because of provocative or scary content and costumes. With that said, I am amused that this type of censorship shifted from far right to far left over the years (I'm right in the middle because logic). Comics Code Authority vs EC..... to this.

But I learned a new phrase... "slut-shaming".

It's weird living in a post-sexual-revolution era. The amount of flipflopping on what's culturally acceptable and encouraged. How Americans treat sexuality in general is strange. TV shows get away with plenty, and people love to enjoy it in the privacy of their DVRs, but then there needs to policy changes for necklines and hem lengths at pop culture related events? "Women, take back your sexuality! Gays, fight for your rights! But, please keep that stuff on shameful Reality television where it belongs. See ya there! And please, dont make me feel bad about myself because you get negative sexual attention and I dont.... Oh yeah, think of the children!"

But, like I said... internal conflict, hypocrisy, etc etc.

if_i_don__t_get_pants__nobody_gets_pants_by_theamat-d4rhdnz.jpg
I work at Disney and this past week, drew a Middle Eastern oncologist who had moved his family ti Canada. He really wanted to get into it with me about how broken the American system is (especially medicine, due to his background). I have strong opinions, sit in the middle politically (depending on the issue), and can't/ shouldnt get into these types of conversations with guests, even if you agree (he had good points and I also distrust Big Pharm). But his biggest complaint was about inflated US military spending and involvement. He liked his Dr-themed picture and had me draw his kids afterwards.

The theme of his son's picture? Military. Driving a tank. The kid love's Call of Duty, Battlefront, Halo.

 

Interestingly, a lot of hostility toward their presence has come from men who feel like they're "fake geeks" infiltrating conferences and unfairly being treated as celebrities:

 

http://jezebel.com/5929026/the-myth-of-the-booth-babe

 

In addition, there have been some discussions focusing on whether booth babes are a bad business model:  http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/13/booth-babes-dont-convert/

 

Despite the article you linked to raising the alarm about pesky SJWs ruining everyone's fun, I think the predominant attitude toward booth babes among those communities is, "If they genuinely want to be there, good for them."  Are there people who regard them as exploitative?  Sure, but the majority of the concerns being raised - by men and women alike - relate to how the visibility of female geeks at these conferences can be increased when many of the male attendants focus solely on booth babes.  They want to be seen as equal participants, not just attractive diversions.  There isn't some vast progressive conspiracy to ban them from conferences, regardless of PAX's decision to revise its policy:

 

http://www.mygeekygeekyways.com/2015/03/fast-thoughts-on-progressive-effort-to.html

post #99 of 4673
Thread Starter 
What's funny about that WW cartoon is that Marston specifically designed her outfit to go against the conservative mores of the time. He wanted young readers to be confronted by the female body and be healthier for it.

WW was essentially created with the idea of providing young males with a figure that was strong and maternal yet unreservedly feminine (in the common cultural sense of the day) and comfortable in her femininity.

It's the reason that I, to this day, very much like her costume. Marston had unconventional ideas about feminism, but I liked that he seemed genuinely committed to those ideas. WW is quite a different thing than a 90's "bad girl" with twin machine guns and a metal thong. I don't think enough people understand this.
post #100 of 4673
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

What's funny about that WW cartoon is that Marston specifically designed her outfit to go against the conservative mores of the time. He wanted young readers to be confronted by the female body and be healthier for it.

WW was essentially created with the idea of providing young males with a figure that was strong and maternal yet unreservedly feminine (in the common cultural sense of the day) and comfortable in her femininity.

It's the reason that I, to this day, very much like her costume. Marston had unconventional ideas about feminism, but I liked that he seemed genuinely committed to those ideas. WW is quite a different thing than a 90's "bad girl" with twin machine guns and a metal thong. I don't think enough people understand this.

It also depends entirely on how WW is drawn and that really can make the difference for WW (and other female charaters) appear strong or exploited.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media