A conversation about conversations about bigotry

[Ryong]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Yeah sorry that latest Snakepost was more me ragin' against the vast majority of the opposing side's attitude in general back then, which happened to coincide well with your articulation of your own position on the Atlus thread that you made just now.

I don't think she'd listen. She hasn't before.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Mind you, I still disagree with the assertion that Liz has an 'awful approach' to the subject matter, I think Liz has generally been far more civil in recent discussions than she's been given credit for, but at least we can agree to disagree there.

Again, I didn't stay in the Atlus thread for long, but you've seen my initial reaction to that.

Given that my personal opinion has been taken for granted a few times, I'm not entirely sure how it actually matters.

[Grimpond]

Originally Posted by Ryong

I don't think she'd listen. She hasn't before.



Again, I didn't stay in the Atlus thread for long, but you've seen my initial reaction to that.

Given that my personal opinion has been taken for granted a few times, I'm not entirely sure how it actually matters.

If you didn't stay in the thread for long, then why do you feel comfortable judging what the thread was like?

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Ryong

I don't think she'd listen. She hasn't before.

Again, I didn't stay in the Atlus thread for long, but you've seen my initial reaction to that.

...You see, the way I interpret your assertions in this post is essentially:

1: You saw the "Boycott Atlus" thread was made, instinctively disagreed with the title.
2: You saw that Liz was the author of said thread, and instinctively assumed Liz was making irrational, angry arguments when she actually wasn't.
3: You ignored all the actual links Liz made to substantive points and ignored all the factual evidence Liz offered, and cherry-picked a few off-the-cuff statements Liz subsequently made out of frustration to reinforce said perception, and
4: You didn't stay long enough in the thread to read anything that would disprove your initial, flawed hypothesis.

If that's what happens every time Liz makes any kind of argument, it's no wonder she gets frustrated so easily. No one's actually reading anything she writes, they're just making assumptions about her content due to 'past incidents' from way back when, and reacting negatively based solely on those assumptions, which would be easily disproven if her arguments were actually being read.

[Ryong]

Originally Posted by Grimpond

If you didn't stay in the thread for long, then why do you feel comfortable judging what the thread was like?

Okay, those, what, 15 pages of people talking about het male gaze as "wait, this is a thing?" that I saw weren't indicators of the whole thread and it actually progressed? If so, I apologize for saying "the whole thread".

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

...You see, the way I interpret your assertions in this post is essentially:

1: You saw the "Boycott Atlus" thread was made, instinctively disagreed with the title.
2: You saw that Liz was the author of said thread, and instinctively assumed Liz was making irrational, angry arguments when she actually wasn't.
3: You ignored all the actual links Liz made to substantive points and ignored all the factual evidence Liz offered, and cherry-picked a few off-the-cuff statements Liz subsequently made out of frustration to reinforce said perception, and
4: You didn't stay long enough in the thread to read anything that would disprove your initial, flawed hypothesis.

If that's what happens every time Liz makes any kind of argument, it's no wonder she gets frustrated so easily. No one's actually reading anything she writes, they're just making assumptions about her content due to 'past incidents' from way back when, and reacting negatively based solely on those assumptions, which would be easily disproven if her arguments were actually being read.

I'll admit I did sigh and think "let's see what's this about" when the thread was made. And then I checked the links and made a post based on what I had seen from the issues mentioned, including doing a few google searches to try and find out what was wrong with one picture.

Then rpgdemon said some stupid things and Liz countered with what seemed like rather generic, all-emcopassing "het males are bad" points. Then you all saw my posts on that matter.

I am not attempting to be an ass or anything. I'm just annoyed that a lot of my posts are interpreted in the worst way possible and that I've gotten by quite a few "all x are y" arguments in my time here. No, my track record isn't exactly stellar, but I'm trying to fix that.

[Grimpond]

man, Liz's posts were anything BUT a simple "het male gaze is wrong." He gave reasons, and explanations, and links and shit.

EDIT: oh jesus christ. "I'm not trying to be an ass." Seriously? Like, that is what you're going with.

Really.

Oh, and you seem to be dismissing and or ignoring the fact that the male gaze is a real thing and a big fuckin problem.

[Bells]

Originally Posted by Grimpond

man, Liz's posts were anything BUT a simple "het male gaze is wrong." He gave reasons, and explanations, and links and shit.

She.

And some of us had trouble, or simply didn't fully understood or agreed with the extent of those reasons and explanations and were nearly castrated because of it.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Ryong

Then rpgdemon said some stupid things and Liz countered with what seemed like rather generic, all-emcopassing "het males are bad" points.

...
...*sigh*

EDIT: Summarizing Liz's argument as simply suggesting that "heterosexual males are bad" completely misses the point of everything substantive that Liz actually posted, and Bells' subsequent comment that suggests that he and other men were "nearly castrated" due to their mere disagreement with Liz in the context of a mere conversation strikes me as equally inappropriate and unnecessarily extreme a summation.

Both quotations appear to imply that Liz was hostile to the very idea that, for example, heterosexual men might find women attractive. (Putting aside how disturbing it is that this argument would be advanced in the context of a game that stars underage girls, and not all of you are in high school...)

...Liz was not the slightest bit hostile to that idea. That's a brazen misrepresentation of the argument of the existence of heterosexual male gaze in media in the first place, which is a lot more about how the media portrays and displays men and women on-camera and less a condemnation of the fact that heterosexual men, like nearly everyone else in the world (excepting asexuals, of course), have sex drives.

[Fifthfiend]

If I want a forum for bitching about NPF I have one.

It's called NPF.

[Marc v4.0]

Originally Posted by Bells

She.

And some of us had trouble, or simply didn't fully understood or agreed with the extent of those reasons and explanations and were nearly castrated because of it.

It is kinda what happens in a debate/discussion when you disagree against something without providing a coherent base for the disagreement back up with evidence and examples that aren't logical fallacies and dismissive derailment tactics. Your point gets torn to complete shreds, and repeated attempts to pick up a mallet and force it don't endear your viewpoint to anyone.

Like, yeah. I get if you don't understand terminology or specific things of that nature, but we all have google. Refusing to self-educate in even the least and then continuing to contribute to the thread anyway is a really really bad idea.

That you admit that you were taking part in the topic without any clarification and still took the debate to such an illogical maze of disruption and derailment really doesn't sit at all.

[Overcast]

You type a wall or I will be forced to advise therapeutic action.