Discussion in 'Literature' started by CooperTFN, Sep 2, 2012.
aaaaaaaaand we're back to square one.
Hey, no one said it was going to be easy.
Good thing nobody's asking for that. Said everyone in this thread. For the 100th time.
You can like Arkham City, that's fine. You don't have to feel guilty about it. Here's the broader point:
1) Assuming that everyone likes the same things that you do is demonstrably wrong.
2) Your personal feelings are no more important than anyone else's.
Can I add that an observation that the media that you consume is harmful to or negatively portrays [insert group in question here] is not a personal attack or an attempt to guilt trip you into doing anything.
I should point out I don't know how this relates to Arkham City or Gone a Home, as I've never played either.
Only white people can act -- if you cast a black person it's not because they can actually act it's AFFIRMATIVE ACTION or something. I think?
No less so though.
See now you've gone and ruined it. You had people (including me) convinced before that you were genuinely this loopy bigot with no self awareness.
Alas, not anymore. You've over egged the pudding with this one. The jig is up, amusing/horrifying as it was while it lasted.
I think we have established by now that if you leave someone like me to their own devices, what you get is this guy
flirting with a redhead in a catsuit in between gunfights, on the grounds we think that is the coolest thing in the world. So if you are looking at something different something has happened. Now, should you find that on balance, you enjoyed the brown haired guy flirting with the redhead more than the new thing, you get guilt.
Yeah, pretty much. If left to your own devices, you'd be a hotlinking error message.
I have no idea what you're attempting to say.
To be honest, I'm still unsure that there is an actual problem here, beyond what has already been identified in previous years and generations of the civil rights movement. While this thread has helped to broaden my horizons regarding trans issues, it has yet to provide a satisfactory example of the need for and proper application of "_____ privilege." To put it another way, how about all you brave SJWs out there agree to stop trying to dissect and micromanage first-world problems and actually do some research into how we can improve the overall situation for humans everywhere?
Of course, before we can do that, we need to address the gargantuan equality gap between rich and poor, which IMHO will allow for more people to actually have the time and energy to care about such issues, never mind doing anything about them. The middle class, which has been the traditional spawning pool for social justice movements throughout history, is being squeezed out of existence by the corporate fat cats and the super-wealthy.
Alright, I have to ask, not because I disagree, but I simply don't understand, in what sense are the Brocks established to be POC? Based on Lanoree's picture? I haven't finished Into the Void ( ).
I think the problem here is that everyone has a voice. And because everyone has a voice, on the internet, they're going to shout whatever thing they're currently stuck on as loud as they can, and just generally come off as terrible people. And people hijack a cause and make the cause look bad for others.
I have no problem with the usage of cis- as a prefix. It's just that when the popular usage of cis seems to be "DIE CIS SCUM!" or general telling off that your opinion doesn't matter because you were born a certain way. And because of that cis- starts looking like a slur. But it's new, so it's confusing and unsettling. In a scientific situation where it seems to be used often, it makes complete sense and could actually be used effectively, and I think in general discussion it can and should be used much the same way. I think there's hyperbole on all sides going on, and that people should just chill in general. I don't think preface to a discussion should include a laundry list of how your life has been negatively affected.
I don't like how privilege is being thrown around though. There's such a wide range of factors that go into shaping who a person is that assigning them 'white privilege' seems narrow-minded. Society affects everyone on different levels in different ways.
Man, if anyone thinks Coop (or I) are "SJWs," I hope they never, ever meet the real thing. Or maybe I do. ::shrug::
well, I mean it's an etymologically unsound term that was created as a supposed antonym to transgender, except that it makes no sense when used that way. Trans has more than one meaning, and transgender does NOT mean "across/far gender" such that cisgender would be an accurate antonym (near gender? gender on the same side? and from whose perspective?). I mean, I suppose the sense is that if transgender means the gender is on the opposite side as sex, then cisgender would mean that the gender is on the same side as sex but it just seems to inhibit clear understanding.
It's also rather unnecessarily Otherizing, which is kind of silly because when have more Others ever been productive in bridging a cultural divide? At best, it's an attempt to put the shoe on the other foot but that's probably not coming from the right place. Like, perhaps it can theoretically help people examine privilege except it's so antithetical to the normal experience that I'm not sure how it functions as a correct mechanism.
It also, as demonstrated by this whole discussion we've been having, needly obfuscates the terms of the discussion. Jargon should only be used when it's helpful, and I don't see "cisgender" really helping. The term doesn't bother me per se, it's just a silly made up word that's unhelpful in addressing the problems transgender people face.
At least imo.
I'm trying so very hard to be progressive. I just can't win.
To be fair, Cooper did ascribe it to himself in an earlier post (ironically, probably) and yes, for the purposes of this discussion I did tend to use it in a derogatory sense. I quite like Cooper and his stances on the issues I consider important, and rarely if ever have I disagreed with him to any significant degree. So no, I don't think he's an SJW.
As for you, Dunc, I haven't seen your take on things yet...
More ironic than not, but ultimately I'm indifferent to whether people consider me one. I hadn't even heard the term until a week or so ago when it came up in here.
As far as I understand it, "cisgender" only exists in the popular consciousness to be a band-aid over the word "normal". As in, "I'm not trans, I'm normal". Which was seen as fairly otherizing itself insofar as it tacitly calls trans persons abnormal. In any event, it's hardly the most etymologically sloppy term to become popular.
Yeah, basically just the Insider pic and the cover of ItV (which, in fairness, is a little more ambiguous). There could be a text thing somewhere in the book but I didn't notice if so.
I remember a lesson in sociology class in college, where we were discussing variables in studies being field-dependent and field-independent, and how that can shape the data and the conclusions that one can draw from it. Now, this was a class in which I was earning consistently good grades, even though I would spend the better part of each class in some sort of torpor (wearing one's winter coat in an overheated classroom can do that), and this happened to be a discussion that I was halfway awake for. So, me being me, as the terms were outlined I said "But what's really going to bake your noodle later on is, how do you label the two without making one seem better than the other?"
The rest of the students had a good chuckle at that, and we spent the rest of the lesson trying to come up with just that.
So, Captain America: The Winter Soldier had a pretty good diversity score. And when are we getting a Black Widow movie?
In that case, what would she be? I guess I'm either one of those people that assumes white until proven otherwise (as seen with Jan in Outcast), or my conception of POC is not quite the same as it should be? I ask because I am a white guy, but I guess I could be taken as a POC unless I'm just completely insensitive to this sort of thing? Dark hair, dark eyes, dark complexion. Pretty similar to Jacen in my avatar if I shun natural light. I know I've been mistaken for Latino before, and probably Arabic/Persian as well.
I would say she's definitely in the ambiguous range, along the lines of Antares Draco--but short of dragging a statement out of Tim Lebbon (and even then, authorial intent doesn't necessarily translate to canon) it's next to impossible to pin down an exact "race" for them. But given that the Insider pic was probably produced long after the novel cover, it strikes me as an overt attempt to make things less ambiguous, not more.
It has the green light from the studio so I'm betting it's in pre-production right now. It seems like Marvel isn't screwing around with getting their films out in waves and setting up situations where actors can take breaks or even leave the franchises, so I suspect we'll hear more at the summer conventions.
To be honest, I'd be way more excited for a Captain Marvel (meaning Carol Danvers) movie in Phase Three than Black Widow. They're welcome to do both, of course, but let's not hold our breath on that one.