[QUOTE=Thlis;45448558]So you consider John Ball to be racist because his books contain racist people?
John Ball being the writer of "In The Heat Of The Night"[/QUOTE]
Missing the point 101: Misconstruing the argument.
Having characters who are racist, sexist, homophobic, and sort forth in your work does not make you whatever that character is. The work itself being sexist, racist, etc. can, and most likely does, indicate the creator has those beliefs.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;45448740]What asinine rationale. Its on par with, in fact identical to, those who want works like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird banned for racist language. Yes they depict racism and bigotry but they're just that, depictions. They exist so as to make a more indepth and believable story. Look at just about any Tarantino work, they're filled with it, but its part of the reason they are considered such well done works. So in a work such as The Witcher where in the setting depicted misogyny is prevalant, depictions of misogyny go hand in hand.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45448764]So, obviously Stephen King has no problems with serial killers? I mean, if he did have a problem with them, he most certainly wouldn't write about them, would he?![/QUOTE]
Come on guys, this isn't a hard concept to grasp. A work containing depictions of racism or whatever are not actually being racist. A work that is created from a racist perspective however can be. A game with a character who strangles gay black women is not being racist, homophobic and whatever. A game that glorifies such behaviour however is probably racist or whatever.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;45448773]Missing the point 101: Misconstruing the argument.
Having characters who are racist, sexist, homophobic, and sort forth in your work does not make you whatever that character is. The work itself being sexist, racist, etc. can, and most likely does, indicate the creator has those beliefs.
Come on guys, this isn't a hard concept to grasp. A work containing depictions of racism or whatever are not actually being racist. A work that is created from a racist perspective however can be. A game with a character who strangles gay black women is not being racist, homophobic and whatever. A game that glorifies such behaviour however is probably racist or whatever.[/QUOTE]
It's funny that you say that I am missing the point when you are the one that is missing it.
You are arguing with people that are saying a work containing x does not mean the author is x.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;45448740]What asinine rationale. Its on par with, in fact identical to, those who want works like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird banned for racist language. Yes they depict racism and bigotry but they're just that, depictions. They exist so as to make a more indepth and believable story. Look at just about any Tarantino work, they're filled with it, but its part of the reason they are considered such well done works. So in a work such as The Witcher where in the setting depicted misogyny is prevalant, depictions of misogyny go hand in hand.[/QUOTE]
Of the same token, I guess 1984 endorses dictatorships and totalitarian societies.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45448404]well people who aren't racist don't go around doing and saying racist things. If they did, that would mean that they are racist. It's like how the act of murdering someone turns you into a "murderer," the term "murderer" becomes a valid descriptor of you when you murder somebody. That's what the word refers to.[/QUOTE]
And when a person writes about a murder/has a murderer in his story, it doesn't make him a murderer
it's obvious that someone that has sexism in their work isn't always sexist, but acting like that doesn't tell you anything about the author is silly
for example, you wouldn't blame john green for trying to give his characters more depth by giving them (psychological and physical) health issues, but you can totally call him out for glorifying those issues
[QUOTE=LurkyLurker;45447247]There's not much difference. Works are a reflection of their creators, and if a work contains misogyny than its creators are likely misogynist, unless misogyny is shown in an explicitly negative light of course.[/QUOTE]
You couldnt be more wrong, so is Dave Chappelle a racist? What about Quentin Tarintino? Is the guy who made The Boy in the Striped Pajamas anti-semetic? Damn Matt Stone and Trey Parker must be the most racist/sexist/prejudiced, all around just Hitlers then right?
How the fuck can you honestly believe what you said.
What qualifies glorification, though? It seems like one of those things which is firmly in the eye of the beholder.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;45449097]You couldnt be more wrong, so is Dave Chappelle a racist? What about Quentin Tarintino? Is the guy who made The Boy in the Striped Pajamas anti-semetic? Damn Matt Stone and Trey Parker must be the most racist/sexist/prejudiced, all around just Hitlers then right?
How the fuck can you honestly believe what you said.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry, LurkyLurker and SigmaLambda know that. They understand full well that the author of a piece of art can creating settings and storyline where the characters and scenarios held within do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the artist. They understand that sometimes artists will use good and bad people to evoke an emotional response within the audience and to progress the plot. They understand that sometimes artists will use these same characters to send a message, oftentimes contrary to the opinions held by the characters. They understand that sometimes artists will use these characters to create the impression of a realistic and flawed world where its inhabitants exhibit a wide range of opinions and motivations, just as they do in real life, without explicitly trying to create a a singular message. They're not that daft, I don't believe that for a second. They don't actually have such an utterly simplistic view of the world wherein everything is invariably to be taken at face value and that deeper analysis and (meta)context are not worth exploring when seriously attempting to criticize the flaws within a work at a post-elementary school level.
All they're trying is to do is get a rise out of us. All they're gonna do is respond to this post with pithy passive aggressive jabs or derisive misinterpretation or blatant ad-hominem (bonus points if they rate me funny.) Go to that "YourLogicalFallacy" website and they will go down the list and use every single one until they have exhausted their supply, and then they will start over. They're not gonna actually attempt to discredit what I'm saying with proof, analysis, or anything resembling a well-thought-out argument. They never have, and they never will. This is all they will ever do, and they will never aspire to be anything greater. That, or they actually, truly in their heart of hearts believe what they are saying, in which case I sorta pity them. Either way, they're really not worth your time. Hell, this paragraph in itself is a waste of time and it will be the last time I entertain discussion with users like SigmaLambda unless they can figure out how to behave like adults.
So go ahead. Prove me wrong. I dare you.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45443626]I think the best way to sum up Tropes vs. Women as a series is that even if it completely misses its intended target it's still definitely shooting in the right direction.[/QUOTE]
I think when you start comparing Mr and Ms Pacman to Adam and Eve and brining up pacman jr being born out of wedlock since Mr and Ms pacman arent married as a serious point that you are seriously coming off as a deterrent and hysterical person, one who doesnt give this type of thing a good image at all so more people will start to take all of the problems as a joke, because Anita herself is one big joke.
Like the Black Panthers as an extreme example, for a group and what they stood for was noble and on the right track, the extremist and radical shit they pulled was not at all and hurt the name and image of the entire party.
The panthers are now essentially a hate group and the name is tarnished forever, and I see very eery similaritys between the history of the panthers, and the crazy shit going on with this whole new wave internet feminism Anita is part of, as in there is so much hatred and vileness coming out of these supposed "feminist" that want equality.
But instead of hurting/torturing people, they crusade on social media and attack others while slandering there names/creations which in turn, makes people clump up all feminism in with these idiots, making the actual and important feminists who actually know what they are fighting for and actually want quality look bad.
Tropes vs Women is just that.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;45450034]I think when you start comparing Mr and Ms Pacman to Adam and Eve and brining up pacman jr being born out of wedlock since Mr and Ms pacman arent married as a serious point that you are seriously coming off as a deterrent and hysterical person, one who doesnt give this type of thing a good image at all so more people will start to take all of the problems as a joke, because Anita herself is one big joke.
Like the Black Panthers as an extreme example, for a group and what they stood for was noble and on the right track, the extremist and radical shit they pulled was not at all and hurt the name and image of the entire party.
The panthers are now essentially a hate group and the name is tarnished forever, and I see very eery similaritys between the history of the panthers, and the crazy shit going on with this whole new wave internet feminism Anita is part of, as in there is so much hatred and vileness coming out of these supposed "feminist" that want equality.
But instead of hurting/torturing people, they crusade on social media and attack others while slandering there names/creations which in turn, makes people clump up all feminism in with these idiots, making the actual and important feminists who actually know what they are fighting for and actually want quality look bad.
Tropes vs Women is just that.[/QUOTE]
I agree with Max, though. I think that it's a good start. It needs to start [I]somewhere[/I]. I just wonder how much greater it could have been if it was being handled with someone who actually understood videogames. I feel like most of her arguments are weakened because of her choice of games to pick on. She will regularly talk about a concept, while showing footage of a concept that superficially seems to be about what she's talking, but when examined with the rest of the game is totally against what her statement is. Other people in this thread have spoken about this better than I have.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45447565]No. A work containing misogyny, racism, etc says nothing about the creator other than the fact that they wrote misogyny, racism, etc.[/QUOTE]
I don't know anything about this forum but judging from the average age in Fast Threads I'd have assumed most of you would have at least taken a basic literary analysis class.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;45450114]I agree with Max, though. I think that it's a good start. It needs to start [I]somewhere[/I]. I just wonder how much greater it could have been if it was being handled with someone who actually understood videogames. I feel like most of her arguments are weakened because of her choice of games to pick on. She will regularly talk about a concept, while showing footage of a concept that superficially seems to be about what she's talking, but when examined with the rest of the game is totally against what her statement is. Other people in this thread have spoken about this better than I have.[/QUOTE]
The thing is, Anita didnt start anything, she wasnt the first to talk about sexism in video games, you know what shes like? Shes like a Snookie, a lot of people know who she is, but shes really nothing but trash or of use.
Of course it would be great if someone had Anitas viewcount but was actually smart and did good videos. What Anita does is NOT good though, its not good to call devs and games misogynist and sexist, because first of all its not true, and secondly it really lessens the seriousness of those words, you can already tell how apparent serious and heavy words losing all meaning and context by just reading some of the idiots in this thread who like to throw them around whenever.
None of that is good and hurts this entire thing more than it helps. So since Anita never started this type of talk, or movement, or anything really except making 5 youtube videos on games that end up making the entire issue seem like a big joke by some crazy person, she actually never started anything in the first place.
I have seen countless people turned off of all types of talks involving this shit just because of people like Anita, both on the internet and people I know in real life, just because whatever you are doing brings some issue to light does not mean what you are doing is good, you are turning away people from wanting to be more involved with these issues because they dont wanna be involved with hysterics like Anita.
[QUOTE=Sailor Mars;45450165]I don't know anything about this forum but judging from the average age in Fast Threads I'd have assumed most of you would have at least taken a basic literary analysis class.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how that would change anything. There's a fundamental difference between writing a character like Duke Nukem, who is deliberately and obviously sexist, and the fact that Tolkien's work repeatedly has the decidedly pale good guys prevailing over the dark skinned hordes of evil.
Namely, one is a conscious decision which doesn't reflect the attitudes of the author, and the other is an unconscious decision which does.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45450282]I'm not sure how that would change anything. There's a fundamental difference between writing a character like Duke Nukem, who is deliberately and obviously sexist, and the fact that Tolkien's work repeatedly has the decidedly pale good guys prevailing over the dark skinned hordes of evil.
Namely, one is a conscious decision which doesn't reflect the attitudes of the author, and the other is an unconscious decision which does.[/QUOTE]
No-one cares about the attitudes of the author, you never look at the attitudes of an author, that's basic English 101.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45450282]I'm not sure how that would change anything. There's a fundamental difference between writing a character like Duke Nukem, who is deliberately and obviously sexist, and the fact that Tolkien's work repeatedly has the decidedly pale good guys prevailing over the dark skinned hordes of evil.
Namely, one is a conscious decision which doesn't reflect the attitudes of the author, and the other is an unconscious decision which does.[/QUOTE]
How are a bunch of made up races like hobbits/dwarfs kicking mythological dark skinned orcs ass or whatever that are born from the ground an unconscious decision that apparently mirrors real life racism?
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45450282]I'm not sure how that would change anything. There's a fundamental difference between writing a character like Duke Nukem, who is deliberately and obviously sexist, and the fact that Tolkien's work repeatedly has the decidedly pale good guys prevailing over the dark skinned hordes of evil.
Namely, one is a conscious decision which doesn't reflect the attitudes of the author, and the other is an unconscious decision which does.[/QUOTE]
Sorta offtopic, but check out the book [I]The Last Ringbearer[/I]. It's about LOTR as told from the side of Sauron, and it's approached as a case of history being written by the victors. It approaches that theme of racism in his books quite a bit.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;45450300]How are a bunch of made up races like hobbits/dwarfs kicking mythological dark skinned orcs ass or whatever that are born from the ground an unconscious decision that apparently mirrors real life racism?[/QUOTE]
The pig is supposed to be Stalin? What the fuck?
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;45450300]How are a bunch of made up races like hobbits/dwarfs kicking mythological dark skinned orcs ass or whatever that are born from the ground an unconscious decision that apparently mirrors real life racism?[/QUOTE]
He drew the races from real-life ones, though. Tolkien even admitted himself "The dwarves of course are quite obviously - wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic."
He bought race into the discussion himself, so it's totally fair to wonder whether or not the bad guys being dark skinned was an intentional choice or at least an unintentional unconscious reflection of his own hidden feelings towards the races.
I mentioned before that it's foolish to assume that in order to have racist, sexist, etc. themes in a book you must invariably be racist, sexist, etc. I also think that it's foolish to assume that it never happens. And there's a pretty good case for Tolkien's works being racist given the historical and literary context.
[QUOTE=Sailor Mars;45450331]The pig is supposed to be Stalin? What the fuck?[/QUOTE]
what
[editline]20th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;45450368]He drew the races from real-life ones, though. Tolkien even admitted himself "The dwarves of course are quite obviously - wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic."
He bought race into the discussion himself, so it's totally fair to wonder whether or not the bad guys being dark skinned was an intentional choice or at least an unintentional unconscious reflection of his own hidden feelings towards the races.[/QUOTE]
Didnt realize that but it sounds more like an inspirational/commentary type of thing and less of a racist type of thing. If hes comparing his Dwarves to Jews because of the way they talk then there isnt anything wrong of that at all. Plus thats a pretty bold thing to think as well with the bad dark skinned being killed by white guys being a reflection of his own supposed racism.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;45450369]what
[editline]20th July 2014[/editline]
Didnt realize that but it sounds more like an inspirational/commentary type of thing and less of a racist type of thing. If hes comparing his Dwarves to Jews because of the way they talk then there isnt anything wrong of that at all. Plus thats a pretty bold thing to think as well with the bad dark skinned being killed by white guys being a reflection of his own supposed racism.[/QUOTE]
Also consider that a major point in the books is the dwarves being so greedy for gold that it resulted in the downfall of their great subterranean civilization. And it may be bold to assume what his state of mind may be, but I think it's still a fair thing to discuss given the context.
All that aside, the LOTR is still a great work that people should read regardless. It's at no point intended to be actually racist, that much is certain given Tolkien's quotes on the matter or if you judge the book entirely by itself. The discussion is merely about speculating on the unconscious forces that influenced Tolkien. It doesn't automatically make TLOTR racist slander that should be burned. Its main themes are about the power of love over evil and how all the different races are at their strongest when unified instead of separated. A major theme in all three books that stretchs far back into the histories of The Silmarillion is that of the Dwarves and the Elves overcoming their racist tensions to become friends, given the moments between [url=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7333627/pics/LOTRGaladrielGimli.png]Legolas, Gimli, and Galadriel[/url]. This much is apparent if you at least watch the movies. It's just good-old-fashioned literary analysis.
[QUOTE=Sailor Mars;45450297]No-one cares about the attitudes of the author, you never look at the attitudes of an author, that's basic English 101.[/QUOTE]
As an English student I can tell you that we always look at the attitudes of the author under "contextual factors". Granted, there are theorists that claim texts should be disassociated from their authors but every English course that's worth its salt examines contextual factors. That's basic English 101.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;45450114]I agree with Max, though. I think that it's a good start. It needs to start [I]somewhere[/I]. I just wonder how much greater it could have been if it was being handled with someone who actually understood videogames. I feel like most of her arguments are weakened because of her choice of games to pick on. She will regularly talk about a concept, while showing footage of a concept that superficially seems to be about what she's talking, but when examined with the rest of the game is totally against what her statement is. Other people in this thread have spoken about this better than I have.[/QUOTE]
I think one of the better people who've tackled and spoken about this issue was Adam Sandler and Tara Long in a much more constructive manner.
Tara's presentation about youtube comments alone outlines the issue perfect, especially when it comes to women gamers.
[QUOTE=Swilly;45451339]I think one of the better people who've tackled and spoken about this issue was [B]Adam Sandler and Tara Long[/B] in a much more constructive manner.
Tara's presentation about youtube comments alone outlines the issue perfect, especially when it comes to women gamers.[/QUOTE]
...Wait, what? I'm gonna need a link to that because I can't find anything.
he probably means Adam Sessler
That would make a bit more sense, now that I think about it.
I was drunk, sorry about that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.