Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

With Ghostbusters I don't quite know what happened. SOMEONE, either the producers or actual fans, were parading it around... OR haters were parading it around... Someone was parading this thing because the movie really REALLY wasn't about feminism or anything.

But ultimately it all came down to one question: "Was it good?"... and the answer was kind of no.

And sometimes that is the only answer people need.

[Rolan7]

Yeah.  Though I'm not sure it's an "or" thing...  I think haters, fans, and maybe especially the producers were parading it around.
Like to be clear, I think the producers really latched onto the controversy as a way to increase sales...  And that's pretty scummy.
But I think after the "controversy" started, haters and supporters were really just building off each other.
And then the movie actually came out and it was meh.  Not even that awful, just meh.

I really don't see why the haters OR the supporters even cared much.  I mean, I passionately hate Other M, but that's specifically butchering an established character.  This was new characters.  The franchise was dead and also ludicrous (...much like Metroid), so who even cares about it being a "bad" Ghostbusters title.

[Neonivek]

You have to understand it from their perspective.

The Supporters remember a time when female representation was spotty at best and are desperate for a shift in Hollywood to the point where female protagonists is something that could be expected.

The Haters have to constantly endure this diatribe over and over about how sexist everything is and whenever something with even a small 'claim' of progressivism comes out it is either paraded like it is the greatest movie ever! OR it is still paraded as sexist anyway because no one is ever happy ever.

Still on Haters but another dimension: Not to mention this whole "Change it for the sake of progressivism" where absolutely nothing is sacred, it often sucks, and if you even question it your called out on it as if you committed a major sin... but that is ok because it is vaguely "progressive".

So basically the supporters are desperate to latch onto anything... and the Haters are desperately sick and tired of that attitude... OR they saw it as a very cheap attempt at "Progression" that is cheap and hallow and they are tired of it.

---

Frankly I dislike both those groups.

The supporters for being so easily placated that they will jump on anything... But also for being absolutely brainless and only accepting the veneer of progressivism and booing what came before blindly.

And the Haters for latching onto everything as some sort of attempt to be "Progressive".

Basically because both groups are stupid... and yeah I am not mincing words they are both stupid... which sucks because I feel like I am between them...

I really dislike "Pseudo-progressivism" ("I think we should make George Washington Chinese in this movie because there aren't enough Chinese Americans on TV" or "Look, she is wearing a suit, that means she is a progressive female character") AND I wish things were more progressive.

The new Star Trek movies are the best example of this. They have "Progressive Vanier" but they aren't progressive... But they are touted as so, because of that vanier.

[Rolan7]

K...  But it's kinda easy to ignore things one doesn't like.
I'm sorry the haters are so upset over a few exceptions in a sea of movies which subtly, obviously, or gratuitously push women as passive prizes like they expect.
It must be so hard for them??  Seems really thin-skinned to me.
I used to complain about it a lot, now I don't.  Doesn't mean I'm okay with it, just that I got bored of whining about it pointlessly.  Still going to vote with my dollars.

Again, the movie was pretty mediocre though.  Really not a good example (which is probably why they hyped up the controversy for extra sales).

[Neonivek]

Well Rolan7 that attitude is exactly the reason why the Haters exist in those numbers.

If it was just men who hate movies because women are in them or because there were men and now there are women... The numbers would be few.

But notice how your specific statement is: "Movies before Ghostbusters were bad, and Ghostbusters is more progressive now!... Cry more haters CRY!"

You are demonstrating exactly what sort of opposition CREATES the haters on mass... and that sentiment is everywhere! You get fists full of it every single time a TV show or movie has a woman...

Wait a minute... Women are being used as ways to get a piece of media to seem "progressive" regardless of their thoughts of feelings... Almost like they are being used as props or objects.
-Note: People have caught onto it. A big reason why some feminists are quick to point it out. Though it does often come off as "Complaining for the sake of complaining", but I appreciate the voice of dissent between the 50th essay on how Uhura is the most progressive woman alive because she is Spock's Girlfriend.

[Rolan7]

The attitude where I stopped actually arguing my case, and just voted with my wallet?

I know that the people who passionately hate GB2 thrive on arguments about this stuff.  In any such argument, a few progressives will say stupid things, which "justifies" all the hate.  So I decided it wasn't worth arguing...  Just act.

Just saying though, they're being crybabies over having almost everything cater to them.  Which is ironically what they call the other side - oversensitive crybabies.  It's pathetic.

[Neonivek]

Ohhh well I'll just assume someone else will know what I mean. Usually this is where I keep trying to make my point over and over again in a thin hope that I can make the person I am talking to understand what I mean (even if they disagree).

But I'll just assume for now.

[PTTG??]

What's really important isn't what people think or feel; it's that we use an extremely simple dichotomy created to be politically expedient for medieval nobility.

We need to disregard governmental competence, personal and professional ethics, respect for truth and science, and the laws and foundational documents of the nation, and this is because SJWs are trying to "tell me what to think" (actual quote). SJWs are omnipresent and unstoppable, more powerful even than my beloved patriarchal god.






[/s]

[Rolan7]

@Neonivek
Oh I know what you think I said:

But notice how your specific statement is: "Movies before Ghostbusters were bad, and Ghostbusters is more progressive now!... Cry more haters CRY!"

It's just unrelated to what I was saying.  How many times do I have to say Ghostbusters wasn't a good movie, or that it profited on manufactured controversy?
As for "Cry more haters CRY!", I disengaged.  I hope they grow up, but I haven't been baiting or debating them for a while now.
And then I share one heavily-mitigated opinion, and BAM I've supposedly justified their existence.  Nonsense.

I guess appeasement rarely works, though.

[Neonivek]

What's really important isn't what people think or feel; it's that we use an extremely simple dichotomy created to be politically expedient for medieval nobility.

We need to disregard governmental competence, personal and professional ethics, respect for truth and science, and the laws and foundational documents of the nation, and this is because SJWs are trying to "tell me what to think" (actual quote). SJWs are omnipresent and unstoppable, more powerful even than my beloved patriarchal god.

That... isn't as unreasonable a quote.

Remember they did want to make women protection laws that amount to "Get person behind bars first, THEN have them prove they didn't do it". So it isn't like this sentiment amounts to nothing. (though I'd probably tell them that people ALWAYS fight for those law changes when a tragedy happens. This is why we don't let victims or their loved ones sentence the presumed guilty... and it rarely happens UNLESS they are child protection laws... Seriously what is with child protection laws?)

They attribute it to SJWs and that is... Actually that wouldn't be entirely inaccurate I guess... though it would be stretching the definition.

I'd go one step further and say even IF they managed to pass that law... It would be turned down in supreme court just like all the other "Unfair social justice" laws (ignoring a few exceptions... but law is a process). Heck even Canada took down its "Child protection" Cyberbullying Law the moment it hit the supreme court.

To put it in perspective. Every time there is a big murder case in Canada and the criminal is punished... There is always a push to bring back the death penalty. Just one of those things that will happen, sort of like clockwork really. Sometimes something good comes from it, for example there are laws that state that police MUST take restraining orders seriously.

Oh I know what you think I said

You didn't say it in those exact words, but that is what they will take.

It doesn't matter WHAT else is in there... Language doesn't allow one to skirt aside a lot of the time... because you chose to antagonize them and create that opposition unwittingly.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

This is the Social Justice thread now. Accordingly, I will go on a rant regarding social justice.

Seriously, Reddit feminists on /r/Can'tRemember, what the hell? You just spent the last few years yelling at every person, man or woman, who didn't agree with the minutia of your philosophy. Then along comes a man who lists every detail of his philosophy, and nervously asks if you approve. You proceed to yell at him.

Why? Because he's looking for "gratification" or "pats on the back" from them. So we can't really know whether we meet your requirements, we just have to live with the possibility that we might be Literal Hitler. And of course, if we are Literal Hitler, the proper response is to insult us vitriolically.

And that's only one example of the Morton's Forks devised by these dastardly, devious demons. But there's another angle to this. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have yelled at this dude [quite as much] if he had been a woman. I'm pretty sure that these feminists find the worst possible interpretation of whatever a man does.

How is this any better from the scum of the MRA movement? I mean, yeah, it's not "structural oppression," but have you looked at what these feminists are saying? Some of them want a public, legally mandated and enforced, required, absence-punishable-by-death Day of Castration for all men. Have they no self-perception? Can they not see how similar this is to the reproductive rights movement? Bodily autonomy is a thing, and for men too.

[TheBiggerFish]

No.  They can't.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

And that reminds me of another problem I have with feminism.

It's a dogmatic tribe sometimes. If you disagree, you are a sexist.

This is true even when you have facts to back you up. If you say that a feminist is wrong, you are sexist.

This is true even when you are giving a review of a feminist. If you say that a feminist professor is Not The Best Professor Ever, you are clearly biased.

Now, of course, Not All Feminists. And this is Not As Bad As the outgroup. See those evil MRAs? They're even more dogmatic! But I'm not an MRA, and I'm not saying this to support a conclusion of "feminazis are evil, let's go rape all women now."

I am criticising feminism because I care about it. Because I have seen its scum in more detail than most other tribes. Because I don't want it to fail. Because I still consider myself to be a feminist.

This is why we need to self-police. Because otherwise, we will become a totally dogmatic tribe, and then women will suffer.

No.  They can't.

I guess they're simply an instance of an all-too-common type of person - they're just channeling their hatred through a more socially-acceptable movement.

[Neonivek]

Well... it isn't really about social justice >_> I was just trying to highlight where perceptions originated from and how they aren't exactly from superstition but from a rather natural cause and effect blown out of proportion (There is a fire... But they are like Gasoline... and what was once just a log burning in the woods is treated like a city destroying inferno). That the hatred against "SJWs" wasn't from nowhere and baseless... but can be scene as overblown and blanketed... Since just because you have a point, it doesn't mean you are right.

---

But... as for those specific Feminists. (And I am SERIOUSLY getting close to the point where I think we should retire that term... Because in many ways who doesn't qualify as a feminist? Even Donald Trump technically qualifies... and no I am not stretching the definition. So when it is used, what does it typically mean? Right it is someone labeling themselves as "Progressive" far too much. But alas that would be punishing Feminists and they are NOT responsible for every iteration of their philosophy)

Destroying dissent isn't anything unusual, not to mention creating an intentional outgroup to be not so much the scapegoat but the punching bag is VERY common as well.

Basically what is the opposite of a feminist? a man!
-Note: Because I have to be obvious... I mean in terms of how they constructed their group... Men are the polar opposite and what must be resisted.

Liberals have Conservatives...

It's a dogmatic tribe sometimes. If you disagree, you are a sexist

That... Ok... that is entirely fair... and I have a feeling feminists notice that as well. (Then again the Feminist groups are fighting one another for dominance... NO I am not joking. but that is a lot like any political party)

Though as I said... political groups polarize intentionally.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

Yet another rant.

Not As Bad As.

While I was pondering away on one of my walks one day, I considered the opaque mess that is high school romance. And I considered what I would do if somebody asked me out. Probably run away - but I might also feel guilty that I am letting them down.

"Aha!" thought I. "Is this not similar to what some girls might go through? I can now empathise better with the plight of the womenfolk." (Not really; I wasn't quite as ridiculous in my speech.)

But then I immediately felt a strong sense of shame, and a compulsion to add - "Not As Bad. My problems are Not As Bad as those girls."

Well, duh! First of all, they're actually being asked out and I'm not. Second, blah blah structural oppression and contextual blah. Yes. I know that. Not on the explicit-thought level, but on the conscious-background level.

And anyway, why does it matter? It's not like I'm going around and saying "I survived a thought experiment in which I was asked out, therefore sexism isn't really a problem." Why would I feel the need to say that?

After a few moments of pondering, the answer seemed obvious - because of my peers.

There is not a significant difference between "make a speech in your head" and "talk online to people." There's no such thing as interruption, so the minor difference between "headspeech" and "RLspeech" is gone. So it is quite plausible that the same policing tendencies might be present in both.

Why couldn't I say "this is similar to what girls experience" on Reddit without the qualifier of NAB? I can't really imagine how somebody could misinterpret it, but I'd bet a grand someone would. (If I had a grand, which I don't.)

But why is that necessary? If I have slipped on the ice and fallen on my posterior and hurt myself, I will say "ouch." I will say "we should clear this ice." I will get the salt. I will not say "but of course, this isn't as bad as poor John who sprained his ankle on the ice."

Well, it's necessary because some people seem to enjoy interpreting men in the worst light that they possibly can.

Since just because you have a point, it doesn't mean you are right.

What?? I kind of get the rest of your post, and I agree; also keep in mind that I was not responding directly to you. You probably inspired me, that's all.

Yes, this isn't just about social justice. This is a general problem for all groups. But social justice is something I know quite a bit about, and something that is getting general support.

Social justice in general has some bigger flaws than "some feminists are corrupt". Take, for instance, how any CEO/manager/whatsit who criticizes gay marriage gets pressure to resign. Take the mayor who accidentally seemed slightly racist, and subsequently resigned. Take the motte-and-baileys. We have some big problems, and they won't get fixed if criticism is suppressed.

A vote in favor of not-suppressing-criticism, and instead suppressing prejudice!