Print

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

[Vector]

The question then becomes:  Do you value watching people like yourself over equality for other people?

Nope. But I sure will watch people like myself if I believe doing so does no harm to others.

And here, folks, we have now demonstrated why arguing on the internet does indeed have an effect.  Awareness.  After a certain point, it is no longer just about the argument at hand, but demonstrating that there is a different point of view to be had.

[Criptfeind]

I am cynical enough to say that telling others your thoughts matters not if they dismiss it out of hand.

Obviously if you believe differently, almost hilariously, that means that you think internet arguments are worth it because they are worth it and I think they are not because they are not.

Trust me, it was funny in my head.

[Erkki]

So, well, here's how it is.  I don't have the energy for this anymore.  I just don't.  I slept four hours last night so that I could get up and study my math, and I don't have the energy to argue with every single person who ends up disparaging me by accident, or as a joke, or simply because they don't share my opinions.  The fact that I am here arguing, day after day, night after night, with an onslaught of different "offenders" is once again a matter of privilege.

What for? For yourself as an individual, your gender, or the people sharing your thoughts? It is your privilege to to be able and to do so if you so wish, but I don't see why. You are not going to change people's opinions.

You dont sleep enough. Whatever it is you are pursuing with your current way of life, it is not doing any good to you. Life is about the road, the journey, not the destination.

I dont watch TV myself, and movies only rarely, maybe once a month. I enjoy walks, hiking and kayaking more. I do not agree with a lot of things in the society and the culture I live, but I am more happy this way than fighting the tide. Many disagree, and I agree to disagree with most of them. But I too have my unbroken principles.

The question then becomes:  Do you value watching people like yourself over equality for other people?

I for one dont. What they are associated with usually brings some initial but often not lasting interest, though.

EDIT: as janet in the sad thread:

People don't really need to "Contribute" anything. All that's really important is that they can find some happiness in their lives.

I sure dont get my kicks arguing over anything, even in the internet.

[Heron TSG]

No, I don't defend my position until the weight of the opposition forces me to change.  I defend my position until I can see that I am wrong, because one of the things we students of mathematics are taught to do is, indeed, to attack and rethink our own positions as violently as we attack anyone else's, and to instantly give them up or change them once we have seen their flaws.

Well, you're a better person than I.

Reviling the concept of diversity and equality in media is a damaging strategy.  Period.  End of story.

Nobody is reviling diversity, I'm just saying that it feels cheapened when it's forced. There's been a drive as of late to have at least one token minority character for every minority in every show when it really isn't all that necessary, and can at times harm the narrative flow. (Those 'very special episodes' in kid's shows are a prime example.)

Once again: pay attention to your language, please.

Right-o. Here's what I meant to say. 'Playing' is one of those ambiguous verbs for me. For example, 'playing' a sorcerer in D&D denotes that your character is a sorcerer, and thus with proper roleplaying you are a sorcerer in the context of the game. I forgot about all those other meanings. Sorry, I talk odd when not slept long time.

If it makes you feel any better, Vector, you do a darn good job of playing being the heroine of every argument you get in to. People generally agree with you because you pick the 'right' options to support. When you get into something this sticky and ambiguous, peoples' opinions vary wildly. Your opinions on this matter are noted, and they are digested and contemplated. However, I do not agree with all of them.

Do they agree with me because I pick the right options, or because I actually espouse those opinions?

Both, I'd say. You stand up for the right options, and do so very vocally.

The question then becomes:  Do you value watching people like yourself over equality for other people?

Nope. But I sure will watch people like myself if I believe doing so does no harm to others.

I place no value in whether the person is akin to myself. Equality is hard to judge, though. In general I prefer to watch characters that interest me. Who these people are exactly isn't really definable. I get just as much enjoyment out of Steve Urkel as I do Captain Picard.

[Criptfeind]

I get just as much enjoyment out of Steve Urkel as I do Captain Picard.

Obviously the answer from my prospective is consider you a exact cross between Steve Urkel and Captain Picard.

Edit: I just looked up who Urkel is. Shockingly, I already think of you like that.

[Vector]

If you're going to come in here just to say "you aren't changing anyone's opinion," please don't.  It kind of makes it a lot harder to change anyone's opinion.  I'm privileged because I have an ability to speak and broadcast my thoughts in this way, unlike folks who, say, aren't attached to the internet, or didn't receive enormous amounts of education, or were never exposed to these theories.

Also, I'd prefer it if you didn't hassle me about my sleep schedule.  I'm happy with my life the way it is, and part of that means occasionally sleeping a little bit less than is healthy.

People don't really need to "Contribute" anything. All that's really important is that they can find some happiness in their lives.

I sure dont get my kicks arguing over anything, even in the internet.

You are currently arguing, like it or not, that I should be quiet and stop arguing.

No.  I refuse.

Reviling the concept of diversity and equality in media is a damaging strategy.  Period.  End of story.

Nobody is reviling diversity, I'm just saying that it feels cheapened when it's forced. There's been a drive as of late to have at least one token minority character for every minority in every show when it really isn't all that necessary, and can at times harm the narrative flow. (Those 'very special episodes' in kid's shows are a prime example.)

That makes sense.  What I'll add, though, is I suspect that with this wave of forced political correctness, we'll start getting more "honest" narratives out there, possibly written (gasp) by the marginalized groups themselves as media scrambles to actually, I don't know, start producing something watchable.  We're producing a lot of crap, but then we've always produced rather a lot of crap >_>

I agree with you, however, that the inbetween step is bloody horrible.

[Heron TSG]

Spoiler: The Horror! (click to show/hide)

Aye, it is the gems in the rough that will one day be the foundation for (hopefully) a lot more watchable media. As it is you have to cherry-pick the good examples, but one day I hope the situation will be reversed. It's going to take some doing, though. As many have stated, the media isn't out there to produce something watchable, it's out there to produce something that will make money. Society will just have to change to the point where so many people refuse to watch their shows that they can only make money by producing bearable media.

[Erkki]

If you're going to come in here just to say "you aren't changing anyone's opinion," please don't.  It kind of makes it a lot harder to change anyone's opinion.  I'm privileged because I have an ability to speak and broadcast my thoughts in this way, unlike folks who, say, aren't attached to the internet, or didn't receive enormous amounts of education, or were never exposed to these theories.

Also, I'd prefer it if you didn't hassle me about my sleep schedule.  I'm happy with my life the way it is, and part of that means occasionally sleeping a little bit less than is healthy.

I sure dont get my kicks arguing over anything, even in the internet.

You are currently arguing, like it or not, that I should be quiet and stop arguing.

No.  I refuse.

Not to argue with you. To wake you up.

If you're going to come in here just to say "you aren't changing anyone's opinion," please don't.  It kind of makes it a lot harder to change anyone's opinion.  I'm privileged because I have an ability to speak and broadcast my thoughts in this way, unlike folks who, say, aren't attached to the internet, or didn't receive enormous amounts of education, or were never exposed to these theories.

So as better educated you are, at least in your opinion, more ready to form more correct opinions and spread them? Now excuse me, I shouldn't come here and tell you you're making ridicule of yourself, because I am presumably (and admittedly) less educated?

If you've consciously chosen the way of life you are "happy with", then why did you even mention your 4 hours sleep(I see you do that often), why do you keep mentioning how you are privileged to study Mathematics? Who you are does not make you a better person, to me. Someone who feels the need to give out his or her apparent and clear superiority to the rest of us forumites gets my pity, not jealousy.

While I'm at it, I apologize for my lack of education in English and all the typos and uses of wrong words and screwed up word order. Maybe I should study it some more or get a degree before I can start doing this expression and discussion on opinions, aka arguing.

Not that I wouldn't agree with you on the actual topic of this thread. I do.

Aye, it is the gems in the rough that will one day be the foundation for (hopefully) a lot more watchable media. As it is you have to cherry-pick the good examples, but one day I hope the situation will be reversed. It's going to take some doing, though. As many have stated, the media isn't out there to produce something watchable, it's out there to produce something that will make money. Society will just have to change to the point where so many people refuse to watch their shows that they can only make money by producing bearable media.

Society will change? Doesnt happen even my dreams. 

[Heron TSG]

Yes. Society will change. 50 years ago, homosexuality was incredibly taboo. Now a (very slight) majority of people support homosexual legal unions and marriages. So too will this change. We just have to keep pushing.

[Erkki]

Yes. Society will change. 50 years ago, homosexuality was incredibly taboo. Now a (very slight) majority of people support homosexual legal unions and marriages. So too will this change. We just have to keep pushing.

Hope you're right. We have parliamentary elections here later this month, and one nationalist, populistic party has increased its popularity from 8% to closer to 25% during the last 4 years - they're doing their everything to stop the change. No to homosexualism, immigrants, EU, NATO, religions other than Christianity and probably also white bread, as it comes from France or something, and using brains.

[Aqizzar]

I don't have a whole lot to add to this, but I would like to respond to Vector's insistence in the lack of strong female roles in television.  I won't deny that positive female leads are a bit hard to find in TV, but I think you might have too narrow an experience.  How often do you watch trash prime-time sitcoms?  Everybody Loves Raymond, King of Queens, Two and a Half Men, just to name the largely successful ones, nevermind the legions of shit most people here would never think to watch.

In every single one of them I can think of, the only negative character traits ever attached to the main female characters are maybe a harshness of attitude.  But across most of mainstream television, it's essentially taboo to overtly make fun of any one woman or women in general, except for token stuff like shopping that's been run into the ground anyway.  I don't know when it started or exactly why, but it's hard to find a prime-time prime-network television show, sitcom or crime drama or anything else really, where the female characters of any establishment aren't intelligent, rational, courteous, and put-upon, while their male co-stars (more often main stars) are at best idiosyncratic and flawed, or meat-headed schlubs lucky to have the company (and no really explicable reason).

I certainly wouldn't deny that there's a problem in that.  If anything, the trend I can see in television of almost all stripes is the female characters are largely empty, devoid of negative traits but possessing only the most general of positive ones as well, and more often defined by their professions or role in the story than by their own personalities.  If nothing else, being set-dressing is better than an object of gratuity or ridicule, but it's still a shame and a crime against good writing to be sure.  I can think of TV franchises that had well-developed female characters, but there's not many and that fact itself is part of what made them so memorable.  But I still wouldn't say that mainstream television depicts women negatively.


As for "diversity" of races and genders in media in general, they are more than just physical characteristics.  Bemoaning a lack of female characters or black or whatever is not the same thing as bemoaning a lack of tall people.  We recognize the presence or lack of different races and genders in a story, precisely because race and gender have such wide ramifications in the real world, that two characters identical in all ways except race or gender tell two subtly but fundamentally different stories, at least to anyone who sits back and tries to imagine the backstory.  (That said, I do object to characters who would never have fit into historical narratives - the abundance of single token black characters in WW2 movies grates me every time).

And I'm all for pointless, never-commented-on diversity in children's programming.  Why?  Because blase non-issue of diversity is a good thing to teach people while they're impressionable, and it costs the story nothing to change up the characters a bit.

[Vector]

Aye, it is the gems in the rough that will one day be the foundation for (hopefully) a lot more watchable media. As it is you have to cherry-pick the good examples, but one day I hope the situation will be reversed. It's going to take some doing, though. As many have stated, the media isn't out there to produce something watchable, it's out there to produce something that will make money. Society will just have to change to the point where so many people refuse to watch their shows that they can only make money by producing bearable media.

Yeah.  I think I'm just trying to say "Well, guys, I'm pushing for political correctness, fail as it is, because the alternative is even more failtacular and I can see us getting a lot of good out of it soon."  I hate the stereotyped narratives as much as anyone else, but really, if someone said "Would you rather have the knight always be male, or could it be female sometimes but we'll make a big deal out of it and undermine the character anyway?" I'd probably say "Well, if I had to pick one and only one, I'm going to go with door 2."

*sigh*

It's pretty annoying, though, I'll give you that.

So as better educated you are, at least in your opinion, more ready to form more correct opinions and spread them? Now excuse me, I shouldn't come here and tell you you're making ridicule of yourself, because I am presumably (and admittedly) less educated?

If you've consciously chosen the way of life you are "happy with", then why did you even mention your 4 hours sleep(I see you do that often), why do you keep mentioning how you are privileged to study Mathematics? Who you are does not make you a better person, to me. Someone who feels the need to give out his or her apparent and clear superiority to the rest of us forumites gets my pity, not jealousy.

While I'm at it, I apologize for my lack of education in English and all the typos and uses of wrong words and screwed up word order. Maybe I should study it some more or get a degree before I can start doing this expression and discussion on opinions, aka arguing.

Not that I wouldn't agree with you on the actual topic of this thread. I do.

I'm educated, which means that I can speak in a way that other people consider "intellectual" and "good" much of the time.  It doesn't mean that what I say is true or better.  That's what privilege is.  I say something, and it is automatically weighted more heavily because I have a large vocabulary and speak English as my native language.  I know about this because there was a period when I didn't communicate very well, and people mostly ignored everything I had to say or accused me of being on drugs.

If you're trying to say that I'm expressing superiority by mentioning my studies in mathematics and my sleepiness, well... okay.  I'm happy with my life, mostly, but it has its drawbacks.  I prefer this mode of living to others, but it still has issues and I still complain about it.  I discuss math because I enjoy math.  I don't think that those who study mathematics are better than other people.  At all.  I may get along with them better most of the time, all of us tending towards similar personalities and so on, but unlike most of the people I've spoken to in technical departments I don't think math = better than everyone else.  And again: holding those opinions doesn't make me someone who has greater fundamental value as a human being.

Mathematics is a tool that should be used responsibly, though.  Like language.  Which is currently what we're all arguing about, in general: good and proper use of language.

If anything, the trend I can see in television of almost all stripes is the female characters are largely empty, devoid of negative traits but possessing only the most general of positive ones as well, and more often defined by their professions or role in the story than by their own personalities.

Right--that's why I can't call them strong female leads.  Because they aren't strong, dynamic characters who have a story to tell, they're foils to make the men look dumb =/

[fqllve]

I don't have a whole lot to add to this, but I would like to respond to Vector's insistence in the lack of strong female roles in television.  I won't deny that positive female leads are a bit hard to find in TV, but I think you might have too narrow an experience.  How often do you watch trash prime-time sitcoms?  Everybody Loves Raymond, King of Queens, Two and a Half Men, just to name the largely successful ones, nevermind the legions of shit most people here would never think to watch.

In every single one of them I can think of, the only negative character traits ever attached to the main female characters are maybe a harshness of attitude.  But across most of mainstream television, it's essentially taboo to overtly make fun of any one woman or women in general, except for token stuff like shopping that's been run into the ground anyway.  I don't know when it started or exactly why, but it's hard to find a prime-time prime-network television show, sitcom or crime drama or anything else really, where the female characters of any establishment aren't intelligent, rational, courteous, and put-upon, while their male co-stars (more often main stars) are at best idiosyncratic and flawed, or meat-headed schlubs lucky to have the company (and no really explicable reason).

That trend is absolutely horrible and it's been going on for a long time. Pretty much since the the beginnings of the dom com. All in the Family, The Jeffersons, Married with Children. It's a staple of the format. It's just that recent shows have been taking it to the extreme. According to Jim is the best example of this, I think. In these shows I'd say wife's flaw usually goes beyond harshness of attitude, especially in the modern examples, where I find them to be horrible intolerable bitches. And generally the only positive trait the husband has is being cool and even-headed to contrast the wife's hysterics and overreaction.

It's fine when it's just a few shows, characters are supposed to have flaws, but it's an overwhelming and glaring trend in the format and presents a specific attitude towards the subjects of marriage and relation between the sexes. And it's just boring writing. We've locked ourselves into this trend where it's safe for the studio because they know the public will watch it and it's safe for the viewers because they don't have to meet and learn to like new people so they just keep getting produced. I was hoping someone would have stuck a knife in it by now.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I also have very little to add, but I will say this: This debate subject is the reason I don't watch television and have slowed reading books and playing games to a crawl. Executive meddling, be it used for "pro-diversity" or "anti-diversity" purposes, is still meddling in an artist's work in the name of politics, which I cannot tolerate. Yet, there it is, everywhere I look. If it isn't "convolutely change the entire cast to white males because nothing else sells" it's "convolutely change the case to an anvilicious still-stereotypical ""diverse"" version to attract people who like that". The purpose doesn't matter to me in the slightest, these are still people altering the work of another to make money and/or fit their political agenda. Has the media world gone insane? Was it ever sane to begin with? I don't even know anymore! Hell, I barely even still care by this point. That's why I play so many indie/freeware games, why I even found this site, because they're free of this double-edged insanity.

[Ampersand]

The problem with diversity in media is that it's almost never done correctly. While I'm all in favor, as a minority of some variety myself, of including minority actors in TV shows where appropriate, in many media I watch, the minority characters so often end up being defined solely by their race or gender, or a combination of the two. I'd much more prefer to watch a cast dominated by whites than see a minority actor playing a humiliating stereotyped role. My feeling is that often, the reason this sort of thing happens is because a script writer, just doesn't feel comfortable writing characters of a heritage different from their own out of fear of offending, and I can completely understand that.

The debate shouldn't be one about inclusion for the sake of inclusion, but about coming to a mutual understanding with each other that we aren't really all that different from each other. I can relate to a white person despite their whiteness, if we share things, you know, things that actually matter, in common. The realm of human experience is not defined along racial lines.