Print

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

[Nadaka]

She's been a horrible governor...

Examples, please? I don't live in North Carolina and at this point it's absurdly hard to find anything on google other than that one comment she made about suspending elections that everyone's picked up on.

Worst thing I can find is an entry on Wikipedia which says she took money out of an educational lottery fund to help fund the state "day to day business" Which, I don't agree with, but I'm guessing a lot of states are turning to that kind of measure to stay afloat these days. Still, I'll let you have that one as evidence. Still not enough that she should resign, in my book.

I can name at least 3 things right off the top of my head that Rick Scott has done that I've disliked in Florida. (Silly mandatory drug testing for ridiculous numbers of people, headed by the testing company owned by his wife. Promises of a specific number of jobs created, and then when asked about it later, saying "I can't prove how many jobs I actually created." and pushing to make teacher salaries "performance based" as a possible lead in to privatizing the school system.)

I still haven't heard any calls for him to resign yet and despite general hatred from BOTH parties at this point, I still hear. "Well I'm sure the democrat would have been worse." (admittedly an anecdotal claim)

It could be worse, Florida could have elected a man convicted of defrauding hundreds of millions of dollars from medicare/medicaid as their governor. Oh right, that guys name was Rick Scott.

[kaijyuu]

Re: sexism in comics.


I'm hesitant to call this "sexism" and not just "bad writing." I've no problem with the concept of fanservice. I have a problem if they think these shirtless hunks or toothpicks with boobs are real characters, but if the writers realize and admit the characters are flat and unrealistic, I'm not gonna call them sexist.

I've a much bigger problem with something else in one of their examples: Starfire saying "I do what I want when I want" when seducing that other guy. All to often these sort of characters (ie, bitchy jackasses) are called "strong female characters." No. HELL no. Being a sex machine does not make a female character strong. Being a bitch does not make a female character strong. A strong female character is NOT the opposite of a timid one. A strong female character is one that is a human being, with realistic goals and aspirations. You can easily replace "strong" with "well rounded" in this case.

So yeah, if the writers are pointing to these characters and saying "see? we put strong, realistic females in our stories and not just damsels in distress" then I'll absolutely call this stuff sexist. If not, I'll just call their writing bad.

[Leafsnail]

Is it not possible to have writing that's bad in a sexist manner?

[kaijyuu]

Did I imply that they're mutually exclusive? Apologies if so; that's not what I was trying to say.

[Leafsnail]

Well, your argument seems to say that it's bad writing and I agree.  But I'm not sure why having flat and completely sexualised female characters can't be both bad writing and sexism, especially if the character in question was previously not overly sexualised.

[kaijyuu]

Well yeah, I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive. Of course they can be both badly written and sexist.


TBH they're not really connected. Birth of a Nation is still a good film (for its time) despite being ridiculously racist. You can have something written badly, prejudiced, or both at the same time.

[sluissa]

It could be worse, Florida could have elected a man convicted of defrauding hundreds of millions of dollars from medicare/medicaid as their governor. Oh right, that guys name was Rick Scott.

I was trying to stick to things he's done while in office, but yeah, that's somewhat embarrassing. Of course, given what we knew of the two candidates at election time, it was sort of a tossup. The other party's runner had a few skeletons in her closet as well, however, I don't think they were quite as impressive as what Scott managed to get in with.

Still, people don't seem vote for the candidate around here. They just vote for a party.

[G-Flex]

Having the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it, nor does it mean that you can't be criticized for it, or that criticism wouldn't be warranted.

A person has every right to think that, say, black people are inherently inferior to white people, but I also have the right to find that idea harmful and to speak against it.


The idea that it "doesn't matter" what you do, just because you have the right to do it, is the kind of idea held by people who don't know how to exercise their rights responsibly.

In other words:
You have the Right to get upset about it.
You have the Right to let people know you are upset. (The whole point of this thread.)

But I argue:
You have the Right to make it.
You have the Right to ignore it.
You do not have the Right to unmake it.
You do not have the Right to make it stop.

The way I look at it, I can hate on pop music all I like, but people have their Right to keep pushing it out.  I'm not going to get all worked up and try to keep them from doing what they want.  In that regard, you trail too close to censorship.  Take your own higher moral ground, but don't force someone else to follow your morals ...especially when it comes to free speech.

You're trying to deflect and berate people that don't follow your moral code.  "the kind of idea held by people who don't know"

I'm not sure what point you're making here. What am I "deflecting"?

I'm criticizing what I think are harmful modes of thought, like racism and sexism. I have every right to do that. Open discussion and criticism are necessary to the proper practice of free speech.

I guess the part that irks me are phrases like: "That kind of thinking"  It likens it to abnormality.

Edit:  I'm not sure why I couldn't think of it earlier.  (Not awake enough?)  ... it's condescending.

Did you even read what I said? The closest thing I said to "That kind of thinking" was "the kind of idea", and the idea I was referring to was the idea that having the right to something means that it "doesn't matter" how you exercise it. Of course it matters; rights come with responsibilities.

Isn't he just saying that he believes there's an objective "correct" and that, while there is and should be nothing compelling people to agree with it (because that would be self-defeating), there's equally no reason he can't attempt to convince people to agree with his belief, ultimately still leaving the choice with the people he's talking to?

I didn't say anything about there being an objective, provable "correct" here, whatever that means. I was just saying that it's irresponsible to think that a right to free speech means that you don't have the responsibility to treat it responsibly, or that the right to free speech means that speech shouldn't be criticized. Of course it should be. That's the only way the system works.

[Bauglir]

I only meant that you have a belief that there is are qualities that make certain types of speech wrong, even if you have the right to make those wrong statements in the first place. Your references to responsibility make it pretty clear that it's the case, I think. At any rate, that was a poor response.

A better would have been to point out that Andir is arguing that you're endorsing something wrong; whether that's the case or not, it's precisely the same degree of censorship as he's accusing you of, so whatever justification he has for his own claims being acceptable to make applies equally well to yours.

[Andir]

Of course it matters; rights come with responsibilities.

Actions come with responsibilities.  Having the Right does not.  It's a technicality, but you can't be held responsible for writing a book and someone interpreting it in some way unless you were flat out telling them to do something specific.  Of course, the gray area comes into play regarding free speech vs. hate speech, but IMO (and I've expressed this before) the only time your speech can be considered harmful is if you act upon it or tell someone else to.

I don't see these comics telling people to specifically be sexist.  They may be sexist in themselves, but they are not responsible for Mom giving the comic to her daughter.  That would be like Dad giving a Playboy to his son.

[Vector]

I still think they should have known better than to make them in the first place under guise of straight-up comic books.  Tijuana Bible?  Honestly, I don't care.

But this story says: "This is what a woman hero looks like."  I don't think the issue is that it's given to little girls.  I think the issue is that it's another book saying "here is how the world is," falling short-sighted, concealing other ways of being.

[Andir]

Eh... Comics, or I should say Graphic Novels, have had a fairly well known and recent "adult" slant to them.  Just like magazines, games, books, and other forms of written media.

I don't think you can claim that these are meant as comics for children.

edit: By "adult", I mean people that can see past the imagery.

[Vector]

Ah, but by adult do you mean pornish, or do you mean dark, gritty, etc.?

I did read a book about this a long, long time ago, which did enlighten me somewhat to what you're discussing.  All the same: why does adult always mean catering to those who would objectify women?

[Andir]

Dark/gritty/etc.  There's been a definite push for mature material comics and as art forms.  Drawing a women as a big breasted bitch or drawing a man as a muscle bound hard ass is pretty common in graphic novels.  I don't think anyone is reading them to compare it to their own life or the world around them.  It's a fantasy escape.

[Virex]

And what if those fantasies are wrong?

All the same: why does adult always mean catering to those who would objectify women?

Does the word euphemism ring a bell?