#don’t even get me started on the discourse around which romance options were justified and which ones meant you were a bigot/abuser/etc | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

arirna · 5 years

Note

So, I was one of the ppl who deeply hated f!byleth’s design when it was released but after a while, it grew on me and I actually kind of like it now. So, the game has been out for a few weeks and I’m still seeing ppl complaining about it and it’s in a very obnoxious way?? Like, they would go on about how much they hate her just on her design alone? And it’s very ridiculous. I’d like to know your thoughts on this as a whole? Love your blog btw (been here since Gintama lol)

Well, while I wouldn’t call F!Byleth’s default costume design good, it certainly isn’t so awful that you can’t play as her at all.

However, what i certainly like about her is that she’s much more expressive than her male counterpart which for me is very important considering that in later parts of the story the emotional stakes can get pretty intense and we need to see our MC reacting to these events and being more invested in what’s going on. So while some fans prefer more subdued and stoic M!Byleth i’m all for more emotional and expressive F!Byleth.

And as for the whole male vs female avatar discourse, it’s always the same idiotic arguments you can see from the same fans all the time. Anytime a game gives you a chance to choose the MC’s gender, the same people feel pressed to notify everyone how male avatar is most certainly a CANON option and he’s the only one who matters and the female avatar is just a feature and she doesn’t fit the story and she must be forgotten etc, etc, etc.

Male fans do this because they don’t want their self insert to share the spotlight with an “inferior” female option and they want to see themselves recognized and represented first and foremost. Female fans do this because “my yaoi boys” and “why she can romance this male character but my precious male MC can’t, oh i hate that bitch so much for stealing a husband from my male MC, so i’m going to screech anytime i see anyone making content with female MC and a male character she has canon romance with in the game”.

I have seen this stupid discourse so many times. In Mass Effect fandom female Shepard was hated so much at first because she “didn’t fit” and “she’s too manly and aggressive” and only in later games she was accepted by the fandom and finally recognized by Bioware when they started to use her more in advertising instead of using male Shepard only.

Persona fans treated Persona 3 female MC like dirt constantly claiming how she’s irrelevant and Altus should never bring her back. Same fans were so afraid that Persona 5 Royal could’ve made a female main character as an option and they cheered when this didn’t happen.

Fire Emblem Awakening fans still trash F!Robin any time they have a chance and even try to act like she’s getting too much attention and fan content as of late although 99% of the official material still uses M!Robin as default (most of this bitterness comes from her being able to romance Chrom and actually have a compelling romance in the game which centers so heavily around Chrom and Robin’s shared bond).

And now we have Three Houses fandom using F!Byleth’s design as an excuse to trash her and ignore her existence as well. I’ve seen so many comments like “why is she getting so much fanart, i thought everyone hated her” or “but what about M!Byleth uwu”.

Honestly, all of this stupidity only makes me like female avatars even more out of pure spite. And while I won’t blame fans who are justifiably upset about the lack of m/m romance options in these games, the people who use this as an excuse to trash female characters are not getting a free pass from me.

We already have so much media which has male characters as the focal point of the narrative. Why does every time someone try to give a female character a spotlight as well, she and her fans have to suffer through so much scrutiny and hate?

Anyway, we stan F!Byleth and her questionable fashion choices, because, if anything, she 100% owns them and Edelgard, Dimitri and Claude admire and love her for it.

#ask replies #fire emblem three houses #fandom and misogyny name a more iconic duo i’ll wait #lyn celica eirika and micaiah also suffered a lot of hate as well

36 notes · View notes

myfriendpokey · 5 years

Text

Morality Play

What does it mean to have a videogame tell you you're a good person? It doesn't know me, can't see me. I don't know if you can be *immoral* in a single player game outside of some very inventive custom controls. Why should I care what a game says? Any inner moral life that a videogame or a painting might possess would be more alien to me than that of a bug or a starfish. Of course videogames and paintings are made by humans, and shaped by the moral opinion of humans.. but we might make a distinction between what the human says and the object says, we might still feel the latter is more important, somehow.

The moral authority of an artwork or object comes from the fact that it's not quite human, that it comes to us from outside humanity to an extent, is distinguished from the unreliable back and forth of human consciousness in motion. But this distance is exactly why you might expect those moral verdicts to be unintelligible to us, or at the very best, to be untrustworthy, an imitation. So what's the appeal – that of having a human voice which speaks with the gravitas of an immortal object? The pleasant conceit that the general shape of our minds is universal, like all those Star Trek aliens that are just regular guys with slightly weirder ears or foreheads? The void speaks, and turns out to sound like a computer engineer.

But maybe not necessarily, maybe in fact it's sometimes not universal authority and moral support that we seek from the object: maybe a certain jankiness of verdict around the way these things communicate in human terms is itself part of the appeal. I think of paper fortune tellers, magic eight-balls, "love tester" machines that return a romantic prognosis based on palm temperature. The entrancing bathos of the chance-driven or mechanistic judgement that still speaks with a human voice: I’m sorry, I cannot answer right now. Please shake me, so I may try again. How different is that to the widely beloved and magnificently broken romance system in Dragon's Dogma, where, spoilers: your "soulmate" is not a matter of direct moral choice, but of variables being tracked over the course of the game including who you talked to and what sidequests you completed - which means it could arbitrarily turn out to be the weapons merchant, or a grandpa npc you found a potion for. Which is goofy, but only in a slightly more blatant way than "accidentally unlocking the romantic option in a dialogue tree from just clicking around" or "having your morality score drop 5 points because you pressed the wrong button and accidentally hurled a rock at someone's head while trying to equip shoes".

I think something I appreciate about videogames is the kind of insectlike moral life that they tend to portray, the sense of value systems which are in some way recognisable but which have mutated in conversion to something alien and horrifying. Lara Croft shooting a wild eagle is unfortunate, Lara Croft shooting a thousand wild eagles is bizarre – but really those thousand eagles are just the one eagle, the one self-contained pulp encounter fantasy, which has been extended, extrapolated, systemised as result of being placed in this machine. The latter may be more egregious but it’s still composed of repeated incidents of the original encounter - and part of the strangeness in these games is just the uncomprehending machine effort to systemise the half-formed gunk substance of our terrible fantasy lives, which only bear a vague and halfhearted relation to any notion of ethics in any case.. We can contemplate with envy and excitement the possibilities of running more realistic, recognisable emotional and moral situations through the meatgrinderof the format in this way. How about a solemn middlebrow videogame about divorcing 50 different wives, each one larger and more powerful than the last (excluding sprite recolours)?

All this is not to say that the casual political and moral stupidity already in videogames should simply be excused or exist outside of critique. But in addition to the body of discourse around "moral commodities" - commodities invested with moral or political meaning independent of any brutal labour practices they might entail or monopolistic accumulation of private wealth they might support – I think it's also worth considering the purpose of the "moral object" itself. The alienation intrinsic to the object form can be a way to think, and also a way to avoid thinking. To project moral beliefs away from the specific context of a creaturely human existence can be a way of expanding that existence, but also of denying it. The paltriness of the human can itself be problematic next to the splendour of the object, and the reflected moral superiority of those with the means of producing such objects.

*****

There's a famous line in the Spiderman comics that with great power comes great responsibility. But it's also kind of a weird line because, while obviously applicable to Spiderman, the person it's actually delivered to is Peter Parker - who is, for all his uncle knows, still a physically awkward and friendless nerd with no immediately visible "great power" to speak of. He does like nuclear physics, though - maybe the advice was intended as a friendly intervention to keep him from turning into the next Edward Teller? Or possibly it's just a kind of unconscious, pulp-writer-trance-appropriation of the muscular liberal rhetoric of the then-current Kennedy administration. Or maybe, and stretching a bit, it's a line that relates more to the conditions of pulp culture manufacturing itself, to the awareness that the stuff you make will be printed thousands of times and sold to kids around the country, poured raw into the national subconsicous. With great sales figures comes great responsiblity.

I mention it because I think it connects to an issue with the kind of cultural criticism that emerged, like it or not, from the specific context of an age of mass media. With great power comes great responsibility - but conversely, to execute your great responsibility you also need great power. And what are you meant to do if you don't have it? Does no power mean having no responsibility? It's possible, but i feel like most people would be dubious about this as a moral lesson - and the inescapability of heavily-financed blockbusters in the culture means that an assumption of already "having great power" sometimes becomes a critical starting point. If you don't have power you should get it, so that you can then have great responsibility and contribute to the discourse. The effect can sometimes be like climbing a mountain of corpses to get a better platform for your speech about world peace.

A good essay on jrpgsaredead.fyi points out the way that certain industry conversations on "accessibility" revolve specifically around access to whatever mainstream AAA action games are currently dominating the news cycle. And the related effect where both problems and proposed solutions are particular to these games, the audience they have, and the resources they can bring bear: More consultants! More characters! More romance options! Better character creators! If you're speaking to an (essentially captive, given the marketing monies involved) audience of five million people you'd better be sure your ideas are, at least, not actively harmful, and in fact should ideally be improving - - fine. How about an audience of 50 people? Or an audience of 0? Does that mean this work is less moral than what speaks to a larger crowd - in effect, that it's worse? And what about the relationship to audience that this kind of teaching implies? i can think of several occasions where people from different subcultures or minority groups were reprimanded because something in their own experience might read differently, or problematically, when presented to a presumably white/cis/affluent etc audience - which is of course the audience that matters, because what's the value of presenting work from an alternative perspective to an audience already familiar with that perspective, to whom it has no automatic moral significance (might, in fact, merely be 'aesthetic')? Compare the complexity of a specific local audience which can think for itself to the easy win of the alternative: a phantasm audience of moral blanks to whom rote lessons in hypothetical empathy can be tastefully and profitably imparted over and over, forever.

****

If the ethical act is that which we'd be willing to posit as universal law, perhaps we could say: the ethical artwork is that which we'd be willing to mass produce. Small or hobbyist developers are encouraged to work from the perspective of a mass-productive capacity they do not in fact possess; their successes and inevitable failures are hoovered up alike by the industry proper for later deployment in the form of cute dating sim or inspirational narrative with similar but sanitized tone or aesthetic. In essence a kind of moral QA testing, with all the job security and recompense that this implies.

The hobbyist is, by definition, not universal: they are enclosed within the local and the material. What time do you get off work? What materials do you have to hand? Are those materials always legal? The entire western RPG Maker community exists as result of widespread bootlegging; the entirety of videogame history and preservation essentially depends on stolen copies; we find out about it through ROMs, videos and screenshots which mostly depend for their continued existence on copyright holders either not finding out or choosing not to pursue these debateable violations. It's a complicated discussion whether this stuff can be justified on a general, universal level - but also I'm not sure we can do without it. When Fortnite uses dances from TV and music videos of living memory they're considered to be in the public domain; but Fortnite itself is not in the public domain, even though it's so inescapable that even I have a pretty good idea of what it looks and plays like despite having made a pretty determined effort to not find out anything about it. It's "public culture" in that sense, and it includes public culture within it, but both game and imagery are privately owned and aggressively policed (suing teenage hackers, etc). What does it mean for art to emerge from an ever more privatized sense of public life?

In 2007 the RPG Maker game Super Columbine Massacre RPG was added to, then removed from, the Slamdance festival following complaints; it was a minor cause celebre at the time following concerns about censorship and the lack of protections for expression in the videogame format specifically following the Jack Thompson media crusade in the United States. In 2019 the same festival retrospectively changed their reasoning: now the game had no longer been removed on the basis of questionable taste, but on the basis of questionable compliance with copyright law, since it included music from the likes of Smashing Pumpkins without paying for licensing fees (and also because the author generally "hadn’t created several of its elements" - asset flips!!!). There's some humour in the fact that a benign-sounding concern with "artist's rights" could just be swapped in as a more respectable-sounding surrogate for general prudery with exactly the same result. But also, in this instance, what does it mean about the game? As facile as SCMR is, the bootleg use of graphics and music was its most interesting element: the game was a bricolage of American pop culture at a specific point in time, as were the killers, as are we. The nearness and recognisability of that culture, the sense of not being able to get enough distance from it to properly fictionalise or think about what happened, is what stands out. An "ethical" version of the same game which used original music - Nirvanalikes, some tastefully copyright-adjacent Marilyn Manson clones - would not just be diminished, it would be actively insulting in the false distance it implied.

I don't mean this at all as a request for more edgelord-ism. But it's worth remembering that videogames themselves are not ethical; are, in fact, colonized materials assembled with exploitative labour and dumped aimlessly into public life by electronics corporations looking to make a buck. The bizarre and haphazard ways this long dump of poor decisions has manifested, warped, been adjusted into culture is part of what's worth attending to about the format – I think it's worth looking closer into all these pools of murkiness, before ethical landlords can come drape a tarp over them as part of the process of divvying up the property.

(image credits: youkai douchuuki, quiz nanairo dreams, trauma center: under the knife, espial)

#gamechat #games criticism #moral

74 notes · View notes

him-e · 6 years

Text

That post about Celibate Jedi!Rey sparked Discourse, so let me clarify a couple things.

First: I have to acknowledge that the language used (in that post of mine, in some comments to that post, and in some parts of the reylo fandom in general when it comes to this particular topic) occasionally gets over the top or dismissive or unnecessarily aggressive towards non-romantic / non-sexual character arcs, which is an insidious phenomenon in itself that I, and we as a fandom, should be aware of. (I did not mean to mock any ace headcanons or asexuality in general with my “sexless” comment, but to describe a perception of the character that considers first-half-of-TFA Rey as her true and final form and all that came later as ooc or a distortion of the character... but the intent doesn’t justify the effect, and if it offended anyone, I sincerely apologize).

Second: as a person in the ace spectrum myself who is most likely going to have that celibate-jedi endgame irl, I’m thirsty for more ace rep---real, complicated ace rep, not asexuality and/or celibacy (two separate things btw, but they’re often wrongly conflated) as a cop out of canon romantic options that people don’t like or as a blank slate to project any “happy” ending that doesn’t involve romance. This is where my frustration at this discourse comes from---seeing ace or ace-adjacent arguments getting exploited for what is, essentially, ship wank. It’s funny that this sort of “wouldn’t it be great if (x) character’s agency were celebrated by a completely non-romantic endgame!” is almost invariably directed at female characters who a) do manifest romantic/sexual interest in canon and b) are considered “too good” for their (canon) problematic love interests. (see also: Brienne). (meanwhile, characters who can easily be read as ace without doing mental gymnastics---*cough cough* Luke---fly under the radar all the time, but that’s a separate issue)

In my fandom experience, this phenomenon is less about wanting an ace narrative to happen, and more about /not/ wanting a particular romantic narrative to happen so let’s go with ace instead because it’s suddenly a convenient option now.

But headcanons aside, my problem isn’t with Celibate!Rey. Which, as I already mentioned, can absolutely happen and even be a completely valid and satisfying (although bittersweet) conclusion to her arc in this trilogy (but opens up interesting scenarios for possible future tie-in material). My problem is with using Celibate!Rey as a perfectly unambiguous happy ending for her, that either completely ignores her longing for Ben at her side (to the point of crossing the galaxy to get him) or dismisses it as a temporary *weakness* already successfully resolved by the end of TLJ. It’s not about what would or would not be a great narrative in an abstract sense (of course non-romantic narratives and “alone but not alone” endgames are valid), it’s about what this specific character wants in this specific narrative. Once you introduce a (more or less explicit, and imo reylo was, but ymmv) romantic interest, leaving it unfulfilled or even tearing it to shreds in order to pursue a “better off alone” narrative doesn’t guarantee an all-around happy ending. It can still be a hopeful ending, mind you (”this didn’t work out, but I’ll still live and be happy”), but it will be tinged with bitterness and nostalgia. A Celibate Jedi endgame that doesn’t acknowledge that streak of melancholy wouldn’t be a honest narrative in my opinion.

(it also wouldn’t fit that well as a conclusion to a story that, guess what, started with a guy who hated his no-attachments vows so much that he turned into a monster).

#discourse #sw wank #ship wank #reylo for ts #sorta personal too

18 notes · View notes

wasneeplus · 5 years

Text

Responding to the Alt-Right playbook, part 1

Disclaimer: I wrote this after seeing the first four minutes of the video. While watching the rest I noticed a few things I bring up are addressed later, though in such a way as to lead to even more questions. Still, I think most of it stands, and it’s still useful as a kind of stream of consciousness response, so I’ll leave it untouched.

Sometimes, in the wee hours of the morning when I just finished reading my newspaper, I will enjoy myself with a few infuriating youtube videos. Lately I’ve been quite disillusioned by the part of youtube calling itself liberal spouting nationalist propaganda at my beloved European project, so I’ve switched to some corners of the website which are friendlier to my blood pressure. That’s how I came across a video called "The Alt-Right Playbook: The Card Says Moops” by Innuendo Studios. Apparently he is somewhat of a big deal with his 150k plus subscribers, though I never heard of him. Just two minutes into the video though I knew I was going to write this response. While it didn’t make me angry the way I might have been in the past, there’s just so much wrong here, I cant bottle this up any longer.

Say, for the sake of argument, you’re online blogging about a black journalists’ commentary on marketing trends in video games, movies and comic books and you’re saying how the vitriol in response to her fairly benign opinions reveals the deep seated racism and misogyny in a number of fan communities, most especially those that lean right,...

Quite an unlikely scenario since I’m not in the business of assuming ones leanings on race, gender or politics based on their opinions on movies, games or comic books, but let’s roll with it I guess.

...When a right leaning commenter pops in to say: “Or maybe they just actually disagree with her about marketing trends! For Christs sake, there’s no mystery here. People aren’t speaking in coded language. They are telling you wat they believe. She had a bad opinion. Why do you have to make it bigger than that? Why can’t you ever take people at their word?”

Here’s where I feel validated in making this response, because while I don’t consider myself right leaning, as hard as that might be to believe for some, this is exactly the kind of response I might have given. So props to Innuendo Studios for accurately portraying an argument of one of his opponents. Unfortunately he then continues:

You pause and ponder this for a moment. Hmmm. Uh heck with it! You’re in a discoursing mood. Let’s do this! Mister conservative, in order for me to take you at your word your words would have to show some consistency. Let me just lightning-round a few questions about the reactionary web’s positions on marketing trends.

The first major problem should be obvious to anyone right about now. How is anyone supposed to answer for the “reactionary web”? Hell, I don’t even know what that’s supposed to be. The caricature in the video wears a 4chan logo on its chest, so maybe he’s referring to the /pol/ imageboard. Well, I don’t hang out there, and I’m pretty sure most of the people who would have been critical of that opinion piece don’t either. Therefore I feel justified in ignoring that particular remark and just give my own answers to these questions. After all: the people on /pol/ are clearly not the only ones he’s talking to at this point.

Do you believe that having the option to romance same sex characters in an rpg turns the game into queer propaganda...

No. On a side note though: the video at this point shows an image of the game Mass Effect. I remember when that game came out there was some controversy over the game showing sex scenes between the characters. Remember that this was but a few years sine the GTA hot coffee mod upheaval, so people where a bit more sensitive about such things. But never have I heard anyone complain about the same sex romance options. I can imagine there were a few disapproving voices but I never came across them, even though I followed the launch very closely at the time.

...or do you believe that killing strippers in an action game can’t be sexist because no one’s making you do it?

I believe it can be sexist, but I never seen an example of it actually being sexist. Not because no one makes you do it, though. It’s because the amount of strippers killed in video games pales in comparison to the amount of other people killed. I’m willing to bet that video games depict more men being killed by women than the other way around, with the vast majority being male on male killings. The fact that there’s one or two games where a man has the option to kill some female sex workers hardly seems significant in that light.

Do you believe that the pervasiveness of sexualised young women in pop culture is just there because it sells and that’s capitalism and we all need to deal with it...

Yes, for the most part. I guess one can add a few nuances here and there, but that about covers the gist of it.

...or do yo believe that a franchise has an obligation to cater to its core audience even if diversifying beyond that audience is more profitable?

Ooh boy, where do I start? Okay, first of all: those two are not mutually exclusive. I know there is this pervasive idea in some parts of western culture that people can only identify with others of the same sex, race and/or cultural background, but that’s just not true. As such it’s perfectly possible to be both diverse and give your core audience what they want. Criticism of a failure to do the second does not automatically translate to criticism of succeeding at the first. Where the two usually meet is when creators use the first as an excuse to take away from the second, either because of their own incompetence or their disinterest in the franchise they are working on.

Which brings us to our second point: while diversity does not have to hurt a franchise, too often creators are too lazy to put effort in making sure it doesn’t because they haven’t got their priorities straight. They think that covering their bases in terms of diversity is the most important thing and everything else is an afterthought. The movie Star Wars: The Last Jedi, who’s cast is partly depicted in the video at this point, is actually a perfect example of this. No one thought Finn and Rose were such interesting characters that audiences wanted to see an entire subplot devoted exclusively to them. They were clearly there just to tick some boxes, not because of a creative spark that led an artist to lovingly craft these characters. The result was perhaps the most universally despised part of the movie, at least among hardcore fans. And yeah, they do deserve a bit more consideration than any other demographic, don’t you think? They are the ones who made this into a franchise to begin with. Without them this movie wouldn’t even have been made.

Lastly: there is a reason the saying “get woke, go broke” exists. If Rose was just there to appeal to Asian markets that would be one thing. I do think there’s something to the idea that putting characters of the same race as the target audience in your movie makes them easier to market. The thing is though: it didn’t work! The movie bombed in China, and I think that’s also because of the messages the creators were trying to send. To take a timeless hero’s journey narrative like Star Wars and try to insert current events and political messages in it just can’t end well. Yet, the creators persisted, and this is reflective of a lot of the culture behind those narratives. When a political message becomes the driving force behind the creative process it’s almost certain to produce sub par results. A creator has to be extremely talented to pull this off, and lets face it: most aren’t up to the task. Instead the art devolves into soulless political propaganda, and this is what stings people who love the franchise so much. Me personally, I am a big fan of making the political personal when you want to convey a political message. We can identify with personal struggles much more than with abstract political ideas. So characters should always be the focus, even if you want to make a statement.

Do you think words are inherently harmless and only oversensitive snowflakes would care about racialised language...

Words? Yes. The ideas expressed by those words? No. That’s why intention is so important to me, and the “oversensitive snowflakes” who focus on just the words are so not helping the debate in my opinion.

...or do you think it’s racist if someone calls you mayonaise boy?

Probably, yes. Though I can’t think of any reason why someone would call me that, other than to insult me by way of my race. On the other hand, I do really like mayonaise...

And as long as I’ve got your ear: are you the party that believes in the right to keep and bear arms because you’re distrustful of all authority and what if we need to overthrow the government some day...

No, no and no. I am not a party, nor am I affiliated with any party that espouses those kinds of opinions on the possession of arms. I personally do not believe in the right to bear arms, though I’m not especially passionate about it one way or the other. I guess being Dutch means I'm not really caught up in any debate surrounding arms, since it’s a bit of a non-issue here. Also: while I think authority should always be scrutinised, I wouldn’t characterise this as distrust.

...or do you believe that cops are civil servants and we should trust their account of events whenever they shoot a black man for looking like he might have a gun.

Well, aren’t cops civil servants? I seem to remember so. Anyway, I don’t think “looking like they might have a gun” is ever a good excuse to shoot anyone, so there you have it. Do keep in mind that we send cops out on the street partly to use force in neutralising dangerous individuals, so we shouldn’t be surprised when that gets out of hand sometimes. But honestly, I am not well informed enough on this topic to know how much trust to put in any side of this issue. I think looking at this on a case by case basis is the only thing we can do.

Does optional content reveal a game’s ideology, or doesn’t it?

Not necessarily, no

Is capitalism a defence for decisions you don’t agree with, or isn’t it?

That’s a rather broad statement. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. It depends on what you are trying to defend.

Is language harmful, or not?

If you use it to promote harmful ideas, then yes.

Do you hate authority, or love cops and the troops?

Neither, really. I don’t hate authority just for being authority, and if anything soldiers and cops invoke pity in me. I guess that comes from growing up with a PTSD ridden veteran for a father.

Well, that’s the end of the questions. One might think I wasted a lot of time going through that, because shortly afterwards he goes on to say:

Now, I know the right is not a monolith and maybe these arguments are contradictory because they’re coming from different people.

Gee, you think? However, what then follows is an excuse to lump al these people together anyway.

We’ll call them Engelbert and Charlemagne. Maybe Engelbert’s the one who thinks any institution funded by tax money is socialist and therefore bad, and Charlemagne’s the one who says we should dump even more tax money into the military and thinking otherwise is unamerican.

I happen to hold neither of those opinions. Yes, it is actually possible to completely stand behind the hypothetical statement you made in the beginning of the video, and not subscribe to typical right wing convictions like that. But I know that there are people who do, so let’s see where his is going.

But here’s the thing: y’all have have very fundamentally different beliefs and you’re so passionate bout them that you’re entering search terms into twitter to find people you don’t even follow and aggressively disagree with them...

That’s quite a lot of assumptions there mate. I don’t think this is even a remotely fair representation of your opposition. Certainly not true for me. I don’t even have a twitter account (no, I wasn’t kicked off. I never had an account there to begin with), let alone do I ever browse that website. Putting that aside though, how do you know if there’s anyone who actually does this? People can retweet things after all; maybe that’s how they find the contentious twitter users. I found your video because youtube recommended it, and I clicked on it because the title intrigued me. I didn’t set out to look for things to disagree with, despite my quips at the beginning of this piece.

...and yet you’re always yelling at me, and never yelling at each other.

Certainly not true either. I've had quite a few online arguments with alt-righters, who in my opinion differ from actual Nazi’s in only slight and insignificant ways, and fervent nationalists. Of course that’s never going to garner the kind of attention as when Sargon of Akkad sends a mean tweet to a female politician. Speaking of Carl, his vicious disagreement with the alt-right is well documented, and their hatred for him caused quite a few equally vicious attacks against him and his family. But I don’t blame you for not knowing that. The majority of both of their vitriol is still directed at the extreme left, and why shouldn’t it? I don’t think there is an extremist position so pervasive in the western media these days. Again: there is no alt-right equivalent of Star Wars: the Last Jedi, because none of those people work in Hollywood, or anywhere else of note (with the possible and unfortunate exception of the white house).

...and I can’t say how often it happens, but I know if I let Engelbert go on long enough he sometimes makes a Charlemagne argument and vise versa.

Either you’re saying that both of them contradict themselves while framing it in quite an unnecessarily suggestive way, or you’re displaying a rather tribalist mindset in which worldviews can never overlap. Either way, I don’t think the following statement is justified...

See, I don’t take you at your word because I cannot form a coherent worldview out of the things you say.

The fault might lie with you in this case I’m afraid. The reason I went over those questions in the beginning is to show that it is perfectly possible to have consistent views on all of those issues and still be counted among those who would oppose you on this one. I don’t think you really know who it is that you’re projecting all this on. You think my worldview has to have inconsistencies if I disagree with you on the nature of the discourse surrounding popular media, but you’ve yet to correctly identify any. I think the saying “truth resists simplicity” is one you should tale to heart a lot more. Case in point:

Why are you so capable of respecting disagreement between each other yet so incapable of respecting me, or, for that matter, a black woman.

While that may seem like a coherent statement at a first glance, it actually betrays an incredibly simplistic way of looking at things. You see, you’re comparing three entirely different things one can respect: the fact of genuine disagreement between two parties, you, an individual person, and any given black woman, that is: a demographic. The first has to be respected, otherwise discourse is impossible. Though it must be said that me and the alt-right probably have very little respect for each others motivations, but unlike you the alt-right doesn’t ever really ask for my respect. The second deserves respect only when earned, and the third deserves neither respect nor disparagement, because it’s an incredibly varied group of people, some of whom deserve respect and some of whom don’t.

It kinda seems like you’re playing games and I’m the opposing team, and anyone who’s against me is your ally...

That entirely depends on what we’re talking about, doesn’t it? If we’re talking about diversity in media and the issues surrounding it, I will find myself on one side of the board surrounded by people I would usually disagree with, and you would find yourself on the other side, presumably only surrounded by people who agree with you one hundred percent of the time. It seems you think it a bad thing that people can temporarily overcome their differences when faced with a common problem. That’s why some call you radical: you cannot ally with anyone who isn’t in complete lockstep with you, because they are not pure enough in their conviction. But that’s what fracturing societies are made of, so if you don’t mind I’ll stick to my methods. If that leaves you outnumbered on your side of the board it’s because you chose to champion a very unpopular opinion, and I can’t help that.

...and you’re not really taking a position, but claiming to believe in whatever would need to be true in order to score points against me.

If I did that then why even bother engaging with me? Clearly I don’t actually believe anything I say, so there’s no need to convince me otherwise. Are you sure it’s me who is supposed to have contradictory opinions? But in all seriousness, I don’t see why I would ever adopt such a strategy unless I’m either just a troll or addicted to arguments, and hey: there are people like that, but they don’t represent your entire political opposition. Get a grip.

After that we get the title drop, which, I have to admit, was really clever and amusing. I never watched Seinfeld, but maybe I should. Anyway, my free Saturday is passing me by like a speeding train, so I will continue this later.... maybe.

#innuendo studios #alt-right #chan culture #SJW

1 note · View note