Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Art, Criticism and Freedom. (Contains Disturbing Topics, Please Be Aware)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Art, Criticism and Freedom. (Contains Disturbing Topics, Please Be Aware)

    Originally posted by Isator Levi View Post

    You know what that film is about, right?

    As to not further derail the Inspirational thread...

    I do Isator, I find it abhorent. Never watched it, and probably never will.

    I would if I had academic objectives around it, like if I was a film student, or studied race relations. But I don't.

    You know that this year's film festivals featured films of intense violence, sexual and otherwise, visited including on children, right? To critical acclaim, right? There are extremely graphic and heavy movies being produced today.

    I really don't understand people that would subject themselves to that.

    I will never consume that. Not even in cartoons, much less live action.

    But I will never argue for total censorship.

    Restrict age of attendance, exhibition venue and hours, include disclaimers? Totally for it.

    Censorship? Never. The cost is immeasurable.

    I don't even consider myself an old school tough guy, you know? I'm squeamish as hell. Hate gore horror, never watch it. I cry all the time in Holocaust movies, and everytime I see the Passion of the Christ, even not being religious myself. And since I'm being completely honest here, some Disney movies too (I hate you Mufasa).

    But the old adage "sticks and stones..." rings true for me.

    As long as people aren't harassing you to expose you to things you don't like, I don't believe you have any case to restrict what they want to say.

    DISCLAIMER:

    This is NOT the "Female Sexual Objectification in Fantasy Art Discussion" thread.

    Talking about this in a thread about freedom to produce and consume art, and the proper time and place to criticize such art, is just screaming "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!". It is not central to the topic at hand, and is thread drift.

    This discussion is intended to be philosophical (drivel?) about freedom to produce and consume art, when and where to criticize it. If you want to argue that it is always right to criticize "harmful art", that is a fair point, and we can dive into what makes art harmful, who decides said art is harmful etc...

    DO NOT BRING ANYONES SPECIFIC ISSUES INTO IT. They will be considered thread drift and treated as such.

    Please read the topic and first post to confirm what THIS thread is about.

    Please understand that discussion of any other matters is shifting the topic. Which I am very nonchalant about and will engage however I understand is appropriate.

    DO NOTE that I will not bring my issues into a platform you create to discuss your issues, as I do realize that is impolite and against the forum rules.

    I DO NOT CARE about your rules about why you are free to shift topics but I am not. Unless you are an elightened debater armed with objective truth, THIS WILL NOT CHANGE.

    If you need to label me anything you want and feel a need to tell me about it, I simply request you respect the rules and do not insult me while you're at it. I would also appreciate if you re examine these specific needs of yours, and check if anyone else already expressed similar things, before you post. If you decide not to post, that will be good, as you won't waste your time posting, and I won't waste my time refuting what you said.

    If you feel anything I said is against the forum rules, please invite a moderator to the thread.
    Last edited by TGUEIROS; 06-12-2018, 11:41 AM.

  • BigDamnHero
    replied
    At some point she demands payment for her services/product, which means that she's expressing a power over Nero, and those bro types hate it when women dare to exercise any sort of power (in this case, having something the male character wants). Obviously she should just offer things up freely and submit herself as a servant to Nero/the (presumably male) player, because that's the only role those kinds of players believe women should occupy.

    EDIT: I say "presumably male" not because I think that gamers are presumably going to be male (I don't respect anybody who tries to defend their entitled, sexist beliefs with "But only males play video games!") but as part of the strawman that I created to represent people bitching about her.

    It's totally possible that somebody might find her grating. I'm not sure how I feel about her accent, after all.
    Last edited by BigDamnHero; 06-15-2018, 10:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Angwe
    replied
    Had to look her up. Anyway, wouldn't call her absurdly sexualized.

    Sure, she is thin, white and half-naked, but she has tattoos and glasses. Oh, and from what I could see from the trailer a personality. So, eh, while there's definitely room for improvement, like wearing actual pants or something, could be a lot worse.

    Leave a comment:


  • Isator Levi
    replied
    Anyway, so interesting thing recently: I was acquainted with the trailer for the upcoming new Devil May Cry game, in which the new supporting character of Nico was introduced. She's apparently a gunsmith and engineer.

    ​She's kind of absurdly sexualised, with skimpy clothing, lots of tattoos, and a moment in the trailer in which she catches a cigarette in her mouth, in slow motion, while driving a van that is tumbling over.

    ​I considered it a bit, and found that I'm sort of... okay with that? It's not really out of place in the overall over-the-top absurdity of the game series. That's not saying that there's an equivalence between her and some of the male characters, just that when all is said and done there is some place for priorities like that, and I feel as though something with the tone of that series might be it.

    ​Mind, my perspective might be influenced a bit by my having looked around other parts of the Internet reacting to the character, and seeing some of the bro types and Gamergaters who hate her.

    Leave a comment:


  • TGUEIROS
    replied
    Originally posted by TheCountAlucard View Post
    Even experts can be shown things about their field they weren't aware of, that they never would have discovered on their own.
    Wow! What a clean and truthful counterpoint!

    You are very right, that was a shallow argument to make. I got carried away in trying to be funny and ended up weakening my stance.

    Thanks!

    /hattip

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCountAlucard
    replied
    Originally posted by TGUEIROS View Post
    Here I was thinking I was an expert on myself…
    Even experts can be shown things about their field they weren't aware of, that they never would have discovered on their own.

    Leave a comment:


  • TGUEIROS
    replied
    Aquillion

    Yeah, ok Aquillion, thank you for being so knowledgeable about me and telling me what I'm actually thinking or thought.

    Here I was thinking I was an expert on myself, but lo and behold, you show up and dazzle me, showing me insights about myself I never imagined!

    AMAZING!

    PS: All the rest is just repeat though, I'm sad, for your and my wasted time.
    Last edited by TGUEIROS; 06-12-2018, 04:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aquillion
    replied
    Originally posted by TGUEIROS View Post
    That first quote you referenced was in this thread, which I made to elaborate more on how I feel about the things described on the topic and first post. I said nothing of the sort on the Inspirational Art Thread. So, no I didn't try to silence them where they were speaking, I made a general statement, that is all. I was talking in a whole other place about my views on it. Not badgering them, not forcing nothing down anyone's throat, not protesting, nothing of the sort. I created a place to speak my mind, as is the polite thing to do.
    It's a quote of you summarizing what you were saying in that thread. You thought you were trying to get people to shut up. That was your intent. As I said, my reading is that that's been the intent behind pretty much everything you've said in this thread.

    Now if you want to follow me here and take umbrage when I express myself, and try to silence me or claim control of what I can and cannot say, outside of the terms delineated on the forum rules?
    ...I am having increasing trouble accepting that you are arguing in good faith at this point, since I've pointed out repeatedly that no one, at any point in this conversation, has tried to silence you. People have disagreed with you, and have doubted your sincerity due to the context, but that's them being free to say what they want, not them censoring you.

    People tried to say I can't talk about mens' issues when talking about women's issues when having a free form conversation, that is the attempt at censorship I am talking about and it happened before any talk about cleaving to this thread's topic by me.
    People said that they doubted your sincerity because of the context in which you brought it up. That's fair for them to do. Your post leading into your discussion of men's issues ends with "How tiring would it be if everytime we see a drawing of an Adonis, Hercules or Apollo, some complained like that? How relevant the complaint would be?", which, by my reading, is you saying "haha, wouldn't it be absurd if people did that?" In other words, it's reasonable to read that and conclude that don't actually care very much about those depictions outside of using that line of argument as a cudgel against anyone who wants to discuss the bikini-witch thing.

    People analyzing your argument that way in its context and coming to the conclusion that you're not arguing in good faith is not trying to silence you, that's arguing with you. Again, you seem to believe that simply disputing your viewpoint or questioning your sincerity is censoring you.

    It is weird. You began this conversation with, as you admitted, the overt intent of getting people you disagreed with to shut up by invoking the rules of the other thread. Then, when they refused to do so, you started saying "FREEDOOOOOM" and insisting that the fact that they kept criticizing stuff you liked or disagreeing with your opinions was a violation of your rights; and you tried to argue that people should stop because it would be "tiring" if people did the same thing with men. When people answered those arguments, you treated it as more censorship.

    Basically, the chain of arguments you've made and positions you've taken doesn't reflect anything that anyone else has said.

    I even talked about gore and shock films and things of that nature... I wanted to discuss speech rights in regards to offensive, harmful and shocking content. It was not my intention to discuss bikini chain mail.
    Come on, man.

    By starting this thread you were trying to imply that the people you were arguing with in the first one were responding to in the other one (especially Isator Levi, who you called out by name, but also, implicitly, anyone who says they feel bikini-witch art is sometimes gratuitous) was pushing for censorship and opposed FREEEEEDOM™. That was a groundless argument that had no relation to what anyone else was saying, and people responded appropriately.

    I'll add that I'm tired of the same song and the same dance, only with different partners.
    Perhaps this is the problem. It feels as if this discussion is mostly you shadow-boxing the imaginary version of your opponents that you've built out of the worst things people have been said to you in previous arguments. No one but you has brought up censorship, or tried to silence people, or tried to take away your FREEEEEDOM™, yet you continuously circle back around to it. Why hold on to that? "No, we're not trying to censor you; everyone here likes freedom just as much as you" should be something that makes you happy, not something you bullheadedly ignore.
    Last edited by Aquillion; 06-12-2018, 04:01 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • TGUEIROS
    replied
    Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
    But the discussion that you claim to have started this thread in order to avoid derailing the other thread about was about sexual objectification in fantasy art. So you have now started a new thread to divert discussion of sexual objectification in fantasy art away from the inspirational art thread, and framed the thread you diverted it to in such a way that does not allow for discussion of sexual objectification in fantasy art. Do you not see the irony of complaining about people using complex rules to censor others’ talking points?
    Not really Charlaquin, I started the thread to talk about Birth of the Nation, and peoples right to produce and consume things of that nature, and stuff like that, like I said on the first post...

    I even talked about gore and shock films and things of that nature... I wanted to discuss speech rights in regards to offensive, harmful and shocking content. It was not my intention to discuss bikini chain mail. That was a sidetrack brought on to the thread by another poster, to which I basically said;

    "Don't forget to bring a towel..." and proceeded to be Towlied.

    Now the argument since the beginning has been certain people can sidetrack certain subjects whenever and wherever they feel appropriate, but I can't, because reasons. To which I now say;

    Please read the disclaimer.

    People repeatedly try to force their narrative on me, I am only pointing to facts. Please see the first post. Please, What I wanted to discuss here is all spelled out there... If you want discuss other things on this thread, thats great! I'm not stickler for this, but if you wanna get into rules and regulations and stuff, I can play the game too, you know?

    Please stop acting like you (not only, or specifically, you, Charlaquin) know what I wanted to discuss, or why I created this thread. Besides the obvious places to figure that out that I already repeatedly pointed out (topic and first post). I have exaustively explained this since fairly early in the thread.

    Please stop implying that I maliciously distract from the real issue, when I left the place where the discussion was going on, and created a place to discuss what I am interested in talking about.

    This thread was hijacked since the first page. That doesn't mean it is about what the hijackers want it to be about.

    Why is it hard to understand this? Even after I repeatedly explained it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied
    Originally posted by TGUEIROS View Post
    DISCLAIMER:

    This is NOT the "Female Sexual Objectification in Fantasy Art Discussion" thread.

    Talking about this in a thread about freedom to produce and consume art, and the proper time and place to criticize such art, is just screaming "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!". It is not central to the topic at hand, and is thread drift.

    This discussion is intended to be philosophical (drivel?) about freedom to produce and consume art, when and where to criticize it. If you want to argue that it is always right to criticize "harmful art", that is a fair point, and we can dive into what makes art harmful, who decides said art is harmful etc...
    But the discussion that you claim to have started this thread in order to avoid derailing the other thread with was about sexual objectification in fantasy art. So you have now started a new thread to divert discussion of sexual objectification in fantasy art away from the inspirational art thread, and framed the thread you diverted it to in such a way that does not allow for discussion of sexual objectification in fantasy art. Do you not see the irony of complaining about people using complex rules to censor others’ talking points?
    Last edited by Charlaquin; 06-12-2018, 01:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • TGUEIROS
    replied
    DISCLAIMER:

    This is NOT the "Female Sexual Objectification in Fantasy Art Discussion" thread.

    Talking about this in a thread about freedom to produce and consume art, and the proper time and place to criticize such art, is just screaming "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!". It is not central to the topic at hand, and is thread drift.

    This discussion is intended to be philosophical (drivel?) about freedom to produce and consume art, when and where to criticize it. If you want to argue that it is always right to criticize "harmful art", that is a fair point, and we can dive into what makes art harmful, who decides said art is harmful etc...

    DO NOT BRING ANYONES SPECIFIC ISSUES INTO IT. They will be considered thread drift and treated as such.

    Please read the topic and first post to confirm what THIS thread is about.

    Please understand that discussion of any other matters is shifting the topic. Which I am very nonchalant about and will engage however I understand is appropriate.

    DO NOTE that I will not bring my issues into a platform you create to discuss your issues, as I do realize that is impolite and against the forum rules.

    I DO NOT CARE about your rules about why you are free to shift topics but I am not. Unless you are an elightened debater armed with objective truth, THIS WILL NOT CHANGE.

    If you need to label me anything you want and feel a need to tell me about it, I simply request you respect the rules and do not insult me while you're at it. I would also appreciate if you re examine these specific needs of yours, and check if anyone else already expressed similar things, before you post. If you decide not to post, that will be good, as you won't waste your time posting, and I won't waste my time refuting what you said.

    If you feel anything I said is against the forum rules, please invite a moderator to the thread.
    Last edited by TGUEIROS; 06-12-2018, 11:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • TGUEIROS
    replied
    Aquillion

    That first quote you referenced was in this thread, which I made to elaborate more on how I feel about the things described on the topic and first post. I said nothing of the sort on the Inspirational Art Thread. So, no I didn't try to silence them where they were speaking, I made a general statement, that is all. I was talking in a whole other place about my views on it. Not badgering them, not forcing nothing down anyone's throat, not protesting, nothing of the sort. I created a place to speak my mind, as is the polite thing to do.

    Now if you want to follow me here and take umbrage when I express myself, and try to silence me or claim control of what I can and cannot say, outside of the terms delineated on the forum rules? What can I tell you? You don't need my permission to not speak to me or leave? Go and make yourself a thread about it? That is part of the essence of the matter anyways, maybe thats why we have a core misunderstanding about what is happening.

    People tried to say I can't talk about mens' issues when talking about women's issues when having a free form conversation, that is the attempt at censorship I am talking about and it happened before any talk about cleaving to this thread's topic by me.

    Somehow you can break the rules of the place when you feel it is appropriate, but I can't break the your rules (not the place's rules) when I feel it is appropriate.

    And please don't bring any real exceptional and rule breaking people into this conversation. It only makes you look like a clueless entitled and priviliged brat, belittling the existential struggle and circumstances these people suffered through, which I'm sure you loathe.

    I don't consider myself any sort of hero, sorry, I am very aware of the general insignificance of myself and of this conversation. Not fighting for civil rights here! Ok? This is not an existential threat to humankind, or any other lifekind of the world so... No heroes here folks! Move along.

    So you seem not to be reading all the posts and maintaining their content and chronology in order to respond about who said what first. I don't blame you, it is a long convuluted thread.

    Thank you for sharing some of your personal experience and expressing hope that I may one day make what you believe are positive changes to myself. That is a very decent and human thing to feel and say. Thank you for showing some empathy and understanding, even though I disagree with where it comes from, I do truly appreciate it.

    I'll add that I'm tired of the same song and the same dance, only with different partners. So if you don't have something truly new to say, and you want to talk specifically with about it, please do not make the same mistake as me and invest too much time, thought and energy on it, because it will probably not be given the same thought, time and energy in exchange, which is a pity and very wasteful for all involved.
    Last edited by TGUEIROS; 06-12-2018, 11:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aquillion
    replied
    Originally posted by TGUEIROS View Post
    1. Me "jumping on Cheshire's throat" and trying to silence them.

    I'm sorry, but I don't see any instance of that. I didn't even address them directly, didn't ask them not to criticize, didn't ask the to shut up
    From the first page of this thread:
    Originally posted by TGUEIROS View Post
    In that context my response was very simple.

    In that thread, please, if you don't like something, and that something is not against the terms of use, please don't look at it, don't take it as inspiration for your Exalted, and shut up about it!
    That is how you yourself described your own comments. Your intent was to make them shut up. You didn't like what they were saying and wanted them to stop saying it; this emotional response drove you to search for an argument you could use to shut down that discussion. Everything else you've said has been driven by that same basic desire.

    The discussion about propriety when speaking, and arguments about where and when to do so, only came in this thread when people tried to censor me from speaking
    You are the only one who has, at any point in this discussion, attempted to silence others. Fullstop. I'm not going to stop pointing this out every time you try to talk about censorship or FREEDOM™. I assume (from the fact that you keep trying to work it in, despite its absurdity in this context) that this feeling that you're defending FREEDOM™ is important to what drives your feelings on this topic, but in this case it's just... nonsensical, in the sense that it bears no relation to anything anyone but you has said so far.

    People are devising and establishing all these arcane rules about how to talk and interact with each other, as if every conversation was a debate competition or a complex ritual with grave consequences for missteps. It is contrived and boring and doesn't serve any good purpose I can tell.
    You are the one who specifically tried to silence someone by citing the rules of the thread! I'm just... I don't know what to say to this? This is literally how we started this, with you trying to create and invoke arcane rules restricting when Cheshire could or could not voice the opinion they voiced, with the explicit goal of making them (in your own words) shut up.

    I have deconstructed your arguments - going over why they seemed weird, out of place, and even nonsensical, then piecing together what I felt the underlying drive behind them was. And based on that I would suggest that you stop for a moment to consider both what you're saying and the underlying motivation driving it; but that's just a suggestion, based on the uncomfortably cringe-inducing way I see my past self in you.

    This sort of spiral can be escaped. I know it can. I've done it. The desire to flinch from things you don't want to think about - to derail discussions or to "helpfully" dig up ways to insert yourself into them as the hero or the victim or the protagonist - is something I grappled with a lot myself. You need to recognize that reaction within yourself and learn to second-guess it.

    Again, this thread is not about sexual objectification of women, it is about what I said on the topic and the first post. I treat these threads as regular conversation, topics drift, people change subjects, say things related and non related to the main topic. You know, natural flow, not some weird shit full of rules. The rules here are those of the overall forum, not what anyone wants to say they are.
    You are free to discuss whatever you want. The only person, again, who has tried to silence anyone here is you. I'm glad you've changed your mind on that, but trying to project your own censorious urges on others is silly. You saw someone saying something you disliked, so you tried to think of a way to (in your own words) make them shut up; then, when people objected, you spun into a script of self-pity and blind accusations in order to try to make yourself feel better and convince yourself that you were in the right.

    That post was made after Isator brought Birth of the Nation as an example of abominable art that was made. It was hyperbolic and while I can't know people's minds, it seemed it was done to either invalidate my view or tag me with something very ugly. And I made this thread to respond to that.
    I know. You felt personally attacked - someone disagreed with you, strongly, in a way that you didn't feel was fair. That's all right! Maybe they chose a metaphor that was a bit too harsh. But you chose to immediately leap to interpreting this as censorship (perhaps as a form of projection, given that your initial response to finding someone saying something you disagreed with was to try and figure out how to shut them up.) That wasn't a logically-connected response. It was an emotional response based around your defensive desire to retreat to ground that would make you the beleaguered hero or the unfairly set-upon victim.

    Even then, though, it was still just an attack on your arguments, not on you as a person. It might have been rude, or hyperbolic, maybe, but that's not censorship. "I think what you're saying is wrong" isn't censorship. "I think your motivations are suspect" isn't censorship. "You need to stop and think about why you're saying these things, since you're not making any sense in context" isn't censorship. "Your opinions are bad and you should feel bad" isn't censorship. And I'd go so far as to say that your abject, open desperation to define all these things as censorship - to frantically pick through the ways people have disagreed with you for bits that you can use to fall to the ground and cry "HELP, HELP, I'M BEING OPPRESSED" - reveals an underlying cognitive dissonance between your initial SHUT UP reaction and your honest belief that people should be able to speak.

    You want people saying things like Cheshire or Isator Levi did to shut up (since what they're saying is basically just "I don't like this", which is an expression of their personal opinion and not something you can answer); so you need what they're saying to be more nefarious, more dangerous, something that can justify your gut reaction of distaste. Hence, you frantically try to interpret these things as censorship.

    Well, unless your thoughts are completely original, or you're extremely insulated, you were probably convinced of something by someone. So arguing as if this has any kind of absolute value as to whether a point of view is valid or not is not very effective.
    Arguing whether or not a point of view is valid is central to rational debate. Not all points of view are equally valid. Sometimes you're not seeing things clearly, either because you don't know enough or because you desperately want them to be different. When you present your point of view, it's fair to expect people to challenge it and to have to defend it. If you want to insist that your point of view is relevant and worth considering, that's something you're going to have to defend and sometimes deal with people disagreeing over.

    If you don't feel this way, that might explain why you feel you're constantly being censored? That is - do you actually believe it's censorship for someone to deny, dispute, or disregard your point of view? Because that's silly. Not all points of view are equal. Some are valuable; some are complicated and need a lot of thought to get the full value out of them; and some are completely worthless or pure distractions. Parsing out which ones are which is central answering hard questions.

    For what it's worth, though, people aren't usually convinced to change their core values. Arguments get people's backs up and push them to harden their beliefs. Although I hope some part of this will one day get through to you, the real reason I'm doing it is not to convince you but to outline what I feel is a useful way of thinking about the problem for people who are more receptive to what I'm saying. We don't generally get our views from rational debates; after all, our reasoning is always motivated, at the end of the day, by our passions. We absorb our views, unconsciously, from our social networks - from people we respect or view as friends or are willing to listen to.

    I wasn't convinced to change my views. I changed because I stopped and looked back at the arguments I'd made and the positions I'd taken and asked myself why, and realized the reasons weren't defensible, or that they were crude emotional crutches I'd pulled together to cast myself as the hero. One day you'll either do that or you won't, and there's not much anyone else can do or say to influence that beyond hoping that you have the right sorts of people close to you.

    You are free to disagree with that, and try to convince me otherwise, or not. I hope you don't think I'm bad because of that, but you're also free to do that too.
    I am, in fact, trying to address what I think is the heart of the problem here is. My basic point is that the structure of what you've said so far does not make sense as anything but an effort to cast yourself as the beleaguered hero the way I outlined above. Your responses so far have boiled down to various ways of saying:

    1. "SHUT UP. Stop talking about this here."

    2. "Stop trying to censor me! FREEEDOOOM!"

    3. "Men have problems too!"

    4. "STOP TRYING TO CENSOR ME!"

    Aside from the initial "SHUT UP", none of these have been meaningfully connected to what you were replying to. Nobody is disagreeing with your right to convince yourself you're the set-upon victim of this conversation, or to spin whatever disconnected fantasies you please about defending your FREEDOM from imaginary monsters who are trying to take it away from you, but as it stands those are not a coherent or meaningful argument in the context of this conversation. Given that everyone you're arguing with has tried to present their position, and that you have repeatedly attempted to parse their disagreement or criticism as censorship, I think it's easy to see why so many people feel you're being disingenuous.
    Last edited by Aquillion; 06-12-2018, 05:04 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • TGUEIROS
    replied
    Aquillion

    This thread and the arguments contained in them are pretty long, spread and tiresome. I'll do my best to address some of your points, but I won't go through all the gender issues stuff again, my view on them seems pretty clear, and I don't think you want to discuss them per se, so I'll move on to clarify my view some things you've said.

    1. Me "jumping on Cheshire's throat" and trying to silence them.

    I'm sorry, but I don't see any instance of that. I didn't even address them directly, didn't ask them not to criticize, didn't ask the to shut up, didn't ask them to take it somewhere else... So, where are you getting this from? I just stated my stance towards art production/consumption in a dry and direct way. But I didn't try to censor Cheshire in that thread. I just gave my tangential opinion on the matter.

    It was actually Synapse, who expressed exasperation about those types of comments, and my comment was made to express my view and mildly support his exasperation.

    The discussion about propriety when speaking, and arguments about where and when to do so, only came in this thread when people tried to censor me from speaking about whatever I wanted to speak because "reasons and rules" that they feel are only alright to break when it serves their purpose.

    People are devising and establishing all these arcane rules about how to talk and interact with each other, as if every conversation was a debate competition or a complex ritual with grave consequences for missteps. It is contrived and boring and doesn't serve any good purpose I can tell.

    Again, this thread is not about sexual objectification of women, it is about what I said on the topic and the first post. I treat these threads as regular conversation, topics drift, people change subjects, say things related and non related to the main topic. You know, natural flow, not some weird shit full of rules. The rules here are those of the overall forum, not what anyone wants to say they are.

    If you wanna talk about one specific thing in this forum, how about you make a thread about it? Then you can ask people to stay on topic if they deviate. Isn't that a simple rule to remember and follow?

    2. Freedom.

    That post was made after Isator brought Birth of the Nation as an example of abominable art that was made. It was hyperbolic and while I can't know people's minds, it seemed it was done to either invalidate my view or tag me with something very ugly. And I made this thread to respond to that.

    My stance is pretty clear. People can produce whatever art they feel like producing. Let the marketplace of ideas sort it out. Work on your marketing to convince the people your views are better and the ones that should be consumed.

    3. Chip on my shoulder.

    Well, if talking about my experiences and sticking to my views is having a chip on my shoulder, Aquillion, feel free to think believe that I have a few. It is just another label, which I also don't identify with or care about.

    4. "In good faith"...

    Well, unless your thoughts are completely original, or you're extremely insulated, you were probably convinced of something by someone. So arguing as if this has any kind of absolute value as to whether a point of view is valid or not is not very effective.

    So do you have anything else to tell me about those views that other people on the thread haven't yet? If not, please accept my arguments in good faith, because I believe them, instead of taking me for a troll, or a naive simpleton, that is all I ask.

    Saying I can't say something because you said something is bullshit. in my view, and I don't care about it.

    You are free to disagree with that, and try to convince me otherwise, or not. I hope you don't think I'm bad because of that, but you're also free to do that too.

    Just remember the more nitpicky you are with people, the more you are creating a clique instead of a movement.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aquillion
    replied
    Originally posted by aluminiumtrioxid View Post

    Post #59 from the OP asks exactly that, though.
    Ah! That's page four, though, so not many people newly-arriving in the thread are likely to see it - and, in any case, responding to a one-line comment by confronting it (rather than just ignoring it) is doing the same thing.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X