Joined Jan 17, 2010 at 08:53AM EST
| || |
Best use for it.
Uploaded an image to Totally Looks Like / Separated At Birth.
Uploaded an image to Wil Wheaton.
The Big Bang Theory has given me an irrational hatred for Wil Wheaton.
I think “evil” is a bit too strong a word though – it carries too many connotations, and as the words are typically used it doesn’t really make sense for someone to be good and evil at the same time. Saying everyone has the potential to do bad things would be a more clear way to put it.
What made me comment was that it reminds me of the classical Christian way of looking at morality, where it seems like if you ever do anything bad that makes you a sinner and therefore worthless scum that needs saving from Hell, but doing good things doesn’t make you a virtuous angel at the same time – they’re kind of irrelevant in the scheme of things. I think that’s a pretty dangerous idea, where the only thing that matters in regards to what sort of person you are is the bad things; it’s ignoring a whole other side of human experience.
Yeah, it’s probably best to drop it. :S
>not being a Christian country.
Fair point; I should say countries that are majority Christian. Take pretty much every country on this list and you’ll find quite widespread discrimination against LGBT people, if not right now then certainly in the recent past.
Where’s the source for the claim that it’s an infinitesimal fraction of the number?
It’s not irrelevant at all; if you’re going to take an objective look at Christianity you have to consider what effect it has had throughout its history, not just what’s happening right this moment.
>Are you saying that we shouldn’t suggest
No, but do it in a manner which suggests you appreciate what they’ve gone through, rather than they’re stupid and evil people.
>didn’t suggest that
Was referring to what you said later. It’s easy to use something to justify bad stuff when it itself endorses bad stuff.
I disagree. Criticizing what someone believes doesn’t mean they’re a bad person.
>I meant in the entire context of the Christian Bible
And large proportion of Christians don’t think that context invalidates a negative stance on homosexuality. Their interpretation is just as valid as yours, so criticising what led them to get to that interpretation is fair enough.
>so long as they have the money and time to make such a video
That’s what she did, so it’s hardly hypocrisy to expect others to do so to. YouTube is a video sharing site. Comments are a nice bonus, but they’re not the primary purpose. And again, if you what to provide criticism without doing what she did, there’s plenty of other places to do so.
>Also, did I ever say that she had to address every criticism made towards her?
Didn’t say you did, but you seem to be expecting her to read all of it, which is an unreasonable expectation IMO. If you aren’t, then why does it matter if they “reach” her or not?
>corrupt state senator
But she’s not a corrupt state senator, she’s a single lady making videos about games. Whether or not your bit of criticism happens to reach her or not is ultimately inconsequential.
>I’m done. I’ve simply have enough of this issue.
Fair enough. It was fun arguing with you, sir/madam. :P
>except that this is irrelevant
The whole digression was irrelevant since you brought it up IMO, but there we go.
>comparatively infinitesimal fraction of that number
What is your source for this claim? Considering how many Christian countries continue to discriminate against LGBT people (even the US), I find it hard to believe that it’s an infinitesimal fraction. Let alone what happened throughout Christianity’s history.
>these people need to sit the fuck down
No argument there, but it’s very easy to say people need to sit down when you’re not them and haven’t had to put up with the same shit they have, is my point.
>They need to realize that ANYTHING can be ill-interpreted for the sake of justifying immoral deeds
Yes, and it’s pretty fricken’ easy to do that when it literally says in the holy book that a man who has sex with a man should be put to death by stoning as it’s an abomination.
>slam 2.2 billion people all at once
They didn’t actually slam anyone … they criticized their ideology.
>out of context
Sorry, how is ordering stoning people to death for something they do in their personal lives okay in any context?
I think we could all use a bit less condescension. :P
Yes, and LGBT people don’t generally talk badly about straight Americans.
>I should probably mention that one of the things that Jesus said
Yeah, I know, Jesus himself doesn’t say anything about LGBT people and if anything his teachings imply acceptance towards them. That doesn’t change the fact that to this day a whole lot of Christians use an interpretation of the Bible to justify discrimination against LGBT people. If you disagree with that interpretation then you should probably be telling them that, not me.
>And I do not claim nor imply any of these things.
You argued that because most black people don’t often talk badly about white people, considering the mistreatment of black people from white people, it’s not in any way understandable for an individual LGBT person to badly about Christianity, considering the mistreatment of LGBT people due to Christian teaching. Either these situations are comparable (which they aren’t IMO) or they’re not, in which case bringing it up was kinda irrelevant.
>a prevailing idea
I’m pretty sure no one would have a problem with black people talking badly about the ideology of black people not being human.
>continue trying to justify
I’m not justifying anything. I’m saying it’s understandable they feel that way given the circumstances. That’s compassion – being understanding towards people even if you don’t agree with what they say, because some people have gone through a lot more shit than you have.
This is what Idris Elba actually looks like, btw:
Uploaded an image to Alternate Universe.
This is scary. D:
I’ve seen stuff about this, but the article obviously needs a ton of work.
Uploaded an image to REMOVE HORROR.
>Black people don’t generally talk badly about white Americans
Er, actually they sometimes do, e.g. responses to the Trayvon Martin case. And if/when they do, I’d have pretty much the same opinion – not good, but understandable, especially if they have personally suffered at the hands of white people their whole life.
That being said, this is a terrible comparison. Being white isn’t a belief system, or carry forth an associated ideology. Being white doesn’t make a set of claims about the world that can be challenged. Being white isn’t a direct justification people use to persecute black people. Being white isn’t something you can choose not to be if it’s something you disagree with. There’s nothing in the Holy Book of White People saying that being black is an abomination that deserves stoning.
We’re also born with the ability to do good things and we do those good things constantly in our daily lives. Does that mean all humans are good as well as all being evil? I’m confused.
Look at it from their perspective (assuming they’re actually gay/allies rather than people commercially exploiting the movement which I grant is possible).
You have a group of people who have been horribly discriminated against for something that’s not only benign but something they have no control over. This discrimination is largely influenced by the prevalence of Christianity in Western culture, and to this day you have a large proportion of Christians who think gay people are second-class-citizens/perverted/sinners/child-molesters etc. You have Christians campaigning against their ability to marry or to raise children. You have Christians trying to make it illegal to even mention gay relationships in the presence of children (while straight relationships are a-okay), and Christians trying to give gay people the death penalty. The Christian holy book itself says that if a man has sex with another man he should be stoned to death, because what he’s done is an abomination unto God.
Now, yes, you shouldn’t generalize that to all Christians since a decent percentage of them know all of that is horrible. But given how horribly Christianity as a whole has treated LGBT people, and still continues to do so, I can certainly understand how people might be sufficiently pissed off about it to make a post like that.
>not moving the goalposts
IMO you are, because first you said she removed any way to receive criticism, then she didn’t but it’s not convenient for you, now she has to actually read it all as well.
>does criticism matter unless
Are you expecting her to read every piece of criticism ever posted? That’d run into the 10,000’s at least; she’d never do anything else. If you’re writing criticism intending to definitely reach her, that’s more a case of having too high expectations than censorship.
Okay, but the “censorship” here is still because of your own choice not to use Twitter, not her.
>checked on Facebook
Fair enough. AFAIK you don’t to post on her page. And even if you do need to “like” it first, it’s not really such a major imposition that it’s worth crying censorship over.
>she is doing everything “heavenly possible”
The point is she’s not making it as easy as heavenly possible to voice your opinions, but that isn’t censorship.
>not allowing viewers to provide criticism in the forum
That’s not what she’s doing, though. People are allowed to provide criticism in the forum she’s posting in … by making their own videos, just as she is doing, and plenty of people have. The only way she would be hypocritical on that front is if she were trying to take down other people’s videos, which she hasn’t done, and incidentally some of her critics have tried to do to her.
Yeah, the comment was a bit over the top, although I can see where they’re coming from.
>look at you trying to turn my words against me.
I’m just responding to what you said …
>i said i watched her vid.
I thought you said you didn’t, but if that’s not what you meant then fair enough.
>she could be fighting against sexism in other countries and such. she AS 150 000$
So could you; I don’t see you going over there and doing something about it. And people gave her money to do her video series, not to fight sexism in other countries, so that’s what she’s doing. Something worth keeping in mind also is that western media does filter into other countries too, so by talking about that she is doing her bit in some small way.
>shes waisting people time over something we all know doesnt affect the real world.
I don’t agree with that. Media has an effect on how people look at the world – that’s why art is important and why companies spend so much money on advertising.
>you dont become sexist over a game of mario just like you dont become violent after a game of gta.
No one’s saying you do; the effects are more subtle than that.
>i hope you did read that little addition
Yes, that’s where I quoted it from.
>its not a real conversation if im talking to a wall
You’re not talking to a wall, you’re talking to me. If you expect her to have a one-on-one conversation with everyone who watches (or indeed didn’t watch) her videos, that’s rather silly.
>i do not watch her video
>you do not need money to 1. make videos
Yes, you kinda do if you’re going to make them to anywhere near a professional standard, especially when that’s your job and you don’t take any ad revenue.
>stolen (yes, stolen) video footage
Using appropriated footage for educational purposes is protected under Fair Use, so no, it wasn’t stolen. And really, Let’s Players using video game companies’ content without their permission are the last people who should be complaining about people using other people’s content, especially when the focus of their content (their voice and commentary) isn’t used in any of her videos.
>fight against real sexism
Yeah, and you could be helping starving orphans right now. Why are you making comments on a meme website when you could be helping starving orphans? How could you??
>we DO need more female characters
>how the hell is a male dev supposed to pin point right a perfect female character?
No one’s asking for perfection, but for variety. When Sarkeesian criticises a trend she’s not saying “every female character has to be X”, she’s saying “there are way too many characters that are Y, it’d be good if we could have a few more letters of the alphabet in here”.
>how is that not sexist too?
No one’s saying it isn’t; discussing problems with female representation doesn’t mean problems with male representation don’t exist.
>nobody gives a shit
Well, obviously enough people give a shit for her to raise ~$150,000 ($6000+ of which was raised in the first 24 hours). If you don’t give a shit then just don’t watch her videos.
>way to stop anykind of critism or conversations.
You say while you’re voicing criticism and are part of a conversation …
I disagree, I think using a lot of examples is useful to make the point of how widespread the trend is, which is crucial to making her point. Either way, it’s obviously a thought-out choice she made for a reason, and so IMO isn’t reflective of the video’s quality, it’s just not to your taste.
Fair point, but IMO it’s not fair to brush all that aside even though it isn’t in much depth, and I don’t think her series is intended to be a massively in-depth explanation of the issue, it’s to raise awareness and spark discussion. For what it is I think it’s done pretty well.