Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Anacybele

The Race Issue: Is it going too far? Has Disney hopped on the train now too?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, killelall said:

 

Unarmed black men is not what Johann claimed and is not relevant to the discussion as neither Johann nor I said such.

Were not talking about a court of law here. You are the one  arguing semantics. Johann tried to create the narrative that innocent blacks were being victimized by hyper violent police. Such is not the case.

Fun fact the only people to use the word innocent in this thread before you are OP, and Burklight. You have just used it in three post in a row, and always attributing this as the opinion of another user you disagree with.

 

Why are you spinning the narrative that Johann believes these victims of these violent acts were "innocent blacks"?

Why is the phrase you claim Johann meant but didn't use any more relevant than the phrase Lord Raven claims Johann meant but didn't use?

Why is their innocence or guilt of minor crimes relevant to whether or not they should die?

Why do you presume they were criminals when they faced no trial, especially when their accusers "have no business being allowed to wear a badge" ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ping said:

I think the question of unarmed or armed is a whole fucking lot more relevant to the discussion than George Floyd's criminal record. He could've robbed a bank and broken the cashier's legs for all I care, there's absolute zero legitimization for him being killed in that situation.

That's an incredibly weird way to look at percentiles. Or rather, to ignore the percentiles.

As I said, it totally wasn't acceptable that it happened. However, the police weren't just picking off random innocent men.

Its actually the more normal way of looking at them. When only 20% of blacks suffer from poverty and stereotypes want to assume the majority of blacks suffer from poverty that's what's odd. 

And if one wants to look at poverty, illiteracy, crime rates, and so on by theirself, one sees that whites make up the majority of these by percentile. However, people want to push stereotypes, so...

1 hour ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

Why are you spinning the narrative that Johann believes these victims of these violent acts were "innocent blacks"?

Why is the phrase you claim Johann meant but didn't use any more relevant than the phrase Lord Raven claims Johann meant but didn't use?

Why is their innocence or guilt of minor crimes relevant to whether or not they should die?

Why do you presume they were criminals when they faced no trial, especially when their accusers "have no business being allowed to wear a badge" ?

Because he's portraying them as people simply going to a store or such, and not people being targeted because they are committed a crime.

Because Lord Raven's phase isn't more relevant.

I never said one should die for that reason. In fact, I condemned the murder of George Floyd. What I pointed out was that he wasn't just some random black man getting singled out for no reason. He was someone who committed a crime, thus police acted against him. I never said someone should die because they are a criminal. In fact, I even stated being a criminal doesn't justify someone being murdered. 

Because drugs were found on them, because the autopsy says meth and fentanyl.

Edited by killelall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, killelall said:

As I said, it totally wasn't acceptable that it happened. However, the police weren't just picking off random innocent men.

Its actually the more normal way of looking at them. When only 20% of blacks suffer from poverty and stereotypes want to assume the majority of blacks suffer from poverty that's what's odd. 

And if one wants to look at poverty, illiteracy, crime rates, and so on by theirself, one sees that whites make up the majority of these by percentile. However, people want to push stereotypes, so...

Ah yes. It's totally not acceptable, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut~~~

There's more bicycles in Berlin (around 3.4 million) than there are in Münster (around 500k). And still people are claiming that Münster has an exceptionally high bike count! How silly of them!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, killelall said:

 Drugs being illegal is something that deters people from obtaining them and makes it so they can't be sold & easily obtained. 

It likely wouldn't save money as the government makes a lot of money by prosecuting people, fining them, and so on. Especially areas with revolving door policies wherein drug addicts who pay fines often find that the charges against them are dropped. (Lovely bit of government corruptions.)

The claims regarding drugs and racism tend to revolve accusations of drugs being used to harm the black, with them being imported into predominately black communities. Legalizing them wouldn't solve the problem. It would exasperate it.

African Americans are more likely to be charged and imprisoned than white people, no matter what the crime. Sentencing Project, New York Times, Michigan State University

It is absolutely fucking disgusting when a piece of white trash like Brock Turner receives a slap on the wrist for being a filthy rapist, while black people all over the country are having their rights violated for just walking around "looking suspicious."

When I volunteered in New York, one of the projects I volunteered for was to raise financial literacy among disadvantaged people. I had short discussion with a young black person one time, and when he told me how New York cops are biased and racist, I was in disbelief and honestly quite skeptical. In my four years of living in New York, I do not think I have ever even talked to a cop there. After doing a little more research, and especially after seeing all the shit now, I think what the young black person was telling me was true. Even until very recently, I still have not quite grasped the extent of the fear of the police if you are black, and seeing George Floyd's video finally gave me a good hard glimpse into what that fear looks like. Even in my hometown of Sacramento, despite our police force handling the protest relatively well compared to the rest of the country, it still is not exactly squeaky clean as our cops shot an unarmed black man a few years ago, and that was near my neighborhood; the charges against the officers were also completely dropped, which is pretty fucking bullshit, since if they were in any other occupation, they would have at least faced some prison time, community service, or at least some minor sentence due to accidentally killing someone. I am willing to give the officers the benefit of the doubt that they did not mean to kill an unarmed black man, but letting them get away scot-free is absurd.

Legalizing drugs would at least stop the incarceration of blacks based on drug offenses. What drug addicts need is not a fucking prison, it is fucking rehabilitation. Criminalizing drugs is complete bullshit to begin with, just like the Prohibition criminalizing alcohol. This is fucking America, and I want my fucking freedom to smoke and snort whatever the hell I want.

6 hours ago, killelall said:

Yeah, I know how statistics work. However, its NOT the broader reality. While blacks suffer a 20% poverty rate, as opposed to whites who suffer a 10% poverty rate, the fact is whites make of the majority when it comes to poor, uneducated, divorced, and so on. A narrative that ignores the existence of the majority is flawed. 

Fuck blacks and minorities because they are only a small fraction of the population, right? Screw that. By that logic, we should disenfranchise Republican voters too then since the majority of Americans voted for Hillary Clinton and crooked Trump stole the election. We should be locking that obese orange turd up. Who gives a crap about what Republicans want? They cannot even take care of themselves properly since they are an economic drain on Democratic states, let alone govern and manage this country. COVID cases are going back up, our economy is fucking shit, the orange turd is not doing anything about Russia putting bounties on our soldiers, and everyone else internationally is laughing at how bat shit insane and absolutely STUPID some Americans are. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

42 minutes ago, ping said:

Ah yes. It's totally not acceptable, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut~~~

There's more bicycles in Berlin (around 3.4 million) than there are in Münster (around 500k). And still people are claiming that Münster has an exceptionally high bike count! How silly of them!!

Hey, if you want to act like the majority of blacks are poor uneducated criminals from broken families, you can push that false narrative. You can also keep assuming that when you run into a random white dude that he's likely more educated than a person of color, with a good family, wealthy, and that your in more danger around a person of color than a white person despite actual data. I'll just think you're might be a racist if you do so.   

32 minutes ago, XRay said:

African Americans are more likely to be charged and imprisoned than white people, no matter what the crime. Sentencing Project, New York Times, Michigan State University

Aye. And its pretty disturbing when you look at the numbers and see that whites usually commit two to five times the number of crimes that blacks do. It really highlights a very likely potential problem.

I won't agree with your views on drugs. Drugs kill people, ruin lives, and cause good people to commit crimes. I have family who ruined their lives because of drugs, and already mentioned what happened to my home as a result of drug addicts turning it into a drug & prostitution den, stripping the metal from within while I was away at work, and how the police were useless.

  

32 minutes ago, XRay said:

Fuck blacks and minorities because they are only a small fraction of the population, right? Screw that. By that logic, we should disenfranchise Republican voters too then since the majority of Americans voted for Hillary Clinton and crooked Trump stole the election. We should be locking that obese orange turd up. Who gives a crap about what Republicans want? They cannot even take care of themselves properly since they are an economic drain on Democratic states, let alone govern and manage this country. COVID cases are going back up, our economy is fucking shit, the orange turd is not doing anything about Russia putting bounties on our soldiers, and everyone else internationally is laughing at how bat shit insane and absolutely STUPID some Americans are. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

At no point did I promote your racist narrative & say that people should be disenfranchised because they aren't part of the majority. However, people won't receive proper help if the proper solutions aren't provided. Creating a narrative that because someone is a person of color that they are less likely to succeed does not help someone believe in the prospects of their future. E.g., 80% of blacks aren't doomed to poverty. Realizing that one can succeed in life helps motivate one into believing in their future & fighting for it.

The hopeless narrative being pushed can be quite destructive, and feeds persecution complexes that will hold people back.

This isn't to say there aren't problems, but present them properly so they can be solved without harming the communities one CLAIMS they are trying to help. Its quite possible to show that disparity exists without destroying people's hopes & dreams for the future.

Edited by killelall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, killelall said:

Hey, if you want to act like the majority of blacks are poor uneducated criminals from broken families, you can push that false narrative

Nobody is acting like this. You're putting words in our mouth.

1 hour ago, killelall said:

I won't agree with your views on drugs. Drugs kill people, ruin lives, and cause good people to commit crimes. I have family who ruined their lives because of drugs, and already mentioned what happened to my home as a result of drug addicts turning it into a drug & prostitution den, stripping the metal from within while I was away at work, and how the police were useless.

So they did something that was illegal so we should keep drugs illegal? Is that your logic?

This has nothing to do with legality. In a drugs-are-legal world, they would be going to rehab, not jail and not continuing their drug addled stuff.

Making drugs more accepted as a society decouples all aspects of crime from drugs. Including cartels.

But still, you haven't really addressed the fact that you were completely fuckin factually incorrect about why George Floyd got arrested.

1 hour ago, killelall said:

At no point did I promote your racist narrative & say that people should be disenfranchised because they aren't part of the majority.

I legit don't understand why you come to a topic about race to say essentially that white privilege doesn't exist. You can't have a good conversation by denial of fact.

1 hour ago, killelall said:

However, people won't receive proper help if the proper solutions aren't provided. Creating a narrative that because someone is a person of color that they are less likely to succeed does not help someone believe in the prospects of their future. E.g., 80% of blacks aren't doomed to poverty. Realizing that one can succeed in life helps motivate one into believing in their future & fighting for it.

Creating a narrative... Out of fact... Lmfao

1 hour ago, killelall said:

The hopeless narrative being pushed can be quite destructive, and feeds persecution complexes that will hold people back.

This isn't to say there aren't problems, but present them properly so they can be solved without harming the communities one CLAIMS they are trying to help. Its quite possible to show that disparity exists without destroying people's hopes & dreams for the future.

Nobody is saying it's hopeless. Saying the existence of white privilege is a blackpill is some really wonky logic.

We're just saying -- the black communities need a lot of reparations from our government, more social programs, less police, and polling stations and easier ways to get IDs. White wealth is on average an order of magnitude higher than black wealth, even amongst the lower class. To ignore this reality to say "why are you arguing to fix something depressing" is some really faulty logic.

 

 

Your argument is ridiculously erratic in general. Can you please summarize your position again?

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...of course the OP makes this topic and complains about the possibility of losing "cool stuff" in spite of said "cool stuff" being racist stuff we shouldn't be tolerating in the first place.

Plenty of others have explained it better than I can and probably already said what I'm about to say, but I'll say my piece anyways.

The cops have been horrible for a long time. Fun fact: the NYPD went on strike once. Crime WENT DOWN.

People (especially black people, in addition to minorities in general like those who are LGBT+ and people of color) have been excessively vocal about their mistreatment not only with the cops, but with corporate media and white people in general, especially rich people. They HAVE been complaining about it for decades, but they've been ignored.

People tried protesting peacefully to send their message. No one listened. They HAD to amp up the protests, and unlike what the media says, the protestors have not been as violent as the cops gassing people and murdering black people while outright lying to the public about their causes of death (like the lynchings they keep framing as "suicides") or their counter-protestor buddies trying to make the movement look bad by actually causing damage to monuments that AREN'T oppressive to black people.

The cops that murdered black people like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor (to name a couple) are still free when they shouldn't be. The cop who directly killed Floyd was applying to join the KKK, yet he got bailed out of jail. And yet many innocent black people (including children) are stuck in jail for an excessive amount of years for small crimes a cop would turn a blind eye to for a white person.

So no, BLM has NOT gone too far. It has not gotten far enough yet, in fact. Because racism is still here and hurting others.

And the billionaire president, as many have said, is a racist scumbag who cares more for his money and power than the many lives lost to this country's oppressive nature. This is not what we think of him. This is what we KNOW of him.

We need to listen to the collective voices of black people and other minorities who have experienced suppression their whole lives for being themselves to no damage to others. They know more about this. Not cishet white people at the news desks of overpowered organizations giving ignorant takes they don't understand for the sake of their blind pride in their broken country.

And I say that as an autistic cis aro white dude.

Keep the protests going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, killelall said:

I won't agree with your views on drugs. Drugs kill people, ruin lives, and cause good people to commit crimes. I have family who ruined their lives because of drugs, and already mentioned what happened to my home as a result of drug addicts turning it into a drug & prostitution den, stripping the metal from within while I was away at work, and how the police were useless.

So does alcohol and tobacco, but I do not see people criminalizing those substances. I honestly do not give a fuck about whether drugs kill. What I am doing to my body is none or yours or anyone else's business. Plenty of people have done drugs and remain productive members of society, so do not give me that morality bull crap about drugs causing good people to commit crimes. I could as just as easily spin that Christianity is an evil religion that causes stupidity and degrades logic in people.

22 minutes ago, killelall said:

How about you don't act like a moron, eh?

At no point did I promote your racist narrative & say that people should be disenfranchised because they aren't part of the majority. However, people won't receive proper help if the proper solutions aren't provided. Creating a narrative that because someone is a person of color that they are less likely to succeed does not help someone believe in the prospects of their future. E.g., 80% of blacks aren't doomed to poverty. Realizing that one can succeed in life helps motivate one into believing in their future & fighting for it.

The hopeless narrative being pushed can be quite destructive, and feeds persecution complexes that will hold people back.

This isn't to say there aren't problems, but present them properly so they can be solved without harming the communities one CLAIMS they are trying to help. Its quite possible to show that disparity exists without destroying people's hopes & dreams for the future.

How about actually trying to understand how statistics work then, and not dismiss the genuine fear of police that black communities face and the fact that blacks are disproportionately worse off in society?

White communities receive much more effective government help than black communities, so how the fuck is that fucking fair? Predominantly white school districts are much better funded than predominantly minority school districts. Even in the same fucking school district, schools with more whites are better funded than schools with less whites. I fucking know cause I attended two high schools in my city, and the first high school I went to with predominantly white and East Asian students had much better equipment and programs available compared to my second high school, which had predominantly black, Latino, and South East Asian students. You could literally count the number of white students with your hands during lunch period at my second high school, and the amount of equipment and programs we had just does not compare to my first high school. And when my second high school finally got help from the city, we got a fucking new sports stadium. What the absolute fuck was that supposed to mean? We were only good for sports cause our students were dumb and stupid? I appreciate the help and I honestly should not complain, but that money needed to go more into academics rather than sports. This was in fucking Sacramento, California, a Democratic city in a Democratic state. That was ten years ago, so I hope whatever funding and help they get now is better spent and allocated.

This is not about working hard. This is about working hard and still not making it because minority communities are given less opportunities and support to succeed. It sure is easier to succeed in life when the plate of success is pushed much closer to white folks.

Instead of trying to push your "narrative" from a place of privilege where only hard work matters, how about you come down from that podium of privilege and listen to what the black community has to say and try to see things from their perspective? I am not black, but even I can see the issues they face after just experiencing a glimpse of what they go through. Instead of rudely dismissing this as just some "narrative" or "story," go freaking volunteer and meet with people in need and try to empathize with their life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

6 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Nobody is acting like this. You're putting words in our mouth.

The concept of white privilege relies upon believing that these hurdles exist inherently for blacks, while also pretending that whites typically don't experience said problems.

--

Rather, because drugs can be so addictive, they change a person and cause them to commit crimes. They rule a person's values & cause them to bring harm to theirself and others. This is why drugs need to be illegal.

If drugs were legal, most people wouldn't go into rehab. Even more people would partake in them, and more people would suffer.

Wherein am I incorrect about why George Floyd was arrested? I said he was targeted because he committed a crime. He wasn't just some random innocent man.

Hypocrite, I didn't deny the existence of white privilege. Over and over I even said it existed. What I argued about was the false narrative people are creating by misusing statistics.
"Right. Its not a myth."
"Again, I didn't deny the existence thereof. I criticized the false claims about white privilege."

But yeah. We can't have a good conversation when you are too busy denying facts and whatnot.

24 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Nobody is acting like this. You're putting words in our mouth.

Facts, but intentionally misusing the data therein. If only 20% of blacks suffer from poverty you can't act like its an inherent problem. What it is is a disproportionate problem & understanding this is important. You, however, don't seem to care.

  

28 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Nobody is saying it's hopeless. Saying the existence of white privilege is a blackpill is some really wonky logic.

We're just saying -- the black communities need a lot of reparations from our government, more social programs, less police, and polling stations and easier ways to get IDs. White wealth is on average an order of magnitude higher than black wealth, even amongst the lower class. To ignore this reality to say "why are you arguing to fix something depressing" is some really faulty logic.

You claim that, but the narrative of the concept is for people to expect hurdles and unfairness because of the color of their skin, while downplaying the hurdles of others. Its a very basic arguing tactic used to bring light to a problem by exaggerating it while disregarding other problems. The concept acts like its a minority of blacks who don't have to suffer from the hurdles, when its the majority that get to avoid the problems. Said hurdles do exist - disproportionately so, but it needs to be treated like a disproportionate problem instead of an inherient problem.

But your weren't arguing that. I can get behind those things. I, however, can't get behind a broad sweeping generalization without focus.

28 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Your argument is ridiculously erratic in general. Can you please summarize your position again?

Sweeping generalizations are bad, and broad inaccurate generalizations won't lead to effective solutions.

My gripe has been about the presentation and the use of associative fallacies as they won't lead to proper solutions & will do more harm than good. Do note that I never denied the existence of problems. 

  

1 hour ago, NoirCore said:

The cops have been horrible for a long time. Fun fact: the NYPD went on strike once. Crime WENT DOWN.

 

If people don't make arrests, crimes can't occur.

Regarding the cop who killed George Floyd attempting to join the KKK... where is the proof of this? I'm a little surprised in regards to this since in an interview with a friend of George Floyd's, said friend mentioned the cop they were surprised that the cop murdered George Floyd since the cop and George Floyd used to be buddies when they were both bouncers.

The protests have gone too far. If it targets the jobs of the community that its trying to help, it harms the community it is trying to help. Protesters need to make sure they target the problem and not their own community. In the middle of live interview a black man had the business who spent his life savings to form broke down in tears as he watched rioters loot & destroy his establishment. This is not right. People like him were not part of the problem.

Considering Trump shut down the country early on, crippling businesses and employees to prevent the Corona virus back when people were claiming his actions were unnecessary, I can't agree with the notion that he doesn't care about people's lives.

 

1 hour ago, XRay said:

The cops have been horrible for a long time. Fun fact: the NYPD went on strike once. Crime WENT DOWN.

 

Laws preventing minors from drinking and smoking. Laws preventing drunk driving. Laws exist that prevent the depiction of said substances. Heavy taxes are instilled on these substances, and companies have faced legal actions over and over for attempting to make their products even more addictive. 
Laws were attempted to prevent the sale of liquor, but the government lost that battle.

 How someone affects the lives of others is peoples business. Highly addictive substances cause people to steal, scam, and harm others. Your turning a blind eye to how it impacts a lot of people does not change facts.

  

1 hour ago, XRay said:

How about actually trying to understand how statistics work then, and not dismiss the genuine fear of police that black communities face and the fact that blacks are disproportionately worse off in society?

Then how about you pay attention to what I said MULTIPLE TIMES - that it does affect them disproportionately.  

1 hour ago, XRay said:

Instead of trying to push your "narrative" from a place of privilege where only hard work matters, how about you come down from that podium of privilege and listen to what the black community has to say and try to see things from their perspective? I am not black, but even I can see the issues they face after just experiencing a glimpse of what they go through. Instead of rudely dismissing this as just some "narrative" or "story," go freaking volunteer and meet with people in need and try to empathize with their life.

Aww, but I don't come from a place of privilege. 

But nice assumption there kid. That ad hominem attack really helped your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, killelall said:

The concept of white privilege relies upon believing that these hurdles exist inherently for blacks, while also pretending that whites typically don't experience said problems.

No, it is saying that the hurdles are higher for black people. This is inarguable.

26 minutes ago, killelall said:

Rather, because drugs can be so addictive, they change a person and cause them to commit crimes. They rule a person's values & cause them to bring harm to theirself and others. This is why drugs need to be illegal.

sounds like you're in favor of our tax dollars being wasted in prisons based on uhh...  bullshit. Can you provide statistics showing that this is a widespread problem, or are you just going to talk about your family member?

 

Because I've argued that the drug war and reefer madness only started cuz of the Nixon campaign because they were racist. Given its racist intent and the fact that its still going on, along with the fact that so much of our money is being wasted on it (when legalizing...  brings it back into our government and keeps it in our economy) is a detriment to everyone and everything.

The fact that drugs are illegal will prevent your family from obtaining drugs...  how? You keep avoiding this concept.

 

However, this is a sweeping generalization of "drugs" since the majority of people I know do them... and are very well educated and successful people.

26 minutes ago, killelall said:

Wherein am I incorrect about why George Floyd was arrested? I said he was targeted because he committed a crime. He wasn't just some random innocent man.

You said he was arrested for drugs. He was arrested for a fake 20 dollar bill. Did that deserve an 8:46 death penalty?

Was he tried in court? I thought people were innocent until proven guilty. I guess the cop thought he was guilty on the spot!

26 minutes ago, killelall said:

Facts, but intentionally misusing the data therein. If only 20% of blacks suffer from poverty you can't act like its an inherent problem. What it is is a disproportionate problem & understanding this is important. You, however, don't seem to care.

That's literally what I said. CTRL+F disproportionate and you'll see I said this.

That still doesn't cancel that black wealth is often 10x lower than white wealth. On average. Disproportionate is a very very very strong point to make, stronger than you believe.

26 minutes ago, killelall said:

You claim that, but the narrative of the concept is for people to expect hurdles and unfairness because of the color of their skin, while downplaying the hurdles of others. Its a very basic arguing tactic used to bring light to a problem by exaggerating it while disregarding other problems. The concept acts like its a minority of blacks who don't have to suffer from the hurdles, when its the majority that get to avoid the problems. Said hurdles do exist - disproportionately so, but it needs to be treated like a disproportionate problem instead of an inherient problem.

These are the same exact thing. Inherent problems lead to disproportionate problems. Did you just mental gymnastic into the right viewpoint?

26 minutes ago, killelall said:

Sweeping generalizations are bad, and broad inaccurate generalizations won't lead to effective solutions.

Okay. But generalizations still serve a broader point, and they are still quite accurate within the group they exist within. Nobody wants to be racist. But saying that a white person has an advantage over a black person with all else remaining equal is a statement of fact.

26 minutes ago, killelall said:

The protests have gone too far. If it targets the jobs of the community that its trying to help, it harms the community it is trying to help. Protesters need to make sure they target the problem and not their own community. In the middle of live interview a black man had the business who spent his life savings to form broke down in tears as he watched rioters loot & destroy his establishment. This is not right. People like him were not part of the problem.

The protests are like 99.9% peaceful, at the very least. You're making a sweeping generalization of the protests based on like a .1% set of bad actors. You also said that George Floyd was arrested for drugs and assumed he was guilty, so you know.

26 minutes ago, killelall said:

Laws preventing minors from drinking and smoking. Laws preventing drunk driving. Laws exist that prevent the depiction of said substances. Heavy taxes are instilled on these substances, and companies have faced legal actions over and over for attempting to make their products even more addictive. 
Laws were attempted to prevent the sale of liquor, but the government lost that battle.

 How someone affects the lives of others is peoples business. Highly addictive substances cause people to steal, scam, and harm others. Your turning a blind eye to how it impacts a lot of people does not change facts.

So we'll instate laws preventing theft and problem solved right! That was your solution to the drug problem, so if we just institute those laws preventing theft and stealing/scamming then we'll be perfectly fine right?

lol

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

Truly, the world wonders why you haven't been banned yet for your hot take garbage.

because i was having fun in call of duty and not checking sf

 

EDIT: you guys can stop responding to him now

Edited by Integrity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the latest new poster has such a hard-on for Law & Order, he ought to look no further than Hong Kong and the Philippines, both of which had recently enacted anti-terror laws that are staggering in ambiguity, leaving people without scruples a wide berth in interpreting provisions as they please. You won't need nacht und nebel if people can be rounded up in broad daylight, you know.

In the middle of a fucking pandemic, PH is clamping down on dissenters, red-tagging everyone critical of the government as insurgents, or sympathizers to them (much like the extra-judicial killings that happened a few years ago in the name of, you guessed it, a war on illegal drugs, wherein small fry are summarily executed while meth labs are laid bare--without anyone manning the posts or caught red-handed, but anyway. Why would Duterte's lackeys go on "red-tagging" people when he's buddies with Xi of China, but that's just a minor detail), including:

  • a major TV station (ABS-CBN)
  • a prized foreign news correspondent (Maria Ressa)

You want to see how police states function? Look no further. And don't get me started on China's belligerence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Karimlan said:

If the latest new poster has such a hard-on for Law & Order, he ought to look no further than Hong Kong and the Philippines, both of which had recently enacted anti-terror laws that are staggering in ambiguity, leaving people without scruples a wide berth in interpreting provisions as they please. You won't need nacht und nebel if people can be rounded up in broad daylight, you know.

In the middle of a fucking pandemic, PH is clamping down on dissenters, red-tagging everyone critical of the government as insurgents, or sympathizers to them (much like the extra-judicial killings that happened a few years ago in the name of, you guessed it, a war on illegal drugs, wherein small fry are summarily executed while meth labs are laid bare--without anyone manning the posts or caught red-handed, but anyway. Why would Duterte's lackeys go on "red-tagging" people when he's buddies with Xi of China, but that's just a minor detail), including:

  • a major TV station (ABS-CBN)
  • a prized foreign news correspondent (Maria Ressa)

You want to see how police states function? Look no further. And don't get me started on China's belligerence.

So if that's the casecase, it kind of makes me wonder why people aren't moving out of those countries of the anti-terror laws are as draconian as you say.

Edited by Armchair General

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

That was more a point about how absolute a viewpoint about a group can be, regardless of the variances of the people within said group. I suppose I didn't make that aspect clear enough. Point is, the same attitudes can be leveled at groups that didn't choose their lot in life as much as organizations made up of all kinds of people.

I'm taking this to mean that you're reluctant to apply descriptions to any group on the basis that there may be outliers/exceptions, yes? While in most respects I agree with that, the key distinction for police and Republican politicians is that both groups are intrinsically defined by making a career (which they chose and can quit at any time) out of exerting power and authority in some form, defined by a set of ideas. As such, the power structures that they exist and operate in are intrinsically defined by the majority actions/opinions of those groups. An individual cop or Republican who speaks or acts contrary to the rest of their group has no meaningful sway and is either ignored, silenced, or removed from the group. A political party is more fluid since they, by necessity, change in reaction to the political landscape, but nevertheless the Republican party has an unparalleled ability to get their members to kowtow (the 2016 election has plenty of examples of this). Any meaningful dissent by a member within either of those groups is almost certainly going to require renouncing the group.

21 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Couldn't that itself be considered a racist statement? That it is supposedly impossible for white people to not be racist about anything? That someone with white skin can't ignore the pointless physical attributes about another person and instead care about about the qualities that actually matter?

Perhaps that wasn't what you were aiming at, yet the attitude that one can't be racist or sexist towards a majority still exists, and it simply flips the problem instead of actually solving anything.

Ah, you might be misunderstanding. Trying to ignore superficial qualities is good, but it only addresses your own prejudices. It can help to distinguish the terms:

  • Prejudice can be defined as a personal bias towards a group (eg: "I don't like ____ people"). Anyone can be prejudiced, and it's easy to notice this behavior in ourselves or others. It's comparatively easy to fix and usually the point of fiction where people learn to respect people from other groups (eg: Path of Radiance racial tension between Jill and Lethe).
  • Racism can be defined as something that causes a negative impact towards a group, such as through actions by individuals, or ongoing systemic oppression. Arguably, not every group can be racist towards certain other groups. By this definition, a black man not trusting white people is prejudiced, but if his actions have no meaningful impact on white people, then you could argue that it's not racism, but prejudice.

It's helpful to not look at "racist" being a hard label for anyone other than those who embrace it (like KKK members) or constantly and consistently perform racist actions (like some politicians), and rather look at individual performing instances of racism (sometimes unintentionally). What separates personal prejudices from racism as a whole is that you might be doing something with absolutely sincere intentions, but causing negative impacts based on race. Technically, that's racism, but it doesn't make you a racist. The other part of it is that white people by default benefit from system racism, regardless of their opinions or awareness. 

A key thing to understand is that when you say "I'm not racist", you're really saying "I'm not prejudiced". You probably are doing your best to be mindful of your behavior. But it doesn't mean you're not susceptible to making mistakes or benefiting from racist systems. People who try to say they aren't racist when called out on something they did are really just trying to exempt themselves from criticism. In that sense, by claiming "I'm not racist", a person is saying they're above reproach.

21 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Oh I most certainly agree. There really is no excuse to have diverse casts in this day and age, although execution of the concept obviously varies between works. Historical works with an aim of accuracy is perhaps the only field that can "get away" with supposedly racist or sexist casting (or at least, it receives the least amount of criticism for doing so).

For what it's worth, history is often whitewashed or sugarcoated, so I think it's worth keeping a critical eye on something that uses accuracy as a defense.

21 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Models take time and money to create, voice actors aren't cheap, and characterization goes out the window on the competitive scene, among a plethora of other elements that go into making sure a game runs and is fun to play. Of course, it is always a good idea to design a game with diversity in mind, yet so much goes into the development process that not every idea can come to fruition. There are a lot of legitimate issues that developers have to face that would sound like lazy excuses in a different field. It is entirely possible to aim at something and miss the mark due to factors outside the creators control, with no hostile intent on their part.

On the flip side, a game having great diversity does not always mean it is fun to play or well-designed, even if said diversity can still be a positive element that draws people to a game. There are enough examples where the gameplay sucks yet other elements such as the story, characters, music, art style, and so on still get people interested. It is awesome when a game manages to achieve this diversity while also having excellent gameplay, but considering how many games out there have excellent ideas yet don't always execute them well, this is far easier said than done.

This might be getting a bit off-topic, so I don't know if we should keep discussing it here, but the bottom line is always that it's a conscious decision to add, cut, or ignore any design choices. Video game leads are overwhelmingly white (or coded white) male characters and it's both creatively stagnant and rather exclusionary towards audiences if they make little to no effort for diversity.

21 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

I never trusted any large group to have the common persons best interests in mind, hence why I stopped giving a crap about politics and why I've accepted that scummy business practices will always be a thing, even if it is a worthwhile fight to stamp it out. Learning that car companies are entirely willing to ignore known issues because it is easier to pay off lawsuits than fix the problem, even if it results in a number of deaths, will do that pretty quickly.

Ah, don't be so sure, if you're participating in this thread, then you do care about politics, ultimately. I don't blame anyone for being burnt out by how shit the world can be and not wanting to get super involved all the time. Yet, there are still ways you can help improve other people's lives without dedicating much if you can, and at the very least, staying informed is invaluable.

21 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

I see both productive and destructive qualities in this statement, though perhaps that's just my philosophers side coming out. I'll give it some thought before starting any debates.

You're more than welcome to share those thoughts.

-------------------------------

I guess I missed a super troll. It's too bad, cuz trolls give mad experience points. Thanks to all of you who had my back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

So if that's the casecase, it kind of makes me wonder why people aren't moving out of those countries of the anti-terror laws are as draconian as you say.

Currently, the answer is that it's very very very difficult to move out of your home country, especially since it also involves bringing your family over to some extent..

Otherwise, moving from PH or China is expensive as shit. Moving from PH to the USA requires a lot of money that simply the vast, vast majority of Filipino people don't have. Especially to fly from a pacific island to...  anywhere else in the world.

That and many who do leave the country only get work as, essentially, slaves in places like Saudi. The wealthy go to America or Western Europe, the non-wealthy only really have a choice to be slaves in another nationalist authoritarian regime, where they're not even the people supported.

And traveling from China isn't that easy either. They definitely have a lot of ways of tracking their citizens, too... and there's also social credit but I don't know if it's implemented in China to the extent where they can restrict your air travel with poor social credit.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the Chinese government can put you on a blacklist for flying or catching an train under their social credit system; and it's been done since 2019 or 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

So if that's the casecase, it kind of makes me wonder why people aren't moving out of those countries of the anti-terror laws are as draconian as you say.

Hong Kongers who have the means have already established roots in other countries, but for the average joe, moving is not cheap, and with a scumbag as president right now, it is more difficult to apply for political asylum. Liberal democracies do not exactly have a good record of handling refugees right now. The United Kingdom is doing what it can to reform some of its immigration policy to provide sanctuary to some of its former subjects, but the UK honestly is nowhere close to willing to allow mass immigration from Hong Kong. Australia, Canada, and the United States have not really done anything beyond token effort, and I am not sure if New Zealand has done anything at all. For average Hong Konger, their best bet is Taiwan right now, where the language barrier and culture shock is the lowest out of all the options, and while Taiwan seems to be more than willing to accept mass immigration from Hong Kong, they still need time to prepare and set things up.

Most of my mother's immediate family took the first opportunity to move out of China when China first opened up like thirty or forty years ago during her generation, and they left behind a lot of friends and extended family; my uncle and grandparents went to New Zealand and are relatively well off, but my mother came to America with almost nothing. Most of my father's side of the family did not move out until my generation and they have only managed to do so with enough backing from my father's generation who have just accumulated enough wealth recently to finance it, and while my cousins from China have little trouble adjusting to life in the Canada, my father's generation have more difficulty and generally stays behind in China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, Johann said:

I'm taking this to mean that you're reluctant to apply descriptions to any group on the basis that there may be outliers/exceptions, yes?

Yes. Blame the sweeping generalizations both sides have made about the other and the difficulty of finding a middle ground for that. Especially when I've seen how off most of said generalizations are with my own eyes.

On 7/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, Johann said:

Ah, you might be misunderstanding. Trying to ignore superficial qualities is good, but it only addresses your own prejudices. It can help to distinguish the terms:

  • Prejudice can be defined as a personal bias towards a group (eg: "I don't like ____ people"). Anyone can be prejudiced, and it's easy to notice this behavior in ourselves or others. It's comparatively easy to fix and usually the point of fiction where people learn to respect people from other groups (eg: Path of Radiance racial tension between Jill and Lethe).
  • Racism can be defined as something that causes a negative impact towards a group, such as through actions by individuals, or ongoing systemic oppression. Arguably, not every group can be racist towards certain other groups. By this definition, a black man not trusting white people is prejudiced, but if his actions have no meaningful impact on white people, then you could argue that it's not racism, but prejudice.

It's helpful to not look at "racist" being a hard label for anyone other than those who embrace it (like KKK members) or constantly and consistently perform racist actions (like some politicians), and rather look at individual performing instances of racism (sometimes unintentionally). What separates personal prejudices from racism as a whole is that you might be doing something with absolutely sincere intentions, but causing negative impacts based on race. Technically, that's racism, but it doesn't make you a racist. The other part of it is that white people by default benefit from system racism, regardless of their opinions or awareness. 

A key thing to understand is that when you say "I'm not racist", you're really saying "I'm not prejudiced". You probably are doing your best to be mindful of your behavior. But it doesn't mean you're not susceptible to making mistakes or benefiting from racist systems. People who try to say they aren't racist when called out on something they did are really just trying to exempt themselves from criticism. In that sense, by claiming "I'm not racist", a person is saying they're above reproach.

So you are basically saying "Everyone is prejudiced, lives in a prejudiced system, and it is unavoidable to be prejudiced no matter what"? Perhaps as human beings it is unavoidable not to notice another skin color, but we also have the ability to choose for that not to influence our decisions. The thoughts may pop to our head without us wanting to, but nothing forces us to listen to it. 

Also, what do you propose the common citizen to do to avoid benefiting from these "racist" systems? Would a white person get anywhere by asking their professor or teacher to take the exact same test as the black person? Or to request during a job interview not consider their race? We don't get to choose the circumstances we are born with, but we can choose what to do with the resources we are given. Some use these opportunities prudently, others squander it, yet we can always decided how to react to whatever life throws our way.

I agree that these systems should be changed to make the playing field even. Yet while the common citizen can advocate for a change, it ultimately it is up to law makers to create the laws. Even then, enforcement of said laws won't always be fair, as mentioned a few times on this thread. I doubt anyone chooses to be part of a supposedly unequal system, yet that does not prevent people from being able to treat others equally and respectfully, regardless of race and position.

On 7/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, Johann said:

For what it's worth, history is often whitewashed or sugarcoated, so I think it's worth keeping a critical eye on something that uses accuracy as a defense.

It's also common for history to be twisted so that certain groups and people look less or more villainous or heroic, and to exaggerate or downplay certain actions that took place. Sometimes this done because there is only so much you can put into a product in the case of things such as movies, video games, and books, as well as studios having to account for the age rating. Even then, they aren't except from from doing what anyone can do; twist the past to fit their own views for their own ends. Any side can do it. It is why critical thinking, awareness, and research as so vital when discussing history.

On 7/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, Johann said:

This might be getting a bit off-topic, so I don't know if we should keep discussing it here, but the bottom line is always that it's a conscious decision to add, cut, or ignore any design choices.

What came to mind in when writing that section of my post was why Value didn't add female versions of the mercenaries in Team Fortress 2, as it is a good example of how a company can have plans to add diversity but other factors result in the idea getting cut. I was going to link the video originally, but decided against it since while the research and facts are sound, the presentation rather informal for this kind of topic.

Anyway, memory was the main problem Valve faced with inserting the idea, as having multiple models for a single class would lead to performance issues, which is one of the last things you want in a fast paced multiplayer game. This issue was compounded by the production costs of creating distinctive designs for the new characters, building the models and the animations for them, hiring voice actors (keep in mind that the game has over 4,000 voice clips just for 9 characters), and how the work required to update the game with new items would be doubled with the addition of a female cast. On the competitive side of things, the different models might have different hitboxes, meaning that players would likely pick the gender model that is harder to hit over the one they like, and making both models exactly the same to prevent this issue would defeat the purpose of having two different characters. Robin Walker, one of the developers of the game, has stated in a few interviews that while adding female characters is not impossible, it is unlikely to happen due to the potential costs in game performance and production, and the development team never found a satisfactory compromise they were happy with in their attempts to implement the idea.

This is far from a universal reason as to why certain videogames don't have more diverse casts, but it is a good example of how a developer may have wanted to implement one but other factors prevented the idea from coming to fruition.

On 7/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, Johann said:

Video game leads are overwhelmingly white (or coded white) male characters and it's both creatively stagnant and rather exclusionary towards audiences if they make little to no effort for diversity.

This point I can agree with. The characters, well, character matters most at the end of the day, yet there is nothing to loose from having greater diversity.

On 7/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, Johann said:

Ah, don't be so sure, if you're participating in this thread, then you do care about politics, ultimately.

Or my original post was pointing out how Disney has always been embarrassed about Song of the South and how refurnishing a ride would bee seen as a standard business practice if the timing of the announcement weren't so suspect.

That, and how different news sources are saying different things about certain aspects of these protests to push their own agendas, and how this is nothing new.

On 7/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, Johann said:

I don't blame anyone for being burnt out by how shit the world can be and not wanting to get super involved all the time. Yet, there are still ways you can help improve other people's lives without dedicating much if you can, and at the very least, staying informed is invaluable.

Doesn't help that most of the issues I care about won't be solved by politics, but rather the attitude of the larger culture and society, and I don't expect those things to align with everything I believe in anytime soon. It's why I believe the greatest impact anyone can have is treating everyone we meet, whether neighbors, family, coworkers, or random people we don't know with respect and focusing upon inward characteristics over outward ones.

On 7/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, Johann said:

You're more than welcome to share those thoughts

Some points that came to mind on the positive side of things (speaking generally):

- It throws the idea out there, which in turn the allows people to ignore, praise, criticize, dissect, analyze, apply or reject it. It can have an influence on others and can provide encouragement for others to present their own ideas and views on the matter.

- Even a flawed execution can still raise awareness and, perhaps unintentionally, encourage people to research something to get a more informed view.

- It takes time, but the more commonplace an ideal is, the more accepted it tends to become.

On the Negative:

- Intentions can change quickly, and it is easy to drop support of something if another group offers a better deal. It's even possible to play both sides if it is profitable.

- People fight back against being strong-armed into showing support for an ideal they don't agree with. There are a multitude of positive examples of people standing firm in their own believes despite the danger and strength of the opposition, even if it costs them their life, just as there are destructive cases where people do as much in their power to hamper growth and hang on to their old ideals for as long as they can. Both of these send strong messages, whether encouraging or destructive.

- A flawed execution of an idea can be just as dangerous as it can be helpful. It can encourage research, yes, but if someone doesn't put in the effort, it give them a warped perspective of a situation (especially if they don't do anything to combat it), which in several cases can build up over time and lead to taking actions based upon a biased or flawed viewpoint.

Again, I am speaking generally, and this is more giving some quick thoughts than writing an essay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

So you are basically saying "Everyone is prejudiced, lives in a prejudiced system, and it is unavoidable to be prejudiced no matter what"? Perhaps as human beings it is unavoidable not to notice another skin color, but we also have the ability to choose for that not to influence our decisions. The thoughts may pop to our head without us wanting to, but nothing forces us to listen to it. 

The problem is more at the subconscious level.

That's why, in general, it takes generations to hammer these out. Not everyone has time to train their subconscious, and it's generally pretty hard to do so. Being aware of subconscious thoughts is the key here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Yes. Blame the sweeping generalizations both sides have made about the other and the difficulty of finding a middle ground for that. Especially when I've seen how off most of said generalizations are with my own eyes.

I hope you read the rest of what I wrote there, was hoping more for a direct response to that. Republicans and the police are not demographics (as black people, women, etc, are), but organized groups that require a consensus on their thinking and methods to exist at all. A person can't be a member of those organized groups without at least endorsing the prevailing ideology of that group in some way.

13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

So you are basically saying "Everyone is prejudiced, lives in a prejudiced system, and it is unavoidable to be prejudiced no matter what"? Perhaps as human beings it is unavoidable not to notice another skin color, but we also have the ability to choose for that not to influence our decisions. The thoughts may pop to our head without us wanting to, but nothing forces us to listen to it. 

No, not at all, and I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. Let me explain it again: People have subconscious biases that they might not be aware of. Saying "I don't see race" is to assume that you don't have any prejudices whatsoever, and ignore criticism if someone points out that you do. Failing to address any prejudices you may have perpetuates those prejudices and whatever impacts that may come about as a result of that. With that in mind, if you're not prejudiced, you don't have to announce it to the world, because it'll be clear if yo are to the people who are observing your actions. You don't get to be your own judge.

13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Also, what do you propose the common citizen to do to avoid benefiting from these "racist" systems? Would a white person get anywhere by asking their professor or teacher to take the exact same test as the black person? Or to request during a job interview not consider their race? We don't get to choose the circumstances we are born with, but we can choose what to do with the resources we are given. Some use these opportunities prudently, others squander it, yet we can always decided how to react to whatever life throws our way.

I agree that these systems should be changed to make the playing field even. Yet while the common citizen can advocate for a change, it ultimately it is up to law makers to create the laws. Even then, enforcement of said laws won't always be fair, as mentioned a few times on this thread. I doubt anyone chooses to be part of a supposedly unequal system, yet that does not prevent people from being able to treat others equally and respectfully, regardless of race and position.

I'm not sure if you're intending it to sound this way, but your question reads as "what are white people supposed to do, throw away their advantages? Lower themselves to the setbacks of black people?" The real aim is equity-- bringing the underprivileged up to the level of the privileged, not the other way around. People can vote, protest, support groups/movements that work against racist systems, educate themselves, pressure politicians and companies to understand and address these things, it's a long list. Basically everything about the the civil rights and BLM movements.

13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

It's also common for history to be twisted so that certain groups and people look less or more villainous or heroic, and to exaggerate or downplay certain actions that took place. Sometimes this done because there is only so much you can put into a product in the case of things such as movies, video games, and books, as well as studios having to account for the age rating. Even then, they aren't except from from doing what anyone can do; twist the past to fit their own views for their own ends. Any side can do it. It is why critical thinking, awareness, and research as so vital when discussing history.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue for here. "Historical accuracy" in video games is just a dogwhistle. There's little expectation for realism in video games, and the capacity for them to be informative is nothing compared to what you could get from other mediums, like books.

13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

What came to mind in when writing that section of my post was why Value didn't add female versions of the mercenaries in Team Fortress 2, as it is a good example of how a company can have plans to add diversity but other factors result in the idea getting cut. I was going to link the video originally, but decided against it since while the research and facts are sound, the presentation rather informal for this kind of topic.

Anyway, memory was the main problem Valve faced with inserting the idea, as having multiple models for a single class would lead to performance issues, which is one of the last things you want in a fast paced multiplayer game. This issue was compounded by the production costs of creating distinctive designs for the new characters, building the models and the animations for them, hiring voice actors (keep in mind that the game has over 4,000 voice clips just for 9 characters), and how the work required to update the game with new items would be doubled with the addition of a female cast. On the competitive side of things, the different models might have different hitboxes, meaning that players would likely pick the gender model that is harder to hit over the one they like, and making both models exactly the same to prevent this issue would defeat the purpose of having two different characters. Robin Walker, one of the developers of the game, has stated in a few interviews that while adding female characters is not impossible, it is unlikely to happen due to the potential costs in game performance and production, and the development team never found a satisfactory compromise they were happy with in their attempts to implement the idea.

This is far from a universal reason as to why certain videogames don't have more diverse casts, but it is a good example of how a developer may have wanted to implement one but other factors prevented the idea from coming to fruition.

The argument that it takes up too much effort falls flat when they could've had half of the existing characters be women, rather than design M/F options for every single character. You really don't need to make weak excuses for their decisions, dude.

13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Or my original post was pointing out how Disney has always been embarrassed about Song of the South and how refurnishing a ride would bee seen as a standard business practice if the timing of the announcement weren't so suspect.

That, and how different news sources are saying different things about certain aspects of these protests to push their own agendas, and how this is nothing new.

Everything is inherently political. Posting in this section of the forums, especially this thread, is motivated by politics in some way. If you didn't care at all, you wouldn't be posting here.

13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Doesn't help that most of the issues I care about won't be solved by politics, but rather the attitude of the larger culture and society, and I don't expect those things to align with everything I believe in anytime soon. It's why I believe the greatest impact anyone can have is treating everyone we meet, whether neighbors, family, coworkers, or random people we don't know with respect and focusing upon inward characteristics over outward ones.

With a defeatist attitude like that, you have no hope of changing anything. No change was ever brought about by simply being nice. Disrupting is necessary and people, even the "nice" ones, are going to push back either because they don't understand or they're benefiting from the problem.

13 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Some points that came to mind on the positive side of things (speaking generally):

- It throws the idea out there, which in turn the allows people to ignore, praise, criticize, dissect, analyze, apply or reject it. It can have an influence on others and can provide encouragement for others to present their own ideas and views on the matter.

- Even a flawed execution can still raise awareness and, perhaps unintentionally, encourage people to research something to get a more informed view.

- It takes time, but the more commonplace an ideal is, the more accepted it tends to become.

On the Negative:

- Intentions can change quickly, and it is easy to drop support of something if another group offers a better deal. It's even possible to play both sides if it is profitable.

- People fight back against being strong-armed into showing support for an ideal they don't agree with. There are a multitude of positive examples of people standing firm in their own believes despite the danger and strength of the opposition, even if it costs them their life, just as there are destructive cases where people do as much in their power to hamper growth and hang on to their old ideals for as long as they can. Both of these send strong messages, whether encouraging or destructive.

- A flawed execution of an idea can be just as dangerous as it can be helpful. It can encourage research, yes, but if someone doesn't put in the effort, it give them a warped perspective of a situation (especially if they don't do anything to combat it), which in several cases can build up over time and lead to taking actions based upon a biased or flawed viewpoint.

Again, I am speaking generally, and this is more giving some quick thoughts than writing an essay. 

Woof, you're really not the philosopher you think you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

The problem is more at the subconscious level.

That's why, in general, it takes generations to hammer these out. Not everyone has time to train their subconscious, and it's generally pretty hard to do so. Being aware of subconscious thoughts is the key here.

I agree. Forcing change will be met with opposition, while letting it be gradual means there will be troubles in the meantime. I don't really know a way to comment on combating subconscious thoughts without repeating what you said, so lets just say you took the words out of my mouth.

4 hours ago, Johann said:

I hope you read the rest of what I wrote there, was hoping more for a direct response to that. Republicans and the police are not demographics (as black people, women, etc, are), but organized groups that require a consensus on their thinking and methods to exist at all. A person can't be a member of those organized groups without at least endorsing the prevailing ideology of that group in some way.

I said earlier that any side can generalize another one. I would have originally said that the only difference was that one group had a choice and the other didn't, but one can legally change their nationality and there are ways to medically alter ones gender, and didn't want to deal with the arguments that came from that.

I don't really have much to add that you haven't said already, aside from republicans and police not being the only groups that have power that they have used and abused. And that one can be a part of a group without agreeing with every idea they supposedly represent.

4 hours ago, Johann said:

No, not at all, and I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. Let me explain it again: People have subconscious biases that they might not be aware of. Saying "I don't see race" is to assume that you don't have any prejudices whatsoever, and ignore criticism if someone points out that you do. Failing to address any prejudices you may have perpetuates those prejudices and whatever impacts that may come about as a result of that. With that in mind, if you're not prejudiced, you don't have to announce it to the world, because it'll be clear if yo are to the people who are observing your actions. You don't get to be your own judge.

I see what you are getting at. I don't entirely agree, as there are people who know themselves well enough to state their virtues and vices just as there are people who believe they are nobler than they truly are. Of course, this depends heavily on the individual, and it is not obvious to determine this at first glance.

4 hours ago, Johann said:

I'm not sure if you're intending it to sound this way, but your question reads as "what are white people supposed to do, throw away their advantages? Lower themselves to the setbacks of black people?"

That is more or less my question. There are criticisms about white privilege all throughout this thread, yet few propositions on what the the people supposedly benefiting from these systems should be doing about it...

4 hours ago, Johann said:

The real aim is equity-- bringing the underprivileged up to the level of the privileged, not the other way around. People can vote, protest, support groups/movements that work against racist systems, educate themselves, pressure politicians and companies to understand and address these things, it's a long list. Basically everything about the the civil rights and BLM movements.

...aside from this. I know this is how such systems are combated, but my question is what do you believe people who are supposedly part of these systems in the meantime should do with their "privileges" that don't fall into "protest"?

4 hours ago, Johann said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue for here. "Historical accuracy" in video games is just a dogwhistle. There's little expectation for realism in video games, and the capacity for them to be informative is nothing compared to what you could get from other mediums, like books.

Not surprised you were confused. In hindsight, I focused a bit more on the "there can be factors outside of a creators control that affect the accuracy of a project" part than the "history is often twisted to suit whatever groups ends, no matter who does it" one. I could also point out how certain several strategy games have an almost obsessive focus with mechanically inserting the tactics, politics, weapon statistics, and more used in historical battles, but that is neither here nor there.

4 hours ago, Johann said:

The argument that it takes up too much effort falls flat when they could've had half of the existing characters be women, rather than design M/F options for every single character. You really don't need to make weak excuses for their decisions, dude.

I mentioned earlier that things that sound like weak excuses in one field can be legitimate issues in a different one. Robin Walker mentioned it an interview that there was an idea to make some of the cast females, but the team wasn't happy with the compromise, as the felt there was a "right way" to go about with the idea, yet in the end other aspects of development took priority. The memory issues and having to account for all the updates the game received over the years is likely the reason female versions of the characters haven't been added

The main point is that adding diversity isn't always as easy as it sounds when every factor of game creation is taken into account. It should definitely be a goal, but no product can do everything they set out to do.

4 hours ago, Johann said:

With a defeatist attitude like that, you have no hope of changing anything. No change was ever brought about by simply being nice. Disrupting is necessary and people, even the "nice" ones, are going to push back either because they don't understand or they're benefiting from the problem.

Defeatist if politics is the be all, end all of change. It isn't to me. Small, everyday actions create ripples that have far reaching impacts. It does not happen overnight, and their effects are not immediately noticeable, yet they can cause change, whether for good or ill.

4 hours ago, Johann said:

Woof, you're really not the philosopher you think you are.

Hey, I said it would be quick thoughts provided in a general manner. I was in no mood to write an essay, especially given most of the ones I write on this site end up being wastes of time. My mistake for commenting on that point, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

I said earlier that any side can generalize another one. I would have originally said that the only difference was that one group had a choice and the other didn't, but one can legally change their nationality and there are ways to medically alter ones gender, and didn't want to deal with the arguments that came from that.

I don't really have much to add that you haven't said already, aside from republicans and police not being the only groups that have power that they have used and abused. And that one can be a part of a group without agreeing with every idea they supposedly represent.

If you don't wanna deal with arguments, then don't bother talking. You're kinda showing your ass a bit with this.

That there are other groups with similar power structures is obvious and doesn't need to be said. That a member of these groups can disagree with the consensus of that group is also obvious but misses the point that by still being a part of that group, they are enabling or supporting the group's ideas by virtue of providing the group itself with more power. For instance, it doesn't mean shit if a person disagrees with what Donald Trump does or says while still votes for him, as they are still an essential part of how Trump is granted power.

1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

I see what you are getting at. I don't entirely agree, as there are people who know themselves well enough to state their virtues and vices just as there are people who believe they are nobler than they truly are. Of course, this depends heavily on the individual, and it is not obvious to determine this at first glance.

How trite. I'll say it again: You don't get to be your own judge.

1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

That is more or less my question. There are criticisms about white privilege all throughout this thread, yet few propositions on what the the people supposedly benefiting from these systems should be doing about it...

...aside from this. I know this is how such systems are combated, but my question is what do you believe people who are supposedly part of these systems in the meantime should do with their "privileges" that don't fall into "protest"?

What, do you mean like turn down a job offer or something? That wouldn't accomplish anything since you don't know who else is up for the job, let alone their race. If you have privilege, you use it to do all those things I listed with greater efficacy than those who do not.

1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

I mentioned earlier that things that sound like weak excuses in one field can be legitimate issues in a different one. Robin Walker mentioned it an interview that there was an idea to make some of the cast females, but the team wasn't happy with the compromise, as the felt there was a "right way" to go about with the idea, yet in the end other aspects of development took priority. The memory issues and having to account for all the updates the game received over the years is likely the reason female versions of the characters haven't been added

The main point is that adding diversity isn't always as easy as it sounds when every factor of game creation is taken into account. It should definitely be a goal, but no product can do everything they set out to do.

They ultimately didn't want to do it and the excuse you cited confirms that. You don't need to defend it. We're done talking about this.

1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

Defeatist if politics is the be all, end all of change. It isn't to me. Small, everyday actions create ripples that have far reaching impacts. It does not happen overnight, and their effects are not immediately noticeable, yet they can cause change, whether for good or ill.

By all means, keep telling yourself you're making a positive change in the world when you're doing nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lemme sum it up in a succinct way.

The ivory tower you are in is built on a foundation of foot-draggers and fence-sitters who have heard the clarion call and opted to let the chance slip by. You can stay in that tower for as long as you like, but take note: you do not get to disavow the privilege you have by just saying "I don't want it" and stay inside said tower. You can't have it both ways, because those two points are incongruous. You do not get to claim fairness by reaping the benefits of a flawed system, wittingly or unwittingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...