CollegeBaby

Haha Bjorn that video was so gross. Like David Cronenberg level of gross. I had to turn the sound off, but I'm sure that's absolutely the effect they were going for. In other news a study observes sexism in STEM fields. Men react with predictable sexism. Men (on the Internet) don’t believe sexism is a problem in science, even when they see evidence wat

As I mentioned, the issue isn't so much about having hurt feelings. Targets of good satire will almost always have hurt feelings. Not that it was satire, but I told a bunch of people to go fuck themselves after all, which I still take responsibility for. Pretty sure I hurt some feelings. It is about whether or not it challenges or reinforces certain problematic power structures in our society. Nazis are a group defined by their ideology. Even though they are social pariahs and are widely hated for their beliefs, they are not a social underclass in the same way that race minorities are oppressed because of inane bigotry against their intrinsic natures. Conflating Nazism with Germany - while possibly not a strong example of punching down - is still poor taste because it reinforces a meaningless stereotype of Germans being Nazis, or Nazis being German - when the two are not causal and are simply a circumstance of a time and place where Nazism had the right conditions to flourish. Nazis should be mocked for their Nazism, not for being German or for living in poverty. I think if somebody wants to make good satire about Nazism today and the relationship it has with poverty they would do well to understand the conditions in Germany post WW1 where Nationalism became a strong identity among the working class who faced huge levels of unemployment as a result of the Depression. That's part of what has been frustrating me. Because people died and the rest of us were rightly saddened by this, we are wanting to pay some sort of tribute or honor to them for being killed in cold blood. As they should. But I think in our rush to call them heroes as if in death they have been washed of all their sins people have put them beyond all criticism of the fact that these are not the people protecting our freedoms. They did not deserve this, they are not at fault for this, but I am not Charlie Hebdo and they don't represent my idea of freedom. The sorts of illustrations that Bjorn lined to (thank you) I think are all that's necessary to pay tribute to them and honor them. Reposting their work is not necessary. And now for something completely different... "Moslems" "growing jihadist cancer" Uuuuuuhhhhgghgghuuuhghghghfsgsredvdhaerq4238u5 -0WQRH-243 %13 6 This is why free speech is a false promise, because this damn guy has more say over the world's media than any anyone targetted by islamophbia. People who need free speech the most are rarely afforded it. In an Unequal World, Mocking All Serves the Powerful Unmournable Bodies

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Having a citizen try to sum up the political landscape in France is always valuable. Trying to understand the subtleties of religious politics and race struggles of another country is a murky set of waters to wade through with all the double-talk from invested parties. It fits interpretations I've been reading that Charlie Hebdo were faux-anarchists who were more interested in shocking minds than challenging them, and were related to an older political class having to deal with a rising Muslim population they were not accustomed to. Found another article that gives some history on the race struggle in France and also suggests that attacks on free speech is a red herring. Charlie Hebdo: This Attack Was Nothing To Do With Free Speech — It Was About War

You know, I think you're right. Probably also rather glib of me to tell a bunch of people on the internet to go fuck themselves. I have to be honest though, in the face of a media circus that has taken this tragedy and turned it into a cheer squad for freedom when free speech is not actually under threat, I think it is a rather small issue. Free speech is a red herring here, this is an attack on white people by Islamic extremists that is tearing apart racial harmony. Right now, my biggest concern has been for the secular Muslims of France and the rest of the world who are in present danger as the media has been given free licence to distribute stupid lazy comics that inflame islamophobia. I am sorry for the people who have died but there is nothing I can do for them right now. EDIT: Sorry Bjorn I was writing the following section before you posted. Look I am not a professional writer like Glenn Greenwald so I must apologise if I am not making self clear enough here... .. but where are people getting the idea that I think satire should be censored? That racist jokes should not be allowed to exist? Saying "we are not free unless we are free too offend" is nice I guess. I don't think anyone should have the authority to police what is offensive and what isn't. It's not really what I am arguing with though. I don't think there is a problem with it because it might be "too offensive" or because the jokes aren't funny enough. Many of the Muslims I have talked to personally over the last couple of days are not actually that offended by these types of comics. I don't know how that reflects upon the population as a whole, but being offended is not the problem. Islam should not be free from satire, and you can't help that some people will be offended by it. The problem is these Charlie Hebdo comics - and others like it that casually conflate Islam with race - continue to perpetuate racist stereotypes that validate islamophobia in a society dominated by white voices. I am not a satirist, it is not my job to figure out how to mock ideas and save the people. However, calling for social conscience on these issues does not mean I think they should be banned. Does that make sense? Seriously running out of ways to keep rephrasing this. Maybe satire will help? 2014 Person A: Some of these video games are a bit sexist. Person B: What? You want to take away my video games?! Person A: No, I just think we should acknowledge that they exist in a culture dominated by male voices and might perpetuate sexist stereotypes. Person B: YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE MY GAMES Person A: No, that's not... Person B: BUT FREE SPEECH!!! 2015 Person A: Some of these comics are a bit racist. Person B: What? You want to take away my satire?! Person A: No, I just think we should acknowledge that they exist in a culture dominated by white voices and might perpetuate racist stereotypes. Person B: YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE MY SATIRE Person A: No, that's not... Person B: BUT FREE SPEECH!!! Saying "We must all post the comics or free speech will die" is a gross false dichotomy. There is a middle ground of letting these comics exist, just don't turn these victims into martyrs in the name of freedom by republishing the worst examples of free speech. Stop reposting the comics, you don't need to do it to save free speech. People can't pretend that satire has the power save us from terrorism by using cute comics with terrorists being impaled by pencils without also understanding it also has the power to inflame islamophobia. Telling Muslims that "you are not free unless you can be offended" is rather cold comfort right now as they become the targets of revenge attacks from islamophobic morons.

It is the sign of an extremely privileged person if they think their way of life is threatened at all by deciding not to republish inflammatory cartoons. They should be thankful to live such a fantastically free life. Meanwhile, attacks fueled by islamophobia are still occurring against people who's lives are at actual risk. Pregnant Muslim woman attacked in Paris loses baby By the way, wearing a religious headscarf is banned in France. Are there any satirists ready to mock this double standard of free expression? Genuinely would like to know.

@Bjorn my interpretations are primarily from listening to people smarter and more educated than I on the subject. Links below. I want to clarify where exactly I am directing my criticism. Free speech and satire are a powerful weapon to hold powerful people accountable, but you can't acknowlege this without also acknowledging it can also be used by powerful people to speak over the powerless. Free speech is an empty promise if the powerless have no voice to begin with. Despite what many are fearing, freedom of speech is not actually in danger here. A few extremists were never going to take that away, the only people who can do that are the government of France. But right now alarmist white people are given the chance to feel like they are the underdog as they hide their islamophobia behind a shield of free speech. Meanwhile the people most at risk after this tragedy are not a few privledged cartoonists, they are the secular Muslims of France. Whether or not this was the aim of the attacks, this is the outcome and very few people are actually talking about it. Instead it seems more are content with simplistic black and white scenarios. "The crazy people are attacking the freeze peach! You say that sometimes the freeze peach is used for bad? You condone terrorism!" Zero room for reflection on the complex geopolitical issues that are inseperable from all of this. How can any single person possibly understand the massive cycles of violence, oppression and indoctrination around the world? The tragic desperate acts that lead to more tragic desperate acts? I certainly don't. Unfortunately you can't condense it into 140 characters. So I will now leave to to people much smarter than I. Charlie Hebdo: Understanding is the least we owe the dead Sharpening Contradictions: Why al-Qaeda attacked Satirists in Paris Trolls and Martyrdom: Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie JE NE SUIS PAS CHARLIE: ON THE CHARLIE HEBDO MASSACRE AND DUELLING EXTREMISMS In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Criticism Let’s not sacralize Charlie Hebdo Charlie Hebdo: Norway's Christians didn't have to apologise for Anders Breivik, and it's the same for Muslims now

1. Charlie Hedbo have a right to publish stupid racist cartoons they think are funny. 2. I have a right to say they are stupid racist cartoons that prey on existing political tensions and trivialise bigotry against innocent Muslims. Therefore, to the people who hold up Charlie Hedbo as being the heroes of freedom - the fucking of thyself into the Sun, so on and so forth.

Honestly I don't entirely believe this was an attack directed only to silence CH and the comics. I don't think they were that stupid to not know that the comics will blow up all over the media. I suspect it was an attack to deliberately cause a schism between between secular Muslim minorities and reactionary white people to create a political unrest that will push some towards extremism. Effectively a false flag. If this were the case - and it is only speculation - championing the comics seem additionally silly to me and misses a much larger problem. EDIT: damnit Twig ninja'd me and said basically the same thing. I never said the artists were cowardly.

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." A quote often attributed to Voltaire (philosopher) but was actually from his biographer. A favourite of internet libertarians. Good in principle, but does not acknowledge 21st century problems. Pretty sure nobody at CH was prepared to die for this. People can support CH and the victims, I give hard side-eye to people who support their choice to publish irresponsible comics.

I don't want to selectively blame CH, definitely. I think there is a much bigger problem across entire Western society that trivialises the marginalisation of Muslim people that are already so mistrusted because of an alarmist reactionary media. Tragic acts like this feed in to a cycle of mistrust that only make it harder to bridge the gap.

Not directed at you, but to the people mass posting the comics in a act of defiance. 1. #illridewithyou 2. Don't solely blame this on Islam 3. Don't repost the comics 4. Stop with the endless Voltaire quotes I might think of some other things but this would be a good start. I understand this is an emotional topic, but we need to understand there is a system here much bigger than some Muslim extremists and a bunch on dumb comics.

The artists are dead, the publication is not. The hundreds of newspapers re-publishing them are not. The people who are mass retweeting them are not. They deserve that freedom, I don't think it should be taken form them and nobody deserves to die for this. But they sure picked a real shitty battlefield to make their last stand upon.

Do you actually have anything to discuss because I'm all open to hear it. You have my permission.

Fair enough if you withhold judgment. Why do you say there would be no rant if Fox News was attacked? There isn't enough breath in my body to list the problems I have with Fox News, that wouldn't change if they were the target of an attack. Not sure what you are trying to say with this.

Seriously? I started a thread to open discussion. Islam doctrine deserves to be criticised. That I have no problem with. Racist comics that caricature Muslim people? Completely gross and not worth defending.

The internet has been such a powerful tool for the spread of information and ideas, and to connect together so many different people that previously would never have known that they even existed. So it is truly one life's great ironies that it has also enabled certain people to ignore information, spread misinformation, and to band together under a false banner that completely alienates them from the rest of decent society. Amazing. Hilarious, if it weren't so destructive. I wonder if Al Gore foresaw this when he invented the internet in 1999.

Linguicism is a real thing. People may be assumed to be less intelligent or from a lower social class when their language deviates from what people view as the "proper language" in a country that is spoken among the mass media. It is especially troubling for African Americans - no less because of the relationship to racism - who are often expect to "speak white" if they want to be accepted in job interviews that require higher education. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CF-UgkBk9E

Right, I see your point. Even though I support sexual liberalisation I do think there are a number of problems that wont be solved by it, and there are some things that are possibly made problematic by it. I guess I never felt like I needed to adjust the terminology, as how I define my ideology is not that important to me. Perhaps most of these things are a result of the fact that modern feminist conversation is still dominated by white, cis privileged women. To be honest I'm not even convinced this is entirely solvable under a capitalist framework. I generally consider myself a social democrat, but I doubt sometimes, and this is a question significantly above my level.

A Far Cry with dinosaurs is pretty close to my all-time fantasy of wanting a rebooted version of Trespasser that actually achieved what it set out to do and wasn't a rushed buggy mess that barely qualified as a game. I would prefer anything sci-fi simply if it means they stay as far away as possible from the rebel uprising in a foreign land stories that were handled so insensitively in 3 and 4.

Naturally it would require that he accept the fact that all humans are born irrational and so absorb dominant attitudes and values well before they develop the critical thinking skills to properly evaluate them. Not to mention that men are often lead to believe that their emotions don't or shouldn't effect their judgment, because if they do then they're just like those "hysterical" women.

I don't know. I've generally considered myself sex-positive in the "sex is nice and pleasure is good for you" framework that formed a reaction to the conservative and second wave feminist ideas that sex is shameful or that sex was an entirely patriarchal tool. But I acknowledge that there are massive issues with the way the sex industry is operated that is a hold over from patriarchal, heteronormative structures. Something that has become really concerning to me is the relationship between trans women and sex work. -Trans women take up sex work at a much higher rate than cis women because of cissexist prejudice that leaves them little other option to make a living. -Trans women who become sex workers are burdened with added stigmas from whorephobia that further distance them from societal acceptance. - In areas where sex work is outlawed it leaves them vulnerable to increased violence from clients who may call "trans panic" as a defence. -Trans women are not fully accepted as women in the sex industry. They are marketed as "shemales", "trannnies" and "ladyboys" that delegitimise them, objectify them and treat them as sexual oddities for fetishists. -Trans women and crossdressing men are not always differentiated. - Pornography misrepresents the way trans women experience their sexuality since it is targeted primarily for straight men, particularly in the expectation that they ejaculate despite HRT making this almost impossible. - Pornography routinely plays out scenarios of trans women tricking men into thinking they are having sex with cis women and then being horrified by their genitals, giving trans women the label "trap". - Being an industry heavily responsible for the visibility of trans women - pornography cements transmisogyny that circles back to my first point. In short, fuck this planet.

What sources (websites/books/activists/organizations) would you consider reflective of your attitude of the sex industry?

That Anita's videos are Media Studies 101 and still cause so much controversy just reflects the poor level of discourse surrounding discussing games. The classic line of "video games are a young medium" can't live on forever. It's been brought up now and again that Siskel and Ebert were discussing sexist tropes in films 2 decades ago. On a mainstream television show. Broadcast across the nation. Games critique has so much catching up to do. @Bjorn I recall "sex-critical" being used a counter to sex-positive. I'm not sure if that is what they self identify with or just another thing that sex-positives have labeled them with.

That annoyed me as well. Innovation is great... there isn't enough of it in AAA dev... but she uses it as if games are not valuable unless they have innovation. It feels all too much like the old argument that games are basically tech products that should have a paradigm shift with every iteration. I don't understand this need for there to be a codified GOTY on behalf of everyone. Isometeric isn't running a faceless publication. Just let everyone talk about their favourite games and let it be that. Isn't that what we've been fighting for? "Gaming from a different perspective" must entail that all perspectives are valid.

I don't have a problem with rebuttal videos in principle, but I don't think I've actually seen anything that offers a genuine alternative interpretation of the way women are treated in games that puts as much research into it as Anita has. It's just takedowns directed at Anita's series, and at worst it is personal character assassinations. They don't replace it with a fully coherent argument that evaluates the state of games as a whole. If you don't agree with Anita, what do you actually believe? That Damsel in Distress is not a common trope? That the trope is not sexist? That the trope doesn't reinforce sexist attitudes? All of the above? Then prove it.