Gaizokubanou
-
Content count
964 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Gaizokubanou
-
-
You could also show people Psycho-Pass, which also has these themes. I've just started watching it. It's ace.
I think Psycho-Pass completely bombs it's climax.
I adore Makishima's plan to attack the agriculture industry to bring down the society cause it's a very smart take on how to solve the 'loner vs the world' issue (it's remotely feasible in modern gene modding industry). But then they add a typical BS on top of that with "ooo look Sybil was EVIL look at all those EVIL brains controlling it" like wtf, its only purpose was to degrade the series' awesome grounded tone. I love over the top stuff just fine, but not when a show decides to just pull it off from mostly grounded franchise.
-
Do you think that people creating sexist media have equal responsibility to those consuming it? Bear in mind that most people don't get a real education in understanding and reading media, whereas people who create media often are supposed to learn to read it as part of the training for their job (though that doesn't necessarily mean they've worked on the skill enough to notice the biases and politics inherent to their work).
Interesting idea you raised there, perhaps professionals in their field do ought to hold themselves up to higher standards but generally speaking I think in case of fictional media, the 'ethics' difference between creator and consumer, if it exists, would be too tiny to matter in any practical sense.
If the amount of realism we demand from fiction is not absolute, what are we using to declare certain things acceptable and others not?
Well, not in regulatory sense but personally... surely we all find some contents objectionable even if we would argue against censoring of it? Like, not acceptable in a sense that you wish people would voluntarily stop consuming but were ensured in their freedom to consume if they wanted without persecution.
-
As far as I'm concerned, misinformation and propaganda are unethical at the very best and criminal at worst. The torture example can lead to a loss of life in a very real way. The responsibility for effects of communication largely lie with the communicator, not the recipient in my opinion.
Please bear in mind the context of the discussion between me and Ninety-Three. This was derived from discussion of non-historical TV drama.
-
I think there is no line to be drawn. As you rightly pointed out, the responsibility is on both side of the screen (or however a medium in question is enjoyed) with audience carrying the bulk of it by having final say on how it'll affect them (unless they are really young minors). So at most it's more of disapproval on creator's own outlook of the world (when the situations cross really close to real issues) than anything else.
-
I haven't watched 24, but whenever I heard about some politician citing it in a torture debate, I'd always hear people say "But in 24, torture doesn't work. It gets the protagonists bad information." Is that something that changed in the later years of the show?
I didn't mean it specifically towards 24 so I should have clarified... but off top of my head, there was a part where Jack electrocute torture his ex's fiance and that's how he deemed the guy trustworthy (and yes, turns out he wasn't an enemy) but that was more of an event to create tension between him and his ex by "hey you are torturing my current fiance"
But yeah 24 is bit all over the place on this one cause there is a scene in that show where naive FBI agent gets bit too gritty and Jack frowns on her method. But again, later on that series it just goes all over the place. You get this smart, sneaky Jack who then straight up goes "Army of Two" (bullet proof hockey mask and everything) on vice president in middle of NYC...
A show I had specifically in mind was The Blacklist. In that show pain-inflicted straight up converts to most reliable information all the time. BTW if any of you watched that show, I think it's episode 6 or something where they are car chasing this guy called 'courier'... I live like 2 blocks from where they filmed that car chase
-
Hmm lot of interesting ideas here, and one that I had gut feeling about but didn't quite have words to articulate was the difference between macro perception and micro action and their different analysis. Seems like most of you agree that on micro level it's whatever two or more people agree on, but that the problem is this micro level engagement doesn't happen in vacuum and lot of troublesome macro level perceptions and power imbalances tend to creep in because all of us tend to be a product of our macro surroundings.
-
Now the question of which artists should be state-funded is one I have a hard time answering, but my current position is informed by the role of the State that I expect it to redistribute wealth. So I would suggest that arts-funding be allocated by providing the means of production to the least wealthy.
Pretty much agreed all the way up to this and this is where I and Deadpan probably diverged the strongest (IF we are actually disagreeing on anything at all, I still suspect that it's more of miscommunication). What you are describing is pretty much what I want, that instead of having money allotted explicitly based on 'art' reasons (say it's implemented for game development... would every IOS game publishers qualify? If not, then what are the criteria and who makes the judgement?), just make that bare minimum net always there so that people can be 'free' of worries to pursue art full time... and if their venture fail, state should be ready to catch them and help them on their feet in another area where criteria are easier to follow. That's imo safest way to support art without undue influence or possible corruption.
And yeah it's pretty disappointing how rampant recent fictions are at promoting the idea that torture will always yield reliable information. But I didn't mention such thing being potential pitfall of state funded art because same goes for corporate funded art (aka ads). It's just that states have more explicitly militaristic side that has easier to spot moral boundaries.
-
Just to be sure...
Oh dear, sorry if it looked that way, I just didn't really want to argue about it much more since you already acknowledged we actually agree on some of these things and just fundamentally disagree on others. There's just a pretty big difference to me both between both what's at stake and the odds of success in these examples. Sorry I looked like a butt there!
<3 That's really appreciated <3
-
Yep! Having to establish nonconsent instead of making active consent a requirement is obviously crappy because it has lead to arguments about how passed-out drunk folk or people in similarly impaired states technically didn't say they didn't want this, but it's also crappy in more benign contexts for building sex up as something that happens if you wear somebody down and get them to begrudingly accept, vs. various schools of enthusiastic consent or Yes Means Yes, which posit that sex should happen if all people involved agree that they are HYPED for this.
(I posted something in the Ethics thread to clear up I didn't want to be a butt which you've hopefully seen by now)
Just checked, saw it, it's cool and I actually really appreciate you making that gesture explicitly (now I think about it, it oddly relates back to this albeit small and very abstract way lol).
-
I don't know, I've generally been exposed to more sex positive, kink friendly feminism, so the advice I got is closer to "do whatever funky things you want to do to each other's bodies, so long as you discuss it and agree to it" which, alongside notions of enthusiastic consent (basically the idea that agreeing to sex should be less about the absence of negative answers and more about showing excitement for the things that you do want to happen)
Hmm that very elegantly and practically describes and solves lot of issues with "but what is true consent" problem that seem to creep up.
-
Only if you consider people not being able to pay rent or afford food and states maybe spending a bit of money on a project that's not so hot to be equal risks.
Oh come on Deadpan, so you think every self proclaimed artist is automatically entitled to make a living based on such claim and that only risk about government funded project is that project may not be as good as you hoped for, when I provided an example where odds are, more than half of the $200mil budget probably never was intended to be funneled into any sort of production? And you keep mentioning 'bit of money'. How many times do I have to explicitly state that I don't have any problem with small scale stuff, it's the whole industry wide deals (or that $200mil deal that I don't think you were very fond of even in simple scale term) that I'm wary of because at that point, it's not 'bit of money', it's hundred of millions or more.
And I already supported having more generalized social security network to prevent someone from being homeless and foodless so why are you bringing that up as a counterpoint to me as if I was totally fine and/or thoughtless with starving homeless people? I just don't think that government creating jobs in art and entertainment sector is the right way to provide such security net in large scale because the work involved is just too subjective and hence just way too open for corruption once the money grow in size.
-
Just want to say Twig, I love you <3 all of that has been from place of love
Damn the 480p.
-
Also you're ignoring the key difference here, which is that science fiction is the core basis for everything Star Wars does, while Dragon Ball couldn't give less of a shit about its science fiction elements. And that's all on top of the fact that Star Wars actually had believable science fiction (space ships and laser guns, among other things) (also note that believable science fiction is different from believable science) beneath the added-because-it's-cool space wizard layer on top of it all.
Star Wars is about a galactic war.
Dragon Ball is about dudes punching each other dead.
Star Wars is about the balance in "The Force". Every canonical wars in that universe has been started because of "The Force", not politics or science.
Which series's Goku?
Even kid Goku took high powered rifle shot to the face and survived. Goku wins all day.
-
It's not, though. This isn't some big unknown that we have yet to suss out, a lot of people have already tested the sustainability of these ventures for years at a time, and this is the conclusion they've drawn almost universally. Some people manage to get by for a while, and if they have any shred of self-awareness about them they'll tell you that's because they got lucky. Most don't.
The issue is that the encouraged and even enforced philosophy of seeing if you can make it actively contributes to the problem. It makes sure that the fundamentally unsustainable system never fully breaks down because new people willing to "pay their dues" always show up to replace those wrung dry by the machine, who quietly slip away to take up some sort of day job (if they're lucky). This loss is hard to quantify because it's impossible to tell what insights people would have given us if they got to write about games for a longer time, but I do think we're missing out by replacing so many of our thinkers with new people every couple of years.
From the outside all this looks like it must be working, else why would people keep showing up? (Naivete, youthful innocence, genuine enthusiasm, having been told that this is the only way. The machine feeds on these things) But after you watch the scene for a while you notice the pattern of people appearing and disappearing and new sites springing up that tell their writers that they'll be paid, eventually, and thus contribute (sometimes willfully, sometimes unwittingly) to the continued abuse.
I know this is going to sound hypocritical, because I too devote a lot of time to this thing I have no idea will ever be a real option for me. I don't know how to solve this, or that it can be solved, but increased awareness of the issue probably does not go amiss in the process.
Rest assured that grants are never easy to come by. You also chose a pretty singular example to discuss this, I think of it more akin to state-funded or state-supported TV and theater productions or art shows we have around here, which are pretty widely enjoyed. A lot of people still consider it a waste of money, of course, but I don't think that outrage is necessarily justified: states are sometimes in the position of a parent trying to feed their child broccoli, after all. Art, culture and education are, on a certain level, essential to keep democracy going. People's right to choose depends on their ability to make informed decisions, which benefits from an enriched perspective on life - but that doesn't mean they'll agree that this is something worth funding opposite potholes that need fixing or more fighter jets for that sense of security.
That these efforts will not always turn out great is something you kind of have to accept when you deal in something fundamentally subjective, and good management generally tends to address this by spreading their efforts on a lot of different projects. The shocking thing about that movie shouldn't be that it's bad, which is always a possible result in making movies, but that they spent 200 million on a single thing in the first place.
About the first half, I would say that the problem you are pointing out there is more due to relative youth of the industry combined with 'low-entry-cost' than idea of producing and selling games as a business.
About the second half, we just flat out disagree there then. I see state's proper role in art in almost exclusively 'preservation' of old (akin to preserving historical site) or educational and otherwise it should stay out of it. But as I say, that I also see that all the examples you listed sounds pretty small time (maybe except for TV stuff, which I have no idea what the scale would be over there)... which is not against my train of thought at all. Note I said states should "largely" stay out of it. I don't really have much issue on micro scale level of state investment because sure, why not experiment the investment sources to see how it works out? But it's the large scale funding that I'm against. I'm talking about the idea of entities like ActivisionBlizzard or Disney getting that tax break or funding because of 'art'.
And as for the risk, isn't that hypocritical when that's your argument against primarily market controlled industry, only for you to just hand-wave that as "acceptable risk" when it comes to government funded industry? And yes, you are right that 200 million spent is the shocking part but that's my whole point, that it's just pulled out of taxation under pretense of 'art' (I straight up think most of that 'budget' went into someone's (who took no part in production) pocket). And because art is so highly subjective, it's really difficult to even begin to ask for proper management track because what qualify as $200 million worth of good work or not is so wildly different from each one of us. And if you are actually against that sort of high budget investment then why are we even talking about this as if we are on opposite side
? That sort of absurd high budget government deals are what I'm opposed to when it comes to art and entertainment, and that's where I think the large scale market-economy-industry handles it much 'better' for art and entertainment.Ultimately though, for low level support, I think just having good solid social safety net is often enough (something that's SORELY missing in USA for sure, much better almost every other 1st world).
-
Agreed, they are both terrible sci-fi, but don't forget DB did have flying cars, houses that come from pills and spaceships.
Oh they both had terrible science, but since that seems to be norm for sci-fi, I think one of them (cough DBZ's Freeza saga cough) actually kicked much asses and hence me saying it's a good sci-fi since having good science doesn't seem to matter.
-
I guess there's just huge difference between what we each perceive as functional science to even call something science
There is an evil space warlord. He once commanded a warrior race who did his bidding. But fearing their growing power, the warlord betrayed that subordinate race and wiped them out in treacherous backstabbing surprise attack.
But few of the warrior race survived. One of the survivor, the main protagonist, joins the fight against the warlord in aid of another alien race that is currently under attack. During this fight, he would ultimately awaken his race's final (fuck all that level 2 bullshit) form and defeat this evil warlord, avenging his race and freeing the galaxy from the warlord's evil doings
That's how I remember DBZ and to me that's as science fiction as most modern sci fi (aliens, space travel, future "tech" (magic in tool form really) thrown in here and there)
-
It's actually way less science fiction than Star Wars... In SW you have actual literal space ship fights and you have actual world-threatening Death Star and all kinds of literal science fiction shit.
In Dragon Ball Z (up to the end of the Frieza saga), the only world-threatening thing is Frieza being inhumanly capable of summoning a giant death ball and throwing it at planets because... magic.
If you move a step beyond Frieza, you have the androids/Cell, which is the most science fiction the series ever gets. And then a step beyond that, you have Buu, who turns people into chocolate and eats them to power up.
There is no science behind how any of those 'ships' or 'lasers' work in Star Wars though. Their root in science is as deep as how they look and that's it. The Force/Mitochlorian is pretty much DBZ's power level and that's pretty much the driving force of the universe for respective work of fiction.
-
Gaizo, if you look at Depression Quest. It's a game Zoe Quinn made to say something to people, it was made as a piece of art for them to enjoy. Her main goal is to spread the message it contains. If she charged even a penny for it, less people will play it because they're now purchasing a product.
It's possible she only made this decision because she didn't think the market would pay, but I suspect her goal was not monetary and thus decision served the goal of making art much better.
Yes, and I don't see how that's a problem with anything I said. Just because I like the strong industry presence in game making doesn't mean I oppose those who do it for non profit. I just don't like the hate that industrial aspect gets because it is for profit.
Unless I did say what ultimately meant I disapproved of non-profit elements then I clearly misspoke by big margin.
-
Haha I don't know if I would call any of DBZ good science fiction... It's barely even science fiction at all. I mean it's about a bunch of dudes punching each other and shooting magic laser beams at each other while flying around. The only science fiction elements are the capsules and the space travel, and the capsules are basically magic anyway. U:
Well it's science fiction as much as Star Wars is
So more like fantay-sci-fi I guess (which is what most sci-fi boils down to I suppose since most of them are super soft on actual science part that it devolves into magic).
-
All this new DBZ... in my own fanfiction universe DBZ ended with death of Freeza and Goku becoming super saiyan. Up to that point it was the best! That saga just wrapped up everything so nicely and IMO it just holds up so well even in far more broader scope... like it's legit good science fiction.
-
Yep. No winners or losers, just things that exists for the moment
-
Gaizokubanou, paypal me ten bucks and I'll reply to you. Until you do that, I can only infer that my posts are worthless to you and that I should, as a rational economic actor, save myself the trouble. If any of this perplexes you don't worry, the invisible hand will be along shortly to clear it all up.
Stop trying to flamebait like that Nachimir, unless you seriously think I'm trying to extend all interaction into purely monetary form but my post shouldn't read like that so I'll clarify if you made those snarks in good faith but on simply misunderstood terms.
I think you are misunderstanding why people might take that stance though. A lot of the alt-games and alt-crit community I move in prefers not to think of their work as a product, and it's not because they don't want to be paid or are afraid of the corrupting influence of money (a fear that only people who are well moneyed for other reasons get to indulge in). It's because calling it a product suggests that it should be subject to the laws of the market, and the market has traditionally shown that it's unwilling to support certain things, important as everybody might agree they are, because they're not terribly popular. See also Nachimir's example of poetry. Or theater at large, any kind of fine art that depends heavily on subsidization.
Not calling it a product or rejecting the whims of an industry that would leave you to starve is a way of saying "What I'm doing isn't saleable or marketable. It still deserves support. What now?"
Find like minded people and see if it can be sustainable, right? Let me be clear here, I'm not suggesting some sort of free-for-all-jungle-capitalism push on entire society here because things like social security and services deserve more look at than simple "do people want it"... but here we are talking about entirely subjective medium where value is highly contentious. Linking this to easily accessed, say, government grant is just ripe for corruption. Imagine all the failed kickstarter games outrage except now the money is coming out tax...
I'm all for discussing merits and supporting things like healthcare and free education, but art and entertainment mediums are best to largely (minus some bare minimum stuff like how labor must be paid, etc. or some really rare government support) remain in unregulated territory. Like for example, there was government funded animated movie in South Korea... I think the funding went close to $200 million? Movie got produced but the general consensus is that it's just... poor quality and people are rightly outraged that this was funded by tax through god knows how (like who decided on it? how the animation company was chosen?). But hey, they ticked off all the boxes (made 'art' in specified format).
-
Why would you not want games to be products? If you think some arts and its creators effort have high enough value, you should be willing to put monetary value (something more than praise) on some of it so they can be produced with professional effort and eat.
Trying to reject industry element rings like a hallow hipster sentiment to me. Real people got to eat by being compensated for what is perceived to be valuable labor. I think high quality arts qualify as valuable labor, and the fact that it is done on industrial scale (meaning high demand and high production, which means REGULAR PAY) is awesome (despite so much flaws in the process, which most certainly exists, like relatively poor labor law regulations).
Perhaps you mean games should not be 'perceived only as products'? Which is totally fair.
-
Fair enough, 'subversion' isn't the correct term because that requires creator's intent. The intention of the director is probably highly questionable as you pointed out. It's also definitely not that sophisticated. But I stand by the outcome, even if it's most likely not what that director intended at all.
"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"
in Idle Banter
Posted
I totally forgot that season 2 of 24 starts with a heavily hinted torture scene... and that's how viewers are exposed to the central element of the entire season 2 (imminent nuclear attack).
Cool article Nachimir. As that section points out, I think it's a problem with kids (new recruits, the officers had no problem discerning how the show was pretty much a fantasy) who grew up watching the show without proper context. Overall I think for adult audience, adults ought to know better than to build up their world view through fictions... but it's different for kids (kids are dumber). So rather than blaming fantastical fictions themselves, I would lay blame on distribution network (mainly the parents!) that let kids be influenced by fantasy in such ways.