Jump to content
Tanukitsune

"Auntie Pixelante" VS. Jim Sterling... MisandryVs. misogyny?

Recommended Posts

Well, it's still pretty obvious we have very different world views and philosophies on this subject... I don't think any more can be said in the "people are what they seem" VS "people are not always what they seem" debate in this thread....

Yes, as Miffy said I was referring to the "people are what they act to be" kind of view and definitely not the "people are what they seem" thing, which I didn't even notice in this thread. There is a big difference.

I can heartily recommend Vonnegut, Miffy. His my favourite author of all time. The Sirens of Titan, Cat's Cradle and (of course) Slaughterhouse Five are probably my top three, but all of his books I have read so far have been excellent.

Edit: Well put brkl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a phrase I'm inclined to agree might actually happen sometimes... to some people...

But there are still plenty of comedians that can tell abortion jokes and be nice and the same goes to actors...

If this phrase was true Tim Curry would be a truly horrible person... He's every villain ever... surely by now he has to be at least a little bit evil, right? :hah:

Once again, you see them differently from the way I do...

Yes, as Miffy said I was referring to the "people are what they act to be" kind of view and definitely not the "people are what they seem" thing, which I didn't even notice in this thread. There is a big difference.

Sure, there is a difference, but the point is still that I believe people can put on a horrible persona without being horrible and you don't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, there is a difference, but the point is still that I believe people can put on a horrible persona without being horrible and you don't...

Really? What you got out of all this was that I don't think people can put on a horrible persona without being horrible?

This conversation is clearly now worth continuing. :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tank. . .that analogy is the second most flawed I've heard today.

The first of course being "sharks are like hamburgers, you can't not eat them" which I'm still vaguely hoping was in jest, but I'm just not sure.

We're talking about the persona of a person. An actor, who gets typecast as evil people, is not necessarily evil himself. Tim Curry is, as far as I'm aware, a very nice person. . .provided you aren't his assistant.

But "how you act" and "how you are" are two separate things. . .mostly. I think the argument here is that "how you act" is often perceived as "how you are"

I'm kind of a gigantic dick when it comes to how I act in the company of random people online. (See John Gabriel's Greater Internet Dickwad Theory) If someone makes a comment that is flawed, be it in grammar, or simply being wrong, I'm happy to jump out into the middle of the conversation in a giant rubber wang suit and go "You are an idiot because X Y Z"

With people whose existence I appreciate (Thumbs, people who are not idiots online, various other attributes of humanity) I tend to tone this down. Am I actually a gigantic dick of the sort who might stand up during a conference and correct the speaker? Hell no. But I'll certainly do so online, and have earned a reputation as a very blunt, opinionated person, if you're being stupid in my vicinity.

As previously stated in the thread;

- Context

- Appearances (How you act as opposed to who you are)

- If you act like a jackhat, and you look like a jackhat, chances are people will call you a jackhat.

Perceptions. All about perceptions.

Am I actually a gigantic prick? Probably, just a little, but I'm not going to go around outside of the internet kicking babies.

Edit: So I bloody well misread Tank's statement about Tim Curry. Seems I agree with him! You can act like a dick and not actually be one. The problem is still peoples perception of you.

Choose very carefully to whom or where you act like a giant phallus, or people will view you as one out of hand.

. . .I'm going to go wash my mouth out with some scotch. Dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, you shouldn't fault people for assuming you're a jackass if you act like a jackass.

this! I just skimmed this thread, don't know who any of the two persons in the title are, but this I can agree with.

You can't act like an ass around people who don't know you and expect not to be thought of as an ass. Unless of course, it is clear that you are in fact, acting, such as in a movie. I would even say that a stand-up comedian that keeps doing mostly racist, misogynist, etc. jokes throughout his career doesn't really fall under that exception.

[edit] on another note, this thread made me look up the dickwolf thing. I don't like PA, but they had every right to do that comic and I don't think the rape was the joke there. But the way they handled things after that is just disgusting. And I surely skipped some stuff, but it seems like they called to stop the madness ONLY AFTER Mike's family was "jokingly" threatened on Twitter, while similar threats were made earlier against PA's critics.

[edit2] now, to tie this back together, I don't think Mike and Jerry are always assholes (after all, they do the charity thing and other stuff), but they were about this issue. And maybe they are misogynists, I don't know their site well enough but it seems they have more misogynistic merch.

Edited by Erkki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen, I agree on the fact that you can't blame a person for being perceived as a jerk for acting like one online, but the point is...

THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S TRUE!

I don't think Angry Joe is as angry as he is on his show, I've met cartoonists in person who draw the most awful things and make the most awful tweets AND THEY ARE NICE PEOPLE!

I'm not calling you guys pessimists, but on this subject... Either you guys are very pessimistic or I'm wearing tint rosed glasses and live in LALA land...

So... I agree that people will think you're a dick if you act like one, but...

I also think that it doesn't mean that you really are one... <--- This seems be where the argument is? :erm:

EDIT: Or it that fact that you guys believe only professional actors and comedians are capable (or allowed) to have "personas" and that online reviewers and bloggers are not?:erm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you've misunderstood where the argument is. I think the general stance that people are taking is:

YES, Jim Sterling CAN take on an arsehole persona, and that doesn't necessarily make him an arsehole. But a) is it a persona in this case? and B) even if it is, what does taking on that persona accomplish? This is the act of his that we must examine. If taking on this persona is, for example, for satirical means that serve to highlight, say, misogyny in the games industry or fanboy culture, then great. If he's doing it, for example, to offend as many people as possible so he can get more page visits, then we may judge him differently as a person, even though he may think that it's still okay because "the persona is the one saying things". In fact, even if he was doing it to raise awareness of some issues, if it's done in a way that necessitates hurting the feelings of a lot of people, we may still judge him poorly for the act of adopting that persona.

As another example: forum trolls. They come onto forums specifically to start arguments, flame wars, wind people up. Now, they may argue that they're not like that in real life, it's a persona, what they're doing is funny if you 'get it' and it only winds up those who take things too seriously. However, some may argue that if your specific aim is to make some people unhappy and make the forums a generally less civil and pleasant place, then trolling is not worth the lolz and makes you an arsehole even if you don't agree with anything your troll persona is saying.

Caveat: I'm not saying any of these things is true about Sterling specifically, I don't read his stuff so I can't say with any certainty. Also, I may be misrepresenting what others here are trying to say.

I'm going to have to leave this thread alone now, because it's getting frustrating. Tanu, if you read this post and still find the argument within it bewildering and ridiculous and no different to before, read it again. And again and again until you understand. Then go back and read others' posts in that new light. If you post a reply and find yourself reaching for the scratching-head emoticon, then go back and read everything again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S TRUE!

Well, I don't even take such a black and white view that either someone is an asshole or isn't. There is no TRUTH. They may be an asshole about something or in a specific situation, but a completely nice person in another situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you've misunderstood where the argument is. I think the general stance that people are taking is:

YES, Jim Sterling CAN take on an arsehole persona, and that doesn't necessarily make him an arsehole. But a) is it a persona in this case? and B) even if it is, what does taking on that persona accomplish? This is the act of his that we must examine. If taking on this persona is, for example, for satirical means that serve to highlight, say, misogyny in the games industry or fanboy culture, then great. If he's doing it, for example, to offend as many people as possible so he can get more page visits, then we may judge him differently as a person, even though he may think that it's still okay because "the persona is the one saying things". In fact, even if he was doing it to raise awareness of some issues, if it's done in a way that necessitates hurting the feelings of a lot of people, we may still judge him poorly for the act of adopting that persona.

As another example: forum trolls. They come onto forums specifically to start arguments, flame wars, wind people up. Now, they may argue that they're not like that in real life, it's a persona, what they're doing is funny if you 'get it' and it only winds up those who take things too seriously. However, some may argue that if your specific aim is to make some people unhappy and make the forums a generally less civil and pleasant place, then trolling is not worth the lolz and makes you an arsehole even if you don't agree with anything your troll persona is saying.

Caveat: I'm not saying any of these things is true about Sterling specifically, I don't read his stuff so I can't say with any certainty. Also, I may be misrepresenting what others here are trying to say.

I'm going to have to leave this thread alone now, because it's getting frustrating. Tanu, if you read this post and still find the argument within it bewildering and ridiculous and no different to before, read it again. And again and again until you understand. Then go back and read others' posts in that new light. If you post a reply and find yourself reaching for the scratching-head emoticon, then go back and read everything again.

If this is what they are trying to say, then YES I AGREE with what you are saying... And I pray that is what the others are trying to say, because I'm tired of this too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I don't even take such a black and white view that either someone is an asshole or isn't. There is no TRUTH. They may be an asshole about something or in a specific situation, but a completely nice person in another situation.

Please stop nitpicking, or do you want this thread to go on forever? I'm pretty sure I said it's hard to know what's the truth before...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, oh mighty Tanu. Everyone, stop talking, this thread has fallen into disfavour with the One. WE MUST APPEASE THE ONE!!

I say we lighten up this place by making this a place where we post pictures of hot bitches instead, my dudebro's!

Fat can be hot. Check out this fat bitch.

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/8426/fatbtch.jpg

Cosplay is for losers, but this bitch pulls it off perfectly. So hot.

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/8233/cosplaybtch.jpg

I know some people think it's sick, but I love me a loli bitch from time to time.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6581/lolibtch.jpg

Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I NEVER SAID YOU HAD TO AGREE WITH ME!

I'm just saying that's it appears we won't agree on this and the thread is going in circles...

Apparently I'm an idiot since every thread I'm ever in since every one is putting "Tanu doesn't get it!" tags in them... So please, treat me the mental retard I apparently am and explain the purpose of continuing this thread everybody wants dead...

Nobody cares about the fact that they tried to get Jim fired, so there is no point disusing that...

We all this that they are trolls, there is no point in discussing this any further...

We started talking about our opinions on online persona's and there seems to be a point we can't agree on... It seems we can't even agree on what we are disagreeing on, since we are arguing other's points before they can reply...

Frankly, I'm not even sure we are disagreeing anymore...

Nappi is the only one who seems to disagree with my what I said and he hasn't replied while other are interpreting what he's trying to say, so please....

If anybody is going to reply, let it be Nappi, because I don't even know what we are talking about anymore, because apparently I'm a complete moron... :getmecoat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed you were just playing the persona of a complete moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's alright, we're just playing cruel personas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: Or it that fact that you guys believe only professional actors and comedians are capable (or allowed) to have "personas" and that online reviewers and bloggers are not?:erm:

OK! Let's start with actors. Patrick Stewart plays Jean-Luc Picard, but we are pretty sure he isn't actually the captain of a starship. Patrick Stewart also plays "Patrick Stewart" in the sitcom Extras, but we're still pretty clear that that's a performance - that if we meet Patrick Stewart he won't actually be obsessed with ladies' clothes falling off.

Ricky Gervais is also playing a character in Extras, called Andy Milman. The character of Andy Milman has quite a bit in common with the character of David Brent in The Office, and the character of "Ricky Gervais" in Ricky Gervais' stand-up. They aren't the same character, but they are self-absorbed, socially inept and lack empathy. You can speculate from that that this is what Ricky Gervais is like in real life, but it's going to be speculation, because your access to not-performing Ricky Gervais is very limited.

Mike Stoklasa isn't Harry Pliskett - they have different names, and Mike Stoklasa doesn't abduct and murder women. However, if you watch the epic dissections of the Star Wars prequels delivered by the persona of "Harry Pliskett", it's reasonably safe to assume that Mike Stoklasa genuinely doesn't like the Star Wars prequels, and the stuff he is saying about how they are scripted and shot is basically what he believes, delivered through a comic persona.

I mentioned Michael Richards earlier. He's an actor and stand-up comic. When he played Kramer in Seinfeld, the audience knew that wasn't Michael Richards. When they went to see Michael Richards in stand-up, the audience weren't expecting to see Kramer, but they also weren't expecting to see Michael Richards making tea and watching telly for half an hour - they were expecting a half-hour performance by Michael Richards as "Michael Richards".

When Michael Richards lost his rag at some hecklers and started shouting racist abuse at them, arguably that was something being done by "Michael Richards", the stand-up comedy persona. But, you know, so what? It was a decision made by Michael Richards, the guy, about what to do in that situation. And if Michael Richards had decided backstage that this is what his stand-up persona would do if he was heckled... well, that was a really bad plan.

Public figures (even for niche markets) simplify elements of their personality, leave out others. However, they are still accountable for what those public personas do and say, and that relationship is clearly different from the relationship between Patrick Stewart and Jean-Luc Picard.

That said, I'm not sure this is particularly significant. There's very little chance that this is going to result in anything more than some convention drama, because the words he used are words you can get away with using as insults used against women in public, at least in gamer culture (probably not at the National Organisation for Women); enough people won't care - and enough other people will be actively supportive or amused - for it not to be a big problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tangled topic. I don't think there is an easy solution - the argument will rage for a while and eventualy dwindle out, as they always do. I don't really know much about any of the players so I guess I kind of fall into the "they deserve each other" camp.

I do think manners and courtesy have a place. I try to be polite to people and no-one has ever tried to get me fired. Reap what you sow etc.

I do also support the right of comedians to say what they want, even if it is offensive - as long as their underlying point is clear and noble. They have an easy distinction to make though - when they're onstage with a mic and when they're not. Very few comics keep up the same idioms when offstage and if they do they get bad reputations (a lot of 'traditional mens club' comedians for instance). If you use offensive material but you pick up a sizable fanbase that beleives in the surface version for your persona - bigots who fail to get self-satirical racism say - then your skills are not adequete and you are failing to acheive your aim. You need to do something differently. If you continue in it anyway because it is making money then you have lost integrity.

The Penny Arcade debacle I find more troubling and difficult to judge. I think I agree with the line "the original comic was justified, but they handled the complaints badly".

I say 'they' but it was Krahulik really. Holkins wisely kept to 'no comment' and when he finally did it was well reasoned. There's a reason why he's the front man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nappi is the only one who seems to disagree with my what I said and he hasn't replied while other are interpreting what he's trying to say, so please....

If anybody is going to reply, let it be Nappi, because I don't even know what we are talking about anymore, because apparently I'm a complete moron... :getmecoat

I thought I'd better not reply anymore because everything I say seems to get mangled at some point.

I posted the Vonnegut quote because I felt it somewhat fitted with what Hermie had said just before and related to the discussion as a whole. In my opinion, you then misinterpreted what (I think) he was trying point out, mixing actors and whatnots into it all. Mother Night is about an American playwright who ends up as a Nazi propagandist in World War II. He is actually a spy who occasionally passes information to the Allies in his propaganda broadcasts. But he is still, and I think this is what Vonnegut was referring to, a Nazi propagandist: He says horrible things, he acts like he believes in what he is saying and makes others believe in those things as well. He makes some people hate him and other people hate another group of people.

In Mother Night the protagonist has to face the consequences of his actions because, after all, those are his actions. No matter how different he thinks he is in his heart of hearts, his actions still make him a Nazi propagandist to every other person in the world. A malicious computer virus is still a malicious computer virus even if its code contains nice private functions that could clean up your Windows registry just right. Someone who says racist things all the time is still, for all intends and purposes, a racist even if he reveals to his best friend that deep down in his heart, he isn't. A billionaire who keeps giving shitloads of money to charities is a philanthropist even if people say he is just doing it because of the guilty conscience of being so wealthy.

This is what I tried to clear in my second post, but you somehow interpreted it as me implying "Jim is a horrible monster". I wasn't implying that at all, not least because I don't know anything about Jim. I wasn't, of course, implying that actors or comedians are horrible people either just because of their role on-stage (and honestly, I didn't even think you could interpret my post like that.) However, if a comedian acts racist or misogynist on-stage and off-, inciting hatred and making people feel like crap and not explaining that he is being sarcastic, then there is not much difference between him and a "real" racist/misogynist, isn't there?

Like I already pointed out, there is a world of difference between "people being what they seem" and "people being how they act". You claiming, based on the little I had said so far, that I don't believe "people can put on a horrible persona without being horrible" was a bit too much for me. I still don't see where you got that. I even highlighted "all the time" for you in one of my previous posts. Of course people can put on a horrible persona without being horrible. My whole point is that if he keeps that persona on all the time, then the people around him see and interact with the persona and it becomes meaningless to even call it a "persona" anymore. Futhermore, making people feel horrible just for the sake of making them feel horrible is horrible even if you are not doing it all the time and to everybody.

Anyway, I think one of the biggest reasons the discussion turned this ugly (and I'm sorry if that was in some way, my fault) was the insistence that someone agrees with someone and disagrees with the other one and that the discussion was about this versus that. I didn't even read the entire thread because I didn't find a couple of people trolling each other all that interesting. I never agreed or disagreed with anybody specifically or took sides. I certainly didn't disagree with you. I actually didn't even argue with you; in fact, all the posts after the first one have been dedicated to making my view more clear to you and making sure you wouldn't misinterpret me. In this, I of course failed miserably.

And there was an hour of my life..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... it looks we were all more or less trying to say the same thing, except we either had to nitpick our wording, misunderstand the wording or completely mangle it....

I don't really know anymore, but I'm done with this thread, whatever people will reply will either be something that has already been said or someone misunderstanding or mangling someone other's reply...

Or, of course, there is the obligatory post trying to be "witty"....:getmecoat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, a lot of witty personas on here, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, if Patrick Stewart had started demanding of the writers that Jean-Luc Picard called Doctor Crusher a feminazi in every episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, that would have been a very different matter. I think that over time opinions might have hardened against that five-year mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I feel like I live in bubble because I have no idea what this thread is about. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably for the best. :yep: It's not all that interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×