J.F's article. Or the article from whoever has him in chains

Our thoughts about the famous Cracked.com.

J.F's article. Or the article from whoever has him in chains

Postby thatindianguy » Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:23 pm

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-being-offended-doesnt-matter-anymore/

So yeah it's an article on the stupidity of Internet call out culture by J.F Sargeant.


... Excuse me i think my heart just stopped from the shock.
  • 15

thatindianguy
TCS Regular
TCS Regular
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:18 pm
Show rep

Re: J.F's article. Or the article from whoever has him in ch

Postby NotCIAAgent » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:08 pm

Aaah... Sargent, predictable as a swiss clock.


Or moar leik... a swiss CUCK.

You smell dat? That's dankiest irony! And the comments are a joy.
  • 6

Image
User avatar
NotCIAAgent
Knight Writer
Knight Writer
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:33 am
Location: 90's, Canada Wilderness
Show rep
Title: Shitposter Extraordinaire

Re: J.F's article. Or the article from whoever has him in ch

Postby Marcuse » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:29 pm

Image

This is iron. The article is like this is.

J F Sargent wrote:And maybe this is my failing, because I'm pretty dumb sometimes, but I always thought that cultural criticism of popular art was about making it more inclusive, not driving the stuff we don't like out. When we complain about too many white male action heroes, for example, it's because we want more female and minority action heroes, not because we want to break Channing Tatum's kneecaps or something. We want every little kid to have a movie hero they can look up to that looks like them, because that shit is awesome and everyone deserves it.


That's totally not how I see that stuff usually. It's always about how the existing material is shit, not how cool having more inclusive action heroes are. Methinks he doth protest too much. I'm not suggesting that inclusivity is bad, but that sites that try to promote this easily fall into bashing what's already there instead of promoting the thing they claim to be promoting.

Being offended is clickbait now. It's good marketing. It sells. So of course people are going to try and manufacture it, because that's what capitalism is. Clickbait sites are going to give every offensive thought any random person has as much exposure as possible for the same reason filmmakers keep cramming love triangles into movies and comedians keep telling edgy, offensive jokes: because we all want attention, and we all want to feel important, and because fuck it, it's a slow news day. And these slipping standards are dangerous, because...


It sure is Cracked....it suuuure is...
  • 27

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6556
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: J.F's article. Or the article from whoever has him in ch

Postby Askias » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:48 pm

Note: the following post contains positive statements about both social justice Warriors and their detractors. If you can't handle that, skip.

Evidence is andecdotal. This is not a scientific piece. Disagreement is encouraged.


It's... Well, not that good. Don't get me wrong, it's a twist Sargent wrote an article with this viewpoint, but I've read it and while the points are more in line with my own thinking, that doesn't make it well-written. It's barebones, for starters. Most of the points (5,4, 3 and 2) would get a 'well, duh' if they weren't written by someone who did not get that memo when it came out.

The point where I figured he'd be breaking some new ground and say something intelligent was #1, when he brought up that individual slights do form a culture-wide attitude. I agree with that sentiment strongly and it is the point where I'm most in line with the usually so comically misnamed Social Justice Movement. A priviliged (in the loosest possible terms) person making offensive statements about a less priviliged group is different than the other way around, even if the statements are equal. The point is not that they're bad because people start crying over it (as equal statements would logically have equal power to do so), but because one makes up (or re-inforces) a large social problem while the other does not. The situation of a less priviliged (I know people hate the term, but I don't have a good equivalent) person saying something that is offensive and insulting is considered less important because it only hurts people's feelings.

It is an undeniable fact that social attitudes hurt or benefit people of all groups, creeds and colors, but not all people equally (this is usually where the SJM drops the ball: applying statistics of the general populance to individuals). It's a fact that Whites and males (to use groups I'm part of) have an edge in most areas of society, even if especially in the latter case there are examples of the opposite (another point where the SJM frequently drops the ball). What I do notice is that people who dismiss people claiming something is ''offensive'' frequently also dismiss the link between a societal trend and actions that conform to that trend. Yeah, SJW cry wolf a lot, frequently for ridiculous reasons. But even if we assume a positive scenario and assume the expressions are merely that, and don't contribute to people's perceptions at all, it still reflects what they consider acceptable. Any conversation on the deeper problem would have no choice but to adress those expressions. It's not that people's feelings get hurt, but that the attitutes expressed do real harm to people in the real world.

This could make a seperate article on its own and I've read some pieces on it, which is why I'm sad it's not said more often because I found it's a good (not perfect) indicator for attracting reasonable people on both sides of the debate. It also doesn't flow well from the other points. Points #5, #4 and #3 are all problems caused by the opposite side of the spectrum: people crying wolf too often, demanding censorship (change of action, enforced) rather than attitute change (change of thinking, through talking) and small groups getting really loud and drowing out reasonable voices, giving wrong impressions of movements at large. These are problems caused by people who claim they're offended, and tackling problems of both them and their anti-feminist counterparts without identifying either side as such (again, barebone article) isn't something I'd have done. Especcially since each of them could fill several articles on how crazy that side has acted in recent memory.

Unfortunately, Sargent got close, but didn't follow up. The point is made so quickly and with so little substance that I'm actively wondering whether he actually referred to that or whether I am reading it into his words because I really think that point isn't made often enough by people who are not insane. I do see the signs in there, so I'm hopeful. Regardless of who Sargent is, I do believe the lines

When every comedian, and every movie, and every video game treats women as sex-prizes to be earned by strong, assertive men, then it contributes to a culture that doesn't value women as human beings. [...] Then you have to call out the one comedian, because he or she is part of something far bigger and more evil than themselves.


might be formulated in rather absolute terms, but the sentiment is somewhat correct. Maybe things adressed as causes are actually symptoms (I, for one, do not believe video games or TV actively cause sexist or racist attitudes in more than a small handful of cases, but can provide strong conformation bias. My reasoning for that could also be an article in itself, makes a distinct difference between passive and active media, and is only half-scientific- see the problem with Sargent trying to deal with the entire subject in 1 article yet?). Yeah, maybe the person complaining is just a crybaby or someone who wants an ego fix from 'protecting' people, but listen and find out whether that's the case. Don't dismiss it offhand as someone having their feelings hurt. Maybe ''offensive'' is a flawed term, but I don't have a better one. Damaging? Reflective of a horrible attitude?

It is a difficult subject to tackle because sociology is a very, very wide field nowadays. All in all I count social trends in general, the role of passive media (TV, Movies), the role of active media (Video Games), the role of the News Media, the role of Social Media, Psychology in different age groups, as well as racism and sexism (two fields with countless nuances as well as studies and a long history) as general points. In way too few words to do any of these points any (social?) justice. Much better informed people than Sargent and me have spilled ink over it, and me or him really can't make much contribution to that without proper preparation. Unfortunately Sargent's article seems as off-the-cuff as my comment, with preconceived links thrown in afterwards to give the suggestion Sargent has any knowledge on the subject. As much as I like to avoid sounding snobbish, this article and this comment are the work of amateurs and it's clearly visible.

Final verdict: Too held back, too big a topic to make any sufficiently thought-out point on in a single article, and way too little funny content for a humor site. If an article can't make smart points and can't be funny, it gets a 'meh' from me.
  • 18

If there be here lesson or moral, it lies beyond the competence of him who wrote this post.
(Jack Vance, Emphyrio)
User avatar
Askias
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:40 pm
Location: Under the Sea
Show rep
Title: Night Owl

Re: J.F's article. Or the article from whoever has him in ch

Postby NotCIAAgent » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:57 pm

Askias wrote:[i]Note: the following post contains positive statements about both social justice Warriors and their detractors. If you can't handle that, skip.


Thanks for warning!

What a nice guy, this Askias!
  • 24

Image
User avatar
NotCIAAgent
Knight Writer
Knight Writer
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:33 am
Location: 90's, Canada Wilderness
Show rep
Title: Shitposter Extraordinaire

Re: J.F's article. Or the article from whoever has him in ch

Postby Askias » Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:05 pm

NotCIAAgent wrote:
Askias wrote:[i]Note: the following post contains positive statements about both social justice Warriors and their detractors. If you can't handle that, skip.


Thanks for warning!

What a nice guy, this Askias!


I would never throw you in such a pit without warning! I was there at the battle of ''Ways modern men are trained to hate women'', when general Wong rallied up his screaming horde of extreme feminists! The horrors I have seen there... They still haunt my nightmares. We lost many good people that day. I ran out of downvotes; I only lived to tell the tale because I held myself dead and didn't comment.

I should have a name for their detractors, but I didn't want to use ''Men's Rights Activists'', because that was not a technically correct label. I considered ''Anti-Feminist'', but that's not a widespread term.
  • 19

If there be here lesson or moral, it lies beyond the competence of him who wrote this post.
(Jack Vance, Emphyrio)
User avatar
Askias
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:40 pm
Location: Under the Sea
Show rep
Title: Night Owl

Re: J.F's article. Or the article from whoever has him in ch

Postby NotCIAAgent » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:16 pm

Askias wrote:I would never throw you in such a pit without warning! I was there at the battle of ''Ways modern men are trained to hate women'', when general Wong rallied up his screaming horde of extreme feminists!


...





I've seen some shit, man... the draftsman said I would be called a hero... but back home, the SJWs just called me a shitlord!

*cries in a corner*
  • 15

Image
User avatar
NotCIAAgent
Knight Writer
Knight Writer
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:33 am
Location: 90's, Canada Wilderness
Show rep
Title: Shitposter Extraordinaire

Re: J.F's article. Or the article from whoever has him in ch

Postby AdricDePsycho » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:27 pm

I have a poor view of SJWs after the whole Steven Universe-My Little Pony fiasco (look up what happened, it was fucking stupid). But again, not everything should be seen as offensive. I remember that John Cleese once talked about how he could make jokes about European stereotypes, but if he was to do Mexican and Arab jokes, he would get called out as a racist. You ever heard about how Speedy Gonzales is a "racist stereotype"? In Mexico, we all love him (yes we, I'm half-Mexican on my father's side). There ARE legitimate things to be offended of (blackface and yellowface makeup, racial slurs, etc.), but something that you claim offends the minority when the minority says otherwise is just melodramatic.
  • 18

We all go a little mad sometimes...I'm just a little mad all of the time!
User avatar
AdricDePsycho
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:31 pm
Location: Marianna, Florida
Show rep
Title: Knife-Wielding Lunatic

Re: J.F's article. Or the article from whoever has him in ch

Postby NotCIAAgent » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:31 pm

Image

When you're an irrelevant third world country denizen, you just get happy when a famous studio or artist does something for you out of respect.

Zé Carioca is still a symbol to Brazilians today.

Edit: Well, some older Brazilians, at least. I'd rather not talk about the current state of our culture.
  • 15

Last edited by NotCIAAgent on Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
NotCIAAgent
Knight Writer
Knight Writer
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:33 am
Location: 90's, Canada Wilderness
Show rep
Title: Shitposter Extraordinaire

Re: J.F's article. Or the article from whoever has him in ch

Postby thatindianguy » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:32 pm

I actually pointed out that Mexicans actually like Speedy once when it was bought up on Cracked.
It's weird how often I see 'This is offensive to group X' only for all the Xians to go 'What? No it's not, it kind of cool.'

The one I have personal experience with is the show 'Outsourced'. Americans thought it was offensive to us because the likeable American protagonist never really learnt about India and kept screwing up.

We liked it because the American protagonist never really learnt and kept screwing up while never crossing the line to willfully ignorant. And the Indian characters actually grew and developed more than the average sit com character.
  • 17

thatindianguy
TCS Regular
TCS Regular
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:18 pm
Show rep

Re: J.F's article. Or the article from whoever has him in ch

Postby Kate » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:35 pm

Askias wrote:The point where I figured he'd be breaking some new ground and say something intelligent was #1, when he brought up that individual slights do form a culture-wide attitude. I agree with that sentiment strongly and it is the point where I'm most in line with the usually so comically misnamed Social Justice Movement. A priviliged (in the loosest possible terms) person making offensive statements about a less priviliged group is different than the other way around, even if the statements are equal. The point is not that they're bad because people start crying over it (as equal statements would logically have equal power to do so), but because one makes up (or re-inforces) a large social problem while the other does not. The situation of a less priviliged (I know people hate the term, but I don't have a good equivalent) person saying something that is offensive and insulting is considered less important because it only hurts people's feelings.

It is an undeniable fact that social attitudes hurt or benefit people of all groups, creeds and colors, but not all people equally (this is usually where the SJM drops the ball: applying statistics of the general populance to individuals). It's a fact that Whites and males (to use groups I'm part of) have an edge in most areas of society, even if especially in the latter case there are examples of the opposite (another point where the SJM frequently drops the ball). What I do notice is that people who dismiss people claiming something is ''offensive'' frequently also dismiss the link between a societal trend and actions that conform to that trend. Yeah, SJW cry wolf a lot, frequently for ridiculous reasons. But even if we assume a positive scenario and assume the expressions are merely that, and don't contribute to people's perceptions at all, it still reflects what they consider acceptable. Any conversation on the deeper problem would have no choice but to adress those expressions. It's not that people's feelings get hurt, but that the attitutes expressed do real harm to people in the real world.


So I kind of agree and kind of disagree. Have you ever met someone who just hates men? Or white people? And they say these things about men and white people, and that convinces other people to hate men and white people, which furthers the division.

Yes, the "less privileged" (yeah I can't think of a better term either) get hit way harder, but they also help feed the problem when they strike back in unhelpful ways. And by they I guess I mean we, too, since I'm a woman. I agree that individual slights do form a culture-wide problem, but that works both ways. It does more than hurt people's feelings, it:

1. Breeds resentment against both the privileged and less privileged individuals; white people and men (these are just general things here) will get offended by their feelings being hurt and more than that, being told to just suck it up, which leads people who were borderline racist or sexist over the line. On the other side, people might listen and start believing those things themselves. I won't blame anyone in the African American community for hating "whitey" because there's a long history of abuse and oppression and that's hard to move past, and racism persists to this day so they can always find evidence to confirm that white people are evil crackers who don't deserve respect, but it doesn't actually help and it makes the problem worse.

2. Leads to less empathy for "privileged" individuals and assumptions that they don't need help as individuals or their voices don't matter as individuals, since they're privileged. This can lead to things like saying that men can't be raped by women, or that even if men are sexually abused, it's not as bad as women being sexually abused. Men are cut out from having a voice on an issue that affects them, and it's thought to be the reason that adolescent male sexual assault victims are slightly more likely to commit suicide than adolescent female sexual assault victims. So it's possible that it literally contributes to people dying.

3. Polarizes people in a way that doesn't help; this is a lot like my first point, sure, but it's a slightly different thing. It's not to do with resentment, it just creates situations where people "stick to their own kind" because it feels safer. That means people are less likely to be exposed to people who are different from them, which makes them more vulnerable to forming prejudices about them.

So the big problem with all three of these is that they just feed the flames. In my opinion, anything that makes the situation worse is a bad thing, and I think it should not be discouraged to call people out equally for contributing to it.

There are productive ways to fight privilege bias, but being racist or sexist (even as a minority) isn't harmless on a cultural level, it makes things worse, precisely because of your first sentence in the quote.
  • 22

JT's Art Thread - JamesT's awesome stuff.
User avatar
Kate
Gul DuKate
Gul DuKate
 
Posts: 2960
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Assembling Future Kate
Show rep
Title: Sheepwoman

Re: J.F's article. Or the article from whoever has him in ch

Postby NotCIAAgent » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:36 pm

I don't get it, there's enough actual racism and oppression in this planet to keep their movement alive for DECADES, why do they have to come up with new ways to be outraged and new forms of oppression (cultural oppression! media oppresion! micro-agressions!) to fight against?
  • 11

Image
User avatar
NotCIAAgent
Knight Writer
Knight Writer
 
Posts: 2914
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:33 am
Location: 90's, Canada Wilderness
Show rep
Title: Shitposter Extraordinaire

Re: J.F's article. Or the article from whoever has him in ch

Postby AboveGL » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:48 pm

Marcuse wrote:Image

This is iron. The article is like this is.


Marcuse, that was beautiful.
  • 11

[10:11] <@JTAWAAAAAY> guys
[10:11] <@JTAWAAAAAY> I just pooped so hard I got a bloody nose
[10:11] <@JTAWAAAAAY> not joking
[10:11] <@Tesseracts> please dont make a twitter about this


Dear Vagina-Haver,
I would prefer it if you ceased your writing career, and instead focused on suicide.
Sincerely,
Lindvaettr
User avatar
AboveGL
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:37 pm
Show rep
Title: Kimperial Slut

Re: J.F's article. Or the article from whoever has him in ch

Postby Kate » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:54 pm

AdricDePsycho wrote:I have a poor view of SJWs after the whole Steven Universe-My Little Pony fiasco (look up what happened, it was fucking stupid).

...I must say, I looked it up and you are right. In fact this might be the stupidest thing I've read this month. I don't think that all SJW's are to blame for it though, it seems to be a few stupid individuals but I might not have found enough on it. Now I want to see a fanpage for seven year old girls who challenge the SJWs with "We're taking back My Little Pony, you weirdos."
  • 16

JT's Art Thread - JamesT's awesome stuff.
User avatar
Kate
Gul DuKate
Gul DuKate
 
Posts: 2960
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Assembling Future Kate
Show rep
Title: Sheepwoman

Re: J.F's article. Or the article from whoever has him in ch

Postby gisambards » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:59 pm

NotCIAAgent wrote:I don't get it, there's enough actual racism and oppression in this planet to keep their movement alive for DECADES, why do they have to come up with new ways to be outraged and new forms of oppression (cultural oppression! media oppresion! micro-agressions!) to fight against?


That's part of the reason I feel a particular disdain for those people getting offended by trivial stuff on someone else's behalf - why are they complaining about that when there are actual issues?

And I presume the answer is: Big issues are scary. Trivial stuff isn't.
  • 12

User avatar
gisambards
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2042
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests