Why are ultraliberals so fucking anal about pop culture

[Darth Yan]

http://mondoweiss.net/2017/07/military- ... ent-888808

Seriously, this jackass makes the most absurd arguments (apparently the fact that Ares's mortal identity is the british politician pushing fora n armistace is supposed to be proof all pacifists are evil even though the real armistace was a total dumpster fire that led to Hitler's rise; or apparently we're supposed to believe that violence is NEVER EVER necessary EVER).

It's like David Brin arguing that Star Wars is elitist.

The same site has people acting like Wonder Woman is zionist propaganda. Yes Gal Gadot made incredibly uninformed statements about Gaza but acting like she's Aylet Shaked (who's "little snakes" comment helped incite some thugs to burn a teenage boy alive) is cretinous

[Jub]

Answering the question in the thread's title, it's likely due to the fact that pop culture is a common ground between people. One which we've been trained to discuss from a very young age. So it's an obvious thing for people of any group to not only discuss but to project their worldview upon. This works especially well with the pop side of media because it is literally designed to foster such discussion and allow for such projection.

Thus if you're an ultra liberal you'll see most pop media as regressive trash because it doesn't cater to your pet issue while also having progressive casting and at least one prominent character that falls within the LGBT spectrum. It's always been this way too, only now we have the internet to ensure that we hear about it.

[K. A. Pital]

The real armistice was not an armistice, it was a direct consequence of Germany verging on military defeat and having a revolution which destroyed the empire from within. Hitler's rise was based on a false narrative of this revolution, misrepresenting the military capabilities of Germany in World War I and the reality of the situation. Seriously, at least before offering criticism of the article, could you get the facts straight?

I actually kind of like this assessment. It is not ultra-liberal either. Seems like a normal criticism of a typical Hollywood comic-book film.

[Darth Yan]

The real armistice was not an armistice, it was a direct consequence of Germany verging on military defeat and having a revolution which destroyed the empire from within. Hitler's rise was based on a false narrative of this revolution, misrepresenting the military capabilities of Germany in World War I and the reality of the situation. Seriously, at least before offering criticism of the article, could you get the facts straight?

I actually kind of like this assessment. It is not ultra-liberal either. Seems like a normal criticism of a typical Hollywood comic-book film.

We get it Stas. You think showing ANY violence or being proactive is somehow fascist or authoritarian. I called your views childish for a reason; you're no better than David Brin when he says star wars is elitist

[Kane Starkiller]

http://www.jonathan-cook.net/about/

Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist based in Nazareth, Israel, since 2001.

He is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish State (2006)
Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (2008)
Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (2008)

Jonathan Cook bravely unmasking (((Wonder Woman))) and her attempts to remake the Middle East and disappear Palestine

[Q99]

Look... all art gets criticized. The bigger the art, the more so.

And by *every* corner, *especially* if it's popular in that corner, because then it'll hit every critical eye- and everyone with a pre-existing axe to grind. You think ultra conservatives didn't criticize Passion of Christ?

Heck, Wonder Woman has an unusually low amount of criticism.

This has jack all to do with being 'ultra liberal,' and more 'why do people react with surprise and outrage that things get criticism?' to me. There will always be someone, and I kinda wish people were less shocked by it.

[Adam Reynolds]

One major problem is that many works of fiction really do have major problems in terms of their depictions of real issues. For the obvious thing it comes down to the narrative fallacy in that they are about stories at their heart, when myths fall into this category more easily than reality much of the time.

Another problem is that the fact that stories are about characters so often causes it to subscribe to the great man theory of history, in which the majority of history can be broken down into the actions of individuals rather than major trends, which is far more often the case.

The final and really most important element is that fiction is simply a useful way to bring up real life issues and make them more approachable, and one of the easiest ways to do this is criticism.

[Gandalf]

I'd be curious to turn the question around and ask why so many pathetic fanboys get touchy when people make philosophical criticisms of their favourite examples of people playing make pretend for money?

[TheFeniX]

I'd be curious to turn the question around and ask why so many pathetic fanboys get touchy when people make philosophical criticisms of their favourite examples of people playing make pretend for money?

Or really, that they bag on "ultraliberals" now for what "ultraconservatives" (or whatever) used to blow their loads about. DnD, Comics, Video Games. Essentially "what's popular that I don't understand and don't care to be a part of." I can kind of understand their resentment. You only have to watch/read something like Fox News expose on Mass Effect and just how blatantly biased and slanderous they can be under the guise of "journalism" to be utterly disgusted as they tear into a hobby you know a lot about while spewing nothing but bullshit.

But in recent memory, liberals (I guess) have really jumped in on the clickbait and left the "Please think of the children" busy-body soccer moms in the dust when it comes to outrage. I can't tell you how many articles I've read over the past decade or so about some problematic or troubling video game where it's clear within a few paragraphs that the person has either not played the game at all or is cherry-picking specific examples to prove their point while ignoring multiple examples that counter it.

IMO, It's a problem with someone being a talent-less hack grinding an axe against whatever target will give them the most exposure rather than their specific worldview being a driving force.

[Darth Yan]

There are things about superheroes that can be criticized. The issue is that a lot of the critique has an underlying "you're a fascist if you like superheroes" vibe. It's like David Brin. Superhero comics have never advocated that heroes should rule over mankind and even has the idea that humans can better themselves.

The issue about Gal Gadot is that while her comments were kinda tone deaf she wasn't like Mel Gibson. Stupid but more misguided than outright evil

[Alyrium Denryle]

OK. I think we can all agree that I am pretty damn leftist, right? OK.

Comic books, movies etc... these are our modern myths. They have largely taken the place of classic folk/morality tales in the modern west. Superman has taken the place of Achilles, basically. Whether we realize it or not, we learn lessons about how to act within society and view the world from these stories.

Which means that their content is actually important.

How are women treated in this story, and if badly, how is that treated within the narrative itself? Do we have heroes that the kids/teenagers who are reading comic books can identify with and relate to with respect to things like race, sexual orientation, and gender? Gay kids need a hero too, bonus points if they actually deal with the problems of being gay and offer some sort of positive example on how to deal with them.

[NecronLord]

I actually found the depiction of Ludendorff - a real historical person who was not the warmongering lunatic depicted - in the film deeply depressing and a sign of the way in which pop-culture in the West is now being steered toward a narrative of WW1 as a just war. I nearly didn't go for that reason alone, was persuaded to against my better judgement, and would rather like the ticket money back.

The narrative, at least in Britain, has with the passing of more veterans of that awful conflict, become more and more patriotic of late, with the narrative that the British government was entirely justified in WW1. When I was in the Civil Service back in 2014, we were told at one point that the centenary of the start of the war was to be commemorated with a minute's applause in all offices; this was mercifully changed to a respectful minute's silence after the union objected to this, but the point remains that the government tried to make hundreds of thousands of workers clap for the start of a wholly miserable war.

Seeing a four-colour superhero supporting the war is, to me, part of the same regressive agenda, even while I appreciate that others saw her depiction as a breath of fresh air in some other ways. Remember, for some of the people who see this film, that's going to be their most vivid or formative impression of the conflict, Ludendorff being a crazed madman who tests gas on POWs (a variety of unethical testing schemas were de-rigeur on both sides in this conflict), assassinates the German High Command and happily murders entire towns of civilians for no military gain.

Am I being 'fucking anal?'

[mr friendly guy]

Ok, I am going to point out where I agree and disagree and thoughts

My reticence to review the film has lifted after reading the latest investigations of Tom Secker and Matthew Alford into the manifold ways the U.S. military and security services interfere in Hollywood, based on a release of 4,000 pages of documents under Freedom of Information requests.

In their new book “National Security Cinema,” the pair argue that the Pentagon, CIA and National Security Agency have meddled in the production of at least 800 major Hollywood movies and 1,000 TV titles. That is likely to be only the tip of the iceberg, as they concede:

“It is impossible to know exactly how widespread this military censorship of entertainment is because many files are still being withheld.”

And people complain because China might be changing Hollywood films because.... they aren't the bad guys anymore in Yellow Red Dawn. I think people need different priorities if this is true.

But there is also an undeniable irony to Gadot playing an Amazonian goddess who opposes the militarism of men, and cannot bear to see the suffering of children in war, when in real life she publicly cheered on the Israeli army’s massive bombardment in 2014 of the imprisoned population of Gaza, which led to the killing of some 500 Palestinian children there.

Sure there is irony, but actors aren't their characters.

The film is set near the end of the First World War, a cataclysmic confrontation between two colonial powers, Britain and Germany, each trying to assert its dominance in Europe. The film-makers blur their focus sufficiently to gloss over the problem that there were no good guys in that “war to end all wars”. Instead in true Hollywood fashion, the First World War is presented simply as a prelude (or prequel) to the Second World War and the rise of the Nazis.

Agree. WWI was a war between colonial powers backing up each other's alliances. There has been some attempts to notice to promote the Entente powers as the good guys. Notice David Cameron's spiel a few years back and even in Australia we have shit shit.

The Germans are murderous villains, while the British are the flawed–until Gadot shows them the error of their ways – defenders of humanity. In fact, the film prefers to cast the anti-German side as “Allies”, the humane members of the world community, represented by the U.S.–Chris Pine is the male lead and Gadot’s love interest–and a ragtag support group that includes a Scot, a native American, and a generic Arab, presumably symbolizing “moderate” Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

The British leadership is trying to find ways to make peace and end the war, but is stymied by an evil presence. A German super-general, Erich Ludendorff (Danny Huston), believes he can win the war decisively by developing a horrifying gas that will wipe out men, women and children, forcing the British to surrender on his terms. To demonstrate his power, he tests the gas on innocent villagers on the front lines in Belgium.

All of this might sound disconcertingly familiar to anyone who has been following the western media-scripted coverage that has for several years been trying to promote more aggressive “humanitarian intervention” in Syria–and before that, and more successfully, in Libya and Iraq.

Is Ludendorff supposed to be Bashar Assad, the evil Syrian president who – as long as we discount the dissenting voices of some experts – has twice used the chemical weapon sarin against innocent civilians?

Are the British leaders, seeking a peace deal with the Germans, supposed to be those “appeasers” in the West who have stood in the way of “intervention” in Syria, blocking no-fly zones and bombing runs that could bring down the Syrian government?

I agree the portrayal of Germany isn't accurate, I am not sure if that necessarily have much parallels with what the author is describing, such as the Syrian gas attacks. It could have, but its hard to know since there have been gas attacks on civilians in the past where the writers could use as "inspiration" to show how evil the villains are.

The source of man’s evil in Wonder Woman is the only surviving Greek god, Ares, who is hiding somewhere in the human world. Wonder Woman believes she can end all war and human suffering only if she can locate Ares and kill him–before he kills her.

No one in the human world, of course, believes Wonder Woman, and they foolishly dismiss her ideas as lunacy. And for a while Wonder Woman makes a terrible mistake in thinking the German Ludendorff (Saddam / Gaddafi / Assad) is Ares. It is late in the film that she discovers she has been on the wrong scent.

Actually this is just wrong. It didn't happen in the film. WW believes Ares is the source, however as Ares himself states, he didn't make humanity like this, he only gave them the ideas for weapons (including the gas). This is a very important plot point, because its how Ares rationalises humanity's destruction. How uncivilise the humans are, look at them rushing to kill each other. I only getting rid of them by helping them do what they wanted to do in the first place. The author is reaching here.

The ultimate evil, Wonder Woman finds, is the wolf in sheep’s clothing among us: those who preach fraternity, compassion and turning the other cheek are the ones who make possible the killing of the innocents.

Those who appear to care, those who seem to offer a route out of bloodshed and war–those who defeat the aims and threaten the profits of the military-industrial complex–are in truth nothing more than appeasers. Their efforts are certain, even intended, to lead to greater suffering.

There is always a risk that this message may subconsciously filter through, but I am not too sure whether it was meant this way or its simply because having a pacifist bad guy is a well worn trope. The funny thing is, the "pacifist" isn't doing it for pacifism, he is doing it so he can prolong the war by giving Germans time to regroup. Which makes the point of pacifism is bad not very effective in a film such as wonder woman.

There is no time to delay, to stand back, to question or to negotiate. Wonder Woman is outraged by the dithering of the men around her. She wants to be at the front line as soon as possible, to kick ass.

This is a common enough trope that I am not sure there is necessarily something promoting the military industrial complex.

Of course, this story–like all effective propaganda–is supposed to work its magic at a subconscious level, where it cannot be interrogated by our reason and our critical faculties. But even so, a few critics–themselves enthusiastic liberal interventionists–seem to have intuited the movie’s message.

Here lies the problem in proving this one way or another. Its supposed to work on a subconscious level. But there are lots of other messages that I could argue comes on a subconscious level. But which one do people follow? For example if the subconscious message is pacifists are evil, I could likewise draw the subconscious message that Germans are evil or white men with moustaches are evil. Its possible there is a subconscious message, but how can you prove it?

[Q99]

The Pacifist is, of course, actively supplying weapons to people trying to break the peace worse than before.

And of course, the British leadership were gigantic aholes who were more distainful of their soldiers than the Germans were- said Germans also wanting peace with one exception who murdered the rest, and peace still won out.

[Crazedwraith]

The Pacifist is, of course, actively supplying weapons to people trying to break the peace worse than before.

And of course, the British leadership were gigantic aholes who were more distainful of their soldiers than the Germans were- said Germans also wanting peace with one exception who murdered the rest, and peace still won out.

Neither Wonder Woman nor Steve were simply 'anti-peace' or 'pro-war'. Diana clearly wanted to end the war but thought killing Ares was the way to do it. She only opposes the armistice because she believes Ares won't let it happen.

Likewise Steve is pro-armistice, pro-peace but he knows it won't happen if the german have their superweapon that can win them the war.

[TheFeniX]

Comic books, movies etc... these are our modern myths. They have largely taken the place of classic folk/morality tales in the modern west. Superman has taken the place of Achilles, basically. Whether we realize it or not, we learn lessons about how to act within society and view the world from these stories.

Greek Heroes are hard to compare with modern versions because the word "Hero" in this context means more "Does larger-than-life things" rather than "Does the right thing." Achilles started out as a war hero then pulled such a shitty stunt with Hector's body, Apollo had to stomp on him.

But you could be leading into another point that at least many Greek heroes taught us other lessons: "don't be a giant dick or the God's will ruin your day." This is something I feel gets lost in the shuffle: the ends justify the means. He's a "good guy" so it's ok he did something really shitty to resolve the plot. Roll credits.

How are women treated in this story, and if badly, how is that treated within the narrative itself? Do we have heroes that the kids/teenagers who are reading comic books can identify with and relate to with respect to things like race, sexual orientation, and gender? Gay kids need a hero too, bonus points if they actually deal with the problems of being gay and offer some sort of positive example on how to deal with them.

NOTE: this is where I get lost and have no dog in this fight. So, I'll happily debate this with you, but I'm not going to bother coming to blows over it:

The resistance here lies in the idea that the fans like these heroes because they AREN'T like them but they want to BE like them. They aren't an Alien God sent to be the perfect human and laser-beam and freeze-breath their enemies. They aren't an angry Canadian with claws coming out of their hands. Etc.

So, when you talk about a "Gay Hero," they say "why do you need a hero that represents you? I DIDN'T. PANDERING PANDERING." And, at TIMES mind you, I can understand this because it does come off as pandering, as a dive for diversity to say "look at us, this ONE time we gave you something. Please shut the fuck up now." And honestly, some of these depiction come off as pretty awful.

I read one (I thought it was a joke comic) where WW has some asshole captured and helpless in her lasso of "5th amendment violations" and he's mansplaining like... an asshole and she decks him one. And I'm like, sure I get it, these people can definitely be punchable. Hell, I'm sure I'VE mansplained before and deserved a punching. But nothing about that panel shows WW as empowered. Nothing comes off as heroic. It comes off as vindictive.

For me, I'm over messages in fiction as I don't think they'll ever be worth taking to heart. Analysis? Sure. But as a benchmark for morality, that's a hard sell. Ok, so I've had to watch "Sing" like a thousands times because "my son." And even on the first watch I'm realizing just how damn racist this show is. The porcupine dates another porcupines who leaves her for another porcupine. The White Mouse finds a White Mouse to woo. The pig is married to another pig and dances with another pig in the show. It's basically "stick with your race." And this is such a prevalent theme, the animal movies end up being the worst offenders because "MARRIAGE IS A VOW BETWEEN A COW AND A COW! Not a fox and a cow."

Bojack Goddamn Horseface does a better job as a platform for interracial anything and that's just terrible. That show even bothers to have an asexual character in it.

[Q99]

But in recent memory, liberals (I guess) have really jumped in on the clickbait and left the "Please think of the children" busy-body soccer moms in the dust when it comes to outrage. I can't tell you how many articles I've read over the past decade or so about some problematic or troubling video game where it's clear within a few paragraphs that the person has either not played the game at all or is cherry-picking specific examples to prove their point while ignoring multiple examples that counter it.

I have a different perception. I've seen a large uptick in articles that point out problematic stuff in a fairly measured ton saying we can do better, i.e. genuine critique that's framed in a productive way (and note, someone can point out a problem with something even with there being multiple counter-examples. "Sure, the counterexamples are great, but why do we still have X problem in at all?" and all), plus, yea, there's some who blow their lids over it, but not all that many compared to the raw mass of reviews out there.

The biggest whiners currently tend to be the, "Wait, you're writing something that isn't for me?" brigade. Who got up in arms on Fury Road, Ghostbusters, etc..

Oh yea, and don't forget the old people writing "Millennials are killing..." articles about how every one of the younger generation's change in taste is murdering a traditional standby ^^


Maybe complaining isn't dominated by any specific group and is just something everyone does.

[TheFeniX]

I have a different perception. I've seen a large uptick in articles that point out problematic stuff in a fairly measured ton saying we can do better, i.e. genuine critique that's framed in a productive way (and note, someone can point out a problem with something even with there being multiple counter-examples. "Sure, the counterexamples are great, but why do we still have X problem in at all?" and all), plus, yea, there's some who blow their lids over it, but not all that many compared to the raw mass of reviews out there.

My problem might be that I've near completely washed my hands of Hollywood over the past decade due to constant retreads and their playing it safe with PG-13 movies, of which cuts a lot of the controversy out as a matter of course.

Now, this is only tangentially applicable to the OP article, but fits well within the scope of the OP title.

However, with video games entering pop culture and continuing to become a bigger and bigger deal, even though they are already serious business, the stereotypical detractors have dried up. A large part of this could be due to GTA no longer having the shock value it had and "ORRA MURINES MURRCA!" (even though the games actually don't push that themes) CoD sequels is something they won't attack for fear of being viewed as anti-military. There's no mileage of out attacking video games as a matter of course these days. I thought things had pretty much cleared out and people might go to criticizing video games for what they actually contain. Which they did, but not to the effect I thought.

I would go off into a rant about Skyrim (and I just might) and how articles written about it kind of re-jump started my sifting through blogger garbage (I lump many Internet news sites into this), but I'll instead talk about Hatred. (which is admittedly also garbage). In 1999, this game would have been harangued by soccer moms and dads, but that outrage was handled differently. The same people who would wax poetic about how "games are art" or "art is in the eye of the beholder" would now turn around and say "this doesn't qualify as art."

Essentially, they want cake. And they want to eat it. Sorry people, negative "messages" have just as much right to exist as positive ones.

Meanwhile, the controversy of Mass Effect Andromeda's Full Nudity rating got.... what from your main-stream news sources? Even Fox News wouldn't touch it. And these are the people who went bonkers for PG sex in 2008 in the original Mass Effect, calling it a Porn Game. Where's the outrage from conservative groups, even those online? If there was any, it was totally blown out by the outrage over other issues with the game. They couldn't give fucks about video games in 2017.

No, near 100% of the white noise and mud slinging about video games comes from group who would identify as liberal. And that's fine. Video Games are worth looking at and deconstructing. But what got me started back into this was Skyrim. As it's a shallow, but wide game with lots of content and is also a monolith in sales, I think it's relevant. So many articles about the sexism, which many are just wrong. But not a one mentioned anything involving "Haelga" (except, and my memory is hazy, I think MFing Cracked did and.... ha! That's funny.) and she's basically going around Riften screwing the pants off anything with a dick and the men are assumed to not be able to say no because she's hot and they are horny for free sex even when married.

But, how is this a problem? Do men and women like this not exist? Hell yea they do and Riften is a cesspool of crime and debauchery. But does the game portray every woman like that? Fuck no. But it's like "Sexism found: SHUT IT DOWN PEOPLE. Shut it down."

So, I don't condone assholes being assholes, but as a non-comic reader, I can understand their over-reaction to those seemingly not involved in their medium trashing it and them reacting punitively in response. Because, like those who dealt with PnP RPGS like DnD or video games, it has to feel like everyone has it out for your hobby.

[Q99]

Part of it is everyone just got used to ignoring most conservative backlash- there's still sometimes some if there's a gay character or something more stand-out but the other stuff fell off the radar. It's hear to stay no matter what anyone says. But now? Clickbait sites can make the most sensationalist ones out of the critical reviews of this stuff they can find (and I really don't see that much 'shut it down' stuff, so it may also depend on where you surf) and that's the new thing.

[Vendetta]

Well, videogames were ruled to be a protected medium of artistic expression by the supreme court. Which all the gamers thought "hooray, criticism of my medium will end now". Except that was wrong, because by being officially a grown up artistic medium worth protecting that also increased the artistic scrutiny on games. People started applying the same critical modes of thought to games they did to other media and it turns out a lot of them are still very simplistic and limited in their presentation.

Unfortunately, gamers are the most precious of the snowflakes and can't distinguish criticism of media they like from condemnation of them as people (a lot like creationists), and so now they yearn from the before days where the only thing they had to worry about getting from girls was cooties not opinions.

So they draw false equivalences between people who were seeking actual legal restriction on the production and sale of videogames with people who are exercising their own right to speech about videogames and happen to have a negative opinion of certain aspects of them.

[Q99]

We moved from "Video games should be heavily regulated/stopped!" to "People should stop putting this element in games, 'cause it sucks." One is bad, one is normal, but you'd have trouble convincing some people of it ^^

[Civil War Man]

Meanwhile, the controversy of Mass Effect Andromeda's Full Nudity rating got.... what from your main-stream news sources? Even Fox News wouldn't touch it. And these are the people who went bonkers for PG sex in 2008 in the original Mass Effect, calling it a Porn Game. Where's the outrage from conservative groups, even those online? If there was any, it was totally blown out by the outrage over other issues with the game. They couldn't give fucks about video games in 2017.

In regard to why specifically conservative media didn't flip out over tits in ME:A when they did for less risque things in the original, I would also include the Gamergate dudebros as a contributing factor. They are a pretty reliable right-wing faction with all of their hyperventilating about feminists lurking in every shadow and SJWs conspiring to destroy video games because something something libtard cuck triggered snowflake. But criticizing sexual content in video games would piss them off, since that's exactly why they have such a raging hate boner for people like Sarkeesian.

[TheFeniX]

Well, videogames were ruled to be a protected medium of artistic expression by the supreme court. Which all the gamers thought "hooray, criticism of my medium will end now". Except that was wrong, because by being officially a grown up artistic medium worth protecting that also increased the artistic scrutiny on games. People started applying the same critical modes of thought to games they did to other media and it turns out a lot of them are still very simplistic and limited in their presentation.

Has there ever been a time video games haven't been the target of heavy criticism? After the crash, mind you. But it's gone to all ranges over the years: "Games are childish, only manbabies would play them. "Games aren't childish enough and I need them to raise my kid while I do other things." "We need to push more adult themes (note: not talking just about sex and violence here)" "Whoa whoa, these themes are too adult, I don't want my kid thinking for himself."

But the criticism isn't what gets me, it's the axe-grinding nature of it. A majority of the backlash at people analyzing the medium is dumb (what a female critic goes through makes me weep for humanity, but then again: this is not exclusive to video games), but I've seen enough just.... libelous (or damn near close) writing even from places like IGN to relegate them to clickbait. Ubisoft rightfully gets shit for saying "no women, hard to animate" because that's dumb. But then they add playable women to AssCreed and they are beaten up by (IIRC) IGN for pandering?

You can't win for fucking losing here.

Kotaku had such an axe to grind against Team Ninja WRT DOAX3 it was sad. I recall them not only calling the game porn but also at one point saying "the Game(?) blah blah blah" which is such shitty journalism from the company that made it a point to defend the Visual Novel Gone Home as a game. Yes, it's a game. A stupid game. It's like if someone taped a Game and Watch to the back of a Sport Illustrated: Swim Suit Edition. But it's still a game.

And upon looking into it again for this post, they went all "ZOMG" due a rendering error where viewing some objects from underwater caused the texture to not draw so: you see a Barbie Doll woman. And it's titled "Extremely NSFW." Clickbait, through and through. This is games journalism. I expect soccer moms to make a big deal out of something like this, not someone calling themselves a "critic."

I mean, god fucking damn gaming "critics" for making me defend Ubishit and Team "We Perfected Breast Physics." I doubt it would affect GG assholes, but if critics wrote something worthy of being called "scrutiny" rather than "clickbait," I'd shut my mouth.

We moved from "Video games should be heavily regulated/stopped!" to "People should stop putting this element in games, 'cause it sucks." One is bad, one is normal, but you'd have trouble convincing some people of it ^^

The question is: "What elements?" What elements suck? Sexy women? I wrote off Bayonetta pretty quick, for other reasons, but then I read into the controversy and found some very compelling arguments against the whole "hair is clothes, lose clothes when do power move, sexy sexy." Then I found good arguments (from female writers) about how it's empowering to be badass and sexy. The likes of GG were haranguing one group. The likes of.... I dunno, really don't like the SJW label but whatever, were haranguing the other group for Internalized Misogyny.

What are the elements we should be phasing out? Honest Question. Because I see arguments from both sides here from both groups, across a range of topics.

[Alyrium Denryle]

NOTE: this is where I get lost and have no dog in this fight. So, I'll happily debate this with you, but I'm not going to bother coming to blows over it:

The resistance here lies in the idea that the fans like these heroes because they AREN'T like them but they want to BE like them. They aren't an Alien God sent to be the perfect human and laser-beam and freeze-breath their enemies. They aren't an angry Canadian with claws coming out of their hands. Etc.

So, when you talk about a "Gay Hero," they say "why do you need a hero that represents you? I DIDN'T. PANDERING PANDERING." And, at TIMES mind you, I can understand this because it does come off as pandering, as a dive for diversity to say "look at us, this ONE time we gave you something. Please shut the fuck up now." And honestly, some of these depiction come off as pretty awful.

To which I would respond that Clark Kent might not technically be human, but he is, for all intents and purposes, a human. So is Logan. People project themselves onto as wish-fulfillment etc etc but the reader takes something back from that as well. When you project yourself onto someone like that, they rub off on you (phrasing) if they are sufficiently well-written. Doing this in both directions is easier the closer that person is to you in primary characteristics and life experiences.

The people screaming about pandering? They just don't notice, because it is something they never noticed a lack of. I did.

A game like Mass Effect, which lacked being gay as an option, gets really frustrating. You miss out on romance options, which given that your relationships with other characters are a pretty big part of those games...yeah. The only thing that made that palatable at all was the knowledge that such an option would finally exist in ME3, which allowed me to construct a head-cannon of being married to my work.


I read one (I thought it was a joke comic) where WW has some asshole captured and helpless in her lasso of "5th amendment violations" and he's mansplaining like... an asshole and she decks him one. And I'm like, sure I get it, these people can definitely be punchable. Hell, I'm sure I'VE mansplained before and deserved a punching. But nothing about that panel shows WW as empowered. Nothing comes off as heroic. It comes off as vindictive.

Ok, so I've had to watch "Sing" like a thousands times because "my son." And even on the first watch I'm realizing just how damn racist this show is. The porcupine dates another porcupines who leaves her for another porcupine. The White Mouse finds a White Mouse to woo. The pig is married to another pig and dances with another pig in the show. It's basically "stick with your race." And this is such a prevalent theme, the animal movies end up being the worst offenders because "MARRIAGE IS A VOW BETWEEN A COW AND A COW! Not a fox and a cow."

I guarantee you that your kid notices that. Might not put two and two together right now depending on age, but his brain takes notice.

[NecronLord]

I'm curious. What's "Sing" in this context?