ENT - Bound

[lightningbarer]

I'm sorry but this is pretty incommunicable.

Y'know...its not hard to do what I've just done, you know instead of visually vomiting things across the entire page because you're too lazy to do anything like this.

But saying something is "incommunicable" is kinda funny. I mean either you're saying I'm a disease that needs to be yeeted off the site

OR

you were trying to say "incoherent" or words thereof.

Neither is a good look and neither is the laziness you show in all your replies to people.

Now if you want to actually say what you're getting at here my dear - yeah I'm taking a stab in the dark but I think I'm hitting the bullseye - your attitude to being told "no, you're just wrong" when a person initially stated that the tone of the review is incoherent. Because the reviewer is saying women are oppressed while they are doing the oppressing.

Boy you don't like the idea of being held accountable to your own actions do you...

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Then that is your prerogative.

[Admiral X]

So I preface my statement by saying I actually like fan service, but use an example of how it can undermine what a writer might be trying to say, and you insist that I hate fan service. K, whatever.

I think you just want to be mad at Chuck because he has a different opinion than you and you have a chip on your shoulder because of feminists complaining about fan service. I'm not exactly a fan of the regressive left either, but you don't see me posting huge rants because Chuck thinks the fan service in this episode is childish (which it is).

[Darth Wedgius]

FWiW, I think there were two separate populations of women involved here. I don't recall the female characters in the episode being presented as victims (the episodes saving grace, IMO, was that it didn't make slavery any less wrong when women were doing it). But the actions of the Orion "slave girls" in the episode contributed to a negative stereotype of women outside the episode.

The negative stereotype isn't without a real-world basis, like a lot of negative stereotypes. But I don't think that makes SFDebris's objections logically contradictory. A lot of people object to negative stereotypes while acknowledging a real-world basis, and I see a lot of inconsistency in what stereotypes people object to, but that's probably a topic for another thread.

So you're sat there bitching that - because of women being horrible in an episode of a Sci-Fi show - women in the real world are going to be treated with skepticism, doubt and possible hostility?

No. I'm explaining the concern and why it's not treating the same group in contradictory ways. The OSGs aren't portrayed as victims in the end. Don't confuse me explaining a viewpoint with me having the viewpoint.

You know, I'm enjoying a little phrase lately that really fits here for people like you.

Actions
Have
Consequences.

Now if that isn't simple enough for you.

Women have and do get away with a VAST majority of issues, from stealing peoples money and livelihoods to sexually abusing anything from children to the elderly.
So if you're saying that this episode makes other men think twice before even meeting a woman, I don't see a problem there.

And if you're going to say its demeaning women by being sexual - that's fine - sex negative femin-...not gonna use that word.

"Demeaning women by being sexual" is an incorrect generalization. Being sexual is a superset of influencing men by being sexually attractive. A woman can, for example, walk around in a sexy outfit and just enjoy being sexy; look at a lot of cosplay for that.

As noted, I said the negative stereotype has a real-world basis. Did you miss that? Because it seems like you missed it. You gave me a real-world example of something to prove it exists, when I I already said it exists.

There are people who object to portrayals of black violent criminals or muslim terrorists because they believe it fits negative stereotypes, and both of those stereotypes also have plenty of real-world examples. I'm not one of those objecting, but it isn't an illogical concern; just because things have some truth to them doesn't mean that the portrayal won't hurt innocent people.

Here's an example you might sympathize with: men being violent criminals. Because while some racial minorities are much more likely than white people to be violent criminals, men are way, way more likely to be violent criminals than women. And then there's the stereotype of whites being racist. I can certainly cite real-world examples of white racists.

Sadly, people who object to some people being stereotyped are frequently just fine with other people being stereotyped. But it's an imperfect world filled with imperfect people.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Here's an example you might sympathize with: men being violent criminals. Because while some racial minorities are much more likely than white people to be violent criminals, men are way, way more likely to be violent criminals than women. And then there's the stereotype of whites being racist. I can certainly cite real-world examples of white racists.

Just saying here that it's peculiar to say "racial minorities are much more likely than white people to be violent criminals." Like just having the racial term there starts to imply genetic predispositions, though I'm sure you were referring more to correlation than causation.

[lightningbarer]

I think you just want to be mad at Chuck because he has a different opinion than you and you have a chip on your shoulder because of feminists complaining about fan service. I'm not exactly a fan of the regressive left either, but you don't see me posting huge rants because Chuck thinks the fan service in this episode is childish (which it is).

Huge rants...you thinks this is a huge rant. I came in on this topic 9 pages in and a certain someone has been freaking out whenever anyone disagrees with (her).

As for the "feminist" thing, you can think what you want, but I'm not the one who mentioned feminism.

I wonder why you'd bring up feminism in the attempt at rebutting me? Couldn't be that you want me to name myself as an anti-feminist so you can then strawman me could it?

Because of course I'm not going to admit to being anything like that. I'm not that daft.

And as I have repeatedly said, my problem hasn't been with the idea Chuck dislikes something I like or not.(I believe in a reply to you, I stated that I don't watch things I don't like and you should do the same...(I'm certain that's a "live and let live" approach but whatevs)

What I think you're upset at is that I have hit at something to a core problem.

Chuck stated that the aggressive people who are the bad guys in this episode are being VICTIMISED.

And if we take this to its natural conclusion, Chuck is therefore saying that whenever a woman is an evil person, she is being victimised by being called out for it.
Because apparently, women can never do anything wrong.

See, this is the core problem with stating something as asinine as "women are victims" it leads to this kind of thinking and its obviously not what Chuck meant, not in his logical mind anyway, but he has been conditioned to think this through repeated mantra of "women are the victims of things".

So he has come out saying that the vile people who are supposed to be seen as vile people in the episode, are in fact the victims of their actions and not the perpetrators of their actions

What it shows is a very juvenile mindset, at least when Chuck thinks of women he thinks of women as being the eternally oppressed women in the fictional accounts of certain people online.

And its sorta pandering towards them, giving girls a pat on the head and sending them on their way with a "you're oppressed, you can't help doing this." mindset.

Again, all I started this with was a literal statement of "this is doublethink" and it is.
its why you and those around you are stretching things and trying to create strawmen to justify why they're wrong. Because doublethink doesn't work in your head unless you justify it and erase the information that counters it.

And lucky for you, I am the mouthpiece that is like Emmanuel Goldstein, constantly reminding you of the evil things that are said so that you either have to fully embrace the doublethink and admit you don't care, or you break down and see where you are making mistakes.

Either one is good because it ultimately helps in my end goal.

[lightningbarer]

No. I'm explaining the concern and why it's not treating the same group in contradictory ways. The OSGs aren't portrayed as victims in the end. Don't confuse me explaining a viewpoint with me having the viewpoint.

Again I don't get why you don't do this, why you feel it necessary to vomit out the entire conversation, if people are reading the forum, they'll see it. But anyway

The Orion Slave Girls were NEVER portrayed as victims, that has been part of the point I have been going on about. You can call a dog a hydrant if you want but if you stick a hose up its ass it won't produce water.

You and others like you have been trying to - at the same time - state that the characters are oppressed and the writers are oppressing women.

I cut through that to get to the heart of the matter, I ignore your arguments that try and make it about how women are objectified by stating if that is so then you are wholly against strip clubs and sex work, but while in the same breath I warn you to not suggest such a thing because there are people who are Sex Positive who will castigate you for that.

The heart of the matter is as I state to you in a previous reply.
Chuck infantalised women by saying that those women in the episode were victims - just because they were women, they were never treated poorly, they were never treated badly, they were adored and fawned over.

Now the argument can be made that the "portrayal of women" in the show has been "degrading to women"
But we both know where that will end. I've already cut the legs off at the knee with that. "you don't have to watch it, and if you don't like it then its clearly not for you." so if you are going to say it needs to change because you don't like it, you are gatekeeping and trying to infuse your will on the group making you not part of the group, because the group likes this thing and doesn't want it to change.

"Demeaning women by being sexual" is an incorrect generalization. Being sexual is a superset of influencing men by being sexually attractive. A woman can, for example, walk around in a sexy outfit and just enjoy being sexy; look at a lot of cosplay for that.

Thank you for finally saying it.
Its about time one of you actually came out and said this.
Time to address it.

"A woman can, for example, walk around in a sexy outfit and just enjoy being sexy."
Why?
Why would she go through the extra effort to look "sexy"

And to who does she want to look sexy?
Does she want to look at herself only and think she's sexy? (BE VERY CAREFUL IN SAYING THIS OPTION)

Does she want to enjoy the looks other people have about her?

Does she get off on the idea of turning on strangers by her mere presence?

There's quite a lot of possibilities as you can rightly see and likely counter with.

I argue that if a person is doing something, they're doing it for the attention, Chuck does enjoy making the reviews for himself, getting his own thoughts on a particular medium out of his head.
But he also puts effort into it so others will see this and agree with him.

All people do this.
All people sit there and put effort in for others to see it because if they weren't concerned with the appeal of others, they would put in minimal effort to do the bare minimum.
And this applies to peoples appearance as well, if you aren't concerned with what others think, you'll not flaunt yourself, you'll take pride in your own appearance, sure. But you won't flaunt yourself to others for their attention.
So your first argument is null and void, women do want to be looked at and oagled, the cos community do this and they get paid to do it too.

As noted, I said the negative stereotype has a real-world basis. Did you miss that? Because it seems like you missed it. You gave me a real-world example of something to prove it exists, when I I already said it exists.

I didn't miss it, I left it hanging for you to bring up again.

Okay, so a fictional world is effecting a real world "negative" stereotype.
Why are you not protesting the strip clubs and sex workers who flaunt their bodies? Why aren't you rallying against that woman I mentioned 2 pages ago that used her body to make 100k for the Australian Brush Fires?

You're not doing it because you don't think you'll get support for it, because if you said "that 'lady' who sold her nudes on instagram is promoting a negative stereotype of women and damaging female body images across the world." you'd get a mountain of people saying "she did what she did to help the disenfranchised in Australia, what the heck have you done?"

And you don't want that.

Then there's the "sex workers" or "strippers" likely if you went at it about them you'd get similar responses of you "disempowering women and their bodies" because those women know that they're attractive and know they have a commodity to sell to those who want it. And you would come in demanding they go away.

Then the questions would ask of "why are you doing this?" and I think the truth would come out then.

Jealousy

Its not that the images of the Slave Girls is damaging to women, its that you look at them and think "I'll never be that attractive and never have men lusting over me like that."

That's a self-image problem and one you need to work on. There's around 3 billion males in the world and the funny thing is, quite a lot of them are going to be into you. The question is are you going to be into them? (gynocentrism again rears its ugly head doesn't it)

There are people who object to portrayals of black violent criminals or muslim terrorists because they believe it fits negative stereotypes, and both of those stereotypes also have plenty of real-world examples. I'm not one of those objecting, but it isn't an illogical concern; just because things have some truth to them doesn't mean that the portrayal won't hurt innocent people.

Is that what you are ultimately going to try and do? Ignore reality because it might hurt someones feelings?
And yes, it IS an illogical concern, 13/52 is a thing and if I were to create a crime drama in Chicago and fill the roles of the cops with 100% Black males and 100% of the roles of the criminals with Japanese women, it would not make logical sense and would create a form of cognitive dissonance in the viewer which would force them to turn the TV over.

stereotypes do exist, they can be used in a negative manner in the real world and that is a horrendous thing to have happen.

But its going to happen. I don't think I need to bring up some of the cases of the previous decade where men were falsely accused by women of various forms of sexual attack or harm and have the vast majority of society snap it up as the stereotype is "women are innocent creatures and men are evil monsters."

See I don't say that should be changed by myself or others, forcing a change is never going to work, it only makes those on either side dig their heels in deeper and become more radical.
The only way to fix a stereotype is for so many people to be the opposite of the stereotype constantly that no one remotely believes it anymore.

Men are doing that.
Women are still trying to blame everything that goes wrong in their lives on everyone else.

Here's an example you might sympathize with: men being violent criminals. Because while some racial minorities are much more likely than white people to be violent criminals, men are way, way more likely to be violent criminals than women. And then there's the stereotype of whites being racist. I can certainly cite real-world examples of white racists.

Sadly, people who object to some people being stereotyped are frequently just fine with other people being stereotyped. But it's an imperfect world filled with imperfect people.

I'm really glad I did this, and that you are being so open and forthright about things as well.

Now, we're all equal in society right? The laws written are there for us to work within and they're not meant to prejudice one group or the other.

So

The recent spate of violent antisemitic crimes in New York (dated 06/01/20)((or 01/06/20 for you americans)) have been labelled as "White Supremacy"

When the people committing the attacks are part of the group called "The Black Israelites" which are a group that are many years old now, with some youtube videos stretching back 8 years now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiL7w486-UI
So why is it that a group of Black Americans who are attacking a group if Jewish Americans are called White Supremacists?

And why are men called sex offenders and rapists when things like this stat exist: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/female-sex-offenders-more-common-gender-bias-statistics-rape-abuse-a7839361.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/

It couldn't have anything to do with the idea of attacking people unjustly for crimes they haven't committed and therefore having a scapegoat to constantly blame all of their own problems on without addressing the problems at all could it?

I mean if that were the case, then complaining about a man saying that Chuck was wrong and doing some doublethink about women rapists being the victims would make you look very silly wouldn't it?

Glassed face:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-smashes-wine-glass-boyfriends-11823725

Stiletto as a weapon:
https://endtimeheadlines.org/2019/11/woman-attacks-79-year-old-man-with-stiletto-heel-for-preaching-on-the-subway/

"A rape on Campus":
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/12/everything-we-know-uva-rape-case.html

Emma "I have a Matress and I lied about man and ruined his life" Sulkowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight)

Duke Lacross: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/duke-lacrosse-rape-espn-30-for-30_n_56e07e33e4b065e2e3d486f7?guccounter=1

Lorena Bobbet...:
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/lorena-bobbitt-woman-who-cut-off-husbands-penis-in-1993-speaks-out-2015911/

The curious case of Dalia Dipollito:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JttwV6XZ_I

I think you get the point now.

Yeah, SURE women are oppressed and SURE women are victims. I feel SO bad for you with the mountain of evidence of women getting literally no trouble for the acts of lying under oath and violence to hurt mens lives.

Yeah, WE MEN are the evil ones aren't we.

(and yes I know Dalia eventually got sentenced, 8 years after the whole thing started...)

[Robovski]

I'd say they are huge when I have to keep scrolling and scrolling through your posts.

[lightningbarer]

I'd say they are huge when I have to keep scrolling and scrolling through your posts.

Would you prefer me to have simple one sentence statements that don't get technical for you? Because I'd really feel horrible for making a person uncomfortable for being too detailed.

Let me know, okay.
y'know, with a mention maybe...

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I'd say they are huge when I have to keep scrolling and scrolling through your posts.

that's what i'm talkin about.