DIS - Through the Valley of the Shadow

[Freeverse]

Honestly, one of the reasons I have a problem with that kind of thinking is that it tends to be dismissive of representation, which I consider to be quite a good thing in general.

Sure, but you shouldn't break your story or setting for it, which is my point. If something doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.

Actually, the real world is more important than stories. If representation has real-world benefits (it does), then it trumps fictional settings. I don't think they're mutually exclusive at all, but if they were, I'd choose the one that makes the real world a better place every time.

And I could certainly rattle off some examples of times when general audiences uncritically accepted the notion that certain types of people don't belong in certain works based on faulty information

You could, but it wouldn't matter. The "faulty" ones don't invalidate the legitimate ones.

I believe the abundance of examples of your method of critique failing is proof of a major downside that you aren't really acknowledging.

but I do also simply disagree with the fundamental position that there are just some things you can't put in some settings.

Too bad, that's just a fact and there's no way to break from it without devolving into the "uncritically accept whatever you see on screen" thing you keep weakly saying you don't support (but clearly do if you come out with points like this).

It is not a fact, it is an opinion. And one I think has some flaws. For starters, instead of thinking about how your bias might be affecting how you view the work, you simply uncritically accept that your view is correct. Framing it as a fact means you don't have to think about it, which feeds into the idea that it's not worth thinking about. But maybe there's value in thinking about how you think about things.

And if you don't want to think about the lens you're using to analyze media, that's fine. Just don't tell other people that they're unthinking when what they're doing is just thinking differently from you. For example, it's actually possible to critically accept whatever you see on screen. To accept it, but then also think about it.

The vast majority of critical theory is explicitly subjective. The common understanding of critical theory, that essentially anyone doing any kind of serious media analysis follows, is that a subjective framework of one kind or another is both necessary and useful. I am not saying that all critique must follow from the academic model, but by and large, art is understood by the people who study it to be highly subjective.

What I'm saying is that, actually, I'm following along with a so-called "unworkable ideal" that was created long before I was born by a multitude of other people, in a framework that has continued to adapt and evolve throughout my lifetime. I am not the original source of this process, I actually learned it by reading, discussing and thinking about art.

That's a lot of fancy words and posturing but at the end of the day, a "framework" where it isn't possible for things to contradict is one that doesn't allow for any analysis at all, any "framework" that actually functions will recognise that sometimes something put into a work won't fit or work.

Giving a name to this junker of an ideal doesn't fix that.

Actually, it's a lot of fancy words for "The experts agree with me. Get rekt scrub."

But I'm trying to be polite.

But obviously contradictions aren't the only thing you can think about when you're watching something.

I never said otherwise, but a paradigm that doesn't allow them to exist and be recognised doesn't allow for any of the other things you claim you care about.

It's a paradigm that recognizes all parts of a story, and then chooses to interpret what you would call contradictions as simply another part of the story. Then, having chosen to take this approach, attempts to explore how the pieces all fit together, even if some of the pieces are more complicated or more difficult to place next to each other. And hey, one person might fail to put the pieces together, but assuming that because you can't, no one can, is arrogant.

I'm not backpedaling.

You absolutely are. You keep claiming to not support what I say you do but that's clearly false if you come out with shit like "there is in fact a place for whatever is inside the story, because that's where it is", the only way to do that is if you support exactly the reductive, uncritical "accept whatever you see on screen without thinking" position I've been pointing out that you do.

I literally said that I agree with some of the things you say, just not all of them. I disagree with the axiomatic rule you're arguing for, even though there are specific conclusions you arrive at that I nominally agree with. I simply frame them as opinion, while you frame them as fact. That is not backpedaling, it's explaining.

Also, I've yet to hear any convincing arguments that my point is awful or unworkable.

The only way "there is in fact a place for whatever is inside the story, because that's where it is" is if you uncritically accept everything on screen, but otherwise it is absolutely indisputably possible to show things that contradict or don't fit. And such an idea does indeed kill off all analysis and criticism because there's not really anything you can do with uncritically accepting everything other than just go "I liked that!" and stop there. And there's plenty of reason to want to do something other than that, but the ideal you push allows for absolutely nothing else.

Nope. "I liked that! Here's why I liked it! Here's why I think other people might like it! Here's why I think some people might not like it! Here's why I disagree with the reasons I think people might not like it! Here's the parts that I may not have liked, but didn't ruin it for me! Here's how I relate these ideas to my life! Here's an idea about what the author might be trying to say! Here's some cool info related to the work! Here's another work that's similar in ways that I also like! Here's a work that's similar that I didn't like! Here's and why I prefer this thing! Here's some stuff that wasn't in this work that might be interesting in future works of the same setting! Here's a T.V. that looks like an apple..."

I never said it was impossible to point to things that you believe don't fit, only that it is impossible to objectively prove they don't. You can make an argument for why they don't fit, which would involve thinking, or you can make an argument for why a contradiction might actually make sense, which would also involve thinking. You can also think about something else entirely, because art is complicated and there's plenty to think about without even considering that one, tiny element.

What you can't do, is logic your way into having the perfect answer that none shall question because it's so obviously correct that disagreeing is only possible if you're not thinking.

There's really nothing all that radical about the idea.

I could certainly see that uncritically accepting whatever you see might be the othodoxy some places, but certainly not anywhere like here.

First of all... yes it is. It happens all the time around here. I've been lurking for a while, and there are plenty of posts that indicate, quite strongly, that there are people around here who uncritically accept certain videos of Chuck's. And that's not to mention all the times people disagree with him by saying some version of "I see Chuck's point, but I just like watching this for fun". And that's normal. No one is critical 100% of the time, just like no one can truly "turn off" their brain and completely disengage with all thinking whatsoever.

But also, you are continuing to make an assumption about my position that I have repeatedly said is untrue. The idea in question is the inherent subjectivity of art. Being subjective is not remotely the same thing as being uncritical. The fact that you seem either unwilling or unable to conceive of a way that someone could think critically while being subjective is bad faith at worst, and a failure to engage at best.

[Freeverse]

Subjectivity doesn't mean no analysis can be done. It just means that the analysis will be based on certain premises that not everyone will agree on.

An objective analysis begins with certain indisputable facts (for example, an airplane needs X amount of lift relative to weight in order to achieve takeoff) and then analyzes the subject in question to see how (or if) it conforms to those facts.

A subjective analysis begins with an opinion (for example, that a certain action scene was thrilling) and then analyzes how the subject in question created that opinion. If you agree with the premise the analysis is based on, then it can help you understand how your own reaction to the subject was shaped. If you disagree with the premise, then it helps you understand how other people's reactions were shaped. Either way, it provides insight.

I think this is a very succinct explanation of the basic premise of subjective analysis.

Though in regards to your summary of objective analysis, there's the question of whether conforming to reality makes a work better. And once you've made a claim of artistic value you're dealing with subjectivity. The value claim isn't necessary, but I've found that it's often implied.

[TGLS]

I get Freeverse and CrashGordon have been going round and round for about a week. But is it really so contradictory that in a setting where a hundred years later Worf could be hit with a barrel and possibly never walk again that people a hundred years earlier still have people in wheelchairs?

[Thebestoftherest]

I get Freeverse and CrashGordon have been going round and round for about a week. But is it really so contradictory that in a setting where a hundred years later Worf could be hit with a barrel and possibly never walk again that people a hundred years earlier still have people in wheelchairs?

Well they did talk about alternatives it possible Worf didn't want to use a wheelchair.

[Fianna]

Worf explicitly rejected any treatment that would involve mechanical appendages to his body. Those would have allowed him to walk and restored most (though not all) of his mobility, but the Klingon honor code wouldn't let him accept anything other than complete recovery with no outward signs of weakness.

[CrashGordon94]

Subjectivity doesn't mean no analysis can be done.

Sure, but Freeverse's doctrine does.

Actually, the real world is more important than stories.

And making sure your story works (e.g. by not shoehorning in things that don't fit in it) is more importantly than virtue signalling, which is what mangling your story to include something that doesn't fit but might get your "brownie points" is.

I believe the abundance of examples of your method of critique failing is proof of a major downside that you aren't really acknowledging.

I don't even know what you're talking about, especially when the bit you were responding to wasn't about a "method of critique" at all.

It is not a fact, it is an opinion.

No, it really is a fact that some settings will exclude certain things.

Sometimes a creator has their setting either directly exclude something or indirectly by what they've put in. There's nothing "opinion" about this, it's just a very simple implication of the very basics of story-telling that you can tell a story that excludes something or has a world with rules that rule something out.

This is why I'm saying you have to go down to just uncritically accepting whatever you see on screen, otherwise you'll eventually run into something that rules something out and thus the possibility of a contradiction and things that might not fit.

Actually, it's a lot of fancy words for "The experts agree with me. Get rekt scrub."

If they support your unworkable ideal, they're not real experts at all, just quacks.

Even the lowest of the low of ideals, people like anti-vaxxers and holocaust deniers can quote people that agree with them, it doesn't prove anything.

It's a paradigm that recognizes all parts of a story, and then chooses to interpret what you would call contradictions as simply another part of the story.

Basically a fancy way of saying "uncritically accept everything I see on the screen".

First of all... yes it is. It happens all the time around here. I've been lurking for a while, and there are plenty of posts that indicate, quite strongly, that there are people around here who uncritically accept certain videos of Chuck's.

"certain videos of Chuck's" =/= "everything they see" so no.

But also, you are continuing to make an assumption about my position that I have repeatedly said is untrue.

And I don't believe you in the slightest when you say that.

I get Freeverse and CrashGordon have been going round and round for about a week. But is it really so contradictory that in a setting where a hundred years later Worf could be hit with a barrel and possibly never walk again that people a hundred years earlier still have people in wheelchairs?

Not necessarily. For the record, I was making a generalised point that you should make sure it fits your setting, not necessarily that this specific instance doesn't fit this specific setting.

[Freeverse]

Subjectivity doesn't mean no analysis can be done.

Sure, but Freeverse's doctrine does.

Holy shit my dude it's literally just applying subjective critique to world building. Why do you think I keep bringing up subjectivity over and over again?

Actually, the real world is more important than stories.

And making sure your story works (e.g. by not shoehorning in things that don't fit in it) is more importantly than virtue signalling, which is what mangling your story to include something that doesn't fit but might get your "brownie points" is.

Honestly, this is a poor interpretation that ignores what I actually said to engage in weird hand-wringing over fictional settings.

I do not give a solitary fuck about virtue signaling and I don't know why you do. And it's not about points, it's about the good that art can do. I'm not interested in how internet randos interpret my motivations, I'm interested in just doing the things that I think are good. Contributing to the acceptance and validation of real-ass people absolutely trumps awkward writing, but like I said, it's not a real trade-off anyone actually has to make. This is a false dichotomy and I dare you to prove otherwise.

I believe the abundance of examples of your method of critique failing is proof of a major downside that you aren't really acknowledging.

I don't even know what you're talking about, especially when the bit you were responding to wasn't about a "method of critique" at all.

This whole debate is about methods of critique, and I think that there are many many examples of your... I guess dogma? I mean you called mine a doctrine, so sure, let's go with dogma. Break out the thesauruses, it'll be fun!

It is not a fact, it is an opinion.

No, it really is a fact that some settings will exclude certain things.

Sometimes a creator has their setting either directly exclude something or indirectly by what they've put in. There's nothing "opinion" about this, it's just a very simple implication of the very basics of story-telling that you can tell a story that excludes something or has a world with rules that rule something out.

This is why I'm saying you have to go down to just uncritically accepting whatever you see on screen, otherwise you'll eventually run into something that rules something out and thus the possibility of a contradiction and things that might not fit.

Oddly enough, this is kind of close to what I was saying at the beginning of this whole conversation. in fact...

Sometimes a creator has their setting either directly exclude something or indirectly by what they've put in.

...is the negative corollary to my point! you say the author can exclude things, and what I was saying is that the author can include things.

Where I'm disagreeing is not on either of those observations, but on the way we treat the rules you mention later in that paragraph. See, in a fictional setting, the rules can change. 'cause it's made up. What I've been talking about this whole time is how the reader reacts to a rule change. More drastic rule changes are often accompanied by more justifications for the change, and sometimes it's just a new rule, rather than changing any of the old ones, but ultimately, whether something is seen by someone as a legitimate rule change or not depends a great deal on that person's beliefs, biases, and how they consume media.

Hell, even in the real world, we sometimes encounter things that seem to break the rules. Of course, in the real world, that's because we don't know all of the rules. Which is just as true of fictional settings. We can try to interpret the rules, but that process is imperfect. Even if there's narration explicitly laying out one of the rules, it could be a lie, or incomplete, or worded in a way that could have more than one interpretation. Or the author could just change their mind. And we don't know for sure whether it's true, or false, or true at the time of writing, but something the author wanted to take back. Because we're not the author and we can't read their mind. We can only observe what is in the text itself, and come to our own conclusions.

Actually, it's a lot of fancy words for "The experts agree with me. Get rekt scrub."

If they support your unworkable ideal, they're not real experts at all, just quacks.

Even the lowest of the low of ideals, people like anti-vaxxers and holocaust deniers can quote people that agree with them, it doesn't prove anything.

Yeah but the people I can quote are like... the vast majority of academia. Most of the really famous philosophers. Most people who actually make art. Probably the majority of critics I know of. You know, just like... people who are any sort of authority.

It's a paradigm that recognizes all parts of a story, and then chooses to interpret what you would call contradictions as simply another part of the story.

Basically a fancy way of saying "uncritically accept everything I see on the screen".

It's honestly not very fancy. The fanciest word in that whole sentence was "paradigm" and that was there because you used it.

It's not that complicated. I see the thing. I accept that it's in the story. I think about why. I don't dismiss it just because it might not jive with something else I saw. I think about how the two things might both exist. I think about whether I can accept both things. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't. I don't tell other people they're factually incorrect if they come to a different conclusion.

First of all... yes it is. It happens all the time around here. I've been lurking for a while, and there are plenty of posts that indicate, quite strongly, that there are people around here who uncritically accept certain videos of Chuck's.

"certain videos of Chuck's" =/= "everything they see" so no.

Fucking hell... So when it's other people blindly accepting someone else's criticism it's "oh, that's only sometimes", but when I mention that I think about things other than contradictions it's "Uhh, well, you can't though!"

I think I've been trying way too hard in my quest for engaging you in good faith.

But also, you are continuing to make an assumption about my position that I have repeatedly said is untrue.

And I don't believe you in the slightest when you say that.

... and there's the other shoe. So, you're just coming out and admitting that you're arguing in bad faith. Not great.

Look, I don't know how else I can explain this to you. I'm willing to both accept things and critique them. And I don't mean in general, I mean the exact same thing I accept is the thing I'm going to critique. This is super fucking normal. It is necessary to entertain the idea before you can talk about why you think it works or why you think it doesn't work. You seem to be completely unwilling to think about this for even a second, so perhaps I'm not the one killing thought.

[CrashGordon94]

Holy shit my dude it's literally just applying subjective critique to world building. Why do you think I keep bringing up subjectivity over and over again?

Because it's the only way to excuse your flimsy ideas.

Honestly, this is a poor interpretation that ignores what I actually said to engage in weird hand-wringing over fictional settings.

It's a perfectly solid "interpretation".

And if it's "weird hand-wringing" to analyse and notice things don't fit... That says everything about your approach. And makes me wonder why you're here again, when Chuck also notes things that clash with a story or setting.

I do not give a solitary fuck about virtue signaling and I don't know why you do.

1) Because sabotaging your story to stuff in things that don't fit is bad.
2) Because it drags down actual good and fitting approaches to representation.
3) Because it validates complaints against it by doing the exact thing that your opponents claim you are.

And it's not about points

If that were true then you'd only be supporting it when it fits and works.

it's about the good that art can do. I'm not interested in how internet randos interpret my motivations, I'm interested in just doing the things that I think are good. Contributing to the acceptance and validation of real-ass people absolutely trumps awkward writing,

Exactly none of which you're doing. All you're doing is shoehorning this stuff in to make yourself look good and indeed, scoring points.

And telling a good story trumps this hollow virtue-signalling, which is the only thing you're doing with this.

it's not a real trade-off anyone actually has to make

It is when you're talking about including something that clashes with the setting.

If your setting either directly or indirectly excludes X, then shoving X in anyway will inevitably cause problems because it's inherently a contradiction. It's really that simple.

This whole debate is about methods of critique, and I think that there are many many examples of your... I guess dogma? I mean you called mine a doctrine, so sure, let's go with dogma. Break out the thesauruses, it'll be fun!

A load of hot air that still doesn't actually respond to the actual point, try doing that instead.
I was pointing out false/faulty examples of something don't invalidate the real ones.

...is the negative corollary to my point! you say the author can exclude things, and what I was saying is that the author can include things.

And if they exclude something, then that thing no longer fits. The possibility of writing a story where it's included doesn't invalidate that.

Whereas your approach seems to actually preclude the idea of something being excluded, with all the talk that you don't think it's possible to have something where something doesn't fit, that you just think whatever they show you automatically fits in and so on.

Where I'm disagreeing is not on either of those observations, but on the way we treat the rules you mention later in that paragraph. See, in a fictional setting, the rules can change.

1) To "change the rules" is something that needs to be done VERY CAREFULLY or you just end up with sloppy, bad storytelling.
2) Having two things that don't fit together isn't "changing the rules", it's just a contradiction, plain and simple.

Yeah but the people I can quote are like... the vast majority of academia. Most of the really famous philosophers. Most people who actually make art. Probably the majority of critics I know of. You know, just like... people who are any sort of authority.

Only if the "vast majority" of academia, critics and so on are these weird quacks with these unworkable ideas you cling to.

Which I suppose is a fair assessment of Philosophy.

It's honestly not very fancy. The fanciest word in that whole sentence was "paradigm" and that was there because you used it.

Fancier than the way I summed it up, is the point. Basically that you claim I'm wrong about you, but then basically state you're doing what I claim you are, but reworded.

It's not that complicated. I see the thing. I accept that it's in the story.

In other words, you uncritically accept whatever you see on screen. That's Exhibit A.

I don't dismiss it just because it might not jive with something else I saw.

But you DO dismiss the possibility that it might not fit or "jive", which is the point. And because of that...

I think about how the two things might both exist. I think about whether I can accept both things. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't.

...This is all utterly hollow, this requires the possibility of "no, it doesn't fit", and despite your ending part here, the rest of your argument has made it clear that's not a possibility for you.

Fucking hell... So when it's other people blindly accepting someone else's criticism it's "oh, that's only sometimes", but when I mention that I think about things other than contradictions it's "Uhh, well, you can't though!"

Not even close to comparable.

In one case you have some fans of Chuck who see some videos and decide they agree with what he said and maybe didn't think it through too thoroughly.

On the other hand, there's your approach of accepting that everything that pops up on screen fits together and belongs without any possibility of being otherwise, apparently as a universal rule for all media everywhere.

... and there's the other shoe. So, you're just coming out and admitting that you're arguing in bad faith. Not great.

NO! For fuck's sake, that's not even close to "bad faith"!

"bad faith" doesn't mean someone not believing you or something you said. People are allowed to doubt, disbelieve and call BS on what you say and none of that is "bad faith". Good faith arguing absolutely includes calling out blatant falsehoods, like making claims about yourself that the rest of your argument shows to be wrong.

Look, I don't know how else I can explain this to you. I'm willing to both accept things and critique them.

Except critique demands you sometimes NOT accept things. And certainly it requires the possibility of rejecting them to be

[Freeverse]

Holy shit my dude it's literally just applying subjective critique to world building. Why do you think I keep bringing up subjectivity over and over again?

Because it's the only way to excuse your flimsy ideas.

Honestly, this is a poor interpretation that ignores what I actually said to engage in weird hand-wringing over fictional settings.

It's a perfectly solid "interpretation".

And if it's "weird hand-wringing" to analyse and notice things don't fit... That says everything about your approach. And makes me wonder why you're here again, when Chuck also notes things that clash with a story or setting.

I do not give a solitary fuck about virtue signaling and I don't know why you do.

1) Because sabotaging your story to stuff in things that don't fit is bad.
2) Because it drags down actual good and fitting approaches to representation.
3) Because it validates complaints against it by doing the exact thing that your opponents claim you are.

And it's not about points

If that were true then you'd only be supporting it when it fits and works.

it's about the good that art can do. I'm not interested in how internet randos interpret my motivations, I'm interested in just doing the things that I think are good. Contributing to the acceptance and validation of real-ass people absolutely trumps awkward writing,

Exactly none of which you're doing. All you're doing is shoehorning this stuff in to make yourself look good and indeed, scoring points.

And telling a good story trumps this hollow virtue-signalling, which is the only thing you're doing with this.

it's not a real trade-off anyone actually has to make

It is when you're talking about including something that clashes with the setting.

If your setting either directly or indirectly excludes X, then shoving X in anyway will inevitably cause problems because it's inherently a contradiction. It's really that simple.

This whole debate is about methods of critique, and I think that there are many many examples of your... I guess dogma? I mean you called mine a doctrine, so sure, let's go with dogma. Break out the thesauruses, it'll be fun!

A load of hot air that still doesn't actually respond to the actual point, try doing that instead.
I was pointing out false/faulty examples of something don't invalidate the real ones.

...is the negative corollary to my point! you say the author can exclude things, and what I was saying is that the author can include things.

And if they exclude something, then that thing no longer fits. The possibility of writing a story where it's included doesn't invalidate that.

Whereas your approach seems to actually preclude the idea of something being excluded, with all the talk that you don't think it's possible to have something where something doesn't fit, that you just think whatever they show you automatically fits in and so on.

Where I'm disagreeing is not on either of those observations, but on the way we treat the rules you mention later in that paragraph. See, in a fictional setting, the rules can change.

1) To "change the rules" is something that needs to be done VERY CAREFULLY or you just end up with sloppy, bad storytelling.
2) Having two things that don't fit together isn't "changing the rules", it's just a contradiction, plain and simple.

Yeah but the people I can quote are like... the vast majority of academia. Most of the really famous philosophers. Most people who actually make art. Probably the majority of critics I know of. You know, just like... people who are any sort of authority.

Only if the "vast majority" of academia, critics and so on are these weird quacks with these unworkable ideas you cling to.

Which I suppose is a fair assessment of Philosophy.

It's honestly not very fancy. The fanciest word in that whole sentence was "paradigm" and that was there because you used it.

Fancier than the way I summed it up, is the point. Basically that you claim I'm wrong about you, but then basically state you're doing what I claim you are, but reworded.

It's not that complicated. I see the thing. I accept that it's in the story.

In other words, you uncritically accept whatever you see on screen. That's Exhibit A.

I don't dismiss it just because it might not jive with something else I saw.

But you DO dismiss the possibility that it might not fit or "jive", which is the point. And because of that...

I think about how the two things might both exist. I think about whether I can accept both things. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't.

...This is all utterly hollow, this requires the possibility of "no, it doesn't fit", and despite your ending part here, the rest of your argument has made it clear that's not a possibility for you.

Fucking hell... So when it's other people blindly accepting someone else's criticism it's "oh, that's only sometimes", but when I mention that I think about things other than contradictions it's "Uhh, well, you can't though!"

Not even close to comparable.

In one case you have some fans of Chuck who see some videos and decide they agree with what he said and maybe didn't think it through too thoroughly.

On the other hand, there's your approach of accepting that everything that pops up on screen fits together and belongs without any possibility of being otherwise, apparently as a universal rule for all media everywhere.

... and there's the other shoe. So, you're just coming out and admitting that you're arguing in bad faith. Not great.

NO! For fuck's sake, that's not even close to "bad faith"!

"bad faith" doesn't mean someone not believing you or something you said. People are allowed to doubt, disbelieve and call BS on what you say and none of that is "bad faith". Good faith arguing absolutely includes calling out blatant falsehoods, like making claims about yourself that the rest of your argument shows to be wrong.

Look, I don't know how else I can explain this to you. I'm willing to both accept things and critique them.

Except critique demands you sometimes NOT accept things. And certainly it requires the possibility of rejecting them to be

You're picking at small bits of my wording to prove that I don't believe what I say I believe. You fail to accept anything that doesn't conform to the straw argument you insist I defend, and you repeatedly ignore any counter-examples I provide to demonstrate how what you think I believe is different from what I actually believe. You aren't arguing with the position I'm actually taking, you're arguing with a position that I have said multiple times I'm not taking.

I'm not saying you're purposefully sabotaging the discussion, but these are bad faith tactics that could very well be unintentional.

I'm willing to hear what your opinions are, but so far you've been spending a lot of time insisting that I'm just not thinking about anything I'm watching. I'd love to have my brain scanned and share the data with you, but in lieu of access to an MRi, it would behoove us both to take each other at our word. So, to keep things simple, I will repeat my general stance in plain language.

1. Representation is more valuable than the standards you are proposing for story-telling.
2. Contradictions are contextual, not inherent, which means they are also a matter of interpretation, not provable fact.
3. Contradictions are not nearly as damaging as you seem to be suggesting they are.

You seem to be struggling with the idea that because I'm willing to entertain an idea that I will automatically accept it as true without thought. However, it is possible to temporarily think about things as if they are true, whether or not you really believe in them. And then after you've done this, you are actually more empowered to come to your own conclusions than you would be by going with your first instinct.

Also, some of your comments on the first point are written in such a way that suggests you're talking about my writing, which I would find very concerning if you have actually read. But more to the point, it makes it difficult to parse some of the nuance. Let me just say, though, that virtue-signaling isn't really a problem on the creative side, it's more of an issue with what I would call "woke capitalism". In almost all cases, the creators are writing in representation because they just want to. It's the way that sort of thing is marketed that's disingenuous. Sure, just because you want to write something doesn't make it good, but that is equally true for anything. Representation is not special in this regard.

Also, I encourage you to consider why you think it's virtue-signaling when someone includes representation of minority groups in their writing but not when someone chooses not to do that. And if your answer is based on how good you think the end result happens to be, I encourage you to consider the possibility that you've been fed a false narrative somewhere down the line.

[CrashGordon94]

Except statements like "I see the thing. I accept that it's in the story." betray what you're really pushing, no amount of pretending otherwise is gonna put the genie back in the bottle. I see right through it.

1. Representation is more valuable than the standards you are proposing for story-telling.

Nope, not even close. Telling a sloppy and badly-done story accomplishes nothing except telling a coppy and badly-done story. And perhaps drag down the "cause" and sabotage people actually willing to do it right.

And if sabotaging your story to shove it in where it doesn't belong, you're not even close to doing it right.

2. Contradictions are contextual, not inherent, which means they are also a matter of interpretation, not provable fact.

Seems like a pretentious way to hand-wave away blatant, obvious contradictions.

3. Contradictions are not nearly as damaging as you seem to be suggesting they are.

You say this because of your approach, you're bound and determined to just accept whatever's on screen (no matter how much you claim otherwise).

Perhaps you'll have those who don't notice or overlook it, but a fault is a fault and you shouldn't have to bank on people not noticing your mistakes.

You seem to be struggling with the idea that because I'm willing to entertain an idea that I will automatically accept it as true without thought.

Because you've admitted to doing so.

However, it is possible to temporarily think about things as if they are true, whether or not you really believe in them. And then after you've done this, you are actually more empowered to come to your own conclusions than you would be by going with your first instinct.

Sure, but that's not the method you've been pushing, otherwise you wouldn't bee-line straight to "accept it" like I've quoted you on.

Let me just say, though, that virtue-signaling isn't really a problem on the creative side, it's more of an issue with what I would call "woke capitalism".

I'm not even going to entertain these word games. especially with this disturbing far-left slant (bashing on "Capitalism"? Seriously?).

Also, I encourage you to consider why you think it's virtue-signaling when someone includes representation of minority groups in their writing

I don't, I only think that when they're shoehorning it in where it doesn't fit or doesn't work. That shows they're clearly just doing it to score points and look good, if not then they'd make sure to have a story or setting that fits.

I encourage you to consider the possibility that you've been fed a false narrative somewhere down the line.

I've seen you trying to do that to me, but thankfully I didn't "swallow".