Fingernail on 9/1/2017 at 14:08
I think in almost all these debates, it's surely better to err on the side of the assumed minority/less privileged group?
For instance, the danger of incorrectly labelling the wealthy white man Richard Hammond a homophobe should be weighed against the potential damage caused by such an individual who uses the elevated platform he enjoys to at best casually ridicule or scorn a specific minority which has a history of being persecuted against, and, we must remember, is still actively outlawed in many territories where The Grand Tour is presumably available to stream.
I agree it's not the most pressing case, perhaps. Meryl Streep just highlighted Trump's mockery of the disabled reporter. It is incidents like these, left unchallenged, that gradually contribute to the normalisation of abuse of certain groups within society. We have a duty to actively, not passively, protect the rights of minority groups as they rarely have the power, wealth, or cultural capital to achieve redress through means which the dominant classes have built up and protected over many many years.
It behooves us to remember that, as long as the majority of us are talking about Western Europe and North American nations, the vast majority is white and straight. By considerable margins, the control of power, money and status still lies in the hands of men. Things may be changing, and evidently some people don't like it.
I would caution against anybody who says "well, it's all equal now isn't it so just shut up about it!"
Particularly if they belong to the dominant group. I'm willing to bet we almost all do here!
I'm not saying you can't see it. But you've never experienced it directly. You may not feel like you'd be offended as a woman watching A, or a gay person hearing B. But you don't really know, because you haven't lived those lives.
So I guess what I'm saying is listen to others?
And by the way, sexism = discrimination based on sex/gender - ok, but the definition of discrimination is in no way objective. And either way, we shouldn't take the definition from the group with the privilege. Potentially what SubJeff is annoyed at with the "SJWs" is people from different groups "stepping in" and being offended on behalf of others. What's the worst that could happen? We have a discussion about whether something really was offensive or not? Who does this threaten?
Tocky on 9/1/2017 at 15:27
Quote Posted by Fingernail
What's the worst that could happen?
Trump.
SD on 9/1/2017 at 16:55
Quote Posted by Vae
Jabba the Hutt is an evil crime lord. When Han Solo was delivered to him encased in carbonite, he relished in the idea that he would be his trophy...and so he kept him frozen, as a prize to gaze upon. When Leia was captured, he naturally wanted her to be his prize as well. What better way to enjoy his beautiful slave than to chain her by his side so he can do what he wants with her. The Bronze Bikini is an outfit for a sex slave. This in no way reduces the power or intelligence of Leia Organa as a woman. With her fierce, fighting spirit, she brilliantly executes an attack of opportunity to strangle Jabba with the chain that binds her.
Princess Leia is an empowered individual, with or without the Bronze Bikini...Even when in a captured, vulnerable state, her power still shines through.
I was going to make this very point, only to find you already had. Leia kills her sexual oppressor; this is a feminist statement.
Worth also noting that the slug-like Hutts are hermaphrodites, like real world slugs, and therefore both male and female. Jabba's exaggerated and abusive male behaviour amounts to an implicit rejection of his feminine side that ultimately proves self-destructive. It is as smart a criticism of hypermasculinity as you are ever likely to see in a PG-rated movie.
SD on 9/1/2017 at 17:06
Quote Posted by SubJeff
Look a the latest hoo haa about the £5 note and the tiny amount of animal product in it. It's totally illogical. Animal products are in 1000s of things the "offended" use all the time. They don't check EVERY single thing so why are they focusing on this? Because it's high profile, not because it actually matters.
As you point out, animal products are in many things, from the tyres on our vehicles to the soap we wash our hands with - wholly unnecessarily, in most instances.
That people are usually deprived of this information does not weaken their argument when, for once, they happen to be alerted to the truth.
It is disgraceful that people are denied the opportunity to abstain from using the carcasses of murdered animals in the normal course of their lives.
That someone thought it was a good idea to use dead animals in the currency we use on a daily basis demonstrates a total lack of consideration for the ethical minority in this country.
Vivian on 9/1/2017 at 17:09
It's maybe also the only criticism of hyper-masculinity that seems to have formed the basis of a pretty robustly culturally-ingrained male sexual fantasy?
Actually hang on, does Russ Meyer count?
SD on 9/1/2017 at 17:45
Quote Posted by Vivian
It's maybe also the only criticism of hyper-masculinity that seems to have formed the basis of a pretty robustly culturally-ingrained male sexual fantasy?
At its most basic level, it's still an attractive girl in a skimpy outfit, and you can't change that.
However I'd bet a dollar to a dime that most of those fantasies involve Leia on top and in control.
Vivian on 9/1/2017 at 18:03
I'm not googling it to find out. I already googled 'sexy bacta tank' and immediately regretted it.
rachel on 9/1/2017 at 18:29
Quote Posted by SD
Worth also noting that the slug-like Hutts are hermaphrodites, like real world slugs, and therefore both male and female. Jabba's exaggerated and abusive male behaviour amounts to an implicit rejection of his feminine side that ultimately proves self-destructive. It is as smart a criticism of hypermasculinity as you are ever likely to see in a PG-rated movie.
That's pushing it a bit too far imho. Unless you're an ultra-nerd, you're not going to know much about Hutts except they're slug-shaped and generally bad news... (assuming the discussion is about mainstream perception of the issue discussed)
Tocky on 9/1/2017 at 18:53
Quote Posted by SD
I was going to make this very point, only to find you already had. Leia kills her sexual oppressor; this is a feminist statement.
Actually if you will go back to page two you will see that my pointing this out was dismissed as "only by the standards of the time". I originally pointed it out on page one not to break an arm patting my back or anything.
I had wanted the discussion to address the pendulum swing reaction when the accusation of sexism goes too far but instead the same ground keeps being covered. Not that some points haven't surfaced in the meantime. I like your take about rejection of the feminine side proving self destructive. I hadn't considered that. My main concentration was on the obvious metaphor of chain escape.
faetal on 9/1/2017 at 18:55
Quote Posted by SubJeff
They're everywhere.
This is something I find bizzare. I find this mentality to be tilting at windmills a bit. I think I've observed the kind of person you refer to in extremely rare circumstances which are made to seem more prevalent than they are by extreme examples being turned into memes and spread virally. The term SJW is more prevalent than the phenomenon it is trying to describe. When I see it used in the pejorative, it always seems to describe "you know the type" rather than prevalent portion of actual real people (like all of these homeless people who also have real jobs and cars and just beg for extra money). I also see it mostly used to either (A) discredit someone who is trying to advocate on behalf of a minority or (B) to generally express umbrage about the fact that there are people who do this. It's like the "Don't rape me with your micro-aggression you cis-normative patriarchal culture oppressor" stereotype is just a semi-mythical figure being used as a poster child for the argument against people wanting more equality.
Much like how I keep reading jokes and memes talking about how vegans always mention that they're vegan without being asked or that they are trying to impose their lifestyle on everyone, whereas I only actually hear about anyone's veganism once for every 40-50 mentions of how awful vegans are.
Arguments are generally better when made on merit, with dialectic examination of the thing being discussed. The moment tags are brought in to render the entire side of an argument as somehow emanating from a fungible mass, typified by something descriptively awful, then the overall discussion suffers for it*. This is why I didn't say that Hammond is a homophobe, just pointed out that someone decided that unfunny scripted and mildly homophobic skit merited inclusion in the program. Probably done to generate controversy and get people talking about the show without being
too awful. Oh look, it worked.
(* I don't think you're doing this BTW, I just segued into a general polemic on these types of things)
