150 replies to this topic

[Grack21]

Arthmail, on 27 February 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

As useless as yours, and my response to yours. When did people stating their opinion become a bad thing around here?

Mid December.

[RebeccaSigyn]

Arthmail, on 27 February 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

As useless as yours, and my response to yours. When did people stating their opinion become a bad thing around here?

Thanks Gnome I appreciate your back up. I'm really new hear & wasn't expecting to get any hate but if my posts are "useless" I do hope someone can tell me why in a little nicer tone.

[Horza]

Arthmail, on 27 February 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

As useless as yours, and my response to yours. When did people stating their opinion become a bad thing around here?

Stating your opinion is one thing.

Declaring it to be immutable, others opinions to be incomprehensible and then implying that they are impugning the subject by holding them is mean-spirited, rude and effectively a derailment.

[RebeccaSigyn]

Okay let me say this I never meant to sound rude, I am not a person that likes conflict as a matter of fact I despise it! So if someone will tell me how to delete my post I will take it down I don't want my opinion to cause anyone to be offended.

[kalbear]

Quote

As useless as yours, and my response to yours. When did people stating their opinion become a bad thing around here?

Stating an opinion and disagreement is one thing. Stating that nothing will ever change your mind and discussion is useless is pretty pointless. I mean, what are we supposed to do with that? We can't engage her; there's no point. We can't even agree with her or use her as a basis for backing up an argument; she didn't bring up anything other than 'this is how I feel so suck it', basically.

So yes, it's entirely useless. There's nothing to argue about or for and no point in arguing or discussing with her at all. If you came up with a document that showed Tolkien was a card carrying member of the Nazis it wouldn't sway her one bit; neither would a document that Tolkien was actually Jewish. What's the point of stating that?

I wasn't offended by your post, RebeccaSigyn. It was just useless. It's just something to skip over and ignore. If that's okay with you, well, great! If you don't want your posts to be viewed as useless, I guess that's something to work on.

Edited by Angalin, 28 February 2012 - 12:12 AM.

[RebeccaSigyn]

ĶӓḷƁҿӑȑ, on 27 February 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

Stating an opinion and disagreement is one thing. Stating that nothing will ever change your mind and discussion is useless is pretty pointless. I mean, what are we supposed to do with that? We can't engage her; there's no point. We can't even agree with her or use her as a basis for backing up an argument; she didn't bring up anything other than 'this is how I feel so suck it', basically.

So yes, it's entirely useless. There's nothing to argue about or for and no point in arguing or discussing with her at all. If you came up with a document that showed Tolkien was a card carrying member of the Nazis it wouldn't sway her one bit; neither would a document that Tolkien was actually Jewish. What's the point of stating that?

I wasn't offended by your post, RebeccaSigyn. It was just useless. It's just something to skip over and ignore. If that's okay with you, well, great! If you don't want your posts to be viewed as useless, I guess that's something to work on.

Grack, please try to understand that just because your opinion is wrong does not mean that everyone's is wrong. Sometimes the problem is just with you.

But of course you didn't ignore it or try to correct me in a polite way, you assumed I was trying to be an A$$ which I was not nor do I ever try to be. I was simply trying to say I don,t see racism in the books and don't understand how it is seen that way. I never said I wouldn't listen to anyone's opinion. Everybody has a right to their own including me. People can agree to disagree can they not? Can you & I agree to disagree on this?

[kalbear]

Why would I try to correct you, RebeccaSigyn? I didn't realize that I needed to be miss manners on politeness.

This board isn't big on politeness anyway. It's big on stating things and then talking about them or arguing about them. As long as there aren't personal attacks, not a lot is offlimits.

Quote

I never said I wouldn't listen to anyone's opinion.

Quote

no one will ever convince me that his books are racist

Uh, yeah.

You have every right to state your opinion. So do I. Your stating your opinion was useless. it contributed nothing to this conversation one way or another and continues to derail it. Note that I am not objecting to what your opinion is - I'm objecting to the complete inability to listen to another person's views or consider another person's views. In that respect you're right - I should have completely ignored what you stated entirely and moved on, but honestly people that are so convinced that they're right and refuse to listen or talk about anything to the contrary of their worldview piss me the fuck off. You caught me in a bad mood for that, and I apologize. Next time I'll simply ignore you and move on.

[frodostark]

ĶӓḷƁҿӑȑ, on 27 February 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Well, RebeccaSigyn, that's a completely useless post. I'm sure everyone's quite happy that they'll no longer try to convince you of that - or really, of anything.

Horza, on 27 February 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

Stating your opinion is one thing.

Declaring it to be immutable, others opinions to be incomprehensible and then implying that they are impugning the subject by holding them is mean-spirited, rude and effectively a derailment.

ĶӓḷƁҿӑȑ, on 27 February 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

I wasn't offended by your post, RebeccaSigyn. It was just useless. It's just something to skip over and ignore. If that's okay with you, well, great! If you don't want your posts to be viewed as useless, I guess that's something to work on.

Seriously?

ĶӓḷƁҿӑȑ, on 27 February 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

Roose, do you think that Tolkien had no prejudices at all?

I don't consider him a nazi regardless of those who think his books support Aryan purity - but I can very easily see him being very prejudiced about Jews and other folks. Mostly because, well, that's what almost everyone was back then. It didn't mean he hated Jews, nor did it mean he liked 'em - but it does mean he was prejudiced about them.

I've probably lost the thread of the argument here, so apologies, but what exactly are we saying the Tolkienian prejudice was?  Dwarves love money + Dwarves are Jews = JRRT prejudiced?  And, aside from that, I really am curious for the JRRT Was Prejudiced crowd what that means to you as a reader of LOTR (you know, the whole "how do you deal with values dissonance?" thing)?

Edited by frodostark, 27 February 2012 - 11:53 PM.

[Arthmail]

Horza, on 27 February 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

Stating your opinion is one thing.

Declaring it to be immutable, others opinions to be incomprehensible and then implying that they are impugning the subject by holding them is mean-spirited, rude and effectively a derailment.

And this hasn't been done before? By Kalbear? Or others? Do we need to call everyone out for it? What the fuck is the point? Besides which, sometimes people have a strong opinion on the subject and will not be moved. Better to admit it than circle the subject fucking endlessly as others on this board are prone to doing.

But i'm sure we can take the logical leap and assume that if RS was presented with proof of Tolkien eating babies, he/she would simply still love Tolkien no matter what. Her statement was different than that, but there's nothing like making broad and useless statements to move things along. I'm sure someone will invoke the Nazi's....oh....yea.

And the bolded part is utter bullshit. RS can come in and leave one fucking line if they so choose, but what was said was none of the things that you listed. Mean-spirited? Really? Give me a fucking break.

Edited by Arthmail, 27 February 2012 - 11:56 PM.

[kalbear]

Quote

I've probably lost the thread of the argument here, so apologies, but what exactly are we saying the Tolkienian prejudice was? Dwarves love money + Dwarves are Jews = JRRT prejudiced? And, aside from that, I really am curious for the JRRT Was Prejudiced crowd what that means to you as a reader of LOTR (you know, the whole "how do you deal with values dissonance?" thing)?

Among other things, yes. That dwarves have phenotypes similar to Jews (curly dark hair, beards, big noses, shorter, darker skin) and predilections for certain values (money, greed). He does this with a lot of things - the easterlings, pretty much any group of men that were non-numenorean in origin. That being said, it's so common from books of that period that it's not exactly special. It's so common from people of that period that it's not that special.

For me, personally - I've never been a huge fan of Tolkien's stuff so it's not a huge value dissonance to me. The books are interesting primarily as a source material to me. They otherwise are good at parts and really, really dull in others. And some places are downright stupid, such as the Tom Bombadil interlude. You have to be familiar with him if you're a fantasy fan, else you won't catch all the places where he  gets blatantly ripped off; it's sort of like having to know pop culture in order to get references in topical movies.

[JEORDHl]

You're fine, Rebecca. Seal Team Gnome and I got your back.

[RebeccaSigyn]

ĶӓḷƁҿӑȑ, on 27 February 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

Why would I try to correct you, RebeccaSigyn? I didn't realize that I needed to be miss manners on politeness.

This board isn't big on politeness anyway. It's big on stating things and then talking about them or arguing about them. As long as there aren't personal attacks, not a lot is offlimits.




Uh, yeah.

You have every right to state your opinion. So do I. Your stating your opinion was useless. it contributed nothing to this conversation one way or another and continues to derail it. Note that I am not objecting to what your opinion is - I'm objecting to the complete inability to listen to another person's views or consider another person's views. In that respect you're right - I should have completely ignored what you stated entirely and moved on, but honestly people that are so convinced that they're right and refuse to listen or talk about anything to the contrary of their worldview piss me the fuck off. You caught me in a bad mood for that, and I apologize. Next time I'll simply ignore you and move on.

Judging me by one post seems rather harsh but so be it. I never meant any harm or to sound mean or like I know it all because I don't & I am always ready to listen to other opinions but if you have anything further to say to me it would probably be best if it was done in private instead of on this thread.

[kalbear]

Quote

Dear me, I think I may have driven the man insane.

Yes, clearly I'm totally nuts for reading into her posts things like "no one will ever convince me that his books are racist" as her saying 'no one will convince RebeccaSigyn that JRRT's books were racist.' CRAZY. WOOO HOOO.

Also, point of board etiquette: it's much better to not quote an entire post and instead quote select bits unless you're planning on responding to the whole thing in a fairly large post. Quoting everything and then dropping a pithy one liner is pretty rude as far as people's reading habits go. That comes from Ran, not me, in case you were wondering if I'm picking on you or something along those lines.

Though that's an interesting question, now that I'm thinking of it. So far,Grack, I've seen you defend every single author of every issue that anyone has had. If someone thinks something is sexist? You're there. If someone thinks something is racist? To the rescue you come. Bigoted against homosexuality? Boom, there ya go. Are there any authors that you actually can see sexism, racism or bigotry in the novel itself? (not the author themselves) And are there any books that you like that you can see problems with in this regard?

Edited by ĶӓḷƁҿӑȑ, 28 February 2012 - 12:17 AM.

[Roose Bolton's Pet Leech]

ĶӓḷƁҿӑȑ, on 27 February 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

Among other things, yes. That dwarves have phenotypes similar to Jews (curly dark hair, beards, big noses, shorter, darker skin)

Taking The Hobbit, first chapter, here's what we learn about the Dwarves:

Dwalin: blue beard and very bright eyes, plays viol
Balin: white beard, plays viol
Fili and Kili: yellow beards, play fiddle
Bombur: fat, plays drum
Dori, Nori, Ori: play flute
Bifur and Bofur: play clarinets
Thorin: plays harp, pompous git, likes six fried eggs with his ham.

Does any of that really scream Jewishness? Incidentally, between Thorin's ham fondness, and Bombur's request for a pork pie, I think we can conclude that we're dealing with some very non-kosher Dwarves.

Edited by Roose Bolton's Pet Leech, 28 February 2012 - 12:26 AM.

[Grack21]

Really? You've never seen any of my posts about Outlander or anything pretty much Orson Scott Card has ever written? The world does not revolve around only your topics.

[Grack21]

JEORDHl, on 28 February 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

Nah. You merely fumbled your own petard and dropped it at your feet. Kind of silly, Kal. Managing to castigate a new poster out one side of your mouth while epitomizing your very criticism out the other takes uh... talent or something. Not ridicule, mind you, just a factual observation.

Yeah, I was trying to point out the hypocrisy involed in those two statements but, I dunno. Too harsh?

[kalbear]

Again, Roose, from his specific interview:

Quote

D. Gerrolt: Did you intend in Lord of the Rings that certain races should embody certain principles: the elves wisdom, the dwarves craftsmanship, men husbandry and battle and so forth?
J.R.R. Tolkien: I didn't intend it.  But when you've got these people on your hands, you've got to make them different haven't you? Well of course, as we all know, ultimately we've only got humanity to work with.  It's only clay we've got. We should all … or at least a large part of the human race … would like to have greater power of mind, greater power of art by which I mean, that the gap between the conception and the power of execution should be shortened, and we should, like a longer time if not indefinite time in which to go on knowing more and making more.
Therefore we make the Elves immortal in a sense. I had to use immortal, I didn't mean that they were eternally immortal, merely that they are very longeval and their longevity probably lasts as long as the inhabitability of the Earth.
The dwarves of course are quite obviously, couldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic. Hobbits are just rustic English people, made small in size because it reflects (in general) the small reach of their imagination - not the small reach of their courage or latent power.

He expects that the dwarves remind people of the Jews. Now, his stereotypes are fairly positive as far as that goes (greed and craftsmanship appear to be the big ones), but it seems clear that he built the dwarves from the aspect of humanity he associated with the Jews. Again, I don't think this makes him antisemitic  - but I do think that at the very least he was playing on the stereotypes of Jews and likely believed those stereotypes.

Remember, back in the 50s and 60s you were an enlightened liberal if you were a benevolent racist. If you believed all women were more empathetic or all black people were good at sports, this was viewed as a positive.

[kalbear]

Quote

Really? You've never seen any of my posts about Outlander or anything pretty much Orson Scott Card has ever written? The world does not revolve around only your topics.

I've never seen you state that Diana Gabaldon was a sexist, no. Nor have I seen that you've stated that OSC's books were racist; you've stated several times that he is, but not the books. As far as I can tell you've never been willing to tie the two together in any way. And the evidence towards Gabaldon's books being sexist seemed a bit forced; it seemed like you were arguing that romance novels were problematic in their portrayal of sexuality and rape (which they absolutely are), but I didn't see anyone actually stating the other case.

Quote

Nah. You merely fumbled your own petard and dropped it at your feet. Kind of silly, Kal. Managing to castigate a new poster out one side of your mouth while epitomizing your very criticism out the other takes uh... talent or something. Not ridicule, mind you, just a factual observation.

Actually it's an opinion, not a fact, which makes this...what, triply ironic. But sure, well played. I think there's a difference in jumping into a  conversation and stating 'here's my opinion on the subject, you can't convince me otherwise' and telling that person that that statement was useless, but I'm not wedded to it. You've convinced me that I messed up.

Which of course means that I wasn't actually stating things as a fact and could be convinced otherwise, so hah! Jokes on you now, sucka.

[JEORDHl]

Maybe.

[Grack21]

You don't see anyone stating the other case? Do you read any other threads here? The Outlander novels are praised and recced a lot in other threads.

And you don't think the main character being raped until she likes it is sexist.....? And if I haven't stated it, let me state it now. Diana Gabaldon is sexist. Unless we are completely separating an authors work from the author now. Some days I'm not sure.