Violence! Rape! Agency! The rapiness that comes before

[Contrarius]

Without targeting Richard, I will say a book can be 100% filled with characters of any specific group and still be tokenism.

The idea of tokenism (IMO) is that the inclusion, regardless of portrayal, is seen as something to be thankful for. By this logic 80s movies where they are criminals, threats to white women, and dependent on whites to find their moral center was a political positive for the African American community.

I don't really see the validity of the comparison here. In TSR and CC, they are the **heroes**.

[Sci-2]

Sciborg2, do you not comprehend what the meaning of the word "main character" is?

I fail to see how a main character cannot be a token under the definition I gave. If you want, we can have a different word for it if you think I'm conflating concepts.

(I am being serious, as snarky as that sounds)

[Verboten]

Why in the world should that matter? Does Axiomatic not get a "vote" unless he/she fits your particular criteria??

Someone who has never experienced homophobia does not have a very good understanding of why I might find the characters in TSR lacking.

[Contrarius]

Start a new bloody thread about homosexuality in fantasy. Gratuitous violence and rape are not the same as gay characters.

Oh, so we should have told Kalbear to start a new thread when he went on -- and on -- and on -- about the portrayal of lesbian characters?? ;)

[sologdin]

you're once again missing the difference between the simple critique -- "these statements are stupid/misguided/racist/whatever because of B and C" and the willingness to repress -- "she should not be allowed to make these statements".

it has nothing to do with me. the purported difference simply does not exist when the facts are these: publication is criticized, in the absence of state action, and publisher claims censorship on the basis of criticism.

is there willingness to repress (whatever that might be) in the following?

I wish that abercrombie's book didn't have that scene in it.

I sure hope that abercrombie's next book don't have no lesbians in it.

it ain't my type of book so i'm not gonna be buying the next one unless there be no gay peepz in it.

them books are immoral and he shouldn't do that.

why don't someone stop him from having those homos in there?

abercrombie's gay agenda is taking over and i'm gonna write a letter to walmart about selling his book.

what is the relevance of a belief that a book shouldn't be permitted to the question of whether a publication has been censored?

[Sci-2]

Kalbear was specifically talking about the rape of a lesbian character, and what the character's identification as a lesbian meant for that scene.

ETA: I'll create a new thread in a bit.

[Axiomatic]

Incidentally, I'd just like to ask...what is this Outlander people keep making references to?

[Contrarius]

Someone who has never experienced homophobia does not have a very good understanding of why I might find the characters in TSR lacking.

Well, those characters are certainly not lacking in their experiences with homophobia. What do YOU think they are lacking?

[Contrarius]

is there willingness to repress (whatever that might be) in the following?

I wish that abercrombie's book didn't have that scene in it.

I sure hope that abercrombie's next book don't have no lesbians in it.

it ain't my type of book so i'm not gonna be buying the next one unless there be no gay peepz in it.

Here's my personal dividing line. IMHO the quotes above do not show that "willingness to repress", while the quotes below do.

them books are immoral and he shouldn't do that.

why don't someone stop him from having those homos in there?

abercrombie's gay agenda is taking over and i'm gonna write a letter to walmart about selling his book.

This one I could bat back and forth for a long time and probably never come to a firm decision over.

what is the relevance of a belief that a book shouldn't be permitted to the question of whether a publication has been censored?

Not sure I understand your question here. Could you elaborate?

[Contrarius]

Incidentally, I'd just like to ask...what is this Outlander people keep making references to?

Outlander is both a book (the first book in a series), and the apellation for the series of books that follows it.

Part of our earlier discussion covered a rape scene and a couple of beating scenes from the first Outlander book. I quoted extensively from those scenes. That was post #292 in the first "rape and violence" thread.

[Larry.]

I get the impression that much of this continued debate centers around the mistaken conflation of the jussive and conditional moods.

"should" is not jussive; there are no commands, just a desire for something to happen. "should have" would be the conditional perfect, where someone expresses a wish or desire that something to have happened in the past, but for some reason did not. For example, "he should not have driven while drunk." That can be read as "He did a dumb thing that I wished he would not have done, but he has, so here's hoping that he never ever does that dumbass thing again."

"shall", on the other hand, carries jussive tones. "He shall not do that" is a command where someone directs another toward an action. Acts of censorship carry "shall" implications. "This shall not be published." "She shall not be permitted to do something stupid."

Trying to tie the conditional "should" to the jussive "shall" is a conflation that distorts the meaning of the passage.

So please, if there is to be anymore discussions of "censorship," do not try to connect people's comments of "should" to it, since "should" is a world of meaning and intent away from "shall" in that particular realm of power exertion.

[Contrarius]

I get the impression that much of this continued debate centers around the So please, if there is to be anymore discussions of "censorship," do not try to connect people's comments of "should" to it, since "should" is a world of meaning and intent away from "shall" in that particular realm of power exertion.

Phhhhht.

Your examples confuse the issue by comparing past actions -- "he should not have driven while drunk" -- with present directives -- "this shall not be published".

Try comparing present to present: "this should not be published", and "this shall not be published".

"Shall" carries force of law, but "should" still indicates a willingness to repress.

[sologdin]

Phhhhht.

this is powerful argumentum ad lapidem. but does it not indicate a willingrness to repress the basic rules of grammar, as mr. larry has laid them down?

[Contrarius]

Phhhhht.

this is powerful argumentum ad lapidem. but does it not indicate a willingrness to repress the basic rules of grammar, as mr. larry has laid them down?

Let's say "ignore" rather than "repress". ;)

And it would only be "ad lapidem" if you ignore the rest of my post..... ;)

[Larry.]

I am well aware of tense and mood differences. Should is not ever used to connote jussive mood (it is used as a conditional); shall is. I think the rest just merely indicates your willingness to live up to your handle name, even when the matters of contention are strange to others.

[sologdin]

now, now. no need to declare her a troll until she hits council member.

[Contrarius]

I am well aware of tense and mood differences. Should is not ever used to connote jussive mood (it is used as a conditional); shall is. I think the rest just merely indicates your willingness to live up to your handle name, even when the matters of contention are strange to others.

Larry -- you are hiding behind grammar in your attempt to dismiss meaning.

"This should not be published."

"This shall not be published."

The difference here is one of force, not one of intent. Both convey a willingness to repress. The second merely adds the *ability* to repress.

[sologdin]

this willingness to repress issue is getting repeated as though it were dispositive. it is however absolutely irrelevant. it reminds me of the old defense lawyer trick of bringing up immaterial facts and irrelevant arguments in order to reframe the debate and attempt to craft a winning issue, hoping that everyone else follows them into the weeds to fight contentions that don't matter to the verdict.

so i ask again, in the spirit of descending into the weeds: what possible relevance has the willingness to repress to the question of censorship? my contention is that willingness to repress is neither necessary nor sufficient for a finding of censorship.

[Contrarius]

so i ask again, in the spirit of descending into the weeds: what possible relevance has the willingness to repress to the question of censorship? my contention is that willingness to repress is neither necessary nor sufficient for a finding of censorship.

It's that slippery slope argument again. A willingness to repress, if unchallenged, can easily lead to an ability to repress.

And btw, I can absolutely be persuaded that "censorship" may be too extreme of a word to use in many cases, which is why I've started saying "willingness to repress" instead. "Censorship" is a widely understood short-hand sort of term, but I can sympathize with folks like you who think it is getting applied too liberally.

(edited 'cause now I can't even spell!)

[Callan S.]

"should" is not jussive; there are no commands, just a desire for something to happen. "should have" would be the conditional perfect, where someone expresses a wish or desire that something to have happened in the past, but for some reason did not. For example, "he should not have driven while drunk." That can be read as "He did a dumb thing that I wished he would not have done, but he has, so here's hoping that he never ever does that dumbass thing again."

"He should not drive while drunk - but actually I'm fine with it if he does and continues to"

The way the word is commonly used, it has no interest in being fine with anything other than what 'should' happen.

If people acknowledge they are fine with X happening time and time again, I'll agree with your point. Otherwise wow, I'm wondering if you feel your shoulds are just humble desires and wishes, no matter how much loss of income or legislature changes (with martial enforcement) in the wake of these 'non commanding' shoulds. Makes me think of a dictator lying on a recliner, who insists he only ever asks people to do things, never commands.