Gamergaters Please attempt to claim this isn't objectification

[mormont]

11 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I mean if you think this anime battleship = a person is offensive then let's look at other entertainment medium. 

Film = hardest of the hardcore pornography gets put onto film and viewed everyday.

Literature = basically has no bounds of maintaining decency, almost anything goes.

Yet the entire video game industry gets criticized for every tiny infraction to bordedom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[DunderMifflin]

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Please stop.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

On the Anime issue, the 'white looking' characters is IMO just a racial bias from europeans who see what they want to see, if you ask Japanese people they would probably see Japanese characters. There are numerous characters in Anime who I would say look particularly european rather than asian however.

Having said that, there is a lot of western cultural influence in the style and clearly that has fed into it. Japan has been a bit of a sponge for western culture for the past century or so, but mostly gives it a very different twist.


On Games, I do agree with DM that gamers are given the short end of the stick when it comes to this sort of stuff and are often stereotyped as 15 year old boys tossing off in their rooms. Thats not really true any more and gamers are far more diverse than their image dictates. 

 

[Kalbear]

This thread is proof that we are obviously living in the worst timeline

[DunderMifflin]

6 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

On the Anime issue, the 'white looking' characters is IMO just a racial bias from europeans who see what they want to see, if you ask Japanese people they would probably see Japanese characters. There are numerous characters in Anime who I would say look particularly european rather than asian however.

Having said that, there is a lot of western cultural influence in the style and clearly that has fed into it. Japan has been a bit of a sponge for western culture for the past century or so, but mostly gives it a very different twist.


On Games, I do agree with DM that gamers are given the short end of the stick when it comes to this sort of stuff and are often stereotyped as 15 year old boys tossing off in their rooms. Thats not really true any more and gamers are far more diverse than their image dictates. 

 

That can't be it though because plenty of non white people also believe they look european. I just saw a twitter spat a few months ago where a black american rapper accused anime of making eurocentric characters because of some sort of white supremacy. And their anime is a huge export to  the western world, that's at least motive to make the characters be racially ambiguous at the least.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, DunderMifflin said:

That can't be it though because plenty of non white people also believe they look european. I just saw a twitter spat a few months ago where a black american rapper accused anime of making eurocentric characters because of some sort if white supremacy. And their anime is a huge export, that's at least motive to make the characters be racially ambiguous at the least.

From what I can tell its a pretty consistent comment about Anime that its characters look white, and the standard response from those who are really into Anime is that its simply a racial bias of the viewer.

I can see it both ways having previously thought a lot of characters looked white, but if I look properly I can see that its just a design feature of large eyes (which I assume is to help with conveying emotion) that is throwing me off. Actually if you take that out most of the characters appear pretty Asian. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

36 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Please stop.

You aren't using "whataboutism" to deflect?

[DunderMifflin]

In the last decade or so I think they really started to look more like japanese people but in the era of 80s - 2000 I still think most were purposely made to look more eurocentric

[DunderMifflin]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You aren't using "whataboutism" to deflect?

Nope, certainly not involved in soviet era propaganda techniques. I find the accusation to be pretty offensive.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

 

Except for the fact anime creators give interviews in which they discuss their characters, of course.
Notwithstanding the fact that anime characters generally have Japanes names and live in Japan anyway...

Like, no offense, but if you were to tell me the characters from Gate: jieitai kanochi nite, kaku tatakaeri, or even Evangelion are NOT Japanese, then you'd be a moron.

Off topic, but ugh. Fuck that piece of shit.

On topic, I hang out on some forums with more anime and Japanese media fans, and I haven't noticed any correlation between being a Gamergate supporter and being a Kantai Collection fan.

[Free Northman Reborn]

45 minutes ago, mormont said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I have no opinion on the so called Gamergate issue, and I have even less of an opinion on the "battleship objectification" issue which Scott attempted to develop into a topic of debate on one of his slower days at work. However, I was most intrigued by your linky above, and read the wikipedia page with interest.

Frankly, while the page pointed out the historical instances where the "Whatabout" approach saw significant use, I don't agree that it is therefore a flawed debating method by default. Because, if your accuser on any topic can be proven to be a hypocrite on that very issue, then I think you have very effectively discredited him. It's like the numerous times during the Ukraine debate on this very site, when people rightly pointed out "But what about Iraq", and it was dismissed by "Don't deflect from Russia's illegitimate actions in Ukraine by raising the US's illegitimate actions in Iraq as a defense".

But why not? Surely the pertinent question is, why should you (the accuser) be allowed to get away with it but I/we are held to a higher standard?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, DunderMifflin said:

I mean if you think this anime battleship = a person is offensive then let's look at other entertainment medium. 

Film = hardest of the hardcore pornography gets put onto film and viewed everyday.

Literature = basically has no bounds of maintaining decency, almost anything goes.

Yet the entire video game industry gets criticized for every tiny infraction to bordedom.

How is this not "Whataboutism"?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I have no opinion on the so called Gamergate issue, and I have even less of an opinion on the "battleship objectification" issue which Scott attempted to develop into a topic of debate on one of his slower days at work. However, I was most intrigued by your linky above, and read the wikipedia page with interest.

Frankly, while the page pointed out the historical instances where the "Whatabout" approach saw significant use, I don't agree that it is therefore a flawed debating method by default. Because, if your accuser on any topic can be proven to be a hypocrite on that very issue, then I think you have very effectively discredited him. It's like the numerous times during the Ukraine debate on this very site, when people rightly pointed out "But what about Iraq", and it was dismissed by "Don't deflect from Russia's illegitimate actions in Ukraine by raising the US's illegitimate actions in Iraq as a defense".

But why not? Surely the pertinent question is, why should you (the accuser) be allowed to get away with it but I/we are held to a higher standard?

Because "an irrational consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

[DunderMifflin]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How is this not "Whataboutism"?

Because I'm not part of the Soviet government that doesn't even exist.. I know it's back in fashion these days to accuse people of being Russian secret agents but I am not one. If you'd like to get into more detail with accusations of what I did with my comparison of gaming to other entertainment perhaps one can be more specific than copying and pasting a wiki article.

[Free Northman Reborn]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Because "an irrational consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

Define irrational inconsistency. To me the inconsistency appears quite rational.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Because I'm not part of the Soviet government that doesn't even exist.. I know it's back in fashion these days to accuse people of being Russian secret agents but I am not one. If you'd like to get into more detail with accusations of what I did with my comparison of gaming to other entertainment perhaps one can be more specific than copying and pasting a wiki article.

I think you are missing the point about that particular fallacy.  It doesn't mean you are the Soviet Government.  It means you are using tactics similar to those that they used.

FNR,

Do you know anyone who has never engaged in hypocrisy and is perfectly consistent in all their opinions.  The demand for perfect consistency in all circumstances is what Emerson ment when he describes that as "irrational".  No one is perfectly consistent.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think you are missing the point about that particular fallacy.  It doesn't mean you are the Soviet Government.  It means you are using tactics similar to those that they used.

FNR,

Do you know anyone who has never engaged in hypocrisy and is perfectly consistent in all their opinions.  The demand for perfect consistency in all circumstances is what Emerson ment when he describes that as "irrational".  No one is perfectly consistent.

Sure, I get that. But the counter to it is that by relying on that quote you give hypocrites free reign to lecture others while constantly changing their own position on things to suit their latest argument. Somehow I don't quite believe that's the goal Emmerson was driving at with this. I might be wrong, but to me there needs to be more to changing one's opinion than just doing so when your enemy happens to do the same thing you used to do and you wish to lecture him about it.

 

[DunderMifflin]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think you are missing the point about that particular fallacy.  It doesn't mean you are the Soviet Government.  It means you are using tactics similar to those that they used.

FNR,

Do you know anyone who has never engaged in hypocrisy and is perfectly consistent in all their opinions.  The demand for perfect consistency in all circumstances is what Emerson ment when he describes that as "irrational".  No one is perfectly consistent.

No its exactly the point. Soviets didn't fucking invent the practice of pointing out inconsistenct moral outrage. Yet the "whataboutism" wiki page gets posted with no additional comments as if it's something specific to Russian or Soviet propaganda.

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

No its exactly the point. Soviets didn't fucking invent the practice of pointing out inconsistenct moral outrage. Yet the "whataboutism" wiki page gets posted with no additional comments as if it's something specific to Russian or Soviet propaganda.

 

 

So, to be morally outraged requires perfect consistency and perfect knowledge to provide perfect consistency?

[DunderMifflin]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, to be morally outraged requires perfect consistency and perfect knowledge to provide perfect consistency?

No, it just requires outrage and a sense of personal morals. Certainly the inconsistency can be pointed out without it being some sort of Soviet government propaganda technique.

It's just not even a valid criticism, a large portion of the discussions about race in usa revolve around this "whataboutism" practice. As in why do whites use more illegal drugs but non whites are arrested at a much higher rate. Or why do minorities get much harsher sentencing for the same crimes as white people?  Must be Soviet infiltration of propaganda.