Damsel in Distress (mouhaha)

[comradekingu]

No, you are mistaken, it is a hoax. It is a stolen myth. Much the same way christ mass is. The original and proud european tradition is called Yule. Do not fall victim to justifying judeo-christian ideas with judeo-christian worldview, that is full retard.


If you want to know where the sexist views came from, look to the ancient scandinavian democracy and ask yourself what happened to that. Our problem isnt our culture, its theirs.

What am I mistaken about? What does the authenticity or the originality of the story have anything to do with anything I said? I think you're the one who is mistaken in thinking that I'm promoting a belief in Christianity.


But I doubt you'll find any ancient culture that had no element of sexism, so not sure what you're really getting at here..

I thought that was the wrong entry-point into understanding what is going on. In my view it isn't about the validity of the story. Its about the views of the ones fabricating it. If you ask questions about human value you are already at odds with using their worldview for justification. There is something amiss there.

Its irrelevant what the story is, as long as its stolen it brings to question the direct morality of the ones who did so and their beliefs. Putting oneself into judeo-christian logic is not a good way to reason with it. It defies all logic and makes the argument as inherently flawed as what its trying to point out, albeit right or not, that is beside the point.

Judeo-christianity is wrong on _every_ level, it corrupts everything.

Pointing out that there is sexism in the bible by pointing out immaculate conception is just as wrong as pointing out that EA games makes terribad games since they are commercial. See the bigger picture. What makes judeo-christianity work, how does EA games practices benefit their company.

If we dont stand back we will be judged like thats somehow our culture. Like hollywood movies are the epiphany of movie creation.

 

[Exophase]

I thought that was the wrong entry-point into understanding what is going on. In my view it isn't about the validity of the story. Its about the views of the ones fabricating it. If you ask questions about human value you are already at odds with using their worldview for justification. There is something amiss there.

Its irrelevant what the story is, as long as its stolen it brings to question the direct morality of the ones who did so and their beliefs. Putting oneself into judeo-christian logic is not a good way to reason with it. It defies all logic and makes the argument as inherently flawed as what its trying to point out, albeit right or not, that is beside the point.

Judeo-christianity is wrong on _every_ level, it corrupts everything.

Pointing out that there is sexism in the bible by pointing out immaculate conception is just as wrong as pointing out that EA games makes terribad games since they are commercial. See the bigger picture. What makes judeo-christianity work, how does EA games practices benefit their company.

If we dont stand back we will be judged like thats somehow our culture. Like hollywood movies are the epiphany of movie creation.

I have no idea why you're saying any of this to me. Frankly you sound a little hysterical.

 

[moxie]

Norway and these, ehm, special views on the book religions suggests things to me which gives me a kind of explanation for parts of his worldview. But I'm sure that comradekingu can explain himself if he likes to.

 

[Klumpen]

I think he wanted to say, that you cannot objectively explain a thought model within the kind of thinking, which it creates.

And/or he wanted to explain the importance of systematic errors (like in physics) in historical and religious topics.

 

[Exophase]

I'm still not understanding the issue here. Is he trying to say that I'm endorsing the religion by analyzing the implications of the stories? Should I be careful about analyzing Greek myths, or any kind of literature?

I get people hate religions and think they're responsible for a great many evils in the world, I'm not going to argue about the extent to which this is or isn't true. But it's totally ridiculous for someone to flip out and go on a tirade any time religious ideas are mentioned completely regardless of the context.

 

[FBnil]

I always thought it was "A Denzel in distress", which describes pretty much every movie Denzel Washington has appeared in.

But back to the topic. I think western society is already permeated with Judeo-Cristianity (whatever your definition might be), so you can not make yourself not a part of it (like paying taxes).

As for the culture, its been a while that a movie came out without violence, as Jesus preached. We can even say that Hollywood lingers on the other side of the spectrum, if you know what I mean. In that sense, even when the testaments preach towards violence.

Or you could end up like the Japanese, with their interpretation of Judeo-Cristianity, as seen in N.G.Evangelion, a pretty messed up interpretation, but still valid non the less.

Food for thought:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_violence

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

and especially:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

I would like to hear your opinion...

 

[moxie]

Although I have been a part of this discussion, I would like to differentiate between "Discussing the literary tropes of some texts that are the fundaments of some religion" and "Discussing the relative worths of different religions". The former is possible to pull off, as long as everybody involved are reasonable and do their tightrope balancing well (You'll now have to imagine my mod-hat-clad me glaring meaningfully at my history-of-religions me). However, the latter will only lead to tears, and I do not recommend it.

 

[comradekingu]

Let me compare it to something that isnt on topic. It is like asking for sympathy from the USA for their war efforts. It isnt so much that they dont care, because they are interested in the PR. But they have no choice, its a military industrial complex. It doesnt have the option to quit, or admit it.

Whether or not you are right about civilian casaulties or not isnt the root of the issue, it isnt the right question to ask. Whether inherently falsified or not. If you go by their motives, sure, they shouldn't be doing it, but that agenda wasn't the agenda to begin with. Its like asking for sympathy when the actual outcome would have to be "ok, i repent my lies, and the very question you are asking, is invalid because i do"

In this respect the only thing i learn about gaming is that the one making the videos and raising the issue doesn't understand enough about it for me to care about that opinion, right or wrong.

Edit: Moxie, thats why i said it isn't to be discussed, ironically the reason why is because its true. I can only show to the history of the matter and factual references. It is hard to be wrong knowingly.

Edit2: Exo, the greeks were very welcoming to discussion, and often decided things by communal meetings where commoners could attend. Your comparison is flawed. What i meant is that you are applying credibility to the original analogy by doing that. Discuss religion on its own merits, disregard flawed arguments. You were right, but not so much insofar as you could have disregarded, i felt you had to mentally forego that to even begin taking it seriously. It was the context, not the content.

Edit3: FBnil. I think hollywood movies are permiated with christian ideas. Take for example the un-natural view on nudity and sex, compared to the level of voilence. One is "sin" the other is grand and portrayed in the highest of contrast. And no, i dont think being inconsistant, illogical and downright mutually exclusive is something christianity isnt built on, referencing your quotations straight from the horses mouth. But even though i know, doing the research isnt needed to figure out which thoughtpatterns are parasitical. The fact that these brances of judeo-christianity (like islam) all believe their different versions, when it comes down to glaring translation errors, is telling. Not because it doesnt add value or not, thats not the point. Its because they are all doctrined to follow it like mindless sheep. Which would be ok in itself, but they dont leave me alone. It is enforced too, which adds insult to injury.

Paying taxes is something you cant get away from, unless you go back to living off the land. Lest we forget back in the day farmers paid taxes in produce and traded in goods. The comparison ended there. You arent defending a moral highground by not paying taxes.

It is also not a foreign concept. Paying taxes and getting a say in how its used is very much a european hallmark.

 

[Exophase]

Your comparison is flawed.

No, it isn't. The mindset and motivation of the writers simply doesn't matter. Shakespeare could have murdered his children but it'd still be worth analyzing his works. Frankly, I think you're just shutting your brain down and going off the deep end as soon as anyone talks about anything related to Christianity because you're so outraged about the topic. Your criticism of me on this is completely inane.

 

[comradekingu]

You are using another non working analogy there. Shakesperaian plays aren't about killing children. Im not criticizing you, im criticizing your construct of logic in pointing to the bigger picture.

 

[Exophase]

I think you need to read more Shakespeare. And I still don't see how a work isn't worthy of analysis regardless of whether it includes anything about killing children.

Lambasting discussion of any part of the Bible because of any other part of the Bible is especially arbitrary because it's a collection of several of books written by many different authors over the span of multiple centuries - under some rather different societal contexts. It just so happens that some religious bodies declared long after the fact that these books and not others had some relevance to each other. By implying that it's some kind of coherent whole it's actually you who is indirectly giving them credence, even if just a tiny amount. Think about that for a bit (or don't, I know you won't)

Of course, lambasting discussion of anything because you're uncomfortable with its content or effect it had on the world is stupid. Maybe you should start picketing religious studies courses at universities.

 

[_wb_]

We're starting to drift off-topic now. All this bible analysis was pulled in just because of this:

there are many examples of her saying stupid far fetched shit - I think I have posted examples before - if not, they are not hard to find.

You gave the example about her analysis the immaculate conception story being "stupid far fetched", but you didn't reply to me when I looked at it in some more detail and revealed that what she actually said was not that stupid nor far fetched at all.

Since we just had a few pages of reasonably interesting discussion that started from it. I think it's safe to say that this particular example of a Sarkeesian statement that is "stupid far fetched shit" according to vcoleiro, is not that stupid after all - otherwise it would not merit that much discussion.

To get back on track, let me comment a bit on "mainstream feminists" who despise "extremist feminists" like Sarkeesian because they "give feminism a bad name". In my opinion, the current mainstream feminism, also sometimes called "postfeminism", is a reactionary bourgeois recuperation of the original, progressive feminist movement.

 

[vcoleiro1]

@_wb_ ,  Having people discuss a point does not prove one thing or another. People are never going to fully agree on anything, especially on this board. As I said (and explained) , mentioning the conception of Jesus in a trope series about sexist examples was sensationalist and quite frankly - plain stupid.

Also. I gave three examples, since no one debated 2 of them (bar yourself) - I could easily use your argument and say that my point is thus proven.  OR was this an inconvenient fact for your statement above which is why you didn't mention these other 2 examples I gave.

Lets not forget the video she made saying the song "all I want for Xmas is you" in her mind = "I need a man to be complete" <- Yes I would call that far fetched (or shoe horning) and the type of rubbish that gives femisim a bad name that main stream feminists don't deserve and have to fight against to have their real sexism examples and messages recognised

 

[comradekingu]

While not pertaining to that exact choice of words, it could still be that we are reasonably interesting onto ourselves. I think its interesting enough to discuss things, even if its not strictly on topic. (edit: or that people agree necessarily)

I like to call it modern feminism. Seeing as you actually have to change the logic of feminism to subscribe to it. There are ways to achieve things without creating an enemy.

In the sense that the enemy that is created is menfolk in general, the notion of equal rights, becomes a mere charade.

I guess when things get better and the best and most obvious causes are achieved, you have to bring out bigger guns, and the most vocal are leading the pack and get heard. Nobody really wants reiterated what is now as mundane as it ever was since before judeo-christianity came along.

Its either that or totally removing oneself from genetics. Seems puzzling then that all these modern feminists are women. (and regular feminists oft male) But i guess that is the culture of "oppression". One really needs to have the imposed feel of ones genders integrity taken into question to truly defy logic. In this meta-game, having no qualms with concurrently defending feminism that makes me an anti-modern feminism feminist. I am being oppressed! ^^

And I thought we were winning--- !?

 

[_wb_]

@_wb_ ,  Having people discuss a point does not prove one thing or another. People are never going to fully agree on anything, especially on this board. As I said (and explained) , mentioning the conception of Jesus in a trope series about sexism was wrong, sensationalist and quite frankly - plain stupid.

OK, so you are saying that the conception story of Jesus should not be mentioned in a discussion about a "mystical pregnancy trope"? I still fail to see what is wrong or stupid about that.

Lets not forget the video she made saying the song "all I want for Xmas" in her mind = "I need a man to be complete" <- Yes I would call that far fetched and the type of rubbish that gives femisim a bad name that main stream feminists don't deserve

This is what Sarkeesian writes about that song in the YouTube description:

"NOTE: I include Mariah Carey's song only to illustrate the larger overall pattern in mass media where women are constantly presented as "only wanting a man". Carey's song itself is not really a huge issue but the larger media pattern is definitely problematic."

Is that far-fetched rubbish? I don't know, to me it sounds like a reasonable point to make and to some extent I agree with it. You don't have to agree with it, but just saying it is "rubbish" does not seem to be a very polite, nor an intellectually interesting way to express your disagreement.

 

[Klumpen]

Did you ever see a black woman complain and sissy about like these white modern feminist girls in their struggle against the bad bad world of men?

I didn't, because if someone does them wrong, he gets kicked in the balls straight away.

This is an example of positive racism. What was your first thought about it?

(I find that quite interesting)

 

[vcoleiro1]

@_wb_  No one is being rude here, so I don't know where you going with that. And yes, once again saying the song "All I need for Xmax"  = "I need a man to be fullfilled" as she says in the video, and then also saying Bieber singing the song is stalkerish is far fetched or shoe horning IMO.  

As for the conception video, you must have missed the some 6-10 posts explaining my issues with it .  They were in amongst what you called the healthy discussion section

 

[_wb_]

@_wb_  I told you she tried to back track from what she said in the video by updaing the description with a comment many posts back.  You ignored it then, and now you bring it up in some kind of proof to the opossite, thats just sad.

Listening to the video again, I can only interpret the comment in the description as a confirmation and clarification of her original point, not as an attempt to "back track".

Did you ever see a black woman complain and sissy about like these white modern feminist girls in their struggle against the bad bad world of men?

I didn't, because if someone does them wrong, he gets kicked in the balls straight away.

This is an example of positive racism. What was your first thought about it?

(I find that quite interesting)

I don't quite get what you are trying to say, but in my opinion, feminism (or anti-sexism) is not about a struggle between women and men. Sexism is a problem that affects both men and women.

I don't really see what racism has to do with this, or what you mean by "positive racism". I hope you don't consider kicking men in the balls as a "positive" thing.

 

[vcoleiro1]

^To answer your question on the update she made in the video, she made that after people pointed out what she said in the video regarding the song, was well , lets be polite and say not true. It came across then as a backtrack. That's where I was going with that   

 

[Klumpen]

I don't really see what racism has to do with this

That's sad. Well, I wanted to point out, that the whole topic is viewed everywhere in a "slightly" hypocritical way

and that pointing out differences between the genders and mentioning as well as using their pros and cons is already regarded as the bad bad sexism often,

while everyone does it and it is not a harmful thing in the first place. When it comes to sexism, racism and partly speciecism, I see many parallels.

I hope you don't consider kicking men in the balls as a "positive" thing.

Depends on the guy.

Next time you "do not get it", please just think about it more than 30seconds,

because some people here actually want to motivate others to do this, to break out of their well trained (often one dimensional) thought patterns.