The debate "There is more whining in media about SJWs then whining from SJWs" was started by
November 2, 2018, 9:46 pm.
30 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 38 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 10 arguments to the agreers part.
lukeluckynuke123 posted 1 argument, killer posted 1 argument, MrShine posted 12 arguments, Nemiroff posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
TD, LucyTheDebatorQueen, Nemiroff, milk_tea and 26 visitors agree.
crispsandchips, Matt, seefus, killer, lukeluckynuke123, Hellow, MrShine, imjustheretommorow, Damian, DanielSays and 28 visitors disagree.
I wonder, how would you know the sales numbers before something has premiered? It's a gamble to see what goes off the ground, so it certainly doesn't help when similar shows and their numbers are riddled with variations in plot, characters, actors, -and in the instance things are similar enough there is the everterrifying chance that it will be disregarded as a copy or clone.
The Emmy's decisions aren't a conspiracy theory, so if I suggest it is the same way what makes it a sudden conspiracy? My point is that there are good characters, and characters that suck are allowed to be criticized. These criticisms are condensed into a "pandering" explanation. The characters self attribute to helping class representation but fail to be a character. In short, it's moral masturbation, and it isn't impressive. That is why I include the dialogue on the Batwoman show, it doesn't sound like a human wanted to communicate an idea, it's a human imitating a human to speak directly to the audience. No observation required, no questioning the product, just consume.
Not all goals need to be reached, though suspicion can be met with conspiracy theories. I won't claim it's a conspiracy for rich people to use their influence to promote their own works, so a rich writer will likely get their work adapted. It might sound bad, but the subsequent people involved need to be paid, can a poor person always do that? There is a tvtrope page dedicated to this idea too.
And there are also male roles that are easier based on the human condition, where males tend to build muscle easier and exist with a higher weight class. It gives credibility, and a female in these roles would have another role thematically to overcome. It isn't wrong, it's just the considerations for a 300lb muscle machine are intimidating and harder to replicate in women. A shortcut to be sure for it to be men, but why work harder?
The UN does have rules, and influence. Would you deny that? I would deny their effectiveness on solving issues, but certainly not their platform.
Not a movememt, sure, but it feeds into Creator and content ethos, so wouldn't certain people use this as a shortcut if they wanted to gain? I suppose I should be more specific, common SJW complaints have conflated the sycophantic nature of some creators and safe bet investors to appeal to a certain class, by providing feel good messages about a certain class. The only problem is that if you acknowledge the individual, the message goes away.
The marketing aim was to promote the idea that women could be Ghostbusters too, without setting up stakes. While many would be premature to take a trailer at face value it sells the best points. As it turns out, the comedy was developed ab lib and didn't serve the script, it was disrupted. To raise women, the male counterpart had such stupidity that even name-brand recognition went over his head. He wasn't an idiot, he was practically a low IQ alien.
Direct earnings are hard to predict without online engagement. How do you think Google got rich? And the inflation does exist, look at what happened to many journalists in BuzzFeed, now this - the layoffs and sudden drop in value of these businesses. Isn't it possible these companies that pander using a class-first approach to reporting might inflate their own values? It wouldn't be a change in how we surf online, it's the inevitable correction of values.
The numbers is a box office website that takes a financial approach, rather than ratings approach like rotten tomatoes. I think I said this, did you gloss over my point?
also, if you were an investor, would you prioritize what wins an award? or what makes the most money? clear cut, unbiased market data.
to clarify the 50/50 point, which I believe you twisted a bit.
I do not demand a coin flip be 50/50 everytime. just like i do not demand equal representation. but if a coin is flipped 100 times an 95 come out heads... I'm going to be alittle suspicious of the coin, wouldnt you? something isnt fair.
most conspiracy theorists never claim it is a conspiracy. the conspiracy claims that media is pushing an agenda of forcing minority and women movies, yet most are still white Male. this agenda is either a failure, or made up. and with either option, the mass reaction on the right is over nothing. my position stands.
50% is not a goal, it's an expectation. just like if you flip a coin enough times it will eventually be 50/50. I would definitely expect it to be within the ballpark of 50/50 most of the time, yet I dont think it's even 70/30. minority and women movies I would guess are at 10%. when women alone should be well above that statistically.
also writers arent usually rich. and if it's a thing if rich people referencing Male stories... well that just validates the SJW supposed agenda, does it not?
the UN is not a legislative body. And I am talking about United states. I cannot speak for other countries with different laws, constitution, and beliefs.
1. social justice is a method, not a movement. parts of it promote women, other parts promote antifeminism. social justice represents both sides. isnt the fight against abortion a fight for social justice for the fetus? did not pro life activists dox providers and shame people who sought abortion? social justice is universal. at least amongst those who are politically active like me and you.
2. like Ghostbusters? I mean it was a bad movie, but noone know that before release when the antiSJW movement was piling on.
3. it certainly does. media shaped the views many Americans had of blacks, gays, etc for Americans who rarely interacted with these people. media is very powerful, which is why more complex and accurate representation is so important. however, there is a difference between media, and the Oscar's. dont you think a professional investor would value direct earnings more then a single award show?
I do believe all these points once again support my argument. as for the rest of point 1. no idea what your talking about. what perspective of failure? what numbers did you have? I'm sorry, but the rest of the post sounds like rambling that I dont see the connection too.
I don't believe I claimed there was a conspiracy. I didn't claim they were exceptions. I did claim pressure and marketing predictions, with specific examples. I've clarified it's groundwork, if you like to dispute.
I do not dispute the neutrality of the audience, but I could dispute the amount of male writers and investors. Would you argue that the amount of rich women and writers are the same? Of course this isn't the only factor, but now that there's the 50% goal at least I can begin to understand your stance on what social justice means.
If you heard about gamergate through anti-sjw complaints, surely you would include the ethics in videogames journalism aspect. Even if you believe the overblown reaction to women gamer perspective, you would include that, I think. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate about 'nothing'?
As for legislation, Anita and Zoe Quinn did talk before the UN as experts. If you thought that some opinions were outrageous, maybe that isn't a good idea. Maybe it's like the complaints a religious community had against Doom and Mortal Kombat, and if they had a UN platform videogames would be different.
Certainly I agree on the overreach aspect, I counted on that being a point with what I've included as common ground. But that doesn't mean we can't point out when socially manufactured outrage, as well as the nature of the internet. The internet is filled with nobodies that will always react, if you focus on that it'll seem like a problem, but the problem is how unreliable and harmless that outrage is. The real harm comes from calls to action and shame as a polarizer. Saying a movie sucks online doesn't equate, and criticizing non-character cookie cutter female leads doesn't lead to firebombings. So are you against people complaining in general?
Note that I used a recent example refers to the statement behind it, Zero Dawn the game. I didn't want any complaints about when it was released. Alita is by no means my strongest argument, rather groundwork on several ideas.
1. Social Justice doesn't promote women, it promotes a vague class as a character
2. Characters not in line with said promotion, and viewers that enjoy them, will receive criticism before the release.
3. Media has a larger influence than you believe.
Point One has been previously established by my perspective on your display of women that are indeed in movies. This is not to prove, but make groundwork.
Point Two is established because said characters receive criticism based on the audience, and that audience is presumed to be terrible people. While it may not be a large section of news, movies aren't big in the news without a cinematic universe or prior success, so it is within expectations... unless all coverage predicts failure. Did it predict based on a poll, which if so perhaps the flawed poll proved a skewed perspective. If not, was it a lie, clickbait? Hard to say.
Point Three relates to you. You had a perspective that claims failure, I had the numbers (website). It's had to believe that you formed a informed opinion if it lacks perspective. Nevertheless, you had information session we could debate about it, so where did that information come from? Why would any specific example of a strong woman role in media not disprove the inflexible group lines, and actual criticisms of flawed characters? If complaints about flawed characters in one audience do not appear for a better character, isn't that normal and not nostalgia like you claim?
I only heard of gamergate based on the antiSJW reaction to it. to my understanding it was primarily driven by a single youtuber making a series of gamer cliches about women... some of her complaints were ridiculous, some were spot on.
once again, a reaction to nothing. a person pushing no legislation, and using her speech hoping to get more complex characters into video games. the reaction was massive enough to get national news.
there are of course limits to social justice, just as there are limits to speech or religion. they cant enforce legislation, and so far they havent. they wont force fines or imprisonment. but unless there is assault, government can't stop speech and social change. wouldnt that be overreach?
what was the counter example you provided? alita? what was the outrage? I know a few feminist reviewers disliked the character, but that's hardly qualifying as a mass outrage. if anything your example only strengthens my point of the right wing outrage over nothing.
as for investors, no. they have far more objective data such as sales, and the data of thousands of reviews vs just 1. I don't see the value of these awards except as their own form of entertainment. and im convinced its 90% about the red carpet fashion.
I'm not here to discuss feminism. I defend their right to exist and speak, but I wouldnt claim they are facing any significant discrimination. I'm talking about which side is the real cry baby outraging over nothing. regardless of how many female/minority movies "the agenda" puts out, the vast majority still have the generic white Male lead. so the agenda is clearly not that efficient, or probably existent. as you said, female leads are nothing new... so why are 90%+ of them (so far alita and zero dawn only exceptions) claimed to be part of some conspiracy?
. and I would agree that 50% of the population should, if story quality was neutral, have near 50% of the leads. unless you feel there is something about women leads that be definition degrade movie quality.
edit: Social justice being that groups use social pressure to force their idea of Justice. This does not include equality, since a racist in the sixties would think it is fine for a group to gather for the sake of maintaining social norms.
This actually brings up a question I have, since the complaints about nothing claim has frequently came up, and video games. What size your understanding about the gamergate controversy, and do you find it significant? Do you find it comparable?
I also think we should compare definitions of social justice. My understanding is that justice is a social idea. To enact justice for a social group, social groups must be divided and then act in accordance to what is best for each group. It might sound nice until mob rule enforces ideas, it isn't the individual freely associating - it relies on group membership to lobby the full force of a class of people. Certainly experts can and should lobby for the individuals or even groups, but when sheer numbers or social shame tactics are used to engage with political opponents? Proper representation seems premature, and social action appears cartoonish.
You provided one example of trolls comments receiving disproportionate outrage, I provided one. Hardly one sided in my opinion too, since social justice can use mob rule to silence smaller groups or individuals. Doxxing has been an issue, like with Tucker Carlson. Also, like I said, there will always be more interactions than there are original posters, and the nature of easy reaction videos helps too. So why is it surprising?
Based on nothing depends on the merit of the complaints. Some companies believed complaints had no merit, and as the saying goes "get woke, go broke". Perhaps not just for that reason, but let's say the Gillette commercial for example pushed the image of a fairly unrealistic male society that forgives sexual harassment. Would responding to untruth be considered pointless outrage? I say untruth because the fact is there will be instances, but Western society does not tolerate these things, yet when the idea that it does received reinforcement it didn't feel like it supported women. It appeared to claim men aren't properly socialized in a very tone-deaf way.
Girls have always been a part of the market, a big part, rising or not. The problem is investors for good mechanics and graphics. Games are no longer blocky pixels and text infodumps. They are engaging and narrative at the same time. Zero dawn, while heavyhanded with religion, was certainly a good example I haven't seen complaints about. If it was a widespread issue of women in general, wouldn't it have received flak? Note I used a recent example.
I am glad we can agree on the Emmy's being rich people's football, so can't we agree investors see the same thing? They see "woman" as a role, when neither "woman" or "man" should be the main selling point, since it provides less personality than a background character's concerned face. The woman is an actress, and she can be defined by her job, relationships, family, among other things.
I dont watch the Oscar's tbh. I don't care. the speechs are all very boring and identical. its rich people playing games. I think a world doctors awarding should be more interesting. the story would be fantastic as well. and real. (still terrible speechs likely).
I think its 90% about the dresses
it seemed like a logical move which the market rejected and the company failed (the venture). + many other issues that were all part of the downfall. I do doubt the cover image was the main part.
as for Emmy's, that was always the case. such as Sean Penn's I am Sam where it was a... special character. it does help, but it also helps the movies were also very good (second hand info)
I'm not sure I'm seeing the connection to my point that although the antiSJW claim to be complaining about mass triggering, they are the only ones being mass triggered by double digit follower trolls/idiots.
the antiSJW is currently the embodiment of everything they despise mass whining videos getting 10k to 100k viewership based on nothing.
girls are a growing gamer population, showing female avatars sounds like an inevitable marketing move by some company. free market ideas that will lift or sink. and what they hoped would be a nod to a whole new market and people would talk about the graphics, turned into a social commentary pariah.
Of course I didn't say that female roles make it an issue, you proposed it was an issue with it. But I can see why you might make that mistake, with reboots everyone hates them, but if they include women creators can deflect their own failures onto an issue of a different audience being the problem.
For reasons I stated before, the market does exist but has been severely inflated by investors because they do not want to lose out. Women have had great leading and sometimes even better supporting roles.
And awards, such as the Emmy's appear to work off of a checklist for the wealthy and influential, not the common viewer. Bohemian Rhapsody won best editing when it has bad editing. There is a dinner scene where cuts are so frequent it puts transformers to shame, cuts unnecessary enough to damage the flow of the movie would make me wonder if an intern worked on the movie. Maybe the intern can piggyback off of the success.
So why did it win? It won the same reason why moonlight won it's award. It checked off certain inclusion requirements without actually caring about scene execution or character. Well, that's a bit harsh because there are more than enough adequate scenes and some good but the jarring ones demonstrate a lack of skill. No skill but critical acclaim? Sound like a Wakaliwood movie with low energy... I think they have good energy though.
Which is why I made a point to say that people in general will produce and promote their own opinions, if there is one article, and two readers, there will be more interactions than there are publishers. It is no surprise that this can happen. It's also no surprise this stuff will be topics when reaction videos and playthrough are popular.
Battlefield 5's creators responded to outrage by saying 'dont like? don't buy.' Acknowledging, then going against the same market invites failure.
We can judge whining over nothing by what gets money and what gets suppressed, even by individual creators.
Like I said with the rotten tomatoes audience scores and compared to other adaptations, the predicted flop and money sinkhole saturated articles two weeks before it even released. The website the numbers, a box office analysis website, has a domestic box office graph that puts the revenue within 'good legs' as their own site puts for income. Not astounding mind it, but nevertheless an acceptable release.
The truth is a mountain built from many pebbles, I find it relevant because when a female hero could be accepted but is rejected- not by right wing SJWs, I tend to think it is not character but a failure to include and meld social class that the SJW complaints address. GiTS received a whitewashing complaint, though the character isn't exactly human.
Certainly I must pick movies that were accepted, because anti-sjw opinions are given a broad blanket of denying female roles. I can't deny the problem without specifics, and without time I cannot say that a pulpy movie won't become a cult classic or receive sequels for a franchise. Without specifics, I can't prove there is a problem with developing flat characters, and as such it will appear that I have no complaint. I can't simply do that, you know.
alita and movie quality is a bit off topic, but most movies are garbage no matter the protagonist. there are plenty of women lead stories that were massive successes, which alita was not.
the point of the feminist movement is not to shove more women into stories, but for producers to more fairly judge stories with female characters.
as with all media, music, movies, books, most will not be stellar, many will be bad. A few will be good, but the same is true with Male lead movies. how many movies come out every summer? over the decades that you build up greats like rambo, how many Male leads were absolutely bearable. completely forgettable. or worse.
So what if a few female roles,acts were stiff. not everyone's a Brando. your false expectations are a false equivalency. your comparing a handful of random movies that happened to just come out, against the cherry picked movie greats of your memory.
also. what exactly is the issue? the market picked up on a new trend in demand, and is giving the public what it wants. isnt that the reason they were all men to begin with? how does the sex of the lead affect the quality of a story? this is simply market forces at work. the complaint doesnt make sense as far as effect, and it seems completely acceptable as far as market ideology. was there even a suggestion of some sort of legislation? if not, then what's the foul?
there is no need to speak to the troll account. the troll account is the supposed representation of mass triggering (with a dozen or so likes and much outrage against the nonsense, nowhere near 50/50, bipartisan agreement it was dumb.
what I ask people to acknowledge is the mass antiSJW whining and war cry of their own social justice against this somehow generalized expression of a single idiot. mainstream antiSJW youtubers with thousands of views pumped it. it showed up in my non logged in feed, and I dont search for these things.
another example is battlefield 5. where the company itself acknowledged poor release timing and superior competition, including the fortnite craze as reasons for failure.... every gaming (and other) rightwing channel was blasting that the female on the cover lead to its demise... wtf? a YouTube game reviewer I follow suggested there might be other reasons (which were later acknowledged by the company) for its failure, and got roasted personally on other populous channels as being "part of the agenda" (AngryJoe)
its out of control, and they are their own self fulfilled prophecy. there certainly are SJWs on the left, but the right wing SJW, has become mainstream, at least amongst social and digital media, and they are whining over nothing louder then ever.
I can't speak to the single troll account on Twitter and the outrage, but I can agree that it was probably a way to get quick views on a slow week of uploads. I remember a video uploaded from Superwoman called "A geography class for racist people", it started from a YouTube comment with no likes and no profile picture insulting her, and was shared frequently.
As for my examples I figured that examples of characters that stood the test of time would be helpful. These heroines are not just viewed through a nostalgia filter, I can watch a movie and say it aged well, or that it aged terribly. But never really the characters. Glossing over thirty years rather than the past five, that might be a fine statement. The modern issue comes from what gets greenlight now, and why. Or, who gets told what they can't promote and why not.
Films and television need money, money comes from investors, and investors aren't always experts in what they need to invest in, so they check what gets engagements or online revenue. It feeds into a 'no bad news' mentality, so admittedly complaints about SJW content is part of the problem. Yet, if there is one Creator and two comments, there will always be more especially when the different mediums of Instagram and Facebook get added. Why wouldn't they play up "Women power" at this point, even if the writing suffers? Even if the promotional reviews suffer? They can still show investors a high potential value.
And the complaints then come in not just because previously good characters suck, but because new characters that don't toe the line of class before individual suffer, new role or not. Plenty of articles complained about Alita and called the movie a failure, as well as designating MRA and Alt Right associations for people just liking a movie. Compared to the GiTS live action and the rotten tomatoes audience scores, there is plenty of room to argue against both failure and unfair association. In fact, GiTS is a good example of a strong female lead, just not as a good movie.
Creators suffer too. Larry Correia, Author of Monster Hunter International, and how he was disinvited from Origin without justification. Like any writer, he has his critics and critics of his opinions.He has influence and may direct his opinions, but it never included racism, never impeded on others rights to free association, and never directed a change in overall social class against justice. So not in conflict with SJW, but conflict was found with him.
havent seen that trailer, however its telling that most of your "no outcry" examples came before the whole PC/anti PC crying. thus part of my argument that if terminator or a new hope came out today, leia and Sarah connor would be considered "part of the agenda".
however, the main point of this argument isnt who is right or wrong, but how much they cry about it.
I remember a controversy from #bandragonball. the stupid Twitter account had single digit followings and massive amount of comments all calling her dumb, which she was. but this nobody that nobody agreed with generated tons of anti SJW videos with thousands of views each. this isnt a liberal agenda, just 1 dumb troll. meanwhile the antiSJW crowd made up a large crowd of crybabies crying about "fighting for something when they are not".
1 dumb troll with 12 followers isnt an SJW agenda. it's just 1 dumb troll. noone would have even heard of her stupidity if these videos didnt give her the audience.
SJW wine more then anyone in the universe. They pretend they are fighting for something when not.
I think some definitions need to be made.
For SJW, as you said it can apply to a broad sense of Justice.
In terms of complaining about strong women, I think you've made a different point. People didn't complain about Alien, Terminator, Alita, She-Ra, Xena, Buffy... But they did complain in other cases. If your point about strong women and minorities (if that is fair to add) is that it subverts generic pasty white men, and your point also includes past, well received characters... isn't it possible that the complaint isn't the characters ethnicity, but lack of actual character?
What I mean by lack of character is that the character is meant to embody or hold a class to itself and through actions lift or push certain groups towards equality- perhaps without the proper development. Take for example, the new Batwoman trailer for CW, where she is a gay woman who takes up Batman's role to find her missing lover. Motivation? Sure, but there are plenty of points that gloss over self to point towards a class, and plenty of ways that play that as a static point to her trouble rather than any character dynamic.
Let's check dialogue to see how this plays into group rather than group membership. Compare the actual dialogue to what one could expect-
"The Batsuit is perfection."
"It will be when it fits a woman."
"It will be when it fits me."
of course, there are tons of sjws here. every frequent poster with a social goal is a warrior for their sense of social justice... or a troll having fun.
however a majority of it seems to be right wing SJWs crying about nonsense. example, any movie that happens to have a female, minority, or non generic white joe character as part of an agenda.
if anyone is whiny and easily offended, its these right wing snowflakes.
Name one logical SJW.
Disagee, I see SJW's everywhere on Twitter, Instagram, you name it. Here.
just getting tired of my youtube feed being full of whining about SJWs every time a new movie or game comes out.
as if there was never any examples of strong women in movies before the "liberal agenda" (Leia in star wars, sarah connor in terminator).
it's like these alt right nitwits want only white Male characters everywhere.... or else. identity politics, and victim culture whinning are clearly far stronger on the right in any objective measure.
Being they're the easiest group to attack due to the amount of blatantly stupid people they attract.
makes you wonder which side is the one with the victim culture