Is it? I’ve never seen this before and seen lots of this artist’s comics posted here. It does seem it’s just as much one side as it is the other though.
Also I understand the concept of fear mongering veiled bigotry. That doesn’t even remotely appear to be what is happening here and, not to be overly pearl clutch-y, but as somebody with intimate knowledge of this history I honestly find the comparison to the civil rights era insulting. People expressing their dislike of an artist with questionable behavior on the internet is not the same thing as politicians in the real world using fear tactics as a fig leaf for their racist goals of preventing black people from fully integrating into american society.
I understand you mean well but this doesn’t really answer for me why the defensiveness is so over the top.
Does your intimate knowledge of the civil rights era include how people use issues in euphemism to lie about what actually motivates them? You know, the whole reason I even brought up that example.
I’ve never seen this before
That doesn’t even remotely appear to be what is happening here
Okay, realize for a moment that the fig leaf strategy is specifically meant to capture people like you. I know it doesn’t seem that way; that’s the point of them hiding their intent. I’m not critiquing their points, I’m asking why they’re spending so much energy on this. I’ve seen lots of comics I don’t like. I scroll past them.
Here’s a question: Gamergate. Was Anita Sarkeesian really that bad a journalist? Or did people hyper-fixate on her shortcomings for months longer than necessary as a way of damaging the reputations of her and feminism broadly?
You and I both know now, today, that gamergate was bullshit. But did people—maybe you’re very special, but I don’t mean you, I mean people—know back then that “ethics in games journalism” is not really what those people were upset about? Because I don’t know if you remember, but gamergate was pretty popular for a while.
this doesn’t really answer for me why the defensiveness is so over the top
I think they’re attacking a woman they don’t like. That’s in the subtext of my other comment.
Uh, they spent the small amount of energy it takes to leave a few comments on the internet because the same painfully unfunny comic strip keeps coming up in their feed and they don’t understand where the popularity comes from? That’s why I’m here at least. Lemmy is still relatively small, I don’t get that many posts to interact with. If it’s so much energy to spend, then I’m fundamentally asking the same question as you. Why are these people spending so much of their energy defending her?
I don’t see why it has to be anything more than that and I really don’t appreciate the condescension, to suggest that I’ve fallen for some rhetorical manipulation that you think you’re somehow immune from. Yes, I was also here on the internet when those things were happening. It’s not that I don’t understand it, it’s that this is not that. There are legitimate reasons to dislike this person and their comics.
Do you really think that being annoying like this; suggesting that any and all criticism towards any woman on the internet simply must be based on her gender; is going to dispel negative attention from actual sexists? Do you really think that you aren’t gonna get a lot of false positives, from people simply expressing their legitimate criticisms on a platform specifically made for the purpose, and push those people away from whatever your message is by presuming to know what they are thinking and aggressively using that to condescend to them and dismiss anything they have to say?
Also yes, it was very obvious even to the least politically engaged person that gamergate was about sexism. Yes, even as it was happening. That’s like the whole reason people took part in it. They knew what they were doing just as well as the people calling them on it and were pretty open about their sexism. They weren’t career politicians trying to pander to a racist base without sparking major backlash, so they could quietly pass laws to prevent integration; they were gamers having their little boys club on the internet, being flagrantly sexist and bad faith. What even is this line of reasoning??
If you like this person as an artist and identify with the comic you can just say that and engage normally, if you don’t then why would you go out of your way to defend them and suggest that their gender has anything to do with it? You don’t have to keep explaining the same point, I know what you’re saying and I disagree.
suggesting that any and all criticism towards any woman on the internet simply must be based on her gender
I haven’t said that. In fact, I specifically said “I wasn’t critiquing their points.”
I have to think you’re being deliberately obtuse. This is actually why I’m being condescending: I don’t think you’re an ally. You are, in your own way, doing the rhetorical ducking and weaving that I’m pointing out.
For example, did I say that gamergate participants were career politicians? Do you think I think they had the ability to pass laws?
then I’m fundamentally asking the same question as you. Why are these people spending so much of their energy defending her?
Uh. Sexism is bad, I think. I believe I’ve been told that.
If you disagree that sexism is happening, then okay. This still answers your question. What more is there for me to do here? Would you like me to give this answer a 4th time?
suggesting that any and all criticism towards any woman on the internet simply must be based on her gender
I haven’t said that.
Do you know what the term “suggest” means? Have you witnessed the other people in this thread whose behavior you are trying to explain? Did you not literally follow that up by saying “I don’t think you’re an ally”? An ally with whom? What am I then?
did I say that gamergate participants were career politicians? Do you think I think they had the ability to pass laws?
You made the comparison to the rhetoric about forced bussing in the civil rights era??? I said it was an insulting comparison, then you doubled down, and now here you are agreeing that it’s a bad comparison because you think I made it.
Uh. Sexism is bad, I think.
Somebody should award you a nobel peace prize. That doesn’t explain why people are defending this particular artist so fervently or any significant events that would qualify as a “quick overview of the situation”?
Lol. Lmao even. And I’m the one being “deliberately obtuse”. Holy fuck you’re annoying, your arguments are bad, and the fact you avoid the actual argument; where one might actually prove sexism, rather than make a bunch of paranoid conjecture about people engaging in the age old tradition of gossip; is not a point in your favor. You have not “earned” the right to condescend, nor to decide who is and is not an ally. This isn’t even what I was asking about in the first place and you’re really only proving my point. Go away.
Do I not understand or am I being deliberately obtuse? Get your story straight.
In that case though thanks for proving my point. Allow me to edit my reply.
did I say that gamergate participants were career politicians? Do you think I think they had the ability to pass laws?
Yes, you did, you compared this issue to the civil rights era, and then you went on to compare it to gamergate, as if all things were equal between them. Welcome to the transitive property! Or are you now saying that this situation is not comparable to gamergate? Hey look, I can be condescending too! Know why? Well cause, I don’t think you’re an ally >:(
I was using that example to demonstrate why the comparison was insulting, because, as we both agree, internet critics are in fact not politicians. Taking normal people criticising someone, whose internet presence thoroughly warrants criticism; and comparing that to a fight against the American ruling class, to win human rights for a group of people whose humanity is absolutely not up for critique or questioning; shows you don’t give a fuck about civil rights beyond the era’s ability to serve you in an argument. The fact you’re still doubling down on it is very telling.
I’m not being obtuse, I’m very openly refusing to entertain your argument because it trivializes a serious issue that is deeply important to me. This is the most stunning display of dunning-kreuger I have ever witnessed. Nice alt btw. Pretentious ass bad faith radlib. Ick.
Is it? I’ve never seen this before and seen lots of this artist’s comics posted here. It does seem it’s just as much one side as it is the other though.
Also I understand the concept of
fear mongeringveiled bigotry. That doesn’t even remotely appear to be what is happening here and, not to be overly pearl clutch-y, but as somebody with intimate knowledge of this history I honestly find the comparison to the civil rights era insulting. People expressing their dislike of an artist with questionable behavior on the internet is not the same thing as politicians in the real world using fear tactics as a fig leaf for their racist goals of preventing black people from fully integrating into american society.I understand you mean well but this doesn’t really answer for me why the defensiveness is so over the top.
Does your intimate knowledge of the civil rights era include how people use issues in euphemism to lie about what actually motivates them? You know, the whole reason I even brought up that example.
Okay, realize for a moment that the fig leaf strategy is specifically meant to capture people like you. I know it doesn’t seem that way; that’s the point of them hiding their intent. I’m not critiquing their points, I’m asking why they’re spending so much energy on this. I’ve seen lots of comics I don’t like. I scroll past them.
Here’s a question: Gamergate. Was Anita Sarkeesian really that bad a journalist? Or did people hyper-fixate on her shortcomings for months longer than necessary as a way of damaging the reputations of her and feminism broadly?
You and I both know now, today, that gamergate was bullshit. But did people—maybe you’re very special, but I don’t mean you, I mean people—know back then that “ethics in games journalism” is not really what those people were upset about? Because I don’t know if you remember, but gamergate was pretty popular for a while.
I think they’re attacking a woman they don’t like. That’s in the subtext of my other comment.
Uh, they spent the small amount of energy it takes to leave a few comments on the internet because the same painfully unfunny comic strip keeps coming up in their feed and they don’t understand where the popularity comes from? That’s why I’m here at least. Lemmy is still relatively small, I don’t get that many posts to interact with. If it’s so much energy to spend, then I’m fundamentally asking the same question as you. Why are these people spending so much of their energy defending her?
I don’t see why it has to be anything more than that and I really don’t appreciate the condescension, to suggest that I’ve fallen for some rhetorical manipulation that you think you’re somehow immune from. Yes, I was also here on the internet when those things were happening. It’s not that I don’t understand it, it’s that this is not that. There are legitimate reasons to dislike this person and their comics.
Do you really think that being annoying like this; suggesting that any and all criticism towards any woman on the internet simply must be based on her gender; is going to dispel negative attention from actual sexists? Do you really think that you aren’t gonna get a lot of false positives, from people simply expressing their legitimate criticisms on a platform specifically made for the purpose, and push those people away from whatever your message is by presuming to know what they are thinking and aggressively using that to condescend to them and dismiss anything they have to say?
Also yes, it was very obvious even to the least politically engaged person that gamergate was about sexism. Yes, even as it was happening. That’s like the whole reason people took part in it. They knew what they were doing just as well as the people calling them on it and were pretty open about their sexism. They weren’t career politicians trying to pander to a racist base without sparking major backlash, so they could quietly pass laws to prevent integration; they were gamers having their little boys club on the internet, being flagrantly sexist and bad faith. What even is this line of reasoning??
If you like this person as an artist and identify with the comic you can just say that and engage normally, if you don’t then why would you go out of your way to defend them and suggest that their gender has anything to do with it? You don’t have to keep explaining the same point, I know what you’re saying and I disagree.
I haven’t said that. In fact, I specifically said “I wasn’t critiquing their points.”
I have to think you’re being deliberately obtuse. This is actually why I’m being condescending: I don’t think you’re an ally. You are, in your own way, doing the rhetorical ducking and weaving that I’m pointing out.
For example, did I say that gamergate participants were career politicians? Do you think I think they had the ability to pass laws?
Uh. Sexism is bad, I think. I believe I’ve been told that.
If you disagree that sexism is happening, then okay. This still answers your question. What more is there for me to do here? Would you like me to give this answer a 4th time?
Do you know what the term “suggest” means? Have you witnessed the other people in this thread whose behavior you are trying to explain? Did you not literally follow that up by saying “I don’t think you’re an ally”? An ally with whom? What am I then?
You made the comparison to the rhetoric about forced bussing in the civil rights era??? I said it was an insulting comparison, then you doubled down, and now here you are agreeing that it’s a bad comparison because you think I made it.
Somebody should award you a nobel peace prize. That doesn’t explain why people are defending this particular artist so fervently or any significant events that would qualify as a “quick overview of the situation”?
Lol. Lmao even. And I’m the one being “deliberately obtuse”. Holy fuck you’re annoying, your arguments are bad, and the fact you avoid the actual argument; where one might actually prove sexism, rather than make a bunch of paranoid conjecture about people engaging in the age old tradition of gossip; is not a point in your favor. You have not “earned” the right to condescend, nor to decide who is and is not an ally. This isn’t even what I was asking about in the first place and you’re really only proving my point. Go away.
No, I think it’s a good comparison. You just don’t understand why I’m making it.
Again, deliberately obtuse.
Do I not understand or am I being deliberately obtuse? Get your story straight.
In that case though thanks for proving my point. Allow me to edit my reply.
Yes, you did, you compared this issue to the civil rights era, and then you went on to compare it to gamergate, as if all things were equal between them. Welcome to the transitive property! Or are you now saying that this situation is not comparable to gamergate? Hey look, I can be condescending too! Know why? Well cause, I don’t think you’re an ally >:(
I was using that example to demonstrate why the comparison was insulting, because, as we both agree, internet critics are in fact not politicians. Taking normal people criticising someone, whose internet presence thoroughly warrants criticism; and comparing that to a fight against the American ruling class, to win human rights for a group of people whose humanity is absolutely not up for critique or questioning; shows you don’t give a fuck about civil rights beyond the era’s ability to serve you in an argument. The fact you’re still doubling down on it is very telling.
I’m not being obtuse, I’m very openly refusing to entertain your argument because it trivializes a serious issue that is deeply important to me. This is the most stunning display of dunning-kreuger I have ever witnessed. Nice alt btw. Pretentious ass bad faith radlib. Ick.