mcity: (Default)
Social Justice Sally: I don't like this attempted rape scene in the new Tomb Raider game! It's excessive!
Me: How do you define "excessive"?
Sally: It's being used as a cheap plot hook!
Me: It's being framed by the developer as a critical plot point in Lara's character development. In fact, he also said that if she doesn't kill her assailant, she dies. So the scene isn't so much about "Lara's almost-rape" as it is about "Lara's almost-rape and murder" as it is about "Lara killing for the first time when faced with mortal peril."
Sally: So?
Me: Aside from the usual assumption that everything involving sexual assault is necessarily about a man sexually assault, don't you Sallies often say that rape isn't depicted enough in the media?
Sally: We don't complain about rape being depicted, we complain about rape being depicted the wrong way.
Me: Do you?
Sally: Yes. Because they're only doing this to create cheap drama.
Me: *facepalm* Okay. Oookay. How would you do better?
Sally: They don't need to show the rape. They could just show Lara after the event, and imply what happened, maybe have the player find clues. This would make for a stronger narrative and a gritter, more hardcore Lara.
Me: So you think the game better is if a woman is almost raped offscreen, kills her attacker in self-defense offscreen, and then no one ever explicitly says anything about it for the duration of the game. You want a sexual assault reduced to a series of collectable plot coupons.
Sally: Yes. They could also use other tropes than sexual assault.
Me: So you want the game to either never explicitly depict or acknowledge sexual assault, or to not have it at all.
Sally: Yes.
Me: And this makes sense to you?
mcity: (Default)
There was a post on Tumblr about how opposing gay marriage = homophobia.

The logic ran that since people who opposed gay marriage wanted to deny gay people of their rights, that meant they hated gays.

Of course, by that logic, the officer who arrests a suspect, depriving them of their freedom, must also hate the suspect, right? How about banning smoking? What about tresspassing?

But all of those things are illegal, you say?

Not exactly; an officer does not need to have a guilty suspect to arrest them, just probable cause. The original premise did not say it was okay to deny people their rights when it was legal, only that wanting to do so necessarily indicates that one is doing so out of hate.

Not to mention the sheer tautology of the idea; people who oppose gay marriage must hate gays, or else they wouldn't oppose gay marriage. Most of the arguments I've heard in favor of gay marriage aren't actually very logical; they mostly consist of declaring the opposition bigots and homophobes. For some reason, such arguments aren't convincing to the people on the other side.

I have heard that gay marriages will stimulate the economy, and it occurs to me that so wserill gay divorces. Think about medical insurance; premiums spiked rapidly once the lawyers got involved.

In the interests of fairness, the idea that "traditional" marriage is inherently "better" is just as flawed. In fact, Appeal to Tradition is a recognized fallacy. Ultimately, both sides' positions are almost entirely subjective.
mcity: (Default)
There is no good reason to upload your photos as PNGs.

They are 12 MB, for crying out loud, when a comparable JPG would probably be less than one. There is no good reason to waste everyone's bandwidth like that.

mcity: (Default)

Feminist: We are under no obligation to talk about issues that disproportionately affect men.

Someone: So you don’t care about the fact that including prison rape puts the rape victim numbers for both genders in the US at roughly equal?

Feminists: Stop trying to derail and make it all about the menz!

News: Turns out Jerry Sandusky raped a bunch of boys and Penn State officials concealed it for years.

Feminists: This is horrible!

Someone: Wait, you won’t discuss prison rape, but you will discuss this? You are aware that blogs about prejudice and discrimination against men have been talking about this sort of thing and this in particular for a long time?

Feminists: Uh…

Someone: Which would mean that you somehow think that discussing men’s rights issues only becomes “feminism” when you feel like it -

Feminists: It’s relevant to us because Patriarchy. And Rape Culture.

Someone: -or it means that you’re trying to make a case about men and boys “all about the girlz”.

Feminists: PatriarchyRapeCulturePatriarchyRapeCulturePatriarchyRapeCult

mcity: (Default)
You don't just get to "consider" your boyfriend your husband. And no, it is not idolatrous to require government approval, any more than it would be idolatrous to get a driver's license. Render unto Ceasar, remember? The Bible says get married. You make some good points elsewhere, but put a ring on it. Or, heck, ask him. It's a brave new world! Girls can actually do that now!


Yes, I am aware that some people have different ideas of Christianity. I'm merely expressing my disagreement with one of those ideas. I'm not going to find the individual, kick their door down, and force them to get married at gunpoint. My lawyer said to stop that.
mcity: (Default)

b355 Stephanie Rogers
by ~u63r on deviantART

I’m not sure if this is inspired by Captain America, or supposed to be his grand-niece or something.

Whatever it is, I had intended to finish it for the 4th. WHERPS.

Compare and Contrast: Summergirl.
mcity: (nope.avi)
  • Cliquish structure.
  • Ideas that a "true X" has to hold.
  • Specialized language and terms that are completely opaque to non-initiates.
  • Special terms for dismissing outsiders.
  • Hostility toward outsiders unless they've "proved" themselves.
  • Reluctance to consider criticism, especially external.
  • Responding to criticism by attacking the critic instead of what they're saying.
  • Popular Big Names who few dare contradict.
  • Certain facts "everyone knows".
  • Double standards for people on the "inside" vs those on the "outside".
  • Tendency to put everyone in categories, and evaluate their statements based on the category they're perceived to be in.
  • Reactions to things are usually based on emotion instead of logic.
  • Insistence that people who disagree with one clearly cannot understand the subject.

Now, am I describing Social Justice, or a fandom?

For more, see the Geek Social Fallacies. These facts often apply to Social Justice in general, but Tumblr has a particularly intense form of it, since the mechanisms to spread information are the exact same ones one uses for fandom.

mcity: (Default)
Blah blah gripes aired blah
Blah blah feel like crap in every possible way blah
Blah literally my head is hurting blah
mcity: (Default)


And how much it sucks.

The first thing you'll notice is that the list of new trailers, which used to be above the fold, isn't anymore. In fact, it isn't even on the front page. The site's main feature now requires clicking on the "Videos" link.

But wait, there's more!

The "HD" and "SD" links are completely gone. The site now autoselects based on conection speed. There is no way I can find to select what quality one actually wants to watch at, a feature that is more or less standard for every video website.

Another feature that's standard? The buffering bar. There is no way to tell how much your video has loaded. This isn't new to this design, mind you. They added this the last time they tweaked, something like three or four years back, and despite numerous user complaints, still haven't fixed it. A feature that is standard on any video site right behind "play video" and "volume controls" was removed, and they didn't think to add it back in. This is a feature bleeping JWPlayer, the most bare-bones Flash video player I've seen, still has.


What else? Well, when you do actually get to the Videos, and you hit Next or Back, you get returned to the top of the page. This wouldn't be so bad if the stupid Features spot, as you see above, didn't take up the entire page above the "fold", to use the newspaper term. On the old site, clicking those buttons sent you to the top of the list. Where there were also Next and Back buttons, IIRC. Now, you have to scroll all the way to the bottom again if you misclick. I refuse to believe that mobile browsers can't use the #ID attribute.

Bottom line: the new hotness is actually worst than the old and busted in every single aspect, including the way it tries to be more mobile-friendly. In one of the few ways it isn't, it's just as old and busted as the old and busted.

mcity: (Default)
I've also discovered a story series-with spinoffs-on the same Very Specific website as my previous post. Basically, there's a virus that changes people based on their whims, depending on what they are thinking when they come into contact with it, or their desire for an ideal body, or both. Strangely, all of their desires seem to fall into the same general area. Since it's the main subject of this Very Specific website, the most common, by far, is breast enlargement. Apparently a lot of people want breasts the size of a city block. Also, a woman gets a vagina for a mouth because she likes oral.

I'll give you a moment.

It's all so bleh. Yes, big dicks, extra breasts, a vajayjay where your face would be, the occasional hermaphrodite, but where's the variety? Sure, their was that one guy who basically became a pheremone-spewing Adonis, but he was the exception. Someone who apparently got an expansion fetish from watching Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and others were mentioned in the background.

Where are the furries? Where are the latex-clad kinksters? The size queens and leather daddies? Where's /d/? Why does everyone seem to have the same general set of fetishes? Why don't we hear about a grown man who turns into a little girl? Or a rapist who turns into an invisible nigh stalker with a dozen tentacles, each tipped with a blade? What about someone with a scat or watersports fetish?

And given that this virus is incredibly dangerous, why aren't people who have it quarantined? I mean, wouldn't there be a high risk of the people giving themselves block-sized boobs or turning themselves into giants accidentally killing someone?

Personally, the only real alterations I'd want is to get rid of the cyst on my wrist, immunity to wrist strain injury-I spend far too much time on the computer-and the ability to control the length of my body hair, including the ability to make it all fall out. I'd save a bundle on shaving crap. Of course, given that these wishes are invariably granted in the most sexual way possible, I'd probably end up with tentacles instead of hands, and my skin would turn to plastic or latex or something, like a doll. Which would make frying anything much riskier.

Come to think, what happens if a child is somehow infected?

Yes, I know I'm taking it far too seriously, thank you. IT'S KINDA MY THING
mcity: (Default)
Your Generic Male Protagonist's house is being fumigated. He decides this means he has to take the cat to work with him.

His work at the highly restricted chemical lab which doesn't allow pets.

He must've known that his house was going to be fumigated for an extended period, yet there are no nearby kennels, and he has no real friends. Except, of course, for his friend and co-worker, who has two cats of her own.

Why doesn't he ask her? He's shy.

So he puts the cat in the utility closet, and she's accidentally released when GMP's boss comes looking for him with a pink slip. That's reasonable. What is somewhat let reasonable is that the cat is able to see multiple people, none of which notice the orange cat hanging around, and then the cat manages to knock over several dangerous chemicals and start a major fire.

GMP rushes to see to it, and not only does the lab not have any sort of fire procedure or tools or exit, the nearest fire extinguisher outside the room is in a sealed glass box that has no way to open it. Our zero has to punch the glass case open. It's not even safety glass, and he cuts himself. And what does he need it for? To crack the glass door to the lab, of course, because if there's some kind of button for exiting in the event of an emergency, it's not working. At all.

Right, that's my suspension of disbelief utterly wrecked, and at about three pages in. Good job.
mcity: (Default)
I made a post recently about a Shortpacked comic. It got reblogged. I have not and will not click on the link to the post in question but it seems to start

1. Oh sure, ridiculing a woman for having internalized misogyny isn’t...

I'm noticing a remarkable amount fail just in this one sentence fragment alone.

1. Possible ad hominem against me, before actually addressing the argument.
2. "Internalized misogyny" is the idea that misogynistic attitudes women express are not theirs, that they are somehow forced on them by The Patriarchy (IE: men). This is a curious double standard; men are personally held responsible  for their misogyny, but not women? If I, as a man, knowingly or unknowingly perpetuate misogyny, it's My Fault, but when women, especially feminists, do it, it's Mens' Fault? Including the men who have done nothing to perpetuate whatever it is?
2b. So it's okay for a man or women to mock a man or men for what s/he believes is misogyny, often to very harsh degrees. But when I or someone else merely criticize--not mock--a woman's prejudice, it suddenly becomes "internalized misogyny", and wrong to do so. This is the textbook definition of goalpost moving and special pleading. The idea that "misogyny" is Something Only Men Do is just plain wrong.
2c. Aren't social justice folks the ones always going "own your [poop]"? Except when it comes to addressing their own prejudices, apparently.
2d. "Internalized misogyny" means effectively nothing. It means one has misogynistic views. Expressing those views would simply be "externalized misogyny". Both are subsets of misogyny, not something different from it. Think Earl Grey vs. Oolong, or leaves vs teabags, not soy vs meat.

I think you can see why I'm not bothering to click the link. I have no doubt that I'm being accused of "mansplaining" or equivalent for criticizing the comic and social justice on my own tumblog.
mcity: (Default)
Fic thanks its beta readers.
Latest chapter has about a dozen grammar errors that would've been noticed by any reasonably-alert seventh-grader, including basic tense usage.
mcity: (Default)
Public: Why don't you make a movie with a female lead character?
Pixar: What about Monsters Inc?
Public: She couldn't even really talk.
Dory: Finding Nemo?
Public: Dory shared the spotlight with Nemo and his dad.
Pixar: So being a co-protagonist doesn't count?
Public: Nope.
Pixar: But most of our movies have multiple leads.
Public: So?
Pixar: Fine. This is Merida, starring in Brave. She's a feisty, independent ginger Scottish princess.
Public: Ugh, why'd you make a bog-standard Disney princess?
Pixar: Excuse me?
Public: We wanted something original!
Pixar: Uh...
Public: And why are you making such a big deal about her being a girl?
mcity: (Default)

An interesting video about the difference between objectification of men and women, double standards thereof, and the social pressures behind them. Here are the articles she refers to and links in the description.

Am I Sexist? - Common Sense Atheism

Why Shameless Objectification Can Be A Good Thing - Jezebel

Why men can't - and shouldn't - stop staring at women - Ian Brown for The Globe and Mail


Jun. 10th, 2012 06:07 am
mcity: (Default)
I was disproportionately excited by stumbling upon some frozen chicken I forgot I had in my freezer. Like finding a hidden Christmas present with my name on it in April. "Yay! Chicken!"
mcity: (Default)
Guy shoots someone in a state with Stand Your Ground; it's because guns are evil, and Stand Your Ground laws are evil, and every politician who voted for them is directly responsible for the murder this guy committed because he thinks such laws will cover him, and America has a gun problem that directly caused this incident, not the actions of a single man.

I am not paraphrasing. This is literally what tumblr is saying.

This is pretty much the equivalent of complaining about violent video games because of Columbine. It's taking an isolated incident, and using it to generalize about literally every single gun owner in America. That's something like 40 million people for handguns alone, yet only a small percentage of gun owners use them to commit crimes. If I started generalizing about black people based on black crime, everyone would justifiably rip my head off, but it's suddenly okay to do so when gun ownership comes up. And this is coming from a pacifist guy who doesn't live in America, never has, doesn't own a gun, and probably never will, barring the unlikely event of a zombie apocalypse.
mcity: (Default)
Harry Dresden of the Dresden Files is more protective of women, which he acknowledges as chauvinism, because of his mommy issues and being raised for ten years by a psychopath who manipulated his sexuality to his own ends. This is all Jim Butcher's fault.

Dresden exclusively prefers committed relationships, completely shuts down his attractive teenaged (and legal) apprentice who offers to sleep with him before he is willing to take her on, and his main female love interest would like only sex. Not a peep.

This is almost exactly the same as how people talk about Supernatural as if the main character's messed-upedness is not mentioned at literally every opportunity, by everyone.

October 2012

  12 3456
21 2223242526 27


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 17th, 2017 08:25 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios