Kuro's anti-PC thread (warning: you will probably hate what you read)

[Dkonen]

Oh I understand a lot of people are ignorant and I do give them a chance. In fact, some times I give them too many. It's a failing, I hate giving up on people.

And yes, you can hate someone's actions without hating the person. That kind of hate is fast, flashes and burns out as soon as the situation is over. I used to think my hate glands were broken, but they're just really really hard to activate on a person and it takes a long time and a lot of crap to make me actually hate them. I've only ever singled one person out for that, and it did fade over time, but it took years.

It was a lot easier to stand up knowing that it was the action I disliked so much than the person. It's something I've wondered if it's really that common. I don't know many people who understand the idea of hating an action rather than a person. It's actually the core of my love/hate relationship with humanity. I love people, but I really hate some of the things they insist on doing. Sometimes repeatedly. Truth be told I've always seperated action from being. May be a compartmentalization thing from growing up in a hostile environment, I'm not sure.

When I'm talking about bigots to hate, it's people who are bigots knowingly. People who know what they're doing and saying is wrong but do it anyways. I mentioned previously that my mother would be in Westboro if she was in the US? Well I hate that. She knows better, but she keeps mouthing these awful bigotted statements. When I was growing up she actually told me she wouldn't care if I was a lesbian (so very not my thing), but now she condemns all non hetero openly, yet giggles about how much fun Gay men are. Yet she doesn't see what the problem is. She talks about "hate the sinner, not the sin", but she has yet to actually realize there's nothing about hating homosexuals, lesbians, trans or any other stripe in the bible (yes I've read it). She follows because..honestly I don't know why she does. She left our last church because they legitimized gay marriage. I can only think she's bigotted because she chooses to be, because it makes her feel superior. Those kind of people I have no patience for. They know they're doing wrong, but they cling to it desperately because they refuse to admit it stems from their own problems.

I also don't particularly enjoy people who refute responsibility for their actions, and refuse to admit that consequences should apply to them. It gets under my skin and makes me twitchy and irritable. I can get pretty nasty when someone continues to expect such things.

"Normal" isn't..you are right there, but there is a standard of behaviour strata. Certain outliers are fine, others desperately need help or therapy. I seem to remember that there was a neurological study (remembered this last night) where they found that in about 10-20% (I can't remember the exact numbers it was a year or more ago) of bigots, there was actual brain damage in parts of their pre frontal. Probably similar to the kind of damage that causes violent dementia. I wish I could find the study and link it. Those people need help. They can't be held accountable for their actions, since their physiology will flout them, and I don't expect more than a very small handful would have the strength of will to fight against it. It takes a very strong person to overcome such handicaps-but-I can't see into their brain, so I'll assume that they are doing so by choice (since that's the majority) until informed otherwise. The only way to remove bigotry is to stand up against it and let others know it will not be tolerated and it's not acceptable behaviour. It's a form of education for the ignorant. Such is why the media acts as it does.

When I talk about hating bigots, I'm talking about the people who can't be reasoned with, who don't care that they're causing harm to others, people who know the facts but refuse them in order to keep their prejudices. I don't consider ignorants to be something to be angry about, unless they're choosing to. Yes, it's very much like being angry at an illiterate. Unfortunately treating them as such can be seen as patronizing, but I do the best I can.

I don't live in a country with your past, but I think throughout this thread you may have stumbled across the reason yourself. Being so shuttered and censored, it makes free speech still a touchy subject. You're still learning how to cope with it, how to handle it, and it's basically just growing pains. Don't worry about it. When the eighties hit and the huge upheaval against harassment and assault hit, these same issues came up. People "playing the card" to take advantage, people who weren't getting accused of it... Hell, it's still happening now. It take a people a long time to settle into do's and don'ts of new standards, it's akin to culture shock...it takes a while to figure it out, and there are some rough spots for a while, but it does settle down.

In general, use common sense. You can still call it "dead" without offending anyone... you don't have to refer to it as "permanently inconvenienced" (as per a Political Correctness memo that was read to us in our schools in the early 90s...seriously the list was *hilarious*)

[Jackinthegreen]

Regarding that last bit about "PC and death:"  During my CERT class (Community Emergency Response Team, one of the few good things President Bush put into play) the fireman teaching it specifically said "If you go up to someone and you're letting them know their family member or friend has died, you have to be up front.  You have to say 'your ______ has died' because saying it any other way will make it more difficult for them to accept it and move on.  Don't say 'your ______ has passed away" or anything like that.  That person has died, and there's no getting around that with 'political correctness.'"

I'll have to look and see if George Carlin had anything to say about "permanently inconvenienced."  Pretty sure like all the other PC stuff he'd call it bullshit.

[Kuroimaken]

Which reminds me. I really, really ought to check on the George Carlin Collection I saw around the other day.

"Leave it to the media" is a very, very dangerous proposition. The media is driven by money, same as everything else on a big enough scale. Can't exactly expect ethics from that kind of folk. They'll spew what makes them the most money, and let me tell you, charity leaves an awful small share for its marketing department...

[Dkonen]

Well...actually, there's a big deal right now about just how much "charities" spend on non charitable efforts(including advertising)...but that's another topic altogether.

I'll admit the small vindictive part of me encourages it simply because it makes it easier for me to socially sift through people. One of my key "nope" phrases is : So I saw X on TV/in a movie/in a book and it changed my life!!!"

Though more seriously, media is immersive, it seeps into the social consciousness over time. It's a very good tool for conditioning responses into a social group. We're a social species by nature and when enough people tell you the same thing repeatedly over years, it makes it hard for it not to ingrain itself in you. That's why you see things like an abundance of multicultural castings and explorations on topics like sexuality and gender roles.

Also keep in mind that social networking on a person to person level is also increasing with the era of the internet, which is why you see declarations against "whitewashing" casts now. People are learning to band together to talk, discuss and make their desires known. It works as a balancing factor against the control the media exerts, though of course there's some cross interactions.

No idea or pursuit will be perfect, there will always be problems, but your original complaint was about the abundance of multiculturalism and exploration of ethnicity, sex and religion. It's there to teach those who, unlike you, are still struggling with the idea that bigotry is wrong. It's trying to remove the stigma via familiarity and exposure. While you may find it tiresome, there are those who are just starting to realize this. It's not meant to relate to you, it's meant to cause a positive impact in our societies. That's why it's there.

I know it can be hard to sit through a class on something you've known from grade school, but we're all stuck together, and while some of us should be rushed past this, understand that not everyone gets it, and well, better that they do than we be spared a few hours of boredom. For lessening a stigma...I'll be a little bored.

Then again, I don't watch tv. I download seasons and watch at my leisure

[Kuroimaken]

Eh, part of my problem with social networking is that the loudest tend to be those who get listened to, and the wisest tend not to be very loud, since they know the value of silence under the right circunstances...

Now, I've studied some of how social communications work, and one thing I learned is that there is no such thing as an universal message. People tend to interpret things according to their worldviews and experiences. One man's message of peace and understanding is another man's OMFG DICTATORSHEEP.

Lobbyism is something that tends to fuck people over. Case in point, coming from my experience: Brazil's treatment of videogames. Back in the 80s, a single company was responsible for representing both Nintendo and Sega here. So they could jack their prices up as much as they wanted.

Understandably, imported consoles were cheaper because of this. Cue lobbyism to deliver MASSIVE taxation upon the industry from the outside in.

Said company is now broke, but the legislation remains. Combined with a basically neaderthalian understanding of the current industry and a lack of a stronger lobby in the country to reverse it (partially because piracy is rampant here, which happens both because of a certain mindset and because of the fucked-up import laws in the first place - and therefore why the bigger companies do not want to touch this hornet's nest with a ten-foot-pole), the result is that videogames are basically a luxury item here. So you understand my reservations on lobbyism; when it goes wrong, it goes belly-up FUBAR nuclear.

[Dkonen]

I understand your reservation about lobbyism as a whole, but when it's used to promote things like equality, I can't be terribly upset at the use.

And yes, some people will see it that way... at first. After about six years of it being *everywhere* they have two choices: move away from the message or absorb it. People who complain about "DICTATORSHEEP" aren't likely to have the fortitude of will to resist the message. In truth they'll only complain about it until it's no longer "edgy" to complain about it. People who use words like "dictatorsheep" aren't the brightest, nor do they have the will to be anything but blind followers of trends, fads and social popularity plays (amusing, no?).

People who do have a legitimate complaint usually are more coherent and constructive, it comes with critical thinking skills (I hesitate to say speaking clearly, since educated speech is not necessarily the mark of an intelligent person a "well I dunno it just seems that folks are makin' a big deal about nuthin' " is every bit as valid as "It's not a valid enough problem to demand the attention the populous is giving it."-a very basic example)

So I wouldn't worry about the folks who spew unadulterated catchphrases. Throw them something new and shiny to follow and it'll be fine. They're not people I would terribly concern myself over.

Those individuals who do have the strength of mind but were exposed to indoctrination will get the message and that is the target audience. Trend followers will do whatever the more independent minded folk around them decide on, so if you get one, you get them both.

The idea that in social media that it's the loudest that are heard... maybe directly. However, I'm talking about the rise of the quiet objection. People who tweet their real opinions to crowds of others, who blog and post on chat boards and discuss. While the loudest are the most distracting, those who tend to have a few shreds of common sense spread their ideas widely, are heard more by the general populace, and are repeated more often. Like the corporate network media, their ideas tend to seep in among the largest crowd. It doesn't matter if they say anything, but if suddenly sales or viewership drops by several percentage points, it's time to do research, and companies are starting to realize that the loudest voices often are...well...morons.

You don't have to scream to get your point across, you merely have to pick a point and not move. If enough people refuse to be moved, the companies around them will have to move to accomodate their potential customers. That is what I mean by social networking balancing media.

This is based on the idea in business that the worst thing that can possible destroy a customer base is the client who doesn't complain. On average they reiterate their negative experience to 67 other people per day (as opposed to 4 for positive experiences). Those people *destroy* clientele. Also it costs 80% more to attract new customers than to retain old ones, and regulars give a reliable income, as opposed to new clients which are often one hit wonders.

The internet has created a review machine. People post their thoughts and opinions and often people will search online for specific reviews before trying a new product. The online community does make a dent in the corporate mindset (especially since those who research products tend to pick several locations for reviews and compare before buying). A happy customer is you *best* investment, and the internet is making sure that they keep people happy, because if they don't *everyone* hears about it.

That's what I mean by checks and balances.

Yes, there are those who rant using chains of catchphrases mixed with conspiracy theories and textchat, but honestly, I don't think anyone really gives them any credit except their small circle of intimates... and even then, probably not. Unless there is an imbalance or other occuring mental/psychological problem, people tend to be fairly reasonable, and express at least a modicum of common sense when putting their own resources at risk (be it time or money).

I completely agree with your reservations about monopolies. We have laws in place here to prevent them (which don't work very well), and when all else fails.... (like with our news outlets-all but one owned by the same company) to the internet I go!

[Kuroimaken]

Do not underestimate the stubborness of the brainless, they have no standard to check against. Certain behaviors persist today because it was "all the rage" at a given point in time, and someone forgot to move on.

Also, guess what? Stupid people write reviews too. Sometimes of things they haven't even touched but unconditionally hate, because hate is really goddamn easy. They don't need a good reason either.

Here's a comparison. Back when Demon's Souls was launched, it was widely acclaimed as awesome, as it well should be. That game genuinely put forward something that hadn't been seen in years. When its spiritual successor, Dark Souls, showed up, it was roughly at the same time as Skyrim.

Now... I've played both. I really enjoyed other Bethesda games like Fallout 3 and New Vegas. (Couldn't care less for Oblivion.) While Skyrim is a good game... it is also bug-ridden, incredibly repetitive and tedious to me. I'm admittedly biased against first-person games (the whole "immersion by perspective" thing is bullshit to me), and Skyrim's gameplay felt like one more outta the shelves of same. Dark Souls, on the other hand, was the only game in 2012 that actually got me past the 100 hour mark (an almost unthinkable feats for most games of this generation, let me tell ya). It was THAT good to me.

Every now and then, I'd check the Gamefaqs boards for info. And sure enough, one of the top ten topics would be a Skyrim versus Dark Souls debate. Started by a Skyrim fan, claiming how much better Dark Souls was, as if lying out trollbait.

You sure didn't see the reverse in Skyrim forums.

Everyone knows the arrow to the knee and Fus Roh Dah. But only I seem to remember Sunlight Spear, Wrath of God and OMFG DAT PRISCILLA'S ASS.

[Dkonen]

But as you pointed out, these people are idiots.

You can recognize them. You know what they are.

I'm not referring to the people who refuse to admit the sky is blue when taken outside. Those folks likely have a mental condition. I'm talking about people without preexisting imbalances. People who merely grew up and were raised around certain types of bigotry.

People with mental conditions where they cannot and will not acknowledge that they may be wrong are actually quite a minority, and need help. They're not anywhere near the "average". I would hesitate to say they're even less than 2% of the world's population, and that's including remote indigenous tribes.   

We're not talking about the mentally ill...that's another discussion. And yes, if someone, faced with proof, time and time again, over a period of years refutes the truth, that's called "delusional behaviour" it's a mental illness.

As for reviews, I could read a thousand reviews, about 800 of them would be fine and the rest would be trolls. They're not meant to be taken seriously, they're pleas for attention. Part of being in the age of the internet is being able to distinguish them.

[Kuroimaken]

Unfortunately, the fact that they're idiots doesn't mean that they're mute.

As long as someone is willing to talk, someone else is going to be willing to listen. A very, VERY unfortunate fact when the one who talks doesn't know ZILCH what they're talking about.

Take me, for example. (Okay, I kid. Have to lighten the mood somehow. )

A feedback-based industry isn't always the best. As anyone who has worked customer service before will tell you, buyers are morons. A lot of techniques are used to make a given product "desirable" regardless of its actual greatness. Perhaps more to the point: feedback works upon the idea that the majority is always right. But that only works if everyone works with the same amount of qualitative information - otherwise the lowest common denominator wins. This is why we have so many goddamn shooters, casual games and shit nowadays - ever since the gaming world "opened up" to the "casual" crew, you added a whole lot of morons to the pool. But hey, the industry is making money hand over fist so who cares, right?

If one uses enough subtext, even the Third Reich sounds attractive.

[Dkonen]

However, idiots are marked with a big red subtextual sign that reads: "I am an IDIOT. Read this and be aware that I have *NO* idea what I'm talking about and am just wasting everyone's time. "

(hm misstyped as suctextual...sucktextual? Seems appropriate... half awake subconscious works well I see)

Feedback based industries aren't the best, but honestly, I do great in customer relations since I can filter out those who (a) are just having a bad day (b) aren't fully awake/aware (c) are just lonely and (d) are in a crappy life situation. I have actually been asked in previous jobs to stop letting customers recommend me, as it was making everyone else look bad (no joke!).

Most of customers being idiots involves the above. Most of *people* being idiots involves the above. It takes patience and good observational skills (auditory or visual) to figure it out, but you can figure it out if you take the time to learn, and it is worth it.

Fun fact: the latest psychological journals have found that video games tend to be excellent treatment of individuals with PTSD, in fact more so then medication and talk therapy (a big deal since PTSD is so very hard to treat). I wouldn't be surprised if video games as a whole are a great therapeutic tool.

And yes, more money to the gaming industry is good. Even if I dislike some games that are being produced, it means more people get exposed, more games get made, and it get explored fully as a medium allowing for new discoveries about the human psyche and our development. Even awful games give a positive impact to the industry by purely opening it up to a larger market who previously may not have even attempted such a thing. Poor games, bad games tend to die off rather quickly (see 4e-no not getting into it-wrong thread for that, but it makes a damned good example). I hate 4e, but..... it has added more people who are exposed to gaming. Which mean more people understand it and end up being less hostile towards it. Yup. I'm good with that. Just because it's not my taste (in so many ways) doesn't make it wrong.

Another example: I get massive migraines from certain strains of marijuana. That doesn't mean I'm against it used responsibly. It causes me grave discomfort but I am very pro legalization. Of all narcotics, not just marijuana. I don't relish throwing up and being confined to my bedroom with all the lights off, pressing a pillow into my right eye socket, but, it has many positive benefits that, while they don't help *me* any, they do help others a great deal.

I don't have to like it for it to have many good effects on society.

Yes, that even includes the most offensive of games, which you'll notice tend to die fast. They might trend or peak, but they slide off the charts or become an overblown joke (like GTA...I don't think anyone really thinks stealing cars and running people over is a great idea-once again-removing the mentally unstable from that)

Yes, the Third Reich can sound positive, and it did start out with good ideas (government mandated care for the mentally ill and the elderly, for example). A lot of people know this already, but despite it's "good ideas" those people *still* denounce it.

Subtext can only do so much, in the end, people will (generally) be able to make their own decisions.

Yes, media seeps in, but you'll notice what seeps in are generally constructive ideas, things that help a society stay healthy and vibrant. Things like racism and rape culture may be prevalent, but they are refuted by so many more. Eventually they too will dwindle and die.

When it gets down to it, subtextual "brain washing" only works on two things (a) things that help society and (b) things that don't matter-and even that doesn't last that long (advertising on products for example).

It's a survival instinct bred into us a social creatures. If we were easily swayed by the first idiot with and idea regardless of how bad the idea was, we'd have gone extinct long ago. Don't sell short people's ability to distinguish between utter stupidity and new, possibly constructive, ideas.

The only way subtext gets to be an issue is in academic journals and studies, but usually (with the exception of few really bad decisions on the part of the scientific community)they're contained within said community who knows how to analyze and digest the information given. They know that small sample sizes invalidate a study, that personal viewpoints and opinions cause bias, and that any study must be reviewed, replicated and justified before given credit. Letting those studies out among the uneducated populace before these things are accounted for is what causes problems, because they enter into an arena where the people exposed aren't equipped with the skills necessary to accept or decline. Even then, the majority still manages to see through poorly researched studies.

Yes, some people still believe vaccines cause autism. Those people are also now denounced as idiots, and the study has been widely debunked. At least two third who read the study without any prior scientific background discounted it immediately, even if they didn't know why. Even if all they could say was "well that doesn't sound right."

People are not so easily swayed as the "DICTATORSHEEP" sorts might think. They *are* swayed, that I do not disagree on, but in general it's not something that works like a magic wand. It has to be plausible and constructive before it really gets any momentum. We're not robots, and most people are actually quite intelligent, even if it's not immediately recognizable (personal belief brought in here that everyone is as intelligent as anyone else, just in different, possibly ignored areas, which is why we call some people "dumb", they're just not in their intellectual element-but that's another thread as well).

Regardless, I think it's just the two of us here now, back and forth and we've found out the "why" to your question a page or so ago. Why is the media inundating with multicultural/intersexed/varied sexual lifestyles/etc etc... because they're trying to reach those who didn't have the advantage of being exposed to it while maturing. To moderate and hopefully decimate what racism and bigotry still exists. It applies to enough that it still needs to be out there.

This is not to say I mind batting around ideas about society and consumer culture, but it's not really about that first post any more.

Then again- I'm weird, I *like* philosophical/sociaological chats/debates. I find them highly engaging and enjoyable.

[Kuroimaken]

Personally, I don't mind whether it's just the two of us chatting at this point, but I think my point of view is significantly more pessimistic than yours. Maybe the reality of my society just happens to be... too different.

For example. To your comment that "the really pervasive ideas are constructive and/or generally good", I present you with this.

(click to show/hide)

THIS is someone's idea of "modern culture" here in Brazil right now. THIS is supposed to be representative of one of the countries with the greatest rate of cultural mixtures in South America. THIS is being showcased as our "cultural export".

So I ask you: don't you think my despair at the idea of pandering to the lowest common denominator is a little justified?

As for your notion of how even bad videogames are actually doing some good, I will let this comic strip speak for me because, frankly, it summarizes the point better than I do.

(click to show/hide)

[Dkonen]

Planking. The phrase "ay caramba!" or "gnarly". Memes.

They're trends and fads. They happen and pass. It's people having senseless fun. It doesn't mean anything but people are playing around in life and enjoying it. How is this a societal problem? It's quite healthy and very encouraging.

Gamers complaining.

Older generations complaining. Younger generations complaining. Lawyers complaining. Dentists and teachers complaining. Who is or is not "real" who is or is not "fake". They're diversionary discussions that again, don't mean anything. They're a form of catharsis. Again, perfectly healthy and mostly harmless.

I fail to see how either of these are a sign of an unhealthy unpleasant society. Fads are typical, as are rants. People do both. Neither is a long term effect. Both are momentary expressions. Why are these bad again?

Poor taste in some cases, maybe, but hardly unpleasant enough to voice as a marker of the degradation of society.

edit: also-educating the ignorant is not pandering to the lowest denominator. That would be allowing them to continue and even encouraging them. Pandering is the equivalent to prostituting. Last I heard one doesn't hire a prostitute to teach them what they're doing wrong in life (well unless you're into that kind of thing).

Also some*one*s idea. Not brazilians, not americans, not a group, but an individual. Specific does not trump general in real life.

[Kuroimaken]

Not really the same thing. What I just demonstrated is masses versus minority, wherein the 'minority' is composed of people who have any idea what the fuck they're talking about.

Do trends and fads pass? Oh, absolutely. And then they're replaced by WORSE. Stupidity and creativity (or at least reinvention) are not mutually exclusive. People see Rio? They think "hookers and blow". Not "birthplace of some of the most beautiful songs in Brazillian history". People look at the Brazillian Northeast, they either think "famine and drought" or "beaches, beaches everywhere". They don't think "home to one of the greatest romancists to have lived in this country".

I have seen and heard multiple efforts to educate the masses via the media. Most of them lacked any real content or anything good to say. Many of them do not think for themselves. They miss the real point of the message at the end of the day. Or worse - they go out of their way to turn in the opposite direction and make people DUMBER, panem et circensis style.

I simply do not have the faith you seem to place in using instruments of mass communication to educate people with a clue hammer. Mostly because the way I see it? The people wielding that tool don't really fucking care. They care about what will make them money in the end.

Let's try this from another angle: it's been like what, ten years since people started going down this path? What have they really got to show for it?

Brazil elected its first female president. Nobody gave two shits, because what they CARED about is that she was supposed to be the successor to a guy whose underlings cheated, stole and bribed their way to the top while appealing to the masses by promising them money based on the number of children they had. Early in her career she went out of her way to display a willingness to fight corruption - and two weeks ago, a guy who was supposed to belong in jail was voted to remain in office despite standing charges against him, and not one wit from the "president" (whom insists in being called "presidentess", or basically its equivalent in Portuguese, in clear MURDER of her mother language).

Roughly a month and a half ago the whole goddamn country seized up in protest - pretty sure it made the news all the way there - and the government responded by sending out shock troops.

Half the population actually argued that the government was in the right and the protestors should be ganged up on and brutalized. The mass media portrayed the protestors as looters, vandals and hoodlums, deliberately averting any imagery of the police beating up unarmed civillians a dozen men apiece.

In light of that: can you look me in the metaphorical eye and honestly claim that what these people are doing is for anybody's good but their own? And can you say they're exclusive to where I live?

Can you say that it's the smart people leading the charge, and not the powerful dumbasses regurgitating forward whatever they heard from someone else that sounded smarter, or had a cleaner slate?

Because honestly, I don't see it. I don't think the world is that nice - hell, I don't think that many people could be brought up to genuinely care.

But I ain't got arms that can reach across the damn globe, I can't teach that many people.

At best, I can teach my kids, and move on. And hope the message sticks.

[Kajhera]

(Stopped talking, but I'm still listening. And learning.)

[Kuroimaken]

(That I'm deep down a realistical pessimist?  )

[Dkonen]

Actually I was referring to a much bigger picture than what you seem to. I'm not looking at yesterday, or last week. I'm looking at what's happened in the last ten years and may continue to happen in the ten years to follow.

And it's a shame about Rio, because I, personally always think about art and the vibrance of the culture. When I was very young I heard about it and desperately wanted to go. I would still like to visit it.

Hun, you're not a pessimist you're just standing too close to the screen. Step back, take a breath and then take a long quiet look.

I know that there are those who make really foolish shows, and broadcast on stupid premises. Again... noone takes those seriously. They're over the top and obvious to point out that they're *not* meant to be taken seriously. People are playing, being entertained. It's not meaningful, it's idling time away in a fashion you find pleasant.

A number of self proclaimed "educational" shows also have their own ideas at the core. When I talk about the media educating people, I'm talking about the portrayal of minorities as equals to normalize them in society. To talk about controversial issues so that we know what they are and what the varied sides of the story are. They're opening it up and discussing it. Not direct educational programs but media and it's portrayals and discussions. And the media has changed for the better.

You don't have the one black guy who dies in the first ten minutes, and other than that the cast is all white and from the US. You have people from different countries, with different viewpoints...

I mean this thread wouldn't exist at *all*-since the first point was "why do the media portray so many minorities now???" *that* is the form of education I mean. Normalizing and discussion. Not telling people what to think, but giving them the tools to think about it coherently. Yes, I am encouraged by the fact your media finds it necessary to place minorities everywhere to the point where you find it bothersome. I find that very encouraging, since as you yourself pointed out, this was not the case previously.

You're also back to specific incidents. A single incident does not define a society. It does not define it as good/bad/advanced/devolved. A society's development must be charted over decades before one can determine if it has advanced or not.

Saying "well..I had this glass of orange juice and it made me so sick I went to the hospital, therefore all orange juice is toxic" is not quite right.

I also don't know about the not caring about the female president. Did you ask a significant portion of the population and note their opinions? I know what it may *seem* like, but that's not adequate information to be making claims on.

I can look you in the eye. As long as I can say, "and like all people and societies there's always a few people who just don't care." I don't think the media does care, per se, but that they do have a certain social responsibility. I don't think they do it out of the goodness of their hearts, I was just talking about how much I liked the results.

Why would they help make constructive societies?

Profits. More productive, constructive and stable societies tend to spend more. In the case of media, they have more time to sit on their butt and watch tv/movies, which increases their viewership. And then there's the not worrying about being shelled/invaded/banned/shut down/ etc etc...  It's really in their own interests...as it is in ours.

If you think  my attributing positive outcomes to purely selfish actions is overtly naive, by all means, but I hesitate to add that being "pessimistic" isn't all the great. But that could be my hypervigilance kicking in 

[dman11235]

The problem with the portrayal isn't the quantity, it's the quality.  There were actually a lot of minorities depicted in earlier decades of media.  But do you really think that's normalizing to see stuff like this as a frequent entertainment option?*  My point is, it's normalizing them (minorities....or rather, different view points/people/whatever), but what they're being normalized to may not be so hot.  A good form of normalizing isn't just having people there.  It's having people there who are not different from everyone else because of what/who/where they are.  Look at hockey for a good example of how normalizing should go.  Rather than focusing on how good someone is "for a black man" or whatever, it's "look how good he is, it's awesome".  Ray Emery, P.K. Suban, and Johnny Odouya are like that.  I'd say every sport, but I honestly don't think the others are as open as hockey is.  I know football isn't.  Announcers use different words based on the ethnicity of players, especially QBs.  Then look at something like Glee where every character is a stereotype.  You get used to them as stereotypes rather than as people.

*and yes, I know a good portion are ads, but the point stands.  And if you want more examples, you can search for more articles on the subject there, I know there's a lot.

[Dkonen]

Actually you made my point quite well (about media being-in this case-educational and of benefit).

In those decades it was normal for these opinions. Now we're being shown not only is it not "normal" but it's unacceptable. What is being normalized now is the ostracism or disregard for those clinging to old time media stereotypes.

It also proves how well media slips into our social consciousness. How many people used similar terms during that era? Expressed similar viewpoints? In some cases quoted *directly* from media?

How many people do you know have memorized movie or television quotes? Compare how many of those are now more neutral as opposed to racist? Just look at the term "racist" and how it's become such a harmful insult...

Media is a language of the masses. We all speak it to some degree and are influenced by it. It happens with such a social species. My other point remains...things must be going in the "right" direction or kuro wouldn't have had to rant about how many media outlets are now using minorities in their media. That's a kind of normalization I can definitely get behind. Normalizing what were once outcast and despised? Ridiculed and treated as a subclass? Yeah I kinda like that.

NFL football is actually pretty good about it-I don't watch college football. If that's where the race issues are coming up...well... college. It has it's own social strata which people eventually outgrow. Even the fact that you don't like the references to race proves the evolution of media. Yes, NFL does make references to race, but it's more of a descriptor than a qualifier. As in "He's a big, black man." Well..uh..he *is*. Though truthfully it's more "And that's a BIG big man there." I don't hear "well for a white guy, he's pretty good..." "Or XXX makes a great tight end because he's a tall black man and they can run!" Actually the more I think about it, the more I realize reference to ethnicity other than to point out where someone is from or what they look like is pretty damned rare.

And the Glee with people as stereotypes is the "most people know the differences" illustration. You *know* they're stereotypes, not actual depictions. They're not typical, they're overblown exaggerations and caricatures. Most people know them when they see them. Doesn't make it less enjoyable (I expect-I don't watch Glee), just makes it more brainless.

Most people can tell the difference.

And actually in mass media...it kind of *is* the quantity. Being repeatedly told the same thing 300 times a day, every day of your life makes a significantly larger impact than being shouted at once, once a year. Sure you'll remember, but it'll stay in your conscious, not assimilate into your subconscious. You'll probably wonder for a week or two what the hell the shouting was about, and then eventually forget it. If something is *constantly* there, you don't have the opportunity to forget it. (there's probably a military study about this and the uses thereof-almost guaranteed-in fact it's probably used in training frequently, since it is so effective at producing desired results.)

I still don't disagree that there are bad normalizations going on, but versus minorities (as per the original rant) I have no issue what so ever with their normalization. Other than I wish it had started sooner.

(yes some parts of media are shit, but if we don't narrow it down to the Original Topic, this becomes a rather pointless discussion, since we can all agree that media can and does abuse their power, that they're not paragons of virtue, and there are things we don't like about it. I don't think I know a single person who thinks the media is perfect. I'm merely replying to response of why so many minorities, and how it's a good thing, even if you've already picked it up on the first few run throughs.)

[Kuroimaken]

The problem with the portrayal isn't the quantity, it's the quality.  There were actually a lot of minorities depicted in earlier decades of media.  But do you really think that's normalizing to see stuff like this as a frequent entertainment option?*  My point is, it's normalizing them (minorities....or rather, different view points/people/whatever), but what they're being normalized to may not be so hot.  A good form of normalizing isn't just having people there.  It's having people there who are not different from everyone else because of what/who/where they are.  Look at hockey for a good example of how normalizing should go.  Rather than focusing on how good someone is "for a black man" or whatever, it's "look how good he is, it's awesome".  Ray Emery, P.K. Suban, and Johnny Odouya are like that.  I'd say every sport, but I honestly don't think the others are as open as hockey is.  I know football isn't.  Announcers use different words based on the ethnicity of players, especially QBs.  Then look at something like Glee where every character is a stereotype.  You get used to them as stereotypes rather than as people.

*and yes, I know a good portion are ads, but the point stands.  And if you want more examples, you can search for more articles on the subject there, I know there's a lot.

There's soccer, for one. People tend to give no second thoughts to ethnicity in that sport (nationality, maybe, but that depends on specific rivalries). A lot of Brazillian soccer players are bought by european teams, and given what a mutt our collective ethnic identity is, I'm pretty sure in Europe they sure aren't giving a fuck.

I actually think we're coming from two extremely different viewpoints. You seem to believe that "it's better to have something bad, but moving in the right direction, than to not have anything" - or at least that was my impression. Whereas MY point is that Hell is paved with good intentions, and things that are done badly can have just as bad or worse of an effect than people intentionally fucking things up.

I think I've said this at some point: I don't care that minorities are being portrayed. I care that they're being portrayed for the sake of being minorities and nothing else - not even touching on how our differences can make us improve each other, rather than act as a point of division. So a black guy can run really, really fast for a long time? Well, I know that if I ever need to pick someone to win a footrace, the black man is going to be my choice. So you need someone who's ridiculously limber? Go for the Asian. Do you want someone to win a butt-kicking contest? I'm gonna put my chips down on the Shaolin Monk.

"But that's racist!"

Guess what? NATURE is fucking racist.

And people need to realize that. I can live with the fact I'll never outrun a Kenyan runner, or NOT be blocked when playing basketball with a German. I'd just rather praise their positives. Some stereotypes are, in fact, based on truth, and not all of them are hurtful. One cannot accept everyone on the same level when not everyone is on the same level - but they CAN choose not to use this in a hurtful way. Saddam Hussein was a dick because he was a psychopath, not because he was Middle-Eastern. Obama is pretty much eating shit right now not because he's black, but because he made some fucking bad calls (similarly, people thought he was going to deliver awesome in a can because he was the first black president).

Dilma Roussef isn't a bad president because she's a woman, she's a bad president because she's a hypocritical, moronic, murderous BITCH. (Oh yeah, did I mention that she killed people back when we were a dictatorship?)

So yes, I'm afraid I do find your views to be naive, Dkonen. Mostly because each time I've seen something with the best of intentions end up a complete clusterfuck it killed me a little inside.

Ironic though it may be, I think that freedom is worthless without the responsibility that is supposed to accompany it. Everyone wants the rights, but nobody wants to pick up the tab those rights cost.

[Dkonen]

I am currently grappling with a condition that requires me to regard every possible encounter as hostile and harmful. It's not so much naive as I appreciate what little good there is because I know there is a ton of well..BULLSHIT out there.

Where I'm coming from is that there *has* to be starting point. This is as good as any other. The first step is getting people to accept minorities as people. You know it, I know it, but a lot of people still don't. That's why they're everywhere in media. Because contrary to most people's beliefs, there are still people who think of them as subhuman. We're not showing minorities everywhere because it's trendy or showing good grace and (edit: showing what true equality should be).

We're showing it because there are still people being massacred based on the color of their skin and sexuality.

I don't think we're seeing the same point at all. I'm thinking as it as a preventative for recurring genocide and keeping bigotry from truly burning us all into Hell. In the states, there are huge SWATHES of people dedicated to racism. Dedicated to keeping people subhuman. In Africa there are entire subsets of cultures being utterly wiped out. Hell, most of the major wars, and a ton of politics are *ENTIRELY* based on race.

I think you might be looking at it from a place that doesn't massacre based on sex or religion or skin color. I'm looking at it where it happens all over the world. There are people being tortured, abused, raped, repeatedly, in the hundreds of thousands if not in the millions based on this prejudice. Just because certain countries don't doesn't mean it's that way everywhere.

I am happy about having a roof and food. Am I naive to think that having a roof and food means I have a good life? That life is good because I'm not being subjected to daily violence? I would think not.

I am happy about TV shows showing minorities as people because it means that they're at least seen as people. It's a place to start.

The next place is pointing out our genetic similarity (99.9%) means that stereotypes aren't actually factual, but representations given to us to compartmentalize and establish the "us" vs. "them" mentality.

Then comes the comparison and recognition of culture and the factors concerning one's development-like say someone who can run really fast for a long time, probably did so *for their entire life*, and so, has an edge based on upbringing and environment, not because of some imagined "otherness". If I had been raised by parents who spent their life as runners, who raised me to be a runner, in a harsh climate similar... I would be just as much a runner despite my ethnicity. If you don't believe that, I cannot convince you and you will refute anything I say, so I'm wasting my time.

People are people. They are better or worse based on mitigating factors, not their skin color. That's like saying having blue eyes means you're better at rocket science. Both are (mostly) cosmetic (melanin and receptors aside-neither has anything to do with running or math). Last I checked tanning or perceiving colors a certain way wasn't a major talent. Certainly not enough to determine if you get a job in a field that has nothing to do with either.

I like that minorities are being shown, even if they're just waved around while people shout "Wow look these people are people too!!!" Because in a lot of places, that's not the case. Just because it may not be so in Brazil, doesn't mean you shouldn't have something in place to discourage it.

Canada was for a while considered rabies free... does that meant I don't get my (furthermore-indoors) pets vaccinated? Sure as hell not.

Reminding people that minorities are people is good. I wish it wasn't necessary, but just because you think the point has already been made and will always be that way, doesn't make it so.

And yes, I think DMan is right, it is better to have something than nothing at all...because I believe with nothing at all, we can't be trusted to wipe our own (collective)ass, let alone treat people as equals.