Jump to content

Ultra Megalopolis - N4A Chat Thread, November 2017


Chrom

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Anselma said:

i'm going to complain about something i can't understand the discussion around, but i'm not going to invite the discussion to be had??? y;y;y;

 

i find it fascinating how okay we are with grotesque depictions of violence in media despite murder obviously being illegal, but the moment anything involving grotesque depictions of sex is brought up we're suddenly deciding there's a line for abhorrent content in fiction y;

am i being memed

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, LimeCatMaster said:

you do realize that replying to my post in the way you did makes it clear you intend to defend lolicon right

 

i just wanna make sure we're on the same page before i outright call you a creepoid that wants to jerk off to kids

i'm disgusted with loli and rape and garbage like that, but things i find disgusting are able to be depicted legally whether i want them to be or not because it's fictional

 

i find shit like the punisher or manhunt or even shit like atomic blonde or wolfenstein to be utterly disturbing or grotesque, and books like american psycho and lolita make me legitimately uncomfortable, but hyper violence is normalized in society to be okay to depict even though you can make the case comparing sexual violence to depictions of people dying in traumatic or horrible ways

as somebody who was actually raped when they were underage and has also seen actual human beings dismembered or die with both having traumatic effects in my life, i find selective complacency with abhorrent media perplexing when you can make the case that either being fictional means it doesn't matter

like you find that people wanting to see fictional depictions of kids being diddled is utterly disgusting and i'd agree with you, but people who play violent videogames or watch horror movies to fetishize violence and dismembering people is normal i guess???

Edited by Anselma
Link to comment

and fwiw i'm not defending lolicon, you simply said you're confused by the arguments people make to defend gross shit like that

 

and i'm presenting to you something like hyper violence that in real life people know is morally repugnant but is somehow normalized in fiction to be okay to depict that i find objectionable or disgusting in order to draw parallels to people's justifications for immoral garbage depicted in fiction for enjoyment

 

do you understand it on that level, whether or not you want to equate grotesque violence to sexual abuse

Edited by Anselma
Link to comment

I was in the middle of writing a post that I realized about halfway through was pretty unfair in how it was addressing what you said, so I'm going to try to go back to the beginning and hopefully clarify some of my own intentions here.

 

Firstly, saying I was "confused" was not a literally contusion or lack of understanding. I wasn't saying "you know, I just can't comprehend the argument being made here," the intention was "man, these dudes just don't understand how bad they look making this argument, don't they?". While I could have worded it better in the end, I also thought the point was apparent on its own.

 

Your post and my response to it, I hope, somewhat understandable given the context present at the time. Someone saying "don't argue with me on this" and getting a response like that led me to believe, immediately, that your intention was to defend lolicon (which, to be clear, I see was not your intention). Most well reasoned people already on the "lolicon is fucking gross" side of things wouldn't see a post like mine and think to question that. That said, from my perspective, I thought you were trying to justify the consumption (I hate using that word here, but there's a lack of a better one) of loli media by trying to say that there's "worse" stuff out there, or people accept mainstream violence so lolicon should be okay too. Again, I know this was not your intention. But past experience and the given context kind of conditioned me to feel that was what was going on, especially with the "I thought you didn't want a discussion post". To me, it came off as challenging, something I've seen loli defenders do a lot. But I realize that I've misinterpreted your intent.

 

As for arguments of violence, I think there's a bit of false equivalence going on. I don't think there's really anyone that's into loli that's doing it for non-sexual reasons, but I think I find the implication people who consume violent media are doing it to "fetishize violence" to be a bit off base. I do think there's a weird regard in society to allow violence of sexual topics (in a manner that's overall harmful in more ways than one), and the topics do intersect, but a total equivalence doesn't really help the discussion. Again, if it wasn't your intention to totally equate them, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

But I am genuinely curious. It's obviously not easy for anyone to make widely sweeping lines in this regard, when does media start to become "abhorrent" to you?

 

(And an apology ahead of time if replies are delayed or late, I'm playing video games right now myself and dying to a puzzle I'm fairly certain is bugged)

Link to comment

I'm a provocateur when it comes to starting discussions, I'm always abrasive when I condescend posts.  Think of me as Milo but actually gay and possessing human empathy. theydonothing;

 

My point isn't to draw discussion on comparing hyper violence to sexual abuse (an umbrella term I'm using to depict illegal sexual things in general) because the fact is in reality, both are morally repugnant, illegal, and if you enjoy either of them in a realistic or fictional setting you're probably fucked-up on some level or another.  You can argue that depictions of violence in fiction can serve artistic merit in portraying a story, and something like lolicon obviously can't (unless it's a book like Lolita, which is still quite fucked-up despite what it's trying to do).  And while there are people who watch things like horror movies or play violent videogames do it to fetishize violence, I understand that--while uncomfortably more common than it should be--it isn't the norm. 

 

But there's a greater sense of complacency or acceptance for violence in our culture, or that it's more easily validated to us.  You call it false equivalency, but there's a good chance that you probably think that because violence is more normalized to you than depictions of sexual abuse in our culture so the contexts aren't as easily established to you.  We make shooters based on WW2 or in the middle east and it's okay to insert ourselves into that fantasy of running around killing nazis and terrorists because you understand that it's fiction and that it's a videogame.  But you're normalizing the idea of slaughtering or killing people when the actual people who have done that shit probably have PTSD and never saw it as a spectacle and more as desperation to survive.  ...but it's okay to portray that in our CoDs because it's just a fun arcade game where we what to shoot some motherfuckers up and there's no harm done.

I'm not asking you to be okay with fictional children getting fucked, that's more of a springboard into a discussion where you're wondering how people can justify enjoying fucked-up things and I want to make you consider how prevalent the acceptance of morally reprehensible media is as a whole in our society.  It's less about loli being okay to some people because your statement to me presented confusion on how people could validate something abhorrent, and to me the discussion was more about understanding the framework of how people can be complacent with problematic media while using something I'm uncomfortable with that society's alright with as a catalyst.  We've had to start thinking more critically about what media we consume as we've grown to be a more inclusive society, and that comes from understanding why people try to justify fucked-up or grotesque shit they enjoy.

There's a barometer for what you may or may not find tolerable, it's more dependent on the individual.  For things involving sexual abuse, the tolerance level is a lot lower than something like violence which is more readily out in the open. y;

Link to comment

I see, it seems I did misunderstand you. Apologies.

 

I can see where you're coming from and understand. It's a discussion worth having, and I think it's also important to be able to look at media in a way where you can consume while also addressing its problematic elements. But that's something that's kind of obvious if you're a responsible consumer of media. I wouldn't look too down on someone who enjoys violent video games if they can remove themselves from it and also say "yeah, this sort of thing is kind of fucked up when applied to reality". Any sort of problematic content I think is the same. Depictions of sexual abuse for example, are usually (and by that I mean, the vast majority) are lazy and poorly handled, but I think it's okay to enjoy media depicting it (context dependent) if you're able to acknowledge that actual sexual abuse is bad. Things like Law & Order use it extremely lazily to produce lowest common denominator prime-time TV trash. However, media that is inherently intended to be seen as sexual that uses rape and sexual assault as a means of arousal is just indefensible. Lolicon obvious falls right under here. There's really no way you can be into loli shit and then try to remove yourself from it and claim that it's obviously bad.

 

And I suppose to an extent, that's somewhat the point, isn't it? Justification of problematic media vs. the criticism of it. I think it's generally fine to consume and enjoy problematic media as long as you're willing to discuss it as well. If you're just going to try to use some kind of justification for enjoying it and not actually think about your media, it becomes more of a problem than violent or sexual content: it becomes an issue of all-around poor media consumption habits and poor critical analysis skills. Blindly taking stuff in isn't great.

 

Also completely unrelated here but even before this discussion it's been bugging me: is your avatar Mysterious Heroine X Alter? I also partially ask because, tangentially related again, my initial post was made because of the newest Prillya figure.

Link to comment
On 11/24/2017 at 3:25 PM, Shiva said:

@fuzzwent 3-1 in Modern FNM yay

Ayyy nice man! Sorry about the late response lol. How've you felt about the deck since your tweaks after the big tournament?

 

On 11/23/2017 at 7:34 PM, Weaver said:

Not yet. Are all the episodes out yet? I wanna play the bonus episode with max tbh

From the looks of it just 2. After playing LiS a while after release without having to wait for episodes, I think I'm gonna wait and do the same with Before the Storm.

And omg same. I miss Max so much.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, EH_STEVE said:

so, I started watching 'The Office (US)' on Netflix... does this show eventually get funny or is it an acquired taste? I'm only like 5 or 6 episodes in and I cringe more than I left

I absolutely think so. The original UK 'The Office' is even more cringe-inducing, and I feel as if they were really going based on that in the first season. I also wasn't a big fan of The Office when I first saw it, but after you get past the introductions, it gets really good in the next few seasons. It's a show I'll rewatch on Netflix pretty often when I'm bored. Dips off in the later seasons, but I still love it all!

Link to comment
3 hours ago, fuzz said:

Ayyy nice man! Sorry about the late response lol. How've you felt about the deck since your tweaks after the big tournament?

 

It's uh okay! I did find out that Ponza is probably a great matchup since they can't do anything meaningful to me most of the time and I can just kill them before they ramp into their big stuff.

 

I still need to figure out how to not fold to mass hand disruption/removal, maybe I need to just play Elves to not do that honestly :P

Link to comment

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/935147410472480769

I've been thinking about this tweet more and I just can't even begin to explain how amazing it is. I can't quite describe the feeling I get looking at it. It's like when you were playing Pokemon as a kid and all of the sudden one of yours starts to evolve when you didn't even expect it to have an evolution. This is a new level of petty in the crusade of "fake news". I mean on one hand it's (one again) worrisome when the President outright tries to discredit media outlets and sow distrust among his people (I think calling Trump a dictator or making comparisons between them is a bit silly, but this is the sort of thing dictators do).

 

But even better than that is that he accidentally creates the exact opposite implication he intends. By saying "plus CNN" he either implies that CNN doesn't count as a network, or that they would otherwise be excluded from a contest for a FAKE NEWS TROPHY. Conversely, by specifically saying "not including Fox", he makes the implication that he knows Fox would win the FAKE NEWS TROPHY if they were included.

 

And then of course "your favorite President (me)" is just fucking great. I'm being trolled. We're all being trolled. This isn't real. This is a fucking meme, this whole tweet. We're being joked on. There's not a single human being, Trump himself or some PR staffer than can write this tweet and send it out without knowing what a fucking joke it is.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, LimeCatMaster said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/935147410472480769

I've been thinking about this tweet more and I just can't even begin to explain how amazing it is. I can't quite describe the feeling I get looking at it. It's like when you were playing Pokemon as a kid and all of the sudden one of yours starts to evolve when you didn't even expect it to have an evolution. This is a new level of petty in the crusade of "fake news". I mean on one hand it's (one again) worrisome when the President outright tries to discredit media outlets and sow distrust among his people (I think calling Trump a dictator or making comparisons between them is a bit silly, but this is the sort of thing dictators do).

 

But even better than that is that he accidentally creates the exact opposite implication he intends. By saying "plus CNN" he either implies that CNN doesn't count as a network, or that they would otherwise be excluded from a contest for a FAKE NEWS TROPHY. Conversely, by specifically saying "not including Fox", he makes the implication that he knows Fox would win the FAKE NEWS TROPHY if they were included.

 

And then of course "your favorite President (me)" is just fucking great. I'm being trolled. We're all being trolled. This isn't real. This is a fucking meme, this whole tweet. We're being joked on. There's not a single human being, Trump himself or some PR staffer than can write this tweet and send it out without knowing what a fucking joke it is.

Yep. It's a sick version of the Hunger Games. F him.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...