You can't win against Sander/Tagz
Last edited by a moderator:
Censorship? There is no censorship!
- Thread starter cronicler
- Start date
For those wondering why diversity in cultural products is inherently good, it's so we don't get things like this (emphasis mine):
http://mediadiversified.org/2013/12/07/you-cant-do-that-stories-have-to-be-about-white-people/
When it came time for the class to write their own stories, I suggested that they used the name of someone in their family for their protagonist. I wanted them to draw on their own backgrounds, but was worried about ‘making an issue of race’. When it came to sharing their stories, I noticed only one boy had acted upon my suggestion, naming his main character after his uncle. He had recently arrived from Nigeria and was eager to read his story to the class. However when he read out the protagonists name he was interrupted by another boy, who was born in Britain and identified as Congolese.
“You can’t do that! Stories have to be about White people.”
I’m confident the boy who announced this was being sincere and indeed, in the ensuing class discussion there was a fair bit of uncertainty about who could and couldn’t be in stories. I was surprised and confused by this. Why did they always write stories about children from very different backgrounds to themselves? And why were these characters always White?
“You can’t do that! Stories have to be about White people.”
I’m confident the boy who announced this was being sincere and indeed, in the ensuing class discussion there was a fair bit of uncertainty about who could and couldn’t be in stories. I was surprised and confused by this. Why did they always write stories about children from very different backgrounds to themselves? And why were these characters always White?
http://mediadiversified.org/2013/12/07/you-cant-do-that-stories-have-to-be-about-white-people/
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
I guess I'm addicted to banging my head against the wall.
Yes, because media is the problem. Not whether someone corrects the kid. You will also notice that this is an exception. With the proliferation of even one non-caucasian race, such as black people, in our current media, nobody can fault the media for the belief the kid has.
That south park quote was out of place, you say?
Yes, because media is the problem. Not whether someone corrects the kid. You will also notice that this is an exception. With the proliferation of even one non-caucasian race, such as black people, in our current media, nobody can fault the media for the belief the kid has.
That south park quote was out of place, you say?
Last edited:
He's not the exception in that article. No one in the class writes stories about non-white people until explicitly told to do so. The class as a whole was uncertain about whether or not non-white people could be in stories. That is not just one kid saying something dumb, even in that article. And yes, that's caused by the media we present. Kids form opinions on the world they perceive, and this kid (and apparently much of the class) perceived a world in which stories that aren't about white people don't exist. Why? Because those are the stories we show those kids on a daily basis. This is not the sort of thing you fix by "correcting" those kids, because that's not how (subconscious) biases work. You can tell people that they can have stories with non-white people, but they generally won't actually internalize that unless they see it consistently.
And we can quantify that! For instance, Hollywood blockbusters consistently under-represent non-white people, and those are mostly extras/minor characters, with the disparities especially large among lead characters -- and all of that is true for the male/female split, too. Despite a pretty solid commitment to diversity at the BBC, UK representation of women and minorities is still lacking. In children's books in the 2013 United States, just 4.6% of children's books were about black people, and just 1.8% were about Latinos. So no, there is no "proliferation of even one non-caucasian race, such as black people, in our current media."
Finding statistics on diversity isn't all that difficult, and the consistent message is that white dudes are over-represented and everyone else is under-represented, especially when it comes to lead roles. And the effect of that is children, even black children, who think stories should be about white people. It's people never reading stories about themselves, and writing stories about white people in the UK while growing up as black people in Nigeria, and not knowing that, to quote Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie "people like [them], girls with skin the color of chocolate, whose kinky hair could not form ponytails, could also exist in literature".
There's a reason why multiple people in that Reddit thread on TotalBiscuit talk about how important it was for them to encounter characters like themselves in popular media. How seeing people of their own sexuality in media helped them accept and understand themselves. It's because seeing yourself represented in popular media is important, something that I didn't always understand as a straight white dude who's always seen himself represented. But that doesn't make it any less true.
And we can quantify that! For instance, Hollywood blockbusters consistently under-represent non-white people, and those are mostly extras/minor characters, with the disparities especially large among lead characters -- and all of that is true for the male/female split, too. Despite a pretty solid commitment to diversity at the BBC, UK representation of women and minorities is still lacking. In children's books in the 2013 United States, just 4.6% of children's books were about black people, and just 1.8% were about Latinos. So no, there is no "proliferation of even one non-caucasian race, such as black people, in our current media."
Finding statistics on diversity isn't all that difficult, and the consistent message is that white dudes are over-represented and everyone else is under-represented, especially when it comes to lead roles. And the effect of that is children, even black children, who think stories should be about white people. It's people never reading stories about themselves, and writing stories about white people in the UK while growing up as black people in Nigeria, and not knowing that, to quote Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie "people like [them], girls with skin the color of chocolate, whose kinky hair could not form ponytails, could also exist in literature".
There's a reason why multiple people in that Reddit thread on TotalBiscuit talk about how important it was for them to encounter characters like themselves in popular media. How seeing people of their own sexuality in media helped them accept and understand themselves. It's because seeing yourself represented in popular media is important, something that I didn't always understand as a straight white dude who's always seen himself represented. But that doesn't make it any less true.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
I meant that that kid's way of thinking is an exception in culture as a whole.
And you know this class isn't an exception, how?
I'll keep telling you, even though you don't listen, that re-framing the same argument does nothing. You've said these things a thousand times already. When are you going to accept the fact that I and many other people do not hold the view that diversity in and of itself is a good thing?
And you know this class isn't an exception, how?
I'll keep telling you, even though you don't listen, that re-framing the same argument does nothing. You've said these things a thousand times already. When are you going to accept the fact that I and many other people do not hold the view that diversity in and of itself is a good thing?
I directly refuted your claim that there's a "proliferation" of non-white characters. I directly refuted your claim that that kid is an exception, either in that class or in general. Which is why I linked to several people talking about experiencing the same thing. Finding more of those stories is trivial, although I suspect you'll write every single example off as an exception. Which is why I linked to a study that shows, empirically, that not seeing yourself represented in media has direct, cognitive, measurable effects on children -- that link was, admittedly, not well-marked. So no, I wasn't just "re-framing": I was directly refuting your claims.
If you can't handle that, don't post in this thread, and don't make claims that are easily refuted. Let's go one step further: if you're so adamant that I shouldn't be responding to you because you just disagree with me, why in the world did you reply to my post trying to refute my point?
But most telling of all is the fact that you replied within four minutes of my posting that reply. Barely enough time to fully read what I'm saying, let alone actually read or listen to the stuff I'm linking to -- those links aren't there just for my amusement. They're there for people who are interested in finding out more. For those who are curious about the exact statistics and methods to find them. For those who may want to hear people explain why seeing themselves represented was important to them. I include those links because stories and statistics like that helped me understand why these sorts of things are an issue. Perhaps someone else reading this post will, too. Perhaps not. I don't expect you to be that person, but you're not the only one reading posts on this forum.
But you didn't do any of that. You didn't even try. You just scanned the post, typed in "I disagree" and then expect that to be good enough. I'll give you one thing: it's a very good way to show that you will never be convinced, because you're clearly showing that you have no interest in the arguments, nor the evidence. Which isn't new.
If you can't handle that, don't post in this thread, and don't make claims that are easily refuted. Let's go one step further: if you're so adamant that I shouldn't be responding to you because you just disagree with me, why in the world did you reply to my post trying to refute my point?
But most telling of all is the fact that you replied within four minutes of my posting that reply. Barely enough time to fully read what I'm saying, let alone actually read or listen to the stuff I'm linking to -- those links aren't there just for my amusement. They're there for people who are interested in finding out more. For those who are curious about the exact statistics and methods to find them. For those who may want to hear people explain why seeing themselves represented was important to them. I include those links because stories and statistics like that helped me understand why these sorts of things are an issue. Perhaps someone else reading this post will, too. Perhaps not. I don't expect you to be that person, but you're not the only one reading posts on this forum.
But you didn't do any of that. You didn't even try. You just scanned the post, typed in "I disagree" and then expect that to be good enough. I'll give you one thing: it's a very good way to show that you will never be convinced, because you're clearly showing that you have no interest in the arguments, nor the evidence. Which isn't new.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
laugh.jpg
Yes, I don't particularly read your posts intensively at this point. because It didn't matter when I did. It doesn't even matter what I type. Your twisted logic, and circlejerk non-science is your shield for doubt, a mere peasant like me has no place being right in the presence of betters such as you, quite obviously.
When someone complains about faulty logic, strawmen and fallacies in other people's posts, whereas they themselves employ more than any opposition, and they are completely blind to them, why should I even argue? Because it doesn't matter how well I argue, you disagree before reading it. No surprise I resort to the same thing.
Another problem is the difference in our ways of thinking and arguing. I would be curious if you were able to pick up on this, now or perhaps if you re-read our old debate. Most of the time I state things in a manner like: "I think that- I don't know much about, but- Apparently-" and you say: "THIS is the case- I KNOW that- This link PROVES that-" because obviously you're always right. I was genuinely shocked to see you'd typed recently, something like: "I'm no expert" or something about not knowing something. My mind nearly caved in on itself, what a miracle!
Last edited:
Here, I found this study, if you don't like Racebending.com.
http://crx.sagepub.com/content/39/3/338.abstract
(Please don't notice it's the study Racebending linked to)
http://crx.sagepub.com/content/39/3/338.abstract
(Please don't notice it's the study Racebending linked to)
I see you couldn't be bothered to click the link, because then you would have seen that while the summary is on RaceBending.com, the actual study referenced appeared in the academic journal Communications Research and was written by two professors from Indiana University. Don't let that stop you, though. You've already written off entire branches of science as "leftist" and therefore useless, so I'd expect you to do the same thing here. Never mind that it's a massive field with lots and lots of research, constantly improving itself. Never mind that those scientists have made it their life's work to understand these issues and hence probably understand them better than you or me, kind of by default.
By the way, where's the science that supports your viewpoint? The science to counter my "non-science"? Or do you just get to write any research off out of hand because it doesn't appeal to your sensibilities? Is that how logical, evidence-based views work now?
By the way, where's the science that supports your viewpoint? The science to counter my "non-science"? Or do you just get to write any research off out of hand because it doesn't appeal to your sensibilities? Is that how logical, evidence-based views work now?
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
I'll stick with my laugh.jpg response.
... Why? It's a peer reviewed study, and while I usually fart in the general direction of social sciences on principle, it's common courtesy to at least consider a study for what it is before simply dismissing it.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
You have to pay, to have access to the .pdf anyway.
But it looks like the study mainly proved that children, who have a usually inaccurate worldview anyway, can be impacted by diversity. People will correct him or her on it, most kids don't think that with the diverse media we already have nowadays, the article for example mentions Korra, which is enjoyed by males of different races all over who don't care about the gender of the main character. And really, were we ever talking about kids? I already know kids aren't wise, I don't need that verified. The fact that you can prove that kids can be wrong, but will grow out of it as adults is really not significant. And did I ever say diversity is bad? I was more kind of on a neutral standpoint for it. I've already changed my position on the idea that media can influence people at all, and I can do it again if I'm convinced.
But it looks like the study mainly proved that children, who have a usually inaccurate worldview anyway, can be impacted by diversity. People will correct him or her on it, most kids don't think that with the diverse media we already have nowadays, the article for example mentions Korra, which is enjoyed by males of different races all over who don't care about the gender of the main character. And really, were we ever talking about kids? I already know kids aren't wise, I don't need that verified. The fact that you can prove that kids can be wrong, but will grow out of it as adults is really not significant. And did I ever say diversity is bad? I was more kind of on a neutral standpoint for it. I've already changed my position on the idea that media can influence people at all, and I can do it again if I'm convinced.
Last edited:
Oh, didn't notice that. My university appears to have a subscription to that journal.
Please tell me Akratus didn't just argue that beliefs internalized as children have no effects on their well-being or on their adult development.
You should actually explain this more in detail, I think that is rather important. I dont think that Sander or Tagz believe there should be Diversity for the sake of Diversity, that would be pretty stupid.
While I dont agree with Tagz interpretation of your "Diversity not good!" but it does sound a bit strange.
I would welcome diversity a lot, at least in gaming, even if its shit writting, because honestly it would be shitt either way, no matter if it was diversive or not. Why do I think like that? Well, already movies have a serious problem with diversity, most of the plots you get from holywood are focused around white male heros. But even here you see a lot more experimentation and well done stories which are not the norm, more then with games, so much for sure. Maybe in 50-70 years gaming will be where movies are now? We have to wait and see, took movies some 100-150 years as well to reach this point.
No one who is serious about gaming can denny that there is a certain mindset in gaming that you can see very often, namely to serve a male fantasy. And it is no surprise that this is alien to many females. Yes, there are games that try to be different. Yes, there are female heroines in some games, hell I would even say some quality writing here and there! Still, the really popular titles pretty much almost all fall in one category.
White male heroes saving the day. It is really as simple as that. And I am not trying to be biased here, but when I am looking at the many games that I played over the last 15 years then I cleary see this pattern, I don't want to! I wish it would be not like that.But it is very often true for shooters and many other action games. Games like No one Lives for Ever happen, but they are way to rare. And almost no game seriously wants to tackle hard topics, social issues, or those kind of things. Stories and scripts that happen to be at least explored in movies. Hell, you can have war movies that tell a german story. Could you ever imagine a CoD game made from the viewpoint of a German soldier? Or the next Medal of Honor beeing about the Taliban?
Last edited:
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
Interesting data analysis on gamergate, which concludes that gamergate can not factually be called a hate group: http://chrisvoncsefalvay.com/2014/12/07/Gamergate.html
I happen to be an expert on the subject. No really, I am. Part of my autistic traits is an extreme form of social anxiety. I have almost literally a list of things in my head of usually extremely minor things I afterwards label as wrong and inappropriate to do in a social setting. Things nobody else does or would remember. Because the kind of social and emotional logical processing for me seems to be different, I have to apply a different logic to it to try to 'fix' the things I do wrong socially. There's certain situations of extreme embarrassment or something I perceive as a failure that are not so minor, that also are a part of this. Basically my entire adult character has been shaped by my process of dealing with my childhood struggles. So, I would say no. I just think that when a kid has certain racist thoughts, those thoughts have a hard time surviving education, upbringing, and the process of becoming an adult with more knowledge and wit than that person had as a child. Again, all tying back in to the ideas of racist thoughts coming from the person themselves, because duh, they're their thoughts, and media not having near as much influence as education, upbringing, experience etc.
I happen to be an expert on the subject. No really, I am. Part of my autistic traits is an extreme form of social anxiety. I have almost literally a list of things in my head of usually extremely minor things I afterwards label as wrong and inappropriate to do in a social setting. Things nobody else does or would remember. Because the kind of social and emotional logical processing for me seems to be different, I have to apply a different logic to it to try to 'fix' the things I do wrong socially. There's certain situations of extreme embarrassment or something I perceive as a failure that are not so minor, that also are a part of this. Basically my entire adult character has been shaped by my process of dealing with my childhood struggles. So, I would say no. I just think that when a kid has certain racist thoughts, those thoughts have a hard time surviving education, upbringing, and the process of becoming an adult with more knowledge and wit than that person had as a child. Again, all tying back in to the ideas of racist thoughts coming from the person themselves, because duh, they're their thoughts, and media not having near as much influence as education, upbringing, experience etc.
Last edited:
Explicitly not what that study shows. As in, the author states you can't draw conclusions like that from the data. Rather obviously, given the data sample and methodology.
Sorry, you're not an expert. You might be an expert regarding how the 1% of the world's population develops through childhood, but you are in no position to speak with any authority on how 99% of the world's population develops. What kind of insight do you have into the processes that affect the 99%?
You may be interested to hear that literally the entire field of child/developmental psychology disagrees with your conclusion. We know, for a fact, that racism is endemic in society in the form of subconscious biases, and that those start forming very early in childhood. Everyone has those subconscious biases. They are not overcome by education. I can't believe I still have to say this.
And ehm, not to be an ass, but none of your own experience there actually disagrees with the notion that early-childhood experiences have a profound impact on the development of human beings. In fact, I'd say it's exactly the opposite.