Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Hawki]

Why should I? Its not my logic.

Okay, true, it's not your logic, but it's someone's.

Speaking of which:

If I were to guess, though: calling someone "half-X" tends to be derogatory, implying they don't have a full identity. Here in the UK, "half-caste" is a racist slur with a pretty nasty history behind it. Bisexual people get called "half gay", which then leads to bi erasure and people assuming they'll just 'admit' they're gay later. It implies that bi and gay aren't distinct things.

...and?

All of what you've said is true, or what I assume to be true. It's a stretch to apply any of what you just said to how half-races tend to work in fantasy, and when thematically/alagorically, the poor treatment they tend to receive is usually regarded as a bad thing.

It reminds me of a chain of logic I encountered when GoT started to become popular, which runs as:

1: X is bad.

2: X is in work Y.

3: Work Y was created by Author Z

4: Therefore, Author Z approves of X.

Or, in other words, any negative event/attitude in a fictional work is inherently bad, regardless of any context in the work itself. Or in this case, Wizards is therefore obliged to remove the existence/terminology of half-races because of tenuous real-world similarities, regardless of any context/themes that may or may not exist.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Ah yes, half-species in fantasy is racist.

The fact that they are able to interbreed and produce fertile children means they are definitively not distinct species.

D&D reproduction is basically handwaved away as magic, so scientific concepts like species don't really mean anything. Dragons can basically have kids with anything because they're magical beings. However, the various classes of humanoid are consistently described as races, not as species, and it makes absolutely no sense to refer to them as species.

Now, it sounds like what they're doing in this case is removing the distinct racial mechanics for half-elves and half-orcs. In effect, half-elves and half-orcs still exist in the setting, but they are mechanically treated as elves, humans or orcs. I don't think this was ever actually a problem personally, but I also don't spend that much time thinking about D&D, certainly not as much as the people who work on it. What I will say is that I do sort of get it.

For once, in a discussion on fantasy racism, I get to use Tolkien as a positive example. Elrond has a mixture of human and elven ancestry. His nickname is literally "half-elf". But he's an elf. He's not a special type of eugenic superior human, he's just an elf. He's an ageless magical being, like other elves. He rules a realm of elves and noone thinks this is weird.

Tolkien's elves are not the result of some kind of eugenic breeding program to produce some kind of racially pure master race, they're magical quasi-angelic beings. I think it's fair to say that Tolkien flirted scientific racism a fair bit, but he was not (by the standards of his time) a hardcore race theorist. I'm not sure where this idea came from that being a half elf was some kind of intermediate state of being human but generally superior because of superior breeding.

It reminds me of a chain of logic I encountered when GoT started to become popular, which runs as:

So, as usual, we're getting into Thermian territory here..

If someone asks a question like "why does your book/anime/TV show have so many graphic depictions of women being raped" then answering that question with "because the people doing the rape are bad" shows a really fundamental misunderstanding of that question. It's not a question of moral context, it's a question of purpose. If you want to include serious, real life themes in your work of fiction, people will probably expect you to have a serious point.

Dungeons and Dragons is not a serious, edgy dark fantasy setting any more. It's not inviting any kind of real discussion or thinking on the topic of race and prejudice. Their published material is very much aimed at being accessible and escapist. If the suggestion of fantasy eugenics no longer gels with the ideas they wish to present, I think that's actually pretty understandable.

Like, Wizards of the Coast has done actual bad stuff lately. They very overtly tried to grant themselves rights over third party content produced under the open game license, which fortunately caused such a backlash they were forced to walk back on it. They are still very obviously intent on turning their pen and paper game into some kind of exploitative microtransaction-based economy. As frivolous as this may be, I just don't see any reason to be mad about some minor but seemingly well-intentioned decisions.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Tolkien's elves are not the result of some kind of eugenic breeding program to produce some kind of racially pure master race, they're magical quasi-angelic beings. I think it's fair to say that Tolkien flirted scientific racism a fair bit, but he was not (by the standards of his time) a hardcore race theorist. I'm not sure where this idea came from that being a half elf was some kind of intermediate state of being human but generally superior because of superior breeding.

Not to derail too much, but that's probably because of Elrond's brother, Elros, who was also a half-elf but chose to be human. So like other humans he was mortal, unlike other humans he lived for a couple hundred years. However I think that's a mix of his elven ancestry and the fact he and other humans rose up against Morgoth and were literally blessed by the gods, going on to form Numenor. Humans over time became more wicked and their lives shortened. An offshoot of Numenor, including the line descended from Elros, moved to Middle Earth proper while the rest were either sunk into the sea or trapped in a cave until the final battle of the world. That offshoot group that went to Middle Earth were more pious and kept their lives long, though not as long as Elros and his early descendants. Aragorn is part of that line and was 80 at the time of LOTR.

How much of that is because they have elven blood and how much is from being blessed by the gods? Who knows.

Also Arwen is Aragorn's distant cousin, and they get married and have a kid.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

"The whole nonbinary gender idea of fighting the system and powers that be", Jesus Christ, how far down the right-wing rabid rabbit hole can someone be!

As previously stated that was told to be as part of the reason for some-one who claimed to be non-binary being non binary lol.

So I don't know, how far down the rightwing rabbit hole were they lol?

The "nonbinary gender idea" is just that someone can have a gender identity outside the rigid traditional binary, as some cultures have had for centuries. That's the idea. I know you'd like to conflate this with some evil political movement, but they ain't the same.

Ok but based on which system on binary?
Can it be any cultures idea of binary?
If you go to another country and you suddenly don't fit their binary do you become non binary?
Are we defining it based on past cultures too or present?

So... nobody has profited, there's no plan in place that would make it profitable. And schools would have to buy those massively expensive drugs, so they wouldn't make money, even from the scenario you've dreamt up.

Except drugs companies.

Also you were the one who brought up profit motives lol.

There's jumping at shadows, then there's just moonbat delusional making shit up.

You asked who'd profit from trying to pressure people to transition.
I told you who.
You've accepted I'm right that said people would profit.

I don't see how you can argue it's moonbat delusional when it's entirely possible some doctors have deal in place to get a cut of sales of certain drugs oo.

Counterargument isn't required when the original proposition was literally just a complete fabrication. I don't need a "counterargument" to the lizard people mind control conspiracy either.

How is it a fabrication when it's your fucking argument I'm shooting massive holes in and your response so far is "Well on this you should believe people but not any of these other things" and refuse to give a reason why they should be auto believed on this but not other things too. Seems more like you just support the thing and think it's good or right to do but only for your specific case the same logic isn't allowed for other situations and you have refused to explain why other than the equivalent of "Because I say so" lol

So in order to argue against the idea of nonbinary people, you're literally going to argue that male and female don't exist? That's the approach you're gonna take? It's bold, I'll give it that.

Oh no no no. You see I asked you to define the terms for this for a very specific reason so drop the sophistry and start defining please because to be outside of the binary clearly you have to not match the definitons right? So get defining.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So, as usual, we're getting into Thermian territory here..

If someone asks a question like "why does your book/anime/TV show have so many graphic depictions of women being raped" then answering that question with "because the people doing the rape are bad" shows a really fundamental misunderstanding of that question. It's not a question of moral context, it's a question of purpose. If you want to include serious, real life themes in your work of fiction, people will probably expect you to have a serious point.

So the point these are seriously evil people because they're comitting such an evil act I'm guessing isn't an acceptable answer even if I'd hope people see it as the obvious one that shouldn't really have to be said?

Dungeons and Dragons is not a serious, edgy dark fantasy setting any more. It's not inviting any kind of real discussion or thinking on the topic of race and prejudice. Their published material is very much aimed at being accessible and escapist. If the suggestion of fantasy eugenics no longer gels with the ideas they wish to present, I think that's actually pretty understandable.

Like, Wizards of the Coast has done actual bad stuff lately. They very overtly tried to grant themselves rights over third party content produced under the open game license, which fortunately caused such a backlash they were forced to walk back on it. They are still very obviously intent on turning their pen and paper game into some kind of exploitative microtransaction-based economy. As frivolous as this may be, I just don't see any reason to be mad about some minor but seemingly well-intentioned decisions.

Ok but stop me if I'm making no sense here but isn't D&D a roleplay system so it's meant to be open for a level of player freedom. I mean there are crafted adventure modules but players can and do make their own tales and adventures using the system as a basis so removing said racial options from the game kind of is removing options and creative freedom for players is it not?

Like the rules started to be added to give solid groundwork for people who wanted to play said different characters outside of the initially written ones. It's like how I think it was Critical Role or some-one created the Blood hunter character class as a custom one outside of the normal ones offered.

 

[Hawki]

The fact that they are able to interbreed and produce fertile children means they are definitively not distinct species.

That's highly debatable - you're applying real-world biology to fictional-world biology.

In the real world, yes, things like half elves and characters like Spock shouldn't be able to exist, but DnD isn't the real world, and Star Trek, while obstensibly taking place in a future version of it, has 'rules' that allow, among other things, humanoid aliens to even evolve, and for those aliens to produce offspring with humans. Getting into the semantics of whether this really makes them separate species or not is just that - semantics.

D&D reproduction is basically handwaved away as magic, so scientific concepts like species don't really mean anything. Dragons can basically have kids with anything because they're magical beings. However, the various classes of humanoid are consistently described as races, not as species, and it makes absolutely no sense to refer to them as species.

In our world? Yes. In their world? Not really.

So, as usual, we're getting into Thermian territory here..

Well, no, it isn't.

I don't really buy Olson's critique of the "Thermian argument" (I don't even really agree that the Thermian argument is a negative ipso facto), but look at what I said - the critique comes at the author, regardless of context. That context applies both in-universe and out-of-universe. So for instance, if a work deals with rape (or anything), and the point of the work is to show something like the effects of rape on its victims, then the argument goes that the author's intent is irrelevant, because the presence of the ill itself is all that matters. The Thermian argument refers exclusively to in-universe justification.

(Also, someone needs to come up with the term "Roth'h'arian argument" if we're ripping off Galaxy Quest.)

If someone asks a question like "why does your book/anime/TV show have so many graphic depictions of women being raped" then answering that question with "because the people doing the rape are bad" shows a really fundamental misunderstanding of that question. It's not a question of moral context, it's a question of purpose. If you want to include serious, real life themes in your work of fiction, people will probably expect you to have a serious point.

Few points:

1: This is more a comment on Olsen than on yourself (since it's almost taken verbatim), but this is argumentum ad extremum/poisoning the world - taking the most extreme argument possible, which rarely comes up in fiction.

2: Most people know not to answer that question that way because they're operating at cross-purposes. For instance, if someone asks "why do facehuggers implant embryos through the osophegus" and I answer "because that's how they reproduce," that's a valid answer. It wouldn't be a valid answer, however, if they asked "why did the writers decide that to be the case," because you're using in-universe logic to justify out-of-universe decision-making. Or since it's come up, if someone asks "why are orcs in Lord of the Rings evil?", I can give an in-universe or out-of-universe explanation, since the questioner hasn't specified which explanation they want (I'd usually assume they'd want the in-universe one, since that's generally how discourse works).

3: It doesn't actually address what I brought up earlier, where, by the logic presented, any rationale, regardless of author intent, is redundant in regards to the presence of the ill itself. So by this logic, something like "To Kill a Mockingbird" is racist, because regardless of whatever point it's making, the book is racist because racism is present inside the work. The Thermian argument is irrelevant to the critique being made because the critique is uninterested in the worldbulding.

Also, since it's been brought up, I'll reiterate that I don't agree that the Thermian argument (a term I despise, but whatever) is inherently problematic, because it ultimately rests on the following:

1: Fictional worlds aren't real

2: Because fictional worlds aren't real, facts can shifted at the creators' whim

3: Any discrepency noted in the facts of the fictional setting, if complained about, can therefore be written off as a Thermian argument, which misses the point entirely - people aren't Thermians, we know fictional worlds aren't real, but that fictional worlds aren't real is not a valid argument against continuity. So if one's story/world has errors/discrepencies, the author can say "oh, none of it's real," that doesn't mean it's a good argument. There's a reason why, when I write multi-chapters, I try and keep them as close to canon as possible, because among other things, saying "it's a fictional setting, why do you care about continuity?" isn't the kind of shield against criticism that Olsen's argument implies.

Dungeons and Dragons is not a serious, edgy dark fantasy setting any more. It's not inviting any kind of real discussion or thinking on the topic of race and prejudice. Their published material is very much aimed at being accessible and escapist. If the suggestion of fantasy eugenics no longer gels with the ideas they wish to present, I think that's actually pretty understandable.

All of which is beside the point. If reality shifts inside a fictional setting, that's bad, period. It's made even worse when the rationale is bonkers. As in, Wizards is taking away an aspect of its universe that, however basic, at least made the point of "prejudice is bad." So, as Wizards agrees that prejudice is bad, it's removed an element of its IP that said...prejudice is bad.

Obviously it's Wizards' universe, and they're free to do whatever they want with it, but still, have fun trying to explain it.

 

[Dreiko]

The fact that they are able to interbreed and produce fertile children means they are definitively not distinct species.

Basically the deal with Orcs is that they used to be elves but then got corrupted and twisted into an evil form, but they still are genetically elves and so they can breed and you can get half orcs and so on. As for the deal between elves and humans, I think the answer to that is just "magic" in a simple way. They're not racially superior they just have arcane abilities in the same way a bird has wings, it just comes naturally to them.


Also this reminds me of a manga that examined monster girl species, and how it is possible to mate with them as a human if they're not actually related to humans, and it always ended up that the "monster girls" were actually just some kind of mutation. Like the spider girl for example was actually a specific form of conjoined twin life form that originated from humans back millennia ago.

I think it can get a bit absurd when you overly focus on making a realistic and scientifically accurate explanation and that a story can suffer when you add that to it but it is there for those who want it.

 

[Silvanus]

...and?

All of what you've said is true, or what I assume to be true. It's a stretch to apply any of what you just said to how half-races tend to work in fantasy, and when thematically/alagorically, the poor treatment they tend to receive is usually regarded as a bad thing.

It reminds me of a chain of logic I encountered when GoT started to become popular, which runs as:

1: X is bad.

2: X is in work Y.

3: Work Y was created by Author Z

4: Therefore, Author Z approves of X.

Or, in other words, any negative event/attitude in a fictional work is inherently bad, regardless of any context in the work itself. Or in this case, Wizards is therefore obliged to remove the existence/terminology of half-races because of tenuous real-world similarities, regardless of any context/themes that may or may not exist.

You've missed the point I was talking about. I'm not saying merely depicting people of that kind is wrong. Depiction and inclusion of them is fine.

I'm saying using the term "half-X" is pretty derogatory. And that's not merely depiction of how they're described in-universe; the writers had chosen for that to be the official, sole designation, including out-of-universe.

 

[Silvanus]

As previously stated that was told to be as part of the reason for some-one who claimed to be non-binary being non binary lol.
So I don't know, how far down the rightwing rabbit hole were they lol?

Well, you're already inventing stuff for imaginary opponents to have said to you in the past, so pretty far.

Ok but based on which system on binary?
Can it be any cultures idea of binary?
If you go to another country and you suddenly don't fit their binary do you become non binary?
Are we defining it based on past cultures too or present?

The binary of male-female. I'm not aware of any cultures worldwide that don't have concepts of male and female.

If you went to another country and their concepts of male and female were so dramatically different from the ones you're used to that they actually made you question what you are (which is extraordinarily unlikely, but I'll run with this scenario), then... it'd be up to you to figure it out. Just like it is already.

Except drugs companies.

Also you were the one who brought up profit motives lol.

No, you were literally the one who first accused schools of being likely to do it for money. Please keep track of your own weird accusations, at least.

You asked who'd profit from trying to pressure people to transition.
I told you who.
You've accepted I'm right that said people would profit.

So you're saying the schools would implement these systems in order for.... drugs companies to make money, even though the schools themselves would have to pay, and would be losing money? So... you believe drug companies are controlling schools' social guidelines secretly?

It's incredible to see inside the conspiracy theory factory first-hand.

How is it a fabrication when it's your fucking argument I'm shooting massive holes in and your response so far is "Well on this you should believe people but not any of these other things" and refuse to give a reason why they should be auto believed on this but not other things too. Seems more like you just support the thing and think it's good or right to do but only for your specific case the same logic isn't allowed for other situations and you have refused to explain why other than the equivalent of "Because I say so" lol

Making up a completely speculated scenario about drug companies secretly controlling schools' social guidelines to pressure kids to be drugged, even though no kids have been pressured to take those drugs, is not "shooting massive holes in" anything.

It's just insane rambling conspiracy drivel.

Oh no no no. You see I asked you to define the terms for this for a very specific reason so drop the sophistry and start defining please because to be outside of the binary clearly you have to not match the definitons right? So get defining.

I've already done this for tstorm. Go find that. I can't be assed to tell you what male and female mean, when you already know anyway and are just asking so you can try to craft a meaningless gotcha.

 

[Hawki]

I'm saying using the term "half-X" is pretty derogatory. And that's not merely depiction of how they're described in-universe; the writers had chosen for that to be the official, sole designation, including out-of-universe.

Okay, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't have the power to determine what does and doesn't offend people, but if individuals are offended because of the use of terms like "half-elf" or "half-orc" or half-whatever fantasy species," (or sci-fi) then, well, we're operating on different wavelengths.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Well, you're already inventing stuff for imaginary opponents to have said to you in the past, so pretty far.

Horseshoe theory truly in action lol

The binary of male-female. I'm not aware of any cultures worldwide that don't have concepts of male and female.

If you went to another country and their concepts of male and female were so dramatically different from the ones you're used to that they actually made you question what you are (which is extraordinarily unlikely, but I'll run with this scenario), then... it'd be up to you to figure it out. Just like it is already.

So you can now be nonbinary entirely based on geographic region lol.

I think you just invented geography genders here lol.

No, you were literally the one who first accused schools of being likely to do it for money. Please keep track of your own weird accusations, at least.

No, because I didn't say schools would be the ones doing it for the money.

This is yet another case in a long list of you failing basic reading comprehension it seems.

So you're saying the schools would implement these systems in order for.... drugs companies to make money, even though the schools themselves would have to pay, and would be losing money? So... you believe drug companies are controlling schools' social guidelines secretly?

It's incredible to see inside the conspiracy theory factory first-hand.

No various people in society who'd like to make more money taking advantage of people who think they're doing good and helping people lol.

See previous comments about schools because I've pointed out it wasn't about schools, I corrected the misconception and yet you're continuing to argue something I didn't say based entirely on you failing to read something............ AGAIN.

Making up a completely speculated scenario about drug companies secretly controlling schools' social guidelines to pressure kids to be drugged, even though no kids have been pressured to take those drugs, is not "shooting massive holes in" anything.

It's just insane rambling conspiracy drivel.

It's also a scenario you entirely made up because I didn't say schools doing it for profit. YOU misread and misunderstood what I wrote lol. This whole conspiracy theory about school control etc? You just made it, you, all you. So any comments about inside the conspiracy machine and implications they carry? Seems you just gave everyone an insight into yourself there lol

I've already done this for tstorm. Go find that. I can't be assed to tell you what male and female mean, when you already know anyway and are just asking so you can try to craft a meaningless gotcha.

Yeh no, I'm not hunting for some random post you claim exists out there in some random thread somewhere. Firstly because I don't believe it does exist to begin with because I don't believe you can define said terms anymore and are just grasping at straws here to try and distract from that and the self realisation you actually can't back up your own arguments.

I already know how I define men and women and as shown by previous replies from yourself, you rejected those ways to define it hence why I'm asking you to define it now.

 

[Terminal Blue]

However I think that's a mix of his elven ancestry and the fact he and other humans rose up against Morgoth and were literally blessed by the gods, going on to form Numenor.

Yeah.

Again, Tolkien absolutely did flirt with scientific racism and his books are loved by racists in large part because they absolutely do depict a universe in which heredity and ancestry is important in determining moral worth and quality. But while I am not a fan, and I won't hesitate to point this out most of the time, Tolkien wasn't a Nazi. He wasn't a fan of Nazis and he didn't like the ways they read his work. His elves and orcs are clearly meant to represent metaphysical states. Again, they're kind of quasi-angelic or demonic beings rather than just being subspecies of racialized quasi-humans produced through good or bad breeding.

Basically the deal with Orcs is that they used to be elves but then got corrupted and twisted into an evil form, but they still are genetically elves and so they can breed and you can get half orcs and so on.

In Tolkien, sure. In D&D, no. In Forgotten Realms and the "standard" mythology of D&D, Elves and Orcs were created by the twin gods Corellon and Gruumsh respectively. All of the standard D&D races were created by their respective gods, and it's those Gods who are often related to each other or have common ancestry, not the races they created.

It's always very ambiguous whether the "evil" races in D&D were ever meant to be interpreted as intrinsically evil or just the creations of evil gods whom they worship and who guide their societies along evil lines. Nowadays though, it's pretty clear cut. Orcs are just people. They have intrinsic qualities, but for the most part their moral natures are the product of their societies, which are themselves generally the product of their worship of chaotic evil deities.

Ok but stop me if I'm making no sense here but isn't D&D a roleplay system so it's meant to be open for a level of player freedom.

Yeah. They are always very open about the fact that that's the golden rule. It's your game, and you do what you want with it. However, their published material is generally aiming at a specific style or tone which varies in accordance with the times. The transition away from edgy dark fantasy stuff began with the satanic panic, and has continued to the present day. D&D is a game people play with their kids. Stuff you could get away with putting in nerd shit from the 80s isn't always going to cut it in game books aimed at a general audience.

Until they decided to fuck it up by being overtly evil, I would have pointed to WotC as a pretty perfect example of how to create and market roleplaying games in the 21st century. They've been amazingly successful in attracting a young, diverse audience who would have been alienated by the culture around roleplaying games in the 80s and 90s. Not all the changes they've made have been universally welcomed, but frankly the reason we're still talking about them is because in the grand scheme of things they've kind of been killing it.

That's highly debatable - you're applying real-world biology to fictional-world biology.

There isn't any fictional world biology. This is not some speculative zoology project. It's fantasy, based on material that is meant to be read through the lens of mythology rather than biology. We have no basis to construct a system of fictional biology, particularly if the goal is simply to avoid using the word "race", which is and has been standard terminology in fantasy (and to some extent in soft science fiction) for decades.

I don't really buy Olson's critique of the "Thermian argument" (I don't even really agree that the Thermian argument is a negative ipso facto), but look at what I said - the critique comes at the author, regardless of context. That context applies both in-universe and out-of-universe. So for instance, if a work deals with rape (or anything), and the point of the work is to show something like the effects of rape on its victims, then the argument goes that the author's intent is irrelevant, because the presence of the ill itself is all that matters.

Why would you want to show the effects of rape on victims?

See, stuff like this is what makes me think you're just refusing to acknowledge or understand the argument, because (in fiction at least) representation alone can't be the point. You can't just show stuff or put stuff in for no reason and have noone question it, you have to be saying something.

A Song of Ice and Fire has a lot of very graphic depictions of and references to sexual violence. It is actually pretty horrifying at times, but I would never be so insulting as to suggest that the reason GRR Martin does this is simply to show it, as if the mere act of showing something justifies the decision to do so. One of the most important themes of the books is countering the romanticization of medieval society in fantasy, particularly things like aristocratic power and the sanitized idea of medieval warfare. The book goes out of its way to show how atrocities against groups like women and the lower classes are normalized within the quasi-medieval society of Westeros, because fantasy often chooses to ignore those parts of real history, and this has the political consequence of making medieval life seem more harmonious and less barbaric than it actually was. The point is not representation, it's political and meta-textual, it's meant to make people who understand and read fantasy think about it in a way that is interesting and potentially enjoyable and which makes them feel smart.

But, while I understand all this, because I'm not a child and I have the ability to have complex opinions on things I can also believe (and do) that a lot of the sexual violence in A Song of Ice and Fire is gratuitous, fetishistic and that the point is not really profound or interesting enough to justify its inclusion, and I believe it is entirely reasonable to make that criticism. A lot of it is clearly there to be shocking, and a lot of it is very much stuck at the level of exploitation.

Because at the end of the day, a writer of fiction isn't there to represent anything, they're there to entertain. Including graphic descriptions of sexual violence isn't something people do because they feel obligated to represent the truth, it's meant to entertain, and it is entirely relevant to ask the question of what is entertaining about this, what kind of person finds this entertaining, and is their entertainment worth alienating people who might appreciate the wider point being made but who cannot find graphic sexual violence enjoyable.

The Thermian argument is a negative because it demands that we judge fictional stories purely on their representational quality, as if they are merely representations of real events, which is a fundamentally limiting and demeaning view of fiction and the art of creating it. It doesn't matter whether or not you literally believe fiction is real if you nonetheless expect everyone to treat it as if it is.

 

[Silvanus]

So you can now be nonbinary entirely based on geographic region lol.

I think you just invented geography genders here lol.

Not what I said. If you want to just argue against stuff you've made up, go right ahead, you don't need me here.

No, because I didn't say schools would be the ones doing it for the money.

So... when you said that kids would be pressured into taking drugs in schools, and you said it was because of the money....

I mean, you'll have to talk me through exactly how this batshit conspiracy theory about secretly drugging kids is supposed to work.

No various people in society who'd like to make more money taking advantage of people who think they're doing good and helping people lol.

See previous comments about schools because I've pointed out it wasn't about schools, I corrected the misconception and yet you're continuing to argue something I didn't say based entirely on you failing to read something............ AGAIN.

It's also a scenario you entirely made up because I didn't say schools doing it for profit. YOU misread and misunderstood what I wrote lol. This whole conspiracy theory about school control etc? You just made it, you, all you. So any comments about inside the conspiracy machine and implications they carry? Seems you just gave everyone an insight into yourself there lol

OK, seems you've forgotten what you yourself were arguing earlier again. Here is the post where you provided allegations of pressures *by schools* and opined they showed there's "a problem".

If you want to abandon that argument and admit that schools aren't pressuring kids to take drugs etc, then I'm all for it!

Yeh no, I'm not hunting for some random post you claim exists out there in some random thread somewhere. Firstly because I don't believe it does exist to begin with because I don't believe you can define said terms anymore and are just grasping at straws here to try and distract from that and the self realisation you actually can't back up your own arguments.

And here is the post where I fined what I consider the "male" gender identity to mean in a conversation with tstorm. If you'd like a separate one for woman, don't hesitate to ask.

Side note, it took me less time to find that than it likely took you to type out that wall of text whining about the fact I asked you to find it.

 

[Hawki]

There isn't any fictional world biology.

Right, sure. Not a single iota of time is spent on describing biomes and species.

(I assume you're referring exclusively to LotR, because if not, I challenge you to look at something like Stormlight and say that there's no in-universe biology for it.)

This is not some speculative zoology project. It's fantasy, based on material that is meant to be read through the lens of mythology rather than biology.

I know the allagorical material for the races of Arda, that's beside the point in regards to how they function.

We have no basis to construct a system of fictional biology, particularly if the goal is simply to avoid using the word "race", which is and has been standard terminology in fantasy (and to some extent in soft science fiction) for decades.

No-one has the goal to avoid "race" - this is semantics.

Saying how LotR is "meant" to be read is a tangent from how LotR operates in-universe; you're talking at cross-purposes. And LotR isn't even that relevant to the original concept of half-species since it doesn't come up that much, and when it does, it's either a case of an individual choosing their heritage (Elrond/Elros) or forced cross-breeding (goblin-men, etc.)

Why would you want to show the effects of rape on victims?

Um, is that a trick question?

Fine, as someone who's depicted the aftermath of rape at least once, my rationale for depicting the effects of rape was that:

-The individual had been raped by the Reavers (this was in Firefly), so if I was going to do that as a plot point, I should put in the effort and give the effects of rape their due (I'll leave aside the semantics as to why we don't do the same for murder, which also featured)

-Because the aftermath of the rape was seen through the Operative's eyes, it's part of a running theme/character development in the story, since throughout the story's plot, the Reavers start as background whispers, whereas by that point in the story, the Operative has come across indisputable proof that the Reavers exist, which in turn leads up to the grand revelation in the adaptive sections of Serenity. In a worldbuilding sense, it reinforces how terrible the Reavers are, how morally bankrupt the Alliance is (whereas by this point, the Operative is having second thoughts), and how he too isn't a shining paragon of virtue (since he refuses to allow the victim to be transferred due to wanting to keep the incident under wraps). So yes, the TL, DR version is that rape occurred to support worldbuilding and character development - that's my reasoning.

See, stuff like this is what makes me think you're just refusing to acknowledge or understand the argument, because (in fiction at least) representation alone can't be the point.

Um, yes? None of that has to do with the Thermian argument.

You can't just show stuff or put stuff in for no reason and have noone question it, you have to be saying something.

Those are two different statements.

To the first,I agree, nothing in a work of fiction should be beyond questioning. To the second, um, no. I don't agree. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and not everything in a piece of fiction has a message behind it.

A Song of Ice and Fire has a lot of very graphic depictions of and references to sexual violence. It is actually pretty horrifying at times, but I would never be so insulting as to suggest that the reason GRR Martin does this is simply to show it, as if the mere act of showing something justifies the decision to do so. One of the most important themes of the books is countering the romanticization of medieval society in fantasy, particularly things like aristocratic power and the sanitized idea of medieval warfare. The book goes out of its way to show how atrocities against groups like women and the lower classes are normalized within the quasi-medieval society of Westeros, because fantasy often chooses to ignore those parts of real history, and this has the political consequence of making medieval life seem more harmonious and less barbaric than it actually was. The point is not representation, it's political and meta-textual, it's meant to make people who understand and read fantasy think about it in a way that is interesting and potentially enjoyable and which makes them feel smart.

Um, yes? I agree. I'm not sure why you're bringing representation into it though, but yes, I agree with the overall thesis.

But, while I understand all this, because I'm not a child and I have the ability to have complex opinions on things I can also believe (and do) that a lot of the sexual violence in A Song of Ice and Fire is gratuitous, fetishistic and that the point is not really profound or interesting enough to justify its inclusion, and I believe it is entirely reasonable to make that criticism. A lot of it is clearly there to be shocking, and a lot of it is very much stuck at the level of exploitation.

Okay, there I disagree, but that's only tangentally related to the Thermian argument, so however one feels about the presence of sexual assault in the books (honestly, I barely remember any), that has very little to do with it. Your contention doesn't seem to be that "sexual assault exists in Westeros, because Westeros is a medieval setting where life is terrible for nearly everyone, especially women, and as such, murder, rape, etc. are fairly common"), it's that there's too much of it and it's depicted a certain way. That's a storytelling/plot issue, not a worldbuilding one.

Because at the end of the day, a writer of fiction isn't there to represent anything, they're there to entertain.

That's...highly debatable.

I don't think a writer is inherently "meant" to do anything. 1984 isn't particuarly entertaining for instance, it's still an excellent book. On the flipside, many works of fiction are just there to entertain with no deeper message behind it.

Including graphic descriptions of sexual violence isn't something people do because they feel obligated to represent the truth, it's meant to entertain, and it is entirely relevant to ask the question of what is entertaining about this, what kind of person finds this entertaining, and is their entertainment worth alienating people who might appreciate the wider point being made but who cannot find graphic sexual violence enjoyable.

That seems like projection.

Yes, sexual violence can and has been written for the same of 'entertainment,' that isn't to say that any and all depictions of it are for that purpose.

The Thermian argument is a negative because it demands that we judge fictional stories purely on their representational quality, as if they are merely representations of real events, which is a fundamentally limiting and demeaning view of fiction and the art of creating it. It doesn't matter whether or not you literally believe fiction is real if you nonetheless expect everyone to treat it as if it is.

I don't even know what you mean by "representational quality" at this point, because a lot of fiction isn't representing anything in the real world. But that aside, I'd counter that a demeaning view of fiction is one that discounts things like worldbuilding and versimilitude, which is what the Thermian argument ultimately rests on. Of course the fiction isn't literally real, but any good story should treat itself as real (i.e. make sense) unless it's explicitly not real (e.g. Alice in Wonderland) and/or explicitly operating on fairytale logic or something akin to that.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Not what I said. If you want to just argue against stuff you've made up, go right ahead, you don't need me here.

Seems you're missing the humour of the whole thing and the point.

why not geographical genders?
Some of the people listing non binary genders have ones that changed based on weather and season.

Be happy you've found a whole new set of potential gender identities, because hey people self identify as them right so why not?

So... when you said that kids would be pressured into taking drugs in schools, and you said it was because of the money....

I mean, you'll have to talk me through exactly how this batshit conspiracy theory about secretly drugging kids is supposed to work.

I didn't say it was about the money FOR Schools that's a key point you seem to be missing here. What you've just done is a kind of fallacy called a syllogism where you try to combine two independent positions into one point.

OK, seems you've forgotten what you yourself were arguing earlier again. Here is the post where you provided allegations of pressures *by schools* and opined they showed there's "a problem".

If you want to abandon that argument and admit that schools aren't pressuring kids to take drugs etc, then I'm all for it!

Oh know I stand by that point about the pressure.

I'll tell you (and you'll note the post you linked to doesn't mention it) that the claim was SCHOOLs were doing it for profit isn't one I've made.

And here is the post where I fined what I consider the "male" gender identity to mean in a conversation with tstorm. If you'd like a separate one for woman, don't hesitate to ask.

Side note, it took me less time to find that than it likely took you to type out that wall of text whining about the fact I asked you to find it.

If by your definition to T-Storm you believe most are cultural then how can there really be male and female if it's all cultural?

 

[Silvanus]

Seems you're missing the humour of the whole thing and the point.

why not geographical genders?
Some of the people listing non binary genders have ones that changed based on weather and season.

Be happy you've found a whole new set of potential gender identities, because hey people self identify as them right so why not?

If you want to argue the case that "geographical genders" should exist, go right ahead. Yours would be the positive case, so its on you to justify it. Nobody else has even mentioned this thing you made up as a gotcha, so if you want to make it a thing, that's all yours bud.

I didn't say it was about the money FOR Schools that's a key point you seem to be missing here.

Riiiight. So you believe that 1) schools are pressuring kids to take drugs to transition, and 2) this is being done because of money, but also that the schools aren't.... doing it for money?

Look, if you want to make it clearer, just explain how your conspiracy theory is supposed to work. Because thus far all you've given are vague whining and speculations about what might happen, nothing concrete, no detail whatsoever. So if you want it to be clearer, explain how the conspiracy is meant to work.

Oh know I stand by that point about the pressure.

I'll tell you (and you'll note the post you linked to doesn't mention it) that the claim was SCHOOLs were doing it for profit isn't one I've made.

Ah, which is why all three of the allegations you posted were about schools pressuring kids! You didn't actually want to argue anything about schools at all! Uhrm, fine.

If by your definition to T-Storm you believe most are cultural then how can there really be male and female if it's all cultural?

"How can there be things when they're cultural"?

....things can be cultural.

But if you reread the post with better comprehension, you'll notice that I didn't say they're necessarily exclusively cultural. Surely a lot of the associations are, though.

 

[Terminal Blue]

So yes, the TL, DR version is that rape occurred to support worldbuilding and character development - that's my reasoning.

So, this isn't really on-topic, but since you were open about sharing that it seems only fair to respond.

Look, I can't speak for sexual assault survivors and I can't speak for everyone who has a problem with the typical depiction of sexual violence in media, but especially when it comes to the first point I think you are approaching this backwards.

See, when media tries to depict trauma, it is typically framed in terms of catharsis. The assumption is always that the person affected needs to talk about it, they have to have that big emotional climax where they break down and talk about how bad they feel, and then they can let go of it and move on. This bothers me, personally, because it's not how real trauma works at all. The reason that convention of depicting trauma exists is because it makes for a good story. The catharsis of having the character expose their vulnerability and emotionally unburden themselves is for the audience. It's satisfying for them because they get to feel part of the healing process.

In reality, however, this kind of story can be incredibly re-traumatizing (and actively unhelpful when people try to act it out in their real interactions with traumatized people) because what it actually does is to perpetuate and fetishize what is typically a very humiliating and degrading experience. I think it's really interesting that you have somehow acquired this impression that you need to talk about the effects of trauma as a way of being respectful, because I don't know anyone who has been a victim of sexual violence who feels respected by people trying to imagine what they went through or how they feel about it.

I think what has happened in the past decade or two is that people who have been victims of traumatic experiences, particularly sexual violence, have been able to talk about it more openly and, as a result, a lot of people are more familiar with and sensitive to the tropes around depicting these experiences in media and, in particular, the way these tropes are set up primarily to facilitate the emotional needs of a general audience. I think you are operating under the assumption that some basic acknowledgement that "hey guys, rape is bad" should be enough, but I think that's an extremely, extremely low standard to be working with.

Um, yes? I agree. I'm not sure why you're bringing representation into it though, but yes, I agree with the overall thesis.

By representation here I mean, literally, the act of representing something in fiction (as if it were real).

When you say "the point of the work is to show ..." you're talking about representation. You're saying that the work set out to represent something, and that this is the most important thing. Showing that thing is the point. It is what we should keep central to our minds when we judge that work.

And what I don't think you've quite grasped is that this is still the Thermian argument, it's a more clever and less literal phrasing of it, but it is the same argument.

Because there's a really, really obvious question that you're completely refusing to acknowledge. What is the point of showing the effects of sexual violence on victims? Representation can't be "the point." It is not the reason art exists, only the medium through which it is expressed.

To put it bluntly, I can wipe my arse on a piece of paper and show you my shit. It would be a very accurate representation of my shit and some dadaist might argue that it has as much meaning to it as any piece of art, but I probably wouldn't go down in history as the greatest artist who ever lived, because that isn't just a matter of my ability to represent what I choose to represent, it's also about what I choose to represent and the effect that has on people. Sadly, my shit just isn't very interesting.

Recognizing the existence of authorial intent is not enough if you refuse to view authorial intent as the product of choice.

I don't think a writer is inherently "meant" to do anything. 1984 isn't particuarly entertaining for instance, it's still an excellent book.

Of course it's entertaining. Why else would people voluntarily read it?

Like, this one is absolutely baffling. What definition of "entertainment" could you possibly be using that would not apply to something like 1984?

If a writer "isn't inherently meant to do anything" then we may as well just give up and read the phone book. The phone book is certainly very competent at showing phone numbers so clearly it's a work of genius.

 

[Hawki]

By representation here I mean, literally, the act of representing something in fiction (as if it were real).

When you say "the point of the work is to show ..." you're talking about representation.

You're talking at cross-purposes here - representation isn't "the point" of the work, you can have representation of something without a point behind it. In that same chapter, I represented the effects of high gs (acceleration in space, gravity builds up and does a number on your body), there wasn't some deeper point behind that. Something like The Expanse (which gave me the inspiration for writing that scene) focuses a lot on real-world mechanics for space travel and represents it quite well, but is there some larger point behind that? No, not really. Not unless one argues that the hard sci-fi is the point, which it kinda is, but there isn't really a deeper theme behind that in of itself.

You're saying that the work set out to represent something, and that this is the most important thing. Showing that thing is the point. It is what we should keep central to our minds when we judge that work.

There's "the" point and "a" point.

Also, I'm not sure if you're still referring to what I wrote, but the incident of rape isn't "the most important thing" - it's not even the most important thing of the chapter it takes place in. How one feels about it is of course up to them, but to be clear, I didn't write ch. 5 of the story just for the sake of conveying rape.

And what I don't think you've quite grasped is that this is still the Thermian argument, it's a more clever and less literal phrasing of it, but it is the same argument.

I wouldn't say so.

The Thermian argument depends on in-universe rationale to justify an element of a setting. So for instance, if someone asks "why do Reavers rape humans?", and I answer "because they've been driven insane by a chemical called PAX," then that's a Thermian argument. If you're referring to that specific incident of rape, I gave the answers as to why I included it (character, worldbuilding, theme). From what you've written above, you don't find those answers satisfactory (which is fine, how one feels about any piece of media is up to them), but I wouldn't say I'm making a Thermian argument in giving those reasons.

Because there's a really, really obvious question that you're completely refusing to acknowledge. What is the point of showing the effects of sexual violence on victims? Representation can't be "the point." It is not the reason art exists, only the medium through which it is expressed.

Well I think there can be any number of reasons to show the effects of sexual violence. They can range from shock value/shlock, to titilaton, to catharsis, to informing the audience, to raising awareness, to any number of reasons, some valid, some appalling. Same reason as showing any societal ill.

Like, I don't think this is as complicated as you're suggesting when it comes to representing something. Is showing something murder making the point "murder is bad," or is the murder used as a plot point for other reasons? There's not inherently a deeper theme/meaning for every plot point in a work of fiction.

To put it bluntly, I can wipe my arse on a piece of paper and show you my shit. It would be a very accurate representation of my shit and some dadaist might argue that it has as much meaning to it as any piece of art, but I probably wouldn't go down in history as the greatest artist who ever lived, because that isn't just a matter of my ability to represent what I choose to represent, it's also about what I choose to represent and the effect that has on people. Sadly, my shit just isn't very interesting.

That's an...interesting scenario, but you're making this way more complicated than it actually is.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sometimes shit on toilet paper is just shit.

Recognizing the existence of authorial intent is not enough if you refuse to view authorial intent as the product of choice.

Enough to do "what?" I thought this was about representation, and authoratorial intent has nothing to do with the Thermian argument. By its nature, the Thermian argument bypasses authoratorial intent because it looks as things 'as is,' not what the author might have been trying to say, if anything.

If you're making the point that authorial intent isn't a shield against criticism or something, then yes, I agree (perhaps you intended your toilet paper and shit to represent the ills of society, that doesn't change that it's still toilet paper), but I'm not sure if that's the point you're making.

Of course it's entertaining. Why else would people voluntarily read it?

Like, this one is absolutely baffling. What definition of "entertainment" could you possibly be using that would not apply to something like 1984?

Entertaining as in having fun, feeling good, being fulfilled, etc.

1984 is a terrific book, but would I call it "entertaining?" Not really. 1984 depicts a bleak world that's been bleak for decades, will likely remain bleak forever, there's no reason for any hope bar select readings of the afterward, and it's a warning against totalitarianism. Or to use another example, 'The Hunt' starring Mads Mikkelson is a terrific film, but it's not one I'd ever want to watch again given how unpleasant it is.

If a writer "isn't inherently meant to do anything" then we may as well just give up and read the phone book. The phone book is certainly very competent at showing phone numbers so clearly it's a work of genius.

That's a bit of an extreme argument.

Take, I dunno, Mary Had a Little Lamb. Is the author making some deeper point, or are they doing some rhyming ditty with cute illustrations? Not every piece of fiction needs some deeper theme/meaning behind it. I think rather than a phone book, a better analogy would be the divide between literary and genre fiction. Literary fiction usually has a point to it, genre fiction, not so much.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

That's a bit of an extreme argument.

Take, I dunno, Mary Had a Little Lamb. Is the author making some deeper point, or are they doing some rhyming ditty with cute illustrations? Not every piece of fiction needs some deeper theme/meaning behind it. I think rather than a phone book, a better analogy would be the divide between literary and genre fiction. Literary fiction usually has a point to it, genre fiction, not so much.

Mary Had A Little Lamb was literally intended to have a moral

Mary Had a Little Lamb - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Plus, like, did Frankenstein not have a point? Is Tom Clancy apolitical? The divide between literary and genre fiction is vague, pretentious, and generally meaningless

 

[Hawki]

Mary Had A Little Lamb was literally intended to have a moral

Mary Had a Little Lamb - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The moral that Mary loves her pet, hence why the lamb stays with her? Not exactly the deepest moral in the world.

Plus, like, did Frankenstein not have a point?

Frankenstein is usually considered literary fiction.

Is Tom Clancy apolitical?

No, but that's not the same thing as having a point ipso facto.

For instance, Dale Brown's books, far as I can tell, can usually be boiled down to "US good, China/Russia bad," and while that says a lot about his worldview, I'm not sure what kind of deeper moral that implies (unless you take that as the moral/theme).

The divide between literary and genre fiction is vague, pretentious, and generally meaningless

I'm not opposed to that view inherently, and certainly a work can be both (e.g. Frankenstein is usually considered literary, but can also be considered genre), but wherever one draws the line, some works have an underlying point/message/theme, some works don't, and not every plot point inside a work of fiction has a deeper reason behind it.