A point I had never considered about sexism in gaming...is it really a valid point?

[Kopikatsu]

Now this is interesting. I don't know much about LOL but I want to hear about this. Can you tell me what happened?

The League of Legends is basically an organization maintained by the Summoners (mages who... well... summon). There was an event called the Rune Wars that caused untold amounts of damage to the world (imagine if everyone developed the A-bomb at the same time in WW2). So to stop that, the city-states of the world joined together to create the League, which is basically where nations would field champions to fight in an elaborate game of chess in order to resolve disputes without open warfare.

Riot decided that this was too constricting as far as lore went because it meant every champion needed a reason to go join the League, and nothing could advance within the world because all conflicts were resolved through the League. So they removed the League and the Summoners from the lore so that the stories could actually have a progression instead of just ending with 'And then they joined the League/and then the League intervened'.

Some people see it as the right step forward and will open the doors to more interesting opportunities in the future, some people believe that Riot is throwing away everything that made League League.

Okay. Its neat that they used to recognize the players so its a shame to lose that. Also I can understand what you mean about story constrictions. In smite when a new god is introduced we're given their lore or a tale about them followed by them joining the battle because of some nebulous danger or because they want to kill stuff (Thanatos & scylla)

I think this is okay for smite since the battleground is pretty much the be all end all of the game. I dont know if LOL has a story mode or something like that but wouldn't they be in a similar situation? With the game and fighting being the end goal and backstory to flesh out how they got there? Eh both reasons seem legit and I cant say much more due to my lack of knowledge about the game. But i could see how someone would get peeved at losing being acknowledged as an integral part of the game's universe.

As of now, the video game portion of League of Legends is non-canon and just a way to introduce people to the world. IE, these battles are imaginary and they don't have to explain why bitter rivals that have been fighting for millennia like Anivia and Lissandra have to work together on the same team.

 

[MrDumpkins]

I should point out the context of Battle Bunny Riven. Look at the splash art. Riven is clearly undercover so that she can get close enough to assassinate a Noxian official, as per her lore.

Seriously. Look at this scene.

Wow, the answer is literally in the splash art, I never even looked at it before, I thought it really was just a joke. But they made it work in a context that still fits riven!

 

[Callate]

...One of the Resident Evil games had an unlock that allowed you to play as a block of tofu.

Short version: some people find tight or revealing clothing to be pandering or objectifying. Others find it to be sexy or empowering. I think that in most cases, games- paprticularly those that feature a lot of customization or multiplayer elements- should have options that allow characters to dress modestly and practically.

But if they also want to have options to have those characters who walk around in bunny outfits- or suspenders and backless chaps, for that matter- that's just fine. Don't play as those versions of those characters if it bothers you, and don't snipe at those who choose to do so.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

I'm worried that "sexism" no longer means anything in fiction/fantasy/gaming. Really, that word has lost all weight and impact. Calling something sexist in fiction used to get a reaction out of people, but now all I can think of is "And? So what?" when someone rings the sexism alarm for the thousand'th time.

That is my input.

 

[Tsukuyomi]

Wow....I was hoping to get a discussion and you guys and gals never fail to deliver.

For my own part on the skin, I really don't mind too much. Like I said it kinda disappoints me since I feel like if we're gonna do it for the giggles and the googly-eyes, let's be fair about it, and thus far aside from Pool Party Graves and Lee Sin, I'm not sure what kind of male fanservice there is in the game, or if what they have is even any good, so to speak. I never really get outraged about the issue, I just pursue fair treatment/representation so that we can go back to fun things being for fun. Maybe if we get some good-looking guys doing some fanservice-y things then we can call it square and it won't be the worst thing ever to have such-and-such a character in skimpy armor/outfits for the hell of it once in awhile. I'm hoping that if we can achieve some equality everyone can take a step back, take a deep breath, and be okay and we can move on with our lives playing games and enjoying them.

I hadn't noticed that part of the splash to be honest...holy hell, I think that might even be Tryant Swain! Interesting place for him of all people to be at...It certainly does provide some context to the skin and some reason.

As far as her being fictional goes and whatnot, I understand the sentiment, but people have been reading into fictional characters and appraising their personality and actions and the two in relation to eachother for a long time, so I felt like it wasn't exactly out of the question to...well...ask the question.

I suppose the answer is ultimately that yes, it's an alternate skin so you don't HAVE to play it or anything, and there does seem to be some context.

so I just showed this picture to some of my coworkers, some play games some don't care at all the answer though was pretty unanimous. The guys that play games were all disgusted at what a shameless act of sexisim this is, the ones that don't play games thought she looked cute.

The girls the ones that play games and the ones that don't all said the same thing "what's wrong with a girl being/feeling sexy?"

I don't really know how to tell them that they're being objectified since as far as they're concerned they think that the guys that can't handle a girl wanting to look and feel sexy are probably just insecure of themselves... I don't know if I agree but when women don't react in the same way guys do to the portrayal of women in video games what does that mean?

this isn't the first time either the same thing happened with Zero Suit Samus and Bayonneta, most non-gamer girls just think it's awesome that a hot chick is the star and can kick ass :S

I find this very interesting....perhaps the thought process is something akin to the old saying of 'have to walk before you can run'? We've got female characters who are kicking ass and taking names and it's not played for laughs or anything. Granted we've had that for awhile, but maybe that's a point to consider: we've got seemingly strong female characters represented in the medium. Are we pushing too hard too fast for more than that? As someone mentioned in this topic, should we just take these developments as a positive thing and give developers and the community time to continue maturing before pushing for more?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Without getting into whether our not I think the Battle Bunny skin is sexy or not:

The argument for "maybe she just felt like " is not a good argument, for or against. Unless we're talking about an actual person (or sufficiently advanced AI), a fictional character can't "just feel" anything, the choice is being made by a third-party. It's a non-argument at best.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Without getting into whether our not I think the Battle Bunny skin is sexy or not:

The argument for "maybe she just felt like " is not a good argument, for or against. Unless we're talking about an actual person (or sufficiently advanced AI), a fictional character can't "just feel" anything, the choice is being made by a third-party. It's a non-argument at best.

By the same token, attempting to claim that she's objectified is equally pointless because she is an object.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

In fairness, it is at least an object meant to represent something. I mean, polygons can't be -ist or problematic by themselves, but how they represent something can be; and members of the group it's representing or the audience of the group it's being presented to may object for whatever reason.

I just don't think we should ascribe reason to polygons who aren't in control of themselves.

 

[Tsukuyomi]

Without getting into whether our not I think the Battle Bunny skin is sexy or not:

The argument for "maybe she just felt like " is not a good argument, for or against. Unless we're talking about an actual person (or sufficiently advanced AI), a fictional character can't "just feel" anything, the choice is being made by a third-party. It's a non-argument at best.

I understand what you mean, and it makes a lot of sense. The thing is, I've met a lot of people who write fiction as a hobby and I used to dabble in it myself. Essentially it was forum-based Role Playing but many people had aspirations to actually get works published using the characters they made. I wasn't one of those, thankfully. I just have a knack for the written word and I like exercising it and writing a story or two with other people.

I actually used to get into a lot of arguments with other players about the very thing you're describing, only in a different way. I and some others would be doing something slightly silly or nonsensical for the heck of it (date auctions for charity, space aliens attack, let's be superheroes!, etc.) and people would WANT to join, but they would swear up and down that their characters had no reason to, or would never do that. I used to point out to them that THEY controlled the character, not the other way around. They only 'reason' they needed to drop a character into something was because they could. sadly, that didn't fly. So many of them were so serious about their characters and about it all that it eventually drove me from that place. I'm fine with seriousness, but if the character is preventing you from participating in activities you WANT to do when YOU are the creator, to me it feels like you're caring too much.

Creators do that though, and so do many nerds. People have been making guesses or assumptions about fictional peoples' character and personalities for years. How many hypothetical conversations have been held about, say, L from Death Note having survived and actually USING the Notebook? How many literature classes have dissected the characters of Shakespeare? Hell, the entire hobby of shipping one character with another is an assumption that a character has a complete personality and guessing how compatible those two characters actually are.

I'd almost suggest that to trot out the argument that it's silly to assume what a non-existent character likes or dislikes is about the level of "flimsy" as saying that perhaps Riven just wanted to feel sexy. To me they're both valid points, but you can poke a ton of holes in both arguments.

 

[Skratt]

I think context is important here. LoL is not designed with any level of realism and instead it is about the gameplay. Having sexualized digital avatars doesn't really play into the whole sexism debate with any real amount of bite.

Meaning, while it is a valid argument that we can and should request more depth and variety in our representations of women in video games, League of Legends falls slightly out of range of the argument of "women should be portrayed as women, not objects".

Expecting a game like LoL to have depth and realism is like expecting fully clothed women performing long division in a strip club. It just doesn't work.

"Maybe it makes her feel sexy." is a valid argument if the character has any depth, but otherwise they are just digital dolls that we dress up to play with.

Yes women are more than just objects but let's focus the argument against sexism in video games on something more tangible like "why are there so few female protagonists?" or "why do we always have to focus on saving the damsel in distress?". I would have loved the ending of Super Mario brothers if "The princess is in another castle" meant that Peach was already out kicking the snot out of Bowser and Mario was just following along behind her all the while thinking he was going to rescue her. Then at the end when he finally gets to her she asks "What the hell took you so long? I've already got this shit handled."

 

[Erttheking]

I think the better question that no one is asking is, "Can you objectify an object?" Being as Riven is not an actual person and is an object to be controlled by a player in a video game, can you further objectify it? And more to the point, does it matter if an object is more objectified or not?

Is it sexist? No. Is this going to matter 1 month from now? No.

Next topic!

Yeah this argument really irritates me. Yes all characters are technically objects and not real human beings, but there is a difference between night and day between a fleshed out three dimensional character and a flat cardboard cut out. Story telling is illusionism. The purpose of it is to make us forget that the characters aren't real, that they're just objects. Writers do that by giving them personality, agency and characterization, it makes them feel real. When a character is objectified, it doesn't make them feel like a real person. It reminds us that the character isn't a real person and the illusion is broken.

 

[Ragnar47183]

I think the better question that no one is asking is, "Can you objectify an object?" Being as Riven is not an actual person and is an object to be controlled by a player in a video game, can you further objectify it? And more to the point, does it matter if an object is more objectified or not?

Is it sexist? No. Is this going to matter 1 month from now? No.

Next topic!

Yeah this argument really irritates me. Yes all characters are technically objects and not real human beings, but there is a difference between night and day between a fleshed out three dimensional character and a flat cardboard cut out. Story telling is illusionism. The purpose of it is to make us forget that the characters aren't real, that they're just objects. Writers do that by giving them personality, agency and characterization, it makes them feel real. When a character is objectified, it doesn't make them feel like a real person. It reminds us that the character isn't a real person and the illusion is broken.

Ok then. Can you honestly say that Lol develops any characters? Are ANY of the characters three dimensional.

I dont think they are.

Then in that case as they ARE just "cardboard cutouts." So then can they be objectified?

Thats not even counting you people dont know what the term means. To objectify something means to present them as an object. Regardless if the character is "fleshed out" or not, EVERY video game character is an object. Every. Single. One.

If I give a lamp a rich back story and a name it is still a lamp.

You people can keep making these posts if you want but I thought you should know how incredibly silly you look.

Also you dont know what the word illusionism means. You know you can just change words to match what you want right? Pro tip, if you dont know what a word means you probably shouldnt use it.

 

[Little Gray]

I felt like this was plain-and-simple fanservice for no reason. Given Riven's backstory and what we've seen of her personality, it just felt like this was pandering and a classic example of objectification.

A better question is why cant people understand the fact that fan service is NOT objectification.

 

[Erttheking]

I think the better question that no one is asking is, "Can you objectify an object?" Being as Riven is not an actual person and is an object to be controlled by a player in a video game, can you further objectify it? And more to the point, does it matter if an object is more objectified or not?

Is it sexist? No. Is this going to matter 1 month from now? No.

Next topic!

Yeah this argument really irritates me. Yes all characters are technically objects and not real human beings, but there is a difference between night and day between a fleshed out three dimensional character and a flat cardboard cut out. Story telling is illusionism. The purpose of it is to make us forget that the characters aren't real, that they're just objects. Writers do that by giving them personality, agency and characterization, it makes them feel real. When a character is objectified, it doesn't make them feel like a real person. It reminds us that the character isn't a real person and the illusion is broken.

Ok then. Can you honestly say that Lol develops any characters? Are ANY of the characters three dimensional.

I dont think they are.

Then in that case as they ARE just "cardboard cutouts." So then can they be objectified?

Thats not even counting you people dont know what the term means. To objectify something means to present them as an object. Regardless if the character is "fleshed out" or not, EVERY video game character is an object. Every. Single. One.

If I give a lamp a rich back story and a name it is still a lamp.

You people can keep making these posts if you want but I thought you should know how incredibly silly you look.

Also you dont know what the word illusionism means. You know you can just change words to match what you want right? Pro tip, if you dont know what a word means you probably shouldnt use it.

LoL does indeed develop it's characters. It's not very much, but with the way their backstories are written and the lines that they talk are all means to give them personalities.

Also I failed to get my point across. A character who is a cardboard cutout isn't immune to being objectified. In fact, that character is most likely a cardboard cut out BECAUSE they've been objectified. It's why they're one dimensonal, they're just objects. Generic NPCs? Poorly written side characters? Sterotypes? All objects.

You keep saying that like you've found some infallible truth. But you just said that "To objectify is to present as an object". Do we present Walter White as an object? Macbeth? Harry Potter? Hamlet? Othelo? No, we treat them as people because their writers treated them as people. Frankly as a writer the concept that all characters are just objects is about as insulting as saying that a family member of mine is just an object. We form emotional bonds with fictional characters, we grow to care about them. That's because we consider them to be more than just objects. Walter White is not a lamp. (Besides, the idea that backstory makes a good character is a poorly thought out concept. A backstory needs to shape a character in the future, something League understands when it isn't fucking it up with stupid skins)

You say that I don't use illusionism properly. You make no effort to point out the error. So pardon me if I don't take this criticism seriously at all.

Oh, and insult me for no reason. Yeah thanks. If you do that again this conversation is over. No replies if your response to this contains any more insults.

 

[Ragnar47183]

I think the better question that no one is asking is, "Can you objectify an object?" Being as Riven is not an actual person and is an object to be controlled by a player in a video game, can you further objectify it? And more to the point, does it matter if an object is more objectified or not?

Is it sexist? No. Is this going to matter 1 month from now? No.

Next topic!

Yeah this argument really irritates me. Yes all characters are technically objects and not real human beings, but there is a difference between night and day between a fleshed out three dimensional character and a flat cardboard cut out. Story telling is illusionism. The purpose of it is to make us forget that the characters aren't real, that they're just objects. Writers do that by giving them personality, agency and characterization, it makes them feel real. When a character is objectified, it doesn't make them feel like a real person. It reminds us that the character isn't a real person and the illusion is broken.

Ok then. Can you honestly say that Lol develops any characters? Are ANY of the characters three dimensional.

I dont think they are.

Then in that case as they ARE just "cardboard cutouts." So then can they be objectified?

Thats not even counting you people dont know what the term means. To objectify something means to present them as an object. Regardless if the character is "fleshed out" or not, EVERY video game character is an object. Every. Single. One.

If I give a lamp a rich back story and a name it is still a lamp.

You people can keep making these posts if you want but I thought you should know how incredibly silly you look.

Also you dont know what the word illusionism means. You know you can just change words to match what you want right? Pro tip, if you dont know what a word means you probably shouldnt use it.

LoL does indeed develop it's characters. It's not very much, but with the way their backstories are written and the lines that they talk are all means to give them personalities.

Also I failed to get my point across. A character who is a cardboard cutout isn't immune to being objectified. In fact, that character is most likely a cardboard cut out BECAUSE they've been objectified. It's why they're one dimensonal, they're just objects. Generic NPCs? Poorly written side characters? Sterotypes? All objects.

You keep saying that like you've found some infallible truth. But you just said that "To objectify is to present as an object". Do we present Walter White as an object? Macbeth? Harry Potter? Hamlet? Othelo? No, we treat them as people because their writers treated them as people. Frankly as a writer the concept that all characters are just objects is about as insulting as saying that a family member of mine is just an object. We form emotional bonds with fictional characters, we grow to care about them. That's because we consider them to be more than just objects. Walter White is not a lamp. (Besides, the idea that backstory makes a good character is a poorly thought out concept. A backstory needs to shape a character in the future, something League understands when it isn't fucking it up with stupid skins)

You say that I don't use illusionism properly. You make no effort to point out the error. So pardon me if I don't take this criticism seriously at all.

Oh, and insult me for no reason. Yeah thanks. If you do that again this conversation is over. No replies if your response to this contains any more insults.

Notice how you use characters from movies and books? You understand video games arent those right? A video game character (as i said) is an object. It is a thing created for us to control. That is an object.

I didnt waste the effort to point out how you used illusionism because I was under the impression that because you are currently using a computer with an internet connection, you had the capabilities to make a 5 second google search for the actual definition of the word you are trying to use. Sorry if I over estimated you.

If by insulting you, you are referring to me saying you look silly then I suppose so. I just wanted you to know the correct definitions of words you use to save yourself from embarrassment. I am on your side here.

 

[Tsukuyomi]

Notice how you use characters from movies and books? You understand video games arent those right? A video game character (as i said) is an object. It is a thing created for us to control. That is an object.

I didnt waste the effort to point out how you used illusionism because I was under the impression that because you are currently using a computer with an internet connection, you had the capabilities to make a 5 second google search for the actual definition of the word you are trying to use. Sorry if I over estimated you.

If by insulting you, you are referring to me saying you look silly then I suppose so. I just wanted you to know the correct definitions of words you use to save yourself from embarrassment. I am on your side here.

Hrm, well, I suppose I could see where you're coming from but I'm missing something. Lemme see if I can understand it better: what would the prime difference between a main character in a book and a main character in a video game to you? To me in both cases you're dealing with a character that you're seeing through his or her eyes or the world is largely explained via his or her perceptions/filters. Is the difference you're citing that game characters aren't as fleshed out and complete as their 'equivalents' so to speak in movies and books? Or is it the aspect that you control the character's actions and (in some cases) dialogue choices that you find the difference?

Is it simply the interactive nature of the game that makes you view it differently? Would you apply the same flippancy to a discussion of, say, the characters of a Shakespeare play or another classic piece of literature that people analyze? In essence both are fiction. They both have characters that never existed. I guess I'm wondering why you're falling hard on us for discussing the personality of a character in a game, when there are characters in other media that are just as lifeless if not more so.

 

[Ragnar47183]

Notice how you use characters from movies and books? You understand video games arent those right? A video game character (as i said) is an object. It is a thing created for us to control. That is an object.

I didnt waste the effort to point out how you used illusionism because I was under the impression that because you are currently using a computer with an internet connection, you had the capabilities to make a 5 second google search for the actual definition of the word you are trying to use. Sorry if I over estimated you.

If by insulting you, you are referring to me saying you look silly then I suppose so. I just wanted you to know the correct definitions of words you use to save yourself from embarrassment. I am on your side here.

Hrm, well, I suppose I could see where you're coming from but I'm missing something. Lemme see if I can understand it better: what would the prime difference between a main character in a book and a main character in a video game to you? To me in both cases you're dealing with a character that you're seeing through his or her eyes or the world is largely explained via his or her perceptions/filters. Is the difference you're citing that game characters aren't as fleshed out and complete as their 'equivalents' so to speak in movies and books? Or is it the aspect that you control the character's actions and (in some cases) dialogue choices that you find the difference?

Is it simply the interactive nature of the game that makes you view it differently? Would you apply the same flippancy to a discussion of, say, the characters of a Shakespeare play or another classic piece of literature that people analyze? In essence both are fiction. They both have characters that never existed. I guess I'm wondering why you're falling hard on us for discussing the personality of a character in a game, when there are characters in other media that are just as lifeless if not more so.

My issue is not with disscussion of personality or any of the like. My issue stems from the use of "Objectification" to describe the interactions with a character within the video game to match a sensationalist movement happening in the industry now.

A hero is Lol is an object. They are made for you to control. In the case of Lol, a hero can not be objectified by a costume because they are already objects. An argument could be made that player characters in more story driven games like Uncharted or Bioshock fall in to the category of characters and could therefor be objectified.

I think the difference falls to whether or not the character in question is being presented in a story. In a game like Lol, the hero's purpose is to act as a catalyst for the human player's commands. In a game like Bioshock, the playable character's main purpose is to tell a story and the human input is the equivalent of turning a page in a book. Its how you advance the story.

For an apt example, lets take a game like COD. When you hop into a multi player game, would you consider the person you are controlling a character or an object? Is it the same as controlling the playable character in the campaign mode? Would adding a sexy bunny costume change anything about the person in the multi player game? Would it change anything about the playable character in the main campaign?

I think we can all agree that you can't objectify an object so its just a matter of determining where the line of object ends and character begins. In this particular case I dont think it could be said that a hero in Lol is anything more than an object.

Also by all means you could hate whatever skin for whatever character you want. I just think you need to use the right words and not jump on the objectification bandwagon that everyone seems to be on about.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

The Battle Bunny skin is just there to make money. It's in no way awesome or a powerful skin, it's just there to 'present' Riven.

It's like the Nurse Akali skin. It's there to show off the characters in a sexy outfit, and Riot are no strangers to this, I mean, have you seen Nami? Why the hell does a fish have tits?

The Dragonblade skin is good though. I think it's an unspoken rule that it and the Blood Moon Akali skins are better than their sexy counterparts.

 

[Tsukuyomi]

My issue is not with disscussion of personality or any of the like. My issue stems from the use of "Objectification" to describe the interactions with a character within the video game to match a sensationalist movement happening in the industry now.

A hero is Lol is an object. They are made for you to control. In the case of Lol, a hero can not be objectified by a costume because they are already objects. An argument could be made that player characters in more story driven games like Uncharted or Bioshock fall in to the category of characters and could therefor be objectified.

I think the difference falls to whether or not the character in question is being presented in a story. In a game like Lol, the hero's purpose is to act as a catalyst for the human player's commands. In a game like Bioshock, the playable character's main purpose is to tell a story and the human input is the equivalent of turning a page in a book. Its how you advance the story.

For an apt example, lets take a game like COD. When you hop into a multi player game, would you consider the person you are controlling a character or an object? Is it the same as controlling the playable character in the campaign mode? Would adding a sexy bunny costume change anything about the person in the multi player game? Would it change anything about the playable character in the main campaign?

I think we can all agree that you can't objectify an object so its just a matter of determining where the line of object ends and character begins. In this particular case I dont think it could be said that a hero in Lol is anything more than an object.

Also by all means you could hate whatever skin for whatever character you want. I just think you need to use the right words and not jump on the objectification bandwagon that everyone seems to be on about.

Okay, that makes more sense and I understand what you mean now. I agree with you to an extent, as it feels like maybe in some ways parts of the gaming media and community have become...hyper-sensitive to the issue, let's say? I think that's as good a way of putting it as any.

Some of the comments in this post, particularly the one earlier from someone showing the image to co-workers and all the males raging about objectification while the women just kinda shrugged their shoulders and either didn't care one way or the other or just thought it was cool that a female was kicking that much ass, make me think that perhaps for all our attempts towards maturity as a medium, maybe we're not READY for it.

To me, maturity isn't idealism and outrage over an issue and demanding it not exist EVER. Being mature is being unhappy that an issue exists and, if you feel strongly enough, working towards changing it, but particularly for a concept like this one, understanding and accepting that you're dealing with forces of human nature and cold hard cash. Both of which are very difficult to quickly affect through traditional social-movement options unless you get lucky or plan it very, very well.

I feel like some folks have this war going on to be more mature about sex and gender and all this stuff, but some are not acting with the sense, calm, and clarity that true maturity brings. They're jumping to conclusions, painting things with a VERY big brush sometimes, and generally trying to force drastic changes without stopping to take stock of the status quo and push for intelligent changes. They loose sight of some simple things like what you've mentioned and some of us get swept up into it. Hell, just personally I get swept up and end up asking myself questions like: "I like the Saint's Row series...am I an asshole for that?" or "I like the occasional sexy skin or outfit on a character, am I bad for that?"

It's funny...I remember a friend saying that gaming was going through it's awkward teenage years because it doesn't know how to deal with girls. I think that time has long since passed us. Now we're going through those 18-20 years where gaming has become a newly-minted adult and it wants to do ADULT THINGS! LOOK! IT HAS OPINIONS ON THINGS! IT HAS OPINIONS AND IT'S AN ADULT SO YOU MUST LISTEN TO IT! Clearly the things that it thinks are bad MUST be the WORST THINGS IN THE WORLD and we HAVE to address them RIGHT NOW! BURNING SOCIAL ACTIVISM!

...meanwhile movies and literature sit at the next table sipping coffee and rolling their eyes.