Jump to content

*anoyoruniyakusokushita

Members
  • Posts

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Blog Comments posted by *anoyoruniyakusokushita

  1. 8 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    Gf/bf/dates get upset because people view the ultimate end of a relationship is marriage, and they view marriage as a possession system. 

    That statement is pretty questionable, tbh. As time goes one, more and more people aren't really thinking marriage when they're dating, specially when it comes to young people. But even so they get upset when their partner cheats on them.

    9 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    People's lives are much better than they used to be. Things are already progressing, no need to force issues into people's faces. It won't do much, TBH.

    I'm not forcing any issues into people's faces. If they want to know my opinion, they check my blog posts, but if they don't, they can just not read them. I don't see how that is forcing issues. It might not do much, but the little it does makes me feel happy, as I could help some people, even if it was just a tiny bit.

    6 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    The concept of a love triangle is deciding between two potential love interests that you are already in a relationship with. They are not poly relationships, but they are relationships concerning love between more than 2 people.

    I can't help what you do or do not see, but it's a well known phenomena spawning many articles: https://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2015/feb/13/love-triangles-why-are-there-so-many-teen-fiction which cite many examples, like the very popular Twilight novels. A good number of novels in the romance genre have people in a relationship with more than 2 people at once. Guys fighting over girls. Girl friendships breaking up over a guy. Bandit, the movie with Bruce Willis, had the lady ending up IN a poly relationship with the 2 guys. An excellent and hilarious movie which unfortunately didn't do that well probably because society just doesn't want to see that stuff (I presume.)

    However, think about what that decision involves. Usually, it's about finding out the one you love the most or the one you truly love. And that concept itself is pretty polyphobic. In the end, they're saying even if you seem to love two people, there is just one who you truly love. Since you mentioned YA novels, I'll use them as an example. In many of them, the girl has to decide between the hot guy, who gives her the most sexual pleasure, and the romantic guy, who gives her affection and love. Those cases only emphasize how her apparent "two loves" are not on the same plan. They're saying she loves one in a sexual way, and the other in a romantic way. The choice, in this case, is not really between two people, it's actually about two kinds of love, which one is the most important to her. Yes, I'm aware some choose the third option as you mentioned, and that's great, but unfortunately very few do.

    6 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    As I said before, you see it quite often provided you aren't just watching blokey action flicks. Friends, the most popular sitcom in the 90s and early 00s had Phoebe dating 2 guys at one point. Big Bang Theory, the most popular sitcom today had Raj dating 2 girls at some point. I really don't see how you've never seen it. Movies, shows, novels, it's not a rare phenomenon. 

    That's great, then. Guess I'll have to diversify the content I see. But this doesn't change the fact that there are still lots of grounds to go through. If things are the way you say, then Western media is more or less in the same position eroge is when it comes to poly relationships. I would like, for example, to see a poly superhero, a poly disney princess, poly-friendly cartoons, a poly family raising a child, etc. As marriage will still take some time to end, I presume those things will appear in the future. Let us wait, then. 

  2. 11 minutes ago, Barktooth said:

    When talking about disabilities, it is likely that most of them make it harder to fit in. But I believe some people are so well adjusted to their differences, that this doesn't sadden them. They are able to do almost everything anyone else can, they just get there in a different way.

    You have a point; there are probably some people like that. However, when I say disadvantageous social position, I don't only mean that they can't do things most people can. Even though those people might sometimes not feel different at all, society is still harsh with them, especially because of some verbal offenses. I'm not referring specifically to the words I listed here, as most disabled people often have to hear lots of crap from able-bodied individuals. If they don't care about that, it's probably because they have gotten used to it, which is not a good thing. It's just like some black people have gotten used to racist microaggressions. 

    17 minutes ago, Barktooth said:

    Well, this might not be the case for severely disabled people, who really aren't able to do most everyday things. But I don't think using or not using the word 'stupid' is going to change much for them. It's a fact they are different from most of the population, and until we can replace flesh bodies with cyborgs that isn't going away.

    It may not change their physical or mental condition, but it will certainly make them feel a lot better about themselves.

    19 minutes ago, Barktooth said:

    I could see this being true on the internet, I suppose. In real life, I'm too autistic to not give away that I'm trying to refrain from using those words.

    Well, that's a problem with your personality in particular. But you have three choices:

    1. Keep using those words and unintentionally offending some people, who will probably suffer quietly

    2. Police yourself as to stop using those words and gloat about doing that, which might offend some people either because of the gloating or because they want to be treated like everyone else, like you said

    3. Stop using those words and make the effort of keeping your mouth shut about it, which won't offend anyone

    Guess what's the most selfless one?

    24 minutes ago, Barktooth said:

    I don't think I'd be using someone's identity in a negative connotation, though. If I call a person crazy, I'm not using mentally disabled people's lives in a negative connotation because I don't associate the two concepts together.

    But people do not know whether you associate those concepts or not. The negative connotation related to mentally disabled people is already rooted on that word. It became a more and more common word, everyone started using it daily with various different connotations, but isn't that kinda sad? The fact that a word used to describe some people's condition became so common that everyone today is using it frivolously and meaninglessly, without even noticing that it carries an offensive connotation? Because, before, when it was a new word, everyone would be always aware that it referred to a disabled person, and they would at least know they were using it in an ableist way when insulting someone with it. But right now, nobody even notices that, so even people that mean no harm say it.

  3. 27 minutes ago, mitchhamilton said:

    you need more friends then as i have mostly been exposed to these words as nothing but in jest.

    But those jests only work because they revolve around the notion that those words are used as insults.

    Imagine if your name were being used as an insult. When people were angry they would say: "Are you fucking [Insert your name here]?!". And then, when they were among their peers they would say: "You're [Insert your name here], lol." I know it's definitely not the same thing, but your name is a part of your life and who you are just like disabilities are a part of our lives. 

    20 minutes ago, Barktooth said:

    Sure, some of them will feel limited, but some won't. It depends on the person. Rin in Katawa Shoujo is a good example, she doesn't think not having arms is a disadvantage to her at all.

    Except she is a fictional character. Even if she does exist in someone's body (I've never seen anyone who claimed being her, tho), this body is probably abled, and that's why she thinks like that.

    Also, it's not like their emotional suffering always comes from the fact that they feel in disadvantage. It's because they feel different to other people; and when it's hard to fit in society, we usually get sad.

    20 minutes ago, Barktooth said:

    Even if one avoids these words around everyone else, they would still be acting this way for the sake of the disabled, so I think it may offend certain people regardless. Or maybe not, at this point I don't know anymore.

    Some people (a group probably much smaller than those who would be offended if those words continued being spoken) would only feel offended if they knew someone was purposefully avoiding that. I don't believe anyone would notice that, tbh.

    20 minutes ago, Barktooth said:

    In either case, while I can't speak for anyone else, to me the usage of the words you listed plays a big role in whether they are perceived as "ableist" or not. If I call someone crazy, I'm simply trying to convey that they are acting in an irrational and nonsensical fashion, not that they are mentally disabled, or that their behavior stems from having a mental illness. The expression might have originated from someone likening a person acting nonsensically to the behavior of mentally disabled individuals, but the way it is used now, I don't believe such a link exists anymore.

    In short, if you are mentally disabled but aren't going berserk on anyone, I won't call you crazy. However, if you're mentally healthy yet having a fit, I might just do so.

    I'm not saying you're ableist for using those words. But even if your intentions are good, you would still be using a part of someone's identity and life in a negative connotation, which would only further emphasize their disadvantageous position in society. It's hard to give an example to someone who isn't in such a position, but look at the "name" example I gave to mitchhamilton above. 

    17 minutes ago, Palas said:

    Hey Big Name I Can't Ever Hope to Memorize, what do you think of Katawa Shoujo

    Haven't played it yet, sorry.

  4. 4 minutes ago, mitchhamilton said:

    booo hoo, are you also blind, paraplegic and crazy? my sister has the mentality of an 8 year old because she was born way too early, and my cousin is confined to a wheelchair until the end of his short life. i couldnt care less how people use words that might offend them unless it was directed at them because like rooke pretty much said, its the intent behind the words not the words themselves.

    Why is it so hard to simply police yourself to avoid some words? It won't hurt anyone, as opposed to keep on using them, which will actually hurt some people.

    Also, I'm pretty sure the intent, as you say, behind most of those words is almost never good. Stupid, retarded, mad, crazy, etc are almost always used as a form of insult or verbal attack.

  5. 2 hours ago, Kiriririri said:

    Facts can't be offensive?

    I just had a talk about this with disabled people yesterday. I believe them not you.

    You're saying those people told you they were in a better or equal social position compared to able-bodied individuals?

    2 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    People need to separate the idea of 'insulted' and 'offended'. If I 'insult' someone, that person may feel 'offended', but that doesn't mean if someone is offended that they were insulted. This is because an 'insult' refers to the intent of the offender, whereas being offended refers to the emotions of the offendee. The two words are often mixed together to do away with the pesky idea that some people just go around looking to be offended, and catering to these people is sometimes more trouble than it's worth.

    There's nothing insulting about using the word 'blinded'. It denotes 'not being able to see', so blinded by fear means not being able to see clearly due to you being such a timid tabby. It's an excellent descriptive word that often has no prejudice behind it. That people are offended by this is only natural, because some people are offended by anything. Case in point, the other day at the supermarket the lady in front of me had such an overpowering body odour that it assaulted my senses. This, I found, was quite offensive and caused me to move to another aisle. Alas, it did not give me the right to spritz her copiously with perfume.

    Comparing a lady with a bad odor with using a part of oppressed people's bodies with negative connotation is not a fair comparison. The latter is an attack that is personally harmful and reinforces the disadvantageous position some people have, and the former is a just small discomfort. @bigfatround0 made a pretty good comparison. 

    @Darklord Rooke, what I'm trying to say here is that if you don't have to sacrifice much to avoid offending some people, then do so. There isn't much sacrifice in avoiding certain words. Noone will even notice, in case you care about your surroundings' opinions on you. So, if it will make some people feel better, why not do it?

    2 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    And I'm not going to stop calling people stupid when they're being stupid because it offends those with intellectual problems. It's, once again, an excellent descriptive word.

    It's funny how you, in one paragraph, tells me how an 'insult' is different from an 'offense', implying that the former is always bad and the latter is sometimes just nitpicking; and, in another paragraph, you insist on using a word to insult people, claiming it's an "excellent descriptive word".

    2 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    The idea of institutionalized ableism is perfectly normal. Countries are about growth and coming out on top in that international competition countries are locked in with each other. The more they win, the more resources they nab for its people. Same deal with businesses. Countries and businesses will look for the best people to carry out certain tasks, certain work, and preference will naturally go to those more able because these people are often able to more effectively carry out these tasks. The up side of this is that society is now in a position to adequately care for the disabled, unlike in the past where they were often killed off for being a drain on resources, and we got to this point partly by being terribly ableist. Society is interested in getting as far away from nature as possible, nature is all about survival of the fittest (because life was harsh and you needed to be tough to survive) and is not a nice place. These days we're cushioned away from real life enough that we can provide for those less fortunate. 

    What exactly are you implying here? That we should stop trying to eliminate ableism from our society because it's 'normal'? Or that we should do that, as we are in a position in which we are able to do so? I'm confused.

    44 minutes ago, Barktooth said:

    IMHO suffering is relative and you can't say who has it worse without being in that person's shoes first. Some disabled people have lived their whole lives like that and don't know any different, so they don't feel like they are limited at all. 

    Humans usually want to be equal to their surroundings. When everyday they see that they can't do a lot of tasks most people can, I don't think they won't feel "limited", at least to some extent.

    46 minutes ago, Barktooth said:

    Being careful and tip-toeing around those people might only offend them, as they might prefer to be treated like everyone else instead.

    That's why my advice is to avoid those words not only around disabled people, but around everyone else as well.

    43 minutes ago, mitchhamilton said:

    ah another post of someone speaking for someone else. classy. :miyako:

    I'm mentally disabled, you know. I'm autistic. Thus, I'm not 'speaking for someone else'.

    40 minutes ago, Palas said:

    I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED YOU DIDN'T USE THE ASTERISKS

    Asterisks? What are you talking about?

    39 minutes ago, VirginSmasher said:

    you beta liberal. :leecher:

    Don't see how trying to raise awareness for disabled people is considered being "liberal".

  6. 2 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    How does the recognition of lesbian marriages show that marriage isn’t an institution possessive in nature?

    I mentioned lesbian marriages because you said this:

    20 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    Marriage is a possessive system invented so men to keep track of their possessions, like wives and any offspring they may bear.

     

    2 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    If marriage were no longer about keeping track of their possessions, then people would no longer be upset when partners ‘cheat’ on them. Alas private investigators are currently making a fortune going around and catching partners being ‘unfaithful’. Explain the concept of remaining ‘sexually faithful’ to someone without relying on the idea that one person belongs to another.

    Yeah, except that not only spouses are upset when their significant other cheats on them, gf/bf/dates get upset as well. Also, many married poly people do not get upset when their partner has another partner. The problem is not marriage itself, but the way people see romantic/sexual relationships in general.

    2 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    Marriage will break down in the future because they weren’t built to be flexible in nature, it’s too ingrained an institution to change, and society will soon move past this outdated institution. How can the Government, for example, encourage both parents to join the workforce while still expecting the child to have been given a quality upbringing? With a nuclear family (and marriage is about nuclear families) it’s becoming too hard, which is part of the reason they’ll break down, and part of the reason marriage will too (because there’ll be too much opposition to change.) Women used to get married for security, but they no longer need that and in fact it will harm their careers. People used to see kids as security that would provide for them in old age, but these days the Government does all this heavy lifting with social security. The idea of tying yourself to one person FOREVER is becoming increasingly distasteful, especially considering we're all living longer. In the past, the idea of tying yourself to someone for 20 years didn't seem that bad, now you have to put up with their bad habits for 60, 70, 80 years. Some people believe humans will soon live to 150, just how long must you suffer your partner's snoring? New reports are coming out saying a third or a quarter of millenials will never marry.

    In 2014 in England, only 50% of people were currently married. 28% of men lived alone and had never married. 22% of women lived alone and had never married.

    usyoungadultmarriage.gif 

    Marriage is on the way out, and pretty soon society will drive media to show more types of relationships to the people. Properly also, NOT the half-hearted way eroge does it. But we should give it a little time, it’s only been since the last half of last century that marriage started to no longer be useful.

    I agree with pretty much everything you said here. Even though the end of marriage would probably bring severe legal consequences, I believe, by then, we will have already solved those issues. However, I don't think we should just sit and wait for marriage to disrupt. We can't keep watching poly people being discriminated while we do absolutely nothing to stop it. That's why I think we should all do as best we can to decrease such a discrimination.

    2 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    I often see movies where people date more than one partner at a time. I often see shows where people date more than one person at a time. Pffft, in my opinion Jennifer Aniston has built a career on it. The romance genre is filled with love triangles. Of one person being ‘torn’ between 2 lovers.  

    Well, I don't. The movies and shows you're referring to are probably niche ones, that don't have a stronger social effect like the mainstream ones do. Plus, love triangles are not poly relationships; after all the whole concept of a love triangle is deciding between two potential love interests. Rarely they choose the third option, which is the poly-friendly one.

    2 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    It’s an explanation of where that privilege arose. Modern talk of privilege is about equality, and yet societies emphasise growth. If you ask a Government what’s more important, growth and strength or equality, they’ll say growth and strength because they could then use that to provide for their people. Equality means little without first having the resources to make your people comfortable. Recently countries have been in a position where the majority of people no longer had to worry about starving and could then fight for social justice, and that’s a good thing because it shows countries are in a good space. But institutions which have entrenched for thousands of years does take a little time to unravel. Give it some time :) 

    I do not expect to disrupt a very old and powerful institution. I'm just doing what I can to raise awareness and make some people's lives better. Even though I may not succeed, there's nothing wrong with trying.

    2 hours ago, ittaku said:

    The vast majority of us are not suited to polygamy, especially not the females of the species but even to a large extent, neither are the males. I think what's missing is understanding that humans as a species are best designated as being predominantly serial monogamist. Romanticising polygay usually happens by those (males) who have never been in a series relationship. Whilst casual sex is not uncommon when not in a relationship, most people do not feel inclined to do so once in a ~monogamous relationship.

    You probably believe that "humans as a species are best designated as being predominantly serial monogamist" because your entire life you've seen lots of people in monogamous relationships, many who seem very happy. However, how many actual poly relationships have you seen? Very few, I assume. That's why you can't say humans are most suited for monogamy, when most of them haven't even experimented polygamy. What you believe to be something inborn to humans, I believe to be a socially constructed phenomenon. 

  7. 11 minutes ago, Prinny said:

    Can I feel offended by people that with mightier-than-thou attitude that tell others how to conduct, express or clothe themselves? (You have to ask others for permission nowadays since it is now current year and you really don't want to get on the wrong side of the internet by using words everybody uses)

    Well, you shouldn't. First, because I'm not telling you how to conduct, I'm giving an advice so that you can make some people's lives better. Second, because, unless you are disabled, you're benefiting from your privilege within a society with institutionalized ableism. In other words, your situation is a hundred times better than those that are actually suffering.  

  8. 27 minutes ago, Narcosis said:

    The sole point of someone becoming offended over a word is wrong enough to start with.

    Blessed are those, who don't give a damn.

    Nowadays, verbal insults are the most common forms of aggression. Bullying, arguments, humiliation, all those usually come through verbal attacks. Sure, there are people who are less susceptible to it, but I don't know anyone who doesn't care or isn't emotionally affected at all by verbal attacks. If you don't, you are a very lucky person. Too bad other people aren't like you. 

  9. 11 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    Are you familiar with what marriage is about? Marriage is a possessive system invented so men to keep track of their possessions, like wives and any offspring they may bear. It’s part of what makes the concept of ‘marriage’ obsolete. In the olden days polygamy was completely natural, as was monogamy, but it was a possessive system.

    Well, that concept is pretty harmful for people that don't see their partners as possessions, because they can't have the legal advantages that come with marriage. That's why people need to change their view about marriage.

    Nowadays marriage doesn't work that way. It's no longer a system for men to keep track of their possessions. A very easy way to prove that is just looking at lesbian marriages, which are legally recognized. Today marriage is a system for families receiving the benefits of legal recognition.

    11 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    We're not flooded with the concept of ‘love’ being possible between only 2 people, but rather that marriage is only possible between 2 people.

    You rarely see people dating with more than two partners at once in media either. It's not only marriage. If a person is in love with someone else, it's gotta be just that someone else. 

    11 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    Think about it a little. If women and their children were treated as possessions who weren’t allowed to take multiple husbands, but men could take multiple wives as possessions, then there’s a pretty obvious limitation isn't there? Some men will be left out in the cold. These men will often leave, meaning a smaller army, meaning less tax revenue. Which results in monogamous cultures, in a world where women were viewed as possessions, being superior militarily and growth wise, or would inevitably prove themselves to be better superior militarily and growth wise. That is, monogamous culture would eventually prove to be the stronger culture. Over time people then came to view this as the norm, and because stronger cultures conquer weaker cultures, would spread over much of the globe.

    Which meant that monogamy, under a male possessive marriage structure, was a superior scheme idealised by society. Polygamy under current marriage norms doesn’t work. So before we talk about ‘monogamy privilege’ you first need to provide an environment for polygamy to thrive, and that’s still a ways away from happening.

    I don't believe our society demands monogamy for it to work nowadays. Back then, sure, but not now. And one of the ways to create a better environment for polygamy to work is giving it more media coverage, so that society can view it as normal.

    11 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

    That eroge is poly friendly doesn’t define progress, although it does challenge some of today’s norms. What would make eroge progressive would be if they demonstrated poly relationships where the women weren’t treated like the possessions of the male. And I can’t say that it is. So I don’t really see a need for praise, yet.

    As I said, there is still a long way to go when it comes to poly representation in eroge. However, the mere fact that poly relationships are being featured is already a progress, because the same almost never happens in other media.

    9 hours ago, Funnerific said:

    Look at it another way, are you completely fine with your girl(s) being banged by other men? I wouldn't be.

    I'm not a man, but sure. You probably aren't fine because since you were born society planted that worldview on you.

  10. 12 hours ago, dfbreezy said:

    It is a human perception that is inborn. it is not acquired. That is why young kids look at fat people and point at them, sometimes saying nasty things. Their parents didn't consciously raise them to insult fat people. Neither did they miss out on the fat in cartoons like chowder. 

    But on viewing a fat person, their mind instantly recognizes, that this is not how a human is supposed to be. As such, their embarrassing comments or reactions.

    You can't prove that. You can say your opinion, which is that disliking fat people's appearences is something natural to humans, but you don't have data or proof to back you up.

    It's not because parents teaxh children to insult fat kids that they do so, it's because everywhere they see fat people being portrayed as ugly, weird and stupid.

    12 hours ago, dfbreezy said:

    Also i think it's be advisable to stop comparing the woes of the obese to the woes of the black. The two are NOT the same please. As someone who is black and has been obese i can say that with certainty. Please try to avoid using such a comparison since the margin is rather wide, and maybe utilize a comparison which is much more... compact.

    I never said they were the same. But they don't need to be for my comparisons to work. Both are oppressed social groups, so all I said about them fits.

    2 hours ago, ExtraMana said:

    Currently losing weight. If being fat was accepted I might not have. Fat shaming is neccessary tbh.

    So society forced you to lose weight and that's fine? What if you can't do it in the end? Fat shaming is not necessary, it's wrong.

  11. 1 hour ago, Chronopolis said:

    Certain things are glamourized in this world. Saying we should include fat characters in our generally idealized stories is basically saying we as a society should shift the set of things we glamorize so that it makes a minority feel better.

    Atm, what we as a society glamorize is mostly depends on what the masses like, and what companies try to propagate to forward their brands and ventures.

    IMO, ideally, you should train people to recognize these societal glorifications for what they are, which is just things to be enjoyed, not reflections of the truth. You shouldn't advocate for a different set of glorifications in order to lull fat people to thinking the reality is some how kinder for it. The reality is what it is.

    You see, I don't think including fat characters in media is glamorizing them. First, because I'm not asking for fat characters to outnumber thin ones; I'm asking for, ideally, 50/50, or at least, 20/80. Second, because just including something in an idealized story does not mean you're glamorizing it. I don't think including people with black skin in media is glamorizing them, nor do I think including smokers in media is glamorizing them as well, and nor do I think depicting violence is glamorizing it. Of course some stuff will come out as glamorized, but this is a choice of the people behind that medium. Some things can come out as glamorized, some things can come out as bad/wrong, and some things can come out as neither of those. It depends on how the story is written. Third, because even in realistic and cynical medium those characters are underrepresented (except the ones that are depicted as dumb or gluttons).

    My problem with the lack of fat characters in media is not that this might offend fat people (I don't think most get offended, actually), nor that it's not an accurate representation of reality, but that it contributes to the existence of a toxic notion.

    1 hour ago, Chronopolis said:

    I think there was a line of criticism against LN's for glorifying being living an otaku lifestyle. If there was a parallel universe where such otaku-glorifiying LN's didn't exist (that was like 15 years ago), that would be fine, too. I'm sure there were and are a lot of otaku who felt pressure (both external, from people's opinions, and internal, from lack of validation) from the type of lifestyle they chose/fell into.

    The issue with those LNs is that they are aimed at otaku, and will usually only reach them. Thus, they don't help society sympathize with otaku.

    1 hour ago, Chronopolis said:

    The main issue with fat people is not the difference of preference (that should very much be allowed), but existing prejudice. Fat people shouldn't be bullied in school, or insulted anywhere. But those are difficult challenges that revolve around human nature. If your fat and some asshole insults you based on that, that's because they are an asshole, and not particularly because you are fat. Or they have a prejudice. The prejudice, and more importantly, how people act on that prejudice, is the more productive and realistic issue to tackle.

     

    Is it really? Imo, it's much easier to take away a biased notion from people than to change something about human nature itself.

  12. 28 minutes ago, dfbreezy said:

    Thinking like that is exactly why most people get up and rebel about various things. You don't understand the deeper mechanisms that go into running the world. What i said may not be 100% lexical, but it is 100% Philosophical and Factual

    If you think an "opinion" can never become fact then you have another thing coming friend. Opinions run this world. They run demand and supply, basically markets and social preferences. They control morality. They control politics. They control everyone.

    Consider Opinions as not some dictionary word, but as a facet to human existence. 

    Can you refute that killing is bad? Yes of course, but not without it's social repercussions. A fact, lexically, is something that is totally accepted by society. As such, if the majority of society take their opinion and force it upon the minority, it becomes fact. That my friend, is how the world works. If you feel you still don't understand this fact, i'm currently shoving my opinion on you as a minority since mine generally aligns with the majority.

    I get where you're coming from, but even though society has taken something as a fact, it doesn't mean it can later revoke that. If a "fact" was unchangeable, we would still believe that black people are wild human beings that are intellectually inferior to the white. So, what I'm trying to do is contribute to a collective effort of changing those so-called "facts". And media attention would certainly be helpful.

    33 minutes ago, dfbreezy said:

    Do you also understand the term "Privilege"? A Privilege is something that is earned  by great feats and hard work. It's not given out because we feel pity. Like i said, society decides who gets the privileges and at what time, so you're pointlessly advocating when it's time is not here. Until fat people become a thing, this is as productive as ignoring climate change or since you want media attention, Actually telling a good story and having characters not be evaluated on how they look but what they are there for. 

    Sorry, but privileges are not 'earned'. They are undeserved and usually inborn. White privilege, cis privilege, straight privilege, abled privilege, all those are unfair privileges that should never exist. Do you really think we should just keep our mouths shut while people get privileges based on their skin color or sexual orientation, which have nothing to do with their character? Because I don't.

    In an ideal world, people would only see characters by what's inside them, but unfortunately, we do not live in one. That's why so many young girls are so obsessed with losing weight and fitting social beauty standards. And if appearances didn't matter, then having more fat characters wouldn't be a problem, right?

    41 minutes ago, dfbreezy said:

    This is exactly how things work my friend, you just don't know it. I've spent years working in politics, so i know very well how popular demand and societies preference works. So that is why i can calmly tell you that you're not going to move society by crying out like this. 

    I'm not expecting to move society with my blog posts. I'm just trying to contribute as much as I can to social justice.

    42 minutes ago, dfbreezy said:

    Do not presume i do not know the pain of fat people, @anoyoruniyakusokushita. I was fat from grade school to junior high. I suffered ridicule and various verbal abuse at that time because i was fat, short and most of all ugly

    I was one of those kids you'd describe as "puberty hit them like a train". In senior high i lost all my weight. I was still the same human being, no surgeries, no cosmetics, yet i had become hot  and attractive (and still am).

    All the things i dreamed about when i was fat (mostly nice girls) came after me. I was able to partake in sports without stopping to breathe a tankard of air. I didn't get sick as often. i could sleep without feeling like i was choking myself. This, This is the benefit of losing weight. There is no benefit in gaining it. Do not praise the unwell just because you want to feel good about it. 

    You realize you aren't proving any point here. This is the same of saying Michael Jackson received white privilege, thus, every black person should become white.

    First, ugly is subjective. Second, do you think other children and adults deserve all that abuse just because people don't like how they look? What they did to you and do to many others is not fine. They are the ones who were wrong, not you. That's why they should have changed, not you. And third, just because you had luck doesn't mean other people will. So they will continue suffering. Even if they don't want to lose weight, they should be respected.

    And one more thing. All those people that came after you after you became "attractive" (I get it that self-esteem is important, but self-entitling yourself as hot and attractive is rude) seem to be very superficial girls. I would never want to be around that kind of people. And I also understand your health benefits, but I believe a lot of people wouldn't want to submit themselves to heavy diets just so they can get a little more comfort; they should also be respected for their choice.

    51 minutes ago, dfbreezy said:

    In the Final Fantasy XV OVA, the yellow haired guy (forgot his name) was fat as a kid. Then inspired by the protag of the anime/game, he lost weight. To someone who has been obese before, that montage were he was working to better himself was nothing short of inspirational. That my friend is what you should be advocating for, not showing them as they are and saying "well it's fine right? they're beautiful inside even if they might be dying."

    Why the hell would i want to encourage people to suffer physically like i did? That would be madness on my part, i'm afraid. That is why i said fat people should not be insulted or bullied because i know the pain of that. But they should not be praised because i also know the danger in that.

    Being fat =/= dying, and no, I'm not saying they're just beautiful inside, a lot of them are also beautiful on the outside, but because of the big social bias, most people cannot see that.

    I'm not encouraging or praising anyone's lifestyle nor do I wish such a thing is done. I just believe people wouldn't be wrong to praise someone they find beautiful, but unfortunately fat people aren't receiving such praise at all because society doesn't let that happen. 

    56 minutes ago, dfbreezy said:

    The obese are beautiful. they definitely are since i was. But they are beautiful on the inside, not the outside. Harsh, but it's a fact. Very few people want to look at someone with enough rolls to hide items. Even fewer want to see them in sexual media like eroge. But you might be in luck though. Apparently "BBW" or obese people get quite a bit of attention in porn.

    As I've already explained, one of the reason people don't want to look at them is because society created this toxic "fact" that fat = ugly on the outside. But together we can end that. 

  13. 37 minutes ago, Norleas said:

    Showing fat people is one thing, showing obese as 100% healthy is another. In a great number of countries obesity is considered a disease and in some of them a public epidemic, thinking that each people know what's best for them is a generalization, do you think that a person with no mental stability know what is best to him? or a high school student have experience, knowledge or maturity to decide things like that.

    I never said anything about portraying obesity as 100% healthy. What I want is to portray overweight people as beautiful.

    37 minutes ago, Norleas said:

    This could be a double edge sword, in the same way that fat consumers would see them represented, a number of people tend to see protagonists as a imaginary projection of what themselves could be.

    I could tell you numerous instances in which I've seen eroge protagonists who are different from your average Japanese eroge nerd. Some are shotas, some are overpowered teens, some are traps, and let's not forget that most of them are high schoolers.

    Plus, Accel World has been pretty successful in Japan.

  14. 15 minutes ago, Snailmusk said:

    This can't be what you truly think. Please. The same could be said for someone with a smoking addiction, it's dreadful, THIS is a terrible message.

    People with smoking addiction appear all the time in anime. This does not mean they are glorifying it. But do they present fat characters, which are much more healthy than smoking people? No!

    So what if a person doesn't want to extend their lifespan for a just a few years? It's their choice.

    @Norleas, one thing I'd like to add to my response: if they don't want to risk including fat heroines, they could start with the protagonist. Noone would really care if he's pretty or not, anyway.

  15. 29 minutes ago, Asonn said:

    being thin?! no again do your research. being anorexic is unhealthy that lowers your immune system. and they should find help as well. thin and having curves that is how it should be. and I agree some people of the miss universe are having a form of anorexia and they shouldn't be allowed to enter cause a TV program should never and than never promote being too fat or being to thin. 

    By thin I mean underweight, not what people call "normal". By allowing any kind of people to enter a TV program, you wouldn't be promoting anything. You would just make people feel better about themselves and reject useless standards.

     

    32 minutes ago, Snailmusk said:

    Attractiveness should be a moot concept here.

    Whether someone finds obesity attractive or not is completely irrelevant, and even damaging to the subject in particular. Media should never glamorise something that is pretty much wrong on almost every aspect, in any medium. I don't really mind having fat characters either, but it's as if we're supposed to "accept" it is like telling me to accept someone who has a smoking addiction. Both are wrong, and everyone who is associated with either should be encouraged to steer in the complete opposite direction.

    I don't get why being a part of media makes it "glamorising". There is homicide in media, there is rape, there is suffering. Are they glamorising those things? I don't think so. They are just there. I'm not saying in any way overweight people are like bad things like that, but including fat characters in media is not glamorising them as much as including those things is not glamorising either.

    Also, I think you are trying to let media dictate what is right and what is wrong. Being fat is not harming anyone. Even if a person is obese, it's their choice to be, and they shouldn't be criticized for that, as they are capable of knowing what's best for them.

    36 minutes ago, Snailmusk said:

    Furthermore, why does it need representation in media? I personally look for what makes a character a character, not an image on a screen. Being fat is completely superficial towards the arc of the character, unless of course it's used as a plot device. 

    I want character diversity in fiction, not body shape diversity. (Lolis are nice, though. :yumiko: )

    It needs representation so that the flawed beauty 'standard' we have know can finally end. The best way to destroy that toxic concept is imo through media.

    38 minutes ago, Norleas said:

    The point is that we don't know if they will buy and only avoid that route or they will simply don't buy the game, i know some people that only buy a vn if at the first view like all the heroines, the fact is that we don't have a precedent to conclude how the sales will be.

    Do you think that a standard Japanese guy, if have to choose between similar moeges will buy a title that he like all the heroines designs or a title that will have one heroine that he think that the design is ugly?

    You see innovation last years in the vn market? The status quo is delivering good numbers so why they will not bother entering in waters that they dont know.

    Personally, there has been very very few VNs whose heroines I liked without any exceptions. And I believe it's the same with Japanese people. I don't think they will find all heroines of a game attractive, much less like all of them. Besides, a lot of factors come into play when choosing an eroge to play; character design is just one of them.

    39 minutes ago, dfbreezy said:

    Body;

    Hmmm. So you're saying a producer should run the risk of being shat on by consumers or making losses because you want him to push a minor agenda? 

    Now, everyone possesses an individual opinion about something. That is "Subjective". When majority of the individuals possess a similar opinion, it becomes "Objective". It becomes fact

    What??? Sorry, but that's not what objective means.

    "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased"

    Just because most people think it is a certain way doesn't make it a fact, nor does it prevent that thinking from being influenced by personal feelings and prejudice. Rather, the whole notion of fat = ugly is a societal bias.

    42 minutes ago, dfbreezy said:

    Average individual: Killing is bad.

    Murderer: Killing is good/necessary. 

    Two opinions. Yet one has transcended to become fact due to an overwhelming majority. This is non debatable. Why? Because what i'm saying is FACT.

    An opinion is never a fact. That's why it's called opinion. A fact is something irrefutable.

    44 minutes ago, dfbreezy said:

    Being fat is optional. Those who are fat should not suffer socially because of it. They deserve to be treated like everyone else.

    On the same vein, those who are fat should be treated like everybody else. They should not be given any unnecessary praise or recognition separate from what society wants.

    They made their choice. They chose to eat. Whether it benefits the individual or not is not something that should capture attention. They deserve neither positive nor negative appraisals. Like Snailmusk said in the previous post, there are much, much bigger problems than positively approving the obese.

    I agree with you here and I'm not seeking privileges for fat people. If they were really treated like everyone else, they would get as much media coverage as thin people get. So, no, fat people are not being treated like everyone else. If you think so, it's probably because you aren't one and doesn't know how it feels to be one.

    46 minutes ago, dfbreezy said:

    Society decides what it wants at the end of the day. If it ain't the obese, you gotta wait till their time comes. There/this was/is a time were anorexia (or extremely slim to be more precise) was/is a thing. There was a time where chubby/meaty was a thing. Given the fickle nature of humanity, obesity will become a thing. Push it's agenda then, not now.

    Yeah, there was also a time when white skin was the thing so all we had to do was wait for black skin to become a thing, right?

    This is not how things work. We can't let society do whatever it wants, because if we did that, things would be much worse. I'm not gonna wait for a certain group to be in the spotlight because that's not what I want; I want equality, not privileges.

    49 minutes ago, dfbreezy said:

    P.S read this passively/superficially. Do not read tones or meanings into it, or it will ruin the simplicity of my message. While i was typing i possessed nothing but a poker face and a calm demeanor. Please do not visualize anything else while reading. Thank you.

    ???

  16. 1 minute ago, Asonn said:

    Okay that is a lie. being fat doesn't equal unhealthy????? are you kidding mo or ignorant?! Overweight and obesity may increase the risk of many health problems, including diabetes, heart disease, and certain cancers. I recommend you to read this. https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/weight-control/health_risks_being_overweight/Pages/health-risks-being-overweight.aspx

    The thing is, most of those data associating overweight to health problems are taken from researches with 'issues'. Like, they pick groups of overweight people and compare their health to thinner people, and, when they see overweight people have a lot more health problems, they assume it's because of the weight. But that's not true, the problem is not the overweight, but that most fat people eat unhealthy food and/or don't exercise much. 

    Even if overweight itself were a problem, if a person doesn't want to lose weight, I don't think that person should be forced to by taking their money away or fat-shaming them, which will only make their health worse.

    6 minutes ago, Asonn said:

    now some people find fat people attractive but it shouldn't be. you want to fat to be a beauty standard.. why? why do you want to make it a standard??? not saying that is bad to fall in love with a person that is fat. but don't be all you know that person is beautiful and I support her life style. that is my problem. and if you find it attractive guess what that is your dirty little fetish. good for you. 

    I don't want it to make it a beauty standard. I just want people to open their eyes and reject the idea that fat = ugly, which is taking over our society nowadays. There aren't fat women on Miss Universe contest, there aren't fat princesses on disney movies, there aren't badass fat Marvel characters, and there is a fat-phobic president. Like, seriously? I also want to end the "thin" beauty standard. Being thin is unhealthy, as it makes you more susceptible to viruses, and this standard causes people to have mental issues while trying to lose weight in order to fit society's standards.

    I don't want one body type to be considered beautiful. I don't want standards. I just want people to be considered beautiful by society, whatever their body type, or skin color may be.

  17. 5 minutes ago, Kiriririri said:

    No, the second VN does have a fat heroine that does have an eating disorder.

    Just checked the gallery of the VN. That's really awesome. I guess I'll play this one when it comes out, then. It's a shame she just gets fat as a result of an eating disorder, though. But anyway, thanks for the rec.

    Just now, Asonn said:

    you know Japan is awesome for having a fat tax, if you are fat you have to pay money. They should encourage this throughout the world. it's not about being attractive is about a healthy life style. and btw I'm fat and I agree cause ppl pushing me to loose weight doesn't help, but taking my money away so I can't buy porn games certainly would. 

    That is not awesome, that is a terrible thing. One thing is to be a doctor and to advise an obese patient to lose weight, but to take money away from people just because they aren't adopting a certain lifestyle is not a good thing. Again, being fat =/= being unhealthy. 

    Just now, Asonn said:

    And that comes to the conclusion don't make fat attractive cause it shouldn't be. 

    This is your opinion, which is probably based on societal standards. On Renaissance, fat women were considered the beauty standard. There is no such a thing as "shouldn't be attractive".

  18. 17 minutes ago, Norleas said:

    The VN market will not put fat people on the cast because its a risky movement, considering that the majority of novels have small sales compared to other things on media and that the majority of consumers don't find fat people attractive, even if it is a small drop in the sales, it's less money entering to a very closed niche that most of the companies don't have economic power to afford a title without profit. Remeber that only a art change make smee last title drop more than 50% in sales. The companies have 0 reason to take a risk change.

    Except an art change will affect the entire game, whereas just including one fat heroine won't. As I said, if the players don't like her, they can simply avoid her route and play the other heroines'. Now, when it comes to art change, they can't do that, because the other artist (who, I presume, they liked most) didn't draw anything in that game, that's why it dropped sales.

  19. 10 minutes ago, Kiriririri said:

    Being fat is not healthy and I don't think we should encourage people to keep their life unhealthy.

    Eating junk food is not healthy. Most fat people eat junk food, that's why most of them are unhealthy, not because they are fat. Of course being excessively fat is unhealthy, but every person has the right to choose what they will eat and should be respected by everyone.

    Also, I'm not encouraging anyone to be fat. I'm just saying we should learn to be more accepting of people, whatever their choice of lifestyle may be. What is really wrong is how media encourages people to be thin, which is not healthy at all, and can even lead to eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression.

    Your point being? There are still VERY FEW VNs with fat heroines, and that's what I'm complaining about. Also, second VN doesn't have fat heroines, just a girl with giant boobs.

  20. 4 hours ago, Chronopolis said:

    As an outsider, we have no way of knowing whether it was that person's choice. In a ideal world, we should respect people's choices regardless, but to the modern person's sensibilities, there is a big difference between 'choice' and 'had no choice'. People react differently: they are a lot more sympathetic if the person 'couldn't help it'. Just a thought, maybe those two shouldn't be treated as differently as they are now...

    Anyways, I agree that one shouldn't have to change who they are (besides the extreme case of not being able to coexist), even if choice had an effect on that part of their identity.

    Yes, I very much agree with you here.

    4 hours ago, Chronopolis said:

    I didn't mean 'significantly understand'. (I agree with what you said in the atheist example, and the acknowledgment part after. I guess I get the impression from the people that present this information, that they are seeking "learn and propagate" out of you, rather than "acknowledge".

    The way I take what you said was "people must make these courtesies/adjustment for these minority groups".  To be able to do that, you'd have to know a something about of what those groups entail. I suppose the purest form of disadvantage minorities have is a lack of understanding. Spreading information (strictly information) in the hopes of increasing awareness, is not a bad thing. Though it's not the the outsider's responsibility to learn about every minority.

    Of course the outsider isn't responsible for his lack of knowledge. That's why we're trying to spread information so that people can acknowledge us and respect us. I won't blame someone for misgendering me, but I correct them politely, and explain to them what they don't know about gender. 

    4 hours ago, Chronopolis said:

    Some assumptions are necessary or preferred. I think the minority groups should acknowledge this, and recognize the other person's perspective. The fact is not that these people are special, it's that they are different and they should be allowed to be different.

    I recognize that most people see some assumptions as necessary or preferred, and that's why I try to make people realize they aren't. The problem with those assumptions is that they cause a lot of issues. For example, when most people see a manly guy, they assume he's straight. And that makes things a lot more difficult for him to come out, as he would be breaking everyone's expectations. If people didn't assume that and asked the guy's sexuality if they were curious, things would be a lot easier. 

    Of course people shouldn't freak out because of that, but unfortunately, many do. But honestly, it's not hard for me to see why. Most people don't know how hard it is to live inside a closet. You see people telling jokes that are indirectly making fun of you but you can't say anything, you are put in difficult situations and you fear with all your heart they do not suspect you are what you are, you can't tell your parents because you're afraid of their reaction... We try our best (most of us, in fact) to control ourselves, but living with secrets within yourself because of societal impositions is not easy in any way, and sometimes, we end up exploding.

    I think both sides should try to look through the other perspective, but that is a really hard task.

    5 hours ago, Chronopolis said:

    I see consideration from the other side as:

    1. Not acting like you're special. (Ideally, this is the same as doing so without the gender/identity elements.)
    2. Not telling me how someone must treat you differently. (This is different from an atheist leaving in a religious family, as it's not like the other person isn't rejecting who you are or treating your worse for it. Beyond that, I really don't think one should act like people should adjust to you, as that is an effort on their part.)

    Then it's up to the other person's to be open-minded and not to reject that person's identity. This is what I think should be the goal.

    But like, if a person with Asperger's Syndrom has difficulty discerning people's feelings based on their facial expressions and such, can't that person ask others to keep that in mind while interacting with them? To make their intentions clearer or stuff like that? Different people must be treated differently to reach equality. That is the basis of second generation rights (social rights).

    I don't really get what you mean with 1. 

  21. 29 minutes ago, Snailmusk said:

    That's not the point though.

    You already know that those are worthwhile causes, but I wanted you to consider the logic that I'm coming from, whether I'm right or wrong. If I'm right, then you learn something, and if you're right, then I learn something. 

    My goal wasn't to change your mind, it was simply to challenge an idea. FER DE SCIENCE.

    Well, just saying that comment of yours made me actually ponder more about the subject. Now I don't think calling me a monster will back up your point of view. Anyway, I'm tired of discussing about this subject now. Tomorrow it's gonna be about Fat Acceptance. If you want to discuss about that, feel free to drop a comment.

  22. 1 minute ago, Snailmusk said:

    I consider it a vacuous thing to care about. Once we've stopped climate change, found world peace, colonized the galaxy, and seen the face of God, maybe the human race should consider it a worthwhile cause.

     

    You know what? You should have said that from the beginning. This has been your best argument so far imo. I can definitely see where you're coming from...

×
×
  • Create New...