Something very rare happened last week; I had a good day at work. You may be thinking why, but the reason why is both stupid and brilliant, it's Cyndi Lauper's Girls Just Want To Have Fun, which according to a few of my co workers, who I'm about 99% sure were just having a laugh, perpetuates the stereotype that girls 'just want to have fun'. Needless to say the ensuing ideological dogfight was very entertaining, though only for laughs, I hope, at least that's how I saw it. But the world hasn't become any less mad since the meteor was last spotted, and I guess you could say I've been inspired again to tear into some bullshit. So today, it's a bit of a feminist special, since we're talking about sexual objectification, media depictions of violence, and 'racist' flyers, so not actually much of a special. On the plus side of all this, I've managed to figure out ISO on my camera, so when the Meteor finally comes, I can take some sweet photos.
Originally I was going to talk about feminist double standards and Ellen DeGeneres in the wake of the whole Katy Perry boobs fiasco, but then a far juicier story came along, and while usually I save the most pressing story for last, I want today to end on a high note, so we're starting this time with a very important question; is it okay to be white? Well, before answering it, let's ask a different question; is it okay to be black? what about is it okay to be Asian? You know me at this point if you've been reading my previous meteors, my answers to all three of those questions is yes, because race doesn't matter to me, but these 'racist' flyers, while literally saying it's okay to be white, aren't actually saying that, they're saying something far more interesting, it's not a statement, it's a trap. And it's a trap that the target, that being the regressive left wing media, gleefully threw themselves into, proving yet again that they're not only monstrous bigots, but hopeless idiots. The statement; It's okay to the white, is fundamentally true, because there's fundamentally nothing right or wrong about any skin colour, it's superficial and not representative of a person's ability or personality, unless you're a racial collectivist who thinks that race is a person's most defining characteristic. And according to racial collectivists, a person's race defines where they land on the victim hierarchy, better known as the progressive stack, which also incorporates a person's gender and sexuality. Context is very important when understanding the strategic brilliance of these 'racist' flyers, so I'll continue, the progressive definition of racism bolts on the idea that racism is also based on power and historical events, which conveniently makes racism against white people impossible, since apparently they've dominated history and only ever done bad things. So what puts white people at the bottom of the stack is the American slave trade, which was a horrible thing white people did, and that all white people across all of history including the present are guilty for, apparently. This is obviously absurd, since American slavery wasn't the first time humanity dabbled with slavery, and more over, it was ended in a civil war that was fought over 150 years ago, so literally no one alive in America today is guilty of being involved in the American slave trade, literally no one. White people also have privilege, according to the stack, which is also absurd, what with all the affirmative action programs in pretty much every industry and institution actively discriminating against white people in a push for diversity, I'm looking at you BBC. So, with white people apparently historically having all the power, and with apparent underrepresentation of non-white people in institutions and industries today, white people with all their privilege can't be and aren't the victims of discrimination and racism, apparently.
That, fundamentally, is the genius of these flyers, because their reason to exist is to prove that racism against white people is real, and it worked. In an old post of mine called The Buzzword Game, I stated that the progressive left likes to slap labels on their ideological opposition, calling them racist, sexist, white supremacist and what not, in an effort to invalidate their opposition's points and render themselves and their ideas above criticism, and we can very clearly see this with these flyers. People in opposition to these flyers are so because they are in opposition to their message, they are rampant ideologues who can't think in any terms outside of their dogma, their dogma that tells them that White people are guilty and racist and bad. The truth is that if we didn't currently live in a world that is madly obsessed with race, these signs wouldn't get any attention, they'd be exactly what they are, dumb signs with a harmless and meaningless message. But instead our western developed world is currently losing its mind over race, a fire continuously stoked by the progressive racially collectivising left wing media, and movements like BLM and Antifa, not to mention the 2016 election, where the Democratic candidate called half of her opponent's supporters "deplorable". We're always told that being white gives us an unfair advantage, but that's a lie, it's a lie told to the masses to justify what's really going on, the last acceptable form or racial discrimination, against white people. In this context, these harmless signs suddenly become inflammatory, racist, and as the clearly trolling 4chan thread that spawned this said, white supremacist. The wording is very important, the message does not infer that white people are better than non-white people, it literally states that there's nothing wrong with being white, anathema to the social justice narrative of white privilege and institutional racism. And of course the trap worked, with the media giving this national coverage calling the signs 'divisive' and 'racist' and saying things like 'trying to cause racial tension' with a school where the flyers were spotted putting out a hideous statement about how they are diverse and how they won't fall for the trap, which they of course did, because they're stupid. The flyer may read 'It's okay to be white', but what it's really saying is 'It's okay to be racist to white people' because such a harmless, supposedly no brainer message has caused such a massive stir in the progressive community, because to them, it isn't okay to be white, it in fact makes you evil and inherently racist and guilty of slavery. I hope these flyers continue to appear in as many places as they possible, because I want this message to be spread so that everyone can see this, can see that being white isn't a curse, and that all this talk of privilege is just a guise for racism. So if you are reading this, and you happen to be white, take heed, you aren't evil, the fact that you're white doesn't say a single thing, good or bad, about who you are, and you should never, ever let anyone bully you because of your skin colour.
Article Link: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/09/is-blade-runner-2049-a-sexist-film-or-a-fair-depiction-of-a-dystopic-future
This second section is about Blade Runner, and was originally going to be a sort of response to Anita Sarkeesian's ridiculous Blade Runner video, but I wanted to talk about something different with regards to Blade Runner, so that Sarkeesian segment will probably come later on its own, in the mean time, let's look at JOI, one of the most interesting characters in Blade Runner 2049, who, if some feminists are to be believed, is sexist. The Focus of today is a Guardian article titled; 'Is Blade Runner 2049 sexist - or a fair depiction of a dystopian future?' with a title like that, you know we're in for a good time. The article opens with a lie, saying that there was a backlash against this film when it first released because of its 'women problem', a backlash I, who was watching the internet response to this film a bit more closely than other films, never saw outside of feminist circles. But again, I want to talk about JOI, because this article's author takes issue with the fact that she is programmed to meet K's sexual and emotional needs, and considers this problematic. I love how the author takes issue with the notion that this film's 'sexualised women' cater to a male audience, because I wouldn't say they do, I saw the sexy advertisements all over L.A. as a look into rampant commercialism, there's also adverts for Atari, Coca Cola and Sony, but they're not a problem because they're not women, well I got bad news, neither are the sexy adverts, because they're adverts. JOI however, different story, so lets go on to the point she makes about K's boss, where's her JOI? how do you know she doesn't have one, the film doesn't even touch on that because it's about K, of course we'd see K's JOI, she's his romantic interest for the film. The author then brings up a bunch of tired intersectional talking points; the film isn't diverse, the film doesn't have strong female characters, the film fails the Bechdel test, as if these things matter in telling a good story, which they don't. She then makes a fantastically cancerous point; refuting the film's defenders by asking why the film doesn't explore the treatment of women in it's dystopian future, something that comes across to me like a demand, like the film, in her eyes, needs to explore this aspect in order to be good. She rather tellingly never gives a reason why the film should do that, she just says it should, never mind that the film is about K and the mystery, not about the world of Blade Runner itself, it explores themes of humanity and persecution, so I ask you, author, why didn't it explore the treatment of children? you've seen the film you say, you've seen the scene with Morgan from the Walking Dead. I'm getting close to spoiler territory now, so be warned, but Blade Runner 2049 explores a lot of themes, some being humanity and Persecution, but also dystopian ideas like the effects of not having parental figures in your young life, the creation of products like JOI, a look into rampant commercialism, but also a possible hint at a breakdown of gender relations in the Blade Runner world, one possibly brought about by the creation of Replicants and children not having parental figures. And something to consider, the film explores what constitutes having a soul, K has a soul and he's artificial, so why doesn't JOI have a soul, just because her pining for K is programmed, does that necessarily mean she doesn't love him, is the emotional attachment she has to him Love or programming, and more importantly, does that matter? Blade Runner's biggest question is precisely that; can a life form, or in JOI's case, an AI, that was built rather than born still possess a soul, if it thinks and feels, and can do so independently of it's creator, is it not alive? JOI is simply tackling the same question from a different angle, the fact that she's a woman has nothing to do with that.
Our final section today is about The Last Of Us Part II, a game that I'm looking forward to, and a game someone I work with is looking forward to like I'm looking forward to Godzilla: King of the Monsters; she seriously can't wait. The game recently got a new trailer, and it was brutal; depicting, in particular for me, someone getting their elbow pulverised with a hammer, which is lovely. In all honesty it's a good trailer, it looks like the sequel will be every bit as unapologetic as the first, and it gets me intrigued for the story and the characters. But that's not what Polygon sees in the trailer, with their wonderful little article; 'Stop using extreme violence to sell your game,' yes, the trailer is extremely violent, that much is true, but, spoiler alert, that's not Polygon's issue with it, so buckle up, this gets juicy. The article's opening point about the extreme imagery is kind of true; no objections yet, so let's see where it goes. The article then seems to miss the point of a trailer by stating that we are never given the full context for the violence, and the answer to that is simple, it's a trailer, it's not supposed to give us everything, it's supposed to get us interested, would you also say the trailers for Murder on the Orient Express are bad because they don't give away the killer's identity, or is the problem that the violence is never given context, because I'm sure it will when the game is released, you just have to wait. The author seems really caught up on this context problem, but here's my problem with that; we still don't know when the game will release, it could still be an entire year away as of me writing this, a trailer that gives away the game's story wouldn't be beneficial to the game right now, they need to start building hype, so obviously these first trailers will be vague and without full context, they need to get people intrigued, hold your horses on judgment for a game we currently know very little about. But now in the article is where we see why this author can't get past the violence; "The violence is particularly upsetting as it features the assault of women," up until this point I was under the assumption that the author's objection is the extreme nature of the violence, but now I see, the pieces are starting to come together. It doesn't take long for our author to go full feminist on us, concluding that the imagery, while shocking, isn't shocking, because we see it in real life, wait what. She mentions that 35% of women have experienced violence, right, first of all, I don't know how true that number is, nor do I know the equivalent number for men, I sniffed around the UN stats for a bit and couldn't find it, frankly I don't even know if such a number exists, but I did find one article, from the Guardian of all places, claiming that men account for 40% of domestic violence victims. Let's assume that both of these numbers are correct, 35% is an alarmingly high number, but if men make up just shy of half of domestic violence victims, that would make the percentage of male victims alarmingly high too. Neither number should be understated, because we should be better than that as a species, but if women are just as guilty of violence as men, why is our author conflating real world violence against only women with a trailer. In fact let's shorten that, why is our author conflating real world violence with a trailer, why is it relevant?
I hate to say this, but it isn't, The Last Of Us Part II is a fictional story set in a world taken over by a deadly parasite that turns people into zombies, people brutalising each other in a fictional post apocalypse has nothing to do with real world violence, and it's extremely telling A that you'd even bring this point up, and B that this seems to be your issue with the trailer. Nice deflection of the fact that their brutaliser is a woman though, but you really are missing the point if you think this is supposed to be exciting for the viewer, or that you think this violence is meaningless, like I've now said a few times, this a trailer, it's job is to tease, this violence will more than likely be contextualised in the full release of the game. Your point about the first game being violent is very interesting however, Neil Druckmann's quote is very telling as to why the first game is so violent, and given that he's the director on both that game and this one, is it too hard to assume that like the first one, the violence in the sequel will serve a purpose. Of course what's really funny is that Druckmann, the creator of The Last Of Us Part II, who certainly had to sign off on this trailer before it was released, is a feminist, yeah, a feminist was behind this violence against women, wrap your brain stem around that, maybe it's just a fictional story, maybe you shouldn't dwell on it. I want you to see this next bit, so here it is, copied straight from the article; "There’s a difference in how Naughty Dog handled the trailers for The Last of Us and The Last of Us Part 2. In The Last of Us, Joel may be gunning down hunters, but we understand why he’s doing it, and those he’s attacking aren’t women or marginalized people. The trailer is violent, but it’s justified; none of that justification exists in The Last of Us Part 2’s trailer, where violence simply exists," I sure you know my response to that, but here it is anyway, Get Fucked Polygon Author, Get Fucked. Your issue with the violence is entirely because it's women, you don't mind the violence in the first game because it's against men, your dislike of this trailer is entirely ideological, you are fucking unbelievable, the double standards on display are going to give me a stomach ulcer, same with the marginalised people comment, even better, you consider the violence in the first game justified because it's against white men, but portray similar violence against women or 'marginalised people' and it's suddenly not okay, maybe our author doesn't have a problem with men, but that section of the article certainly sounds like that, doesn't it. Our author then repeats herself by complaining about lack of context, right, sorry but you're on your own, when it comes to this article I've got all the context I need. But she's not done flaunting her ideological waffle, next playing the 'male-dominated' card, and implying that women might not have felt comfortable voicing their thoughts, which is just insulting, even to me, and I'm not a woman, surely the women working at Naughty Dog have more backbone than that, and what if they actually did sign off on this, what if, like Druckmann, they can put the art before the ideology, does that not matter to you?
Clearly our author knows nothing about context, because she then brings up the Xmen Apocalypse billboard fiasco, where there was a billboard of Mystique being strangled by Apocalypse and someone thought it was offensive. That really isn't a good way of backing up your point, because in that instance you had a spineless company and a snowflake who doesn't understand context, like you. Apocalypse is the villain of the film, showing him in a position of dominance over the hero is called marketing, it creates tension and intrigue, but of course it's a man strangling a woman, so fuck context, it's problematic. That last point about 'not actual women' also makes no sense, of course they're not actual women, they're characters in a video game, it's just how fiction works. Daisy Ridley may exist, but Rey doesn't, one is an actress, and the other is a character she plays in a film, video games are even less real, because beneath all video game characters is nothing more than code, even if beneath that code is a voice actor and motion capture performer, their talents exist in a digital environment, it's not real. To be honest I struggle to believe that this article is real, it really isn't what the title sells you, because the author's objection to the trailer's violence is entirely based on her own ideology, what's even worse is her ideology allows her to excuse the violence in the first game because it's not against the wrong people, which is really how it comes across; like you can kill and injure as many men as you want, but the line gets drawn at giving women the same treatment in a sequel to that very game. The only reason our author takes issue is the ideology, take away that, and in the context of the first game, there is nothing wrong with this trailer. I do however find one aspect about this article to be very amusing, though it comes not from the article itself, but from prior knowledge of feminism in gaming. One point I've heard made a few times is representation; representation and diversity is something currently infesting every industry and institution, so naturally there will be, to some extent, a push for it in gaming, we in fact covered a particularly toxic example of it in my last Meteor, where we saw it infecting the latest Call of Duty. What I find funny is that this trailer has representation; the featured characters are a good ratio of men and women, and a few of them are even Asian, so if my understanding of the need for representation is correct, while it's not as inclusive as it could be, it's at least making an effort. Yet our Polygon author thinks it's bad that this trailer for an action horror game featuring women also features violence against women. It seems our Polygon author wants to have her cake and eat it too, because the intersectional feminist demand is for increased representation, so when you get that, from a feminist no less, you complain that they suffer the same hardship as white men, who I've seen hanging and being stabbed and mulched with hammers countless times in various other media, in fact when it comes to stabbing, you should see me in Far Cry, I'm a fucking pro. But sadly you can't have your cake and also eat it; real equality that sees women being killed and injured just like men, or less women, when it comes to a game like The Last Of Us, you really have to choose one, you can't have both.
Well, that was some nice catharsis, but it's been a while, and this blog isn't just movie reviews and general stupidity, sometimes one must get out there, hunt some bigger game. But in conclusion to our evening, or morning, or whenever you're reading this; no, being white is not a sin, no, Blade Runner 2049 is not sexist, and no, The Last Of Us Part II's trailer is not overly violent, and has absolutely no relevance in the context of violence against real world women, a problem given precedence over another problem that may be just as big, but gets less attention because male privilege. There is actually more to this meteor, since similar to a Tony Blair Brexit speech I wrote about 5 paragraphs on a few months ago, there are some stories I considered tackling, one of which I actually wrote a full segment on; the Anita Sarkeesian Blade Runner video, so I might do some minor tweaks and put that up on its own, because it is a terrible video, more than deserving of the scrutiny I put our Guardian and Polygon authors under. But as usual, if you agree or disagree, that's alright, opinions are opinions, everyone has them, these are mine, and while I may disagree with you, you have a right to your opinion, right or wrong, thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment