snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   Rantidote (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Things you shouldn't have to tell people (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=96234)

Beachlife! 27 December 2017 01:59 AM

feminazi is also in the dictionary, but its not about that. Both words are used to lump other people together and dismiss them based on little or no evidence. Worse yet, dube-bro is often used to hear to refer to unseen and unreferenced person(s) so that the poster can knock those ideas down. That is all strawman all the time.

Mouse 27 December 2017 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbravo (Post 1967738)
I also don't think defending the humor of a hyperbolic statement is fair, like if someone started posting here about enjoying mugs of liberal tears (a statement I've seen plenty of times on other sites/social media) I'd not be too keen on its use and would be hesitant to engage the poster in any kind of actual discourse. I get that many of us here are politically "on the same side" or whatever but I can see how posts of that flavor may have driven away folks who could actually fill in the other side of the discourse.

And just to clarify- I don't think dudebro is entirely analagous to feminazi- it is in that each group can be whoever the poster wants it to contain and yet doesn't seem to apply to any real people I know- but at least dudebro isn't literally comparing civil rights to Hitler.
.

You may have a point with the whole hyperbolic statement thing. Sorry about it. I meant for it to be something of a Take That against the type of hypermasculine jackass who constantly inveighs about SJWs and the like. It seems to be a law intertwined with the functioning of the universe, right up there with Einstein’s equation: those who endlessly rant and rave about how thin-skinned those SJWs (or whatever scapegoat terminology being used), will invariably turn out to be the thinnest-skinned mothereffers when faced with actual criticism. But perhaps it isn’t accomplishing what I intend for it to do.

Though for all their tantrums, I take comfort in the fact that they are throwing them because they are losing. In spite of everything, entertainment continues to become more diverse. Things aren’t perfect, but slowly and surely, the age-old idea that casts White and Male as the default, whose stories are universal and capable of being enjoyed by everyone, is fading away.

In time, maybe someday, stories about women and PoC will no longer be seen as special interest stuff, capable of only being appreciated by members of said groups. The idea of the default has hurt both people in and outside it. It deprives all sides of heroes. By shoving and treating works written by or featuring women or PoC to the side and dismissing them as fringe stories, we are participating in reiterating a toxic ideology that has long plagued our culture. Like it or not, we have basically been telling White boys that there is no need or reason for them to listen to the stories of women and PoC; their stories aren’t important and therefore, they cannot be expected to respect or understand them.

I suppose some might object to the usage of the word “tantrum” for whatever reasons, but it really is the most accurate term. The jerkwads who pitch purple fits about a franchise adding more women and PoC, are basically spoiled, overgrown toddlers. For years, they’ve been able to play with all the toys they want, while everyone else was left fighting over the unwanted or broken toys. Now the other kids are saying, “Hey we deserve to play with the toys too!” And like the overgrown toddlers they are, the dudebros are clutching said toys and throwing hissies. It used to be that throwing hissies was enough to stop things in their tracks, but now people are going like “Whatevs” and stepping past them as they throw their tantrums. They are losing and they know it; we’ve just got to keep pushing forward.

As for the suggestion that the term “dudebro” is somehow equivalent to the term “feminazi,” I’m calling BS. Feminazi compares people advocating for equal rights and opportunities for both genders to Nazis, as in a group of people that exterminated some 11 million men, women, and children because of their ethnic/religious background or orientation. How exactly is dudebro equivalent to that? :mad:

crocoduck_hunter 27 December 2017 04:56 AM

Also, "feminazi" is a strawman specifically aimed at feminists, portraying the entire movement as ugly misandronists who want to wage gendercide against all men. "Dudebro" specifically refers to members of groups like the MRAs and Gamergaters that exist and have a demonstrated history of bad behavior.

Beachlife! 27 December 2017 04:59 AM

You aren't reading what I am saying correctly. I'm saying its used in the same dismissive way that Feminazi is and that on these boards it is always used as a Strawman since there is never anyone posting the things being 'responded' to.

crocoduck_hunter 27 December 2017 08:06 AM

Mentioning dudebros is not a strawman if you're just talking about dudebros, which was what everyone who was saying. If someone said "everyone who is complaining about The Last Jedi is a dudebro," that would be a strawman but that's not what anyone's doing.

DawnStorm 27 December 2017 12:45 PM

The recipe calls for X amount of dill in the ingredients list; it would be super helpful if the recipe told me what to do with said dill in the instructions section! :duh:

Esprise Me 27 December 2017 05:18 PM

Beachlife, I agree that the term "dudebro" is used dismissively, both in general on and off this board as well as in the specific context in which it was used in this thread. I think you're overshooting by saying "feminazi" is "equally derogatory." Something milder that doesn't, as mbravo pointed out, equate advocating for civil rights with perpetrating the Holocaust, something like, say, "libtard," might make the point more effectively.

I also agree that it's a straw man to respond in a debate to something that hasn't been said in that debate. People occasionally do that here, and it drives me nuts. If we'd been discussing TLJ and debating its merits when Mouse or crockoduck_hunter made a remark about dudebros not being able to enjoy movies with female leads, I'd agree that would be poor form.

But that's not what happened. C_H brought up a complaint in the appropriate forum about people elsewhere on the internet (clearly not talking about the other participants in this thread) dissimulating about their reasons for disliking the movie. That evolved into a friendly shared bellyaching session among folks who may not have seen the discussion he was referencing, but have witnessed elsewhere the phenomenon of sexist men, a.k.a. dudebros, couching their criticism of any step toward gender or racial equality by saying the filmmakers who cast women or POC are shoving a message down viewers' throats or other nonsense. Steve took issue with Mouse "literally bragg[ing] about enjoying people's tears," and that's the point at which it turned into a debate. If at any point anyone doubted that the sentiments C_H or others had characterized were ever expressed elsewhere, or that they were being characterized accurately, they could have asked for a cite, and we could then argue about whether dismissing these alleged dudebros' complaints as mere sexism/racism in Serious Commentary drag was fair. But instead we're hung up on what was clearly a bit of hyperbole intended for comedic effect (enjoying a mug of dudebro tears) and whether it's a strawman to rant about idiots in a thread expressly designed for that purpose using the mildly insulting and somewhat vague term "dudebro." I don't think it is.

Sue 27 December 2017 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdalene (Post 1967742)
Oh, yeah, I get you there. I've heard people blasting the prequels in such a way that it suggests the original movies are forever ruined, and I'm just like...."So ignore the prequels. The originals still stand on their own."

Problem for some people I guess is you can't unsee something (although why these kinds of people went on to watch the two movies that came after the initial prequel is a puzzle). That's why I've never watched the prequels and have no intention of watching the sequels. The original three movies are all that exist for me and as far as I'm concerned all ends well and our heroes go off to have happy lives. I'm very comfortable with this :).

ganzfeld 28 December 2017 03:20 AM

The Star Wars movies are mostly really good kids* movies, quite good entertainment. That's not a very deep revelation but I just don't get the whole veneration. (Worse examples, IMO, being LoTR, 007, Indiana Jones...) The Empire Strikes Back is my favorite of them. Very entertaining and fun with decent story, good effects, etc. Not much more I need in a movie. Yet one of the main stars of that movie is a cliche aged kung fu master played by a muppet that looks and sounds very much like one, right down to his Cookie Monster grammar. It's still great but people get all up in arms about Jar-Jar or ewoks or whatever people are up in arms about in these new ones and I'm just like, really? Could you just step back a bit and see all of them for what they really are? (* When I say kids movies I don't mean that as a bad thing. Most of my favorite movies as an adult are kids movies. But they're basically made for the kid in all of us. They're as much classic kids movies as Toy Story or Snow White.)

1977 was the first flick I stood in line for. I saw all the others in a theater before ever seeing them on video. That I don't regret any of that time or money is just about as good as it gets but it's just entertainment. I'm grateful Lucas and Disney have given us some of the funnest cinema experiences of our lifetimes but that's all it really is. All of the movies have serious flaws as stories, acting, sometimes even effects, etc but they do what I think they are intended to do, which is entertain. I don't mind if Lucas or Disney tweaks the old footage or changes the storyline as long as they keep doing that. It's not as if they're deep, life-changing stories like Finding Nemo or Frozen.

crocoduck_hunter 28 December 2017 04:39 AM

I don't get the ewok hate, probably since Return of the Jedi was the first Star Wars film I actually saw and also because I grew up watching the Ewok movies and cartoon.

Jar Jar, on the other hand, is uncomfortably close to a minstrel show caricature.

ganzfeld 28 December 2017 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter (Post 1967836)
Jar Jar, on the other hand, is uncomfortably close to a minstrel show caricature.

I totally agree. That aspect is cringeworthy and clearly the worst part of his character. I don't think that's why most people complain about him. They usually talk as if he's just too much of a buffoon or not cool enough, too slapstick, or other supposedly uncool cliches (IMO - don't want to be accused of straw humanoids). But the movies are pretty much just one cliche after another.

My main point was that he's hardly the only cringeworthy part of the films. They're full of them. (And he's definitely not the only stereotype either! But could be the worst.) Again, I love Yoda but he could have easily gone the way of Jar Jar. It's tricky to rely on these cliches the whole time and avoid the stereotype noid.

Plurabelle 28 December 2017 06:34 AM

My husband is a huge Star Wars fan and wants to see the Lost Jedi, but the last movie we saw was The Force Awakens. Am I smoking crack, or was there another movie in between?

crocoduck_hunter 28 December 2017 06:47 AM

Yes, there was Rogue One, which is set slightly before A New Hope featuring an original group of main characters.

crocoduck_hunter 28 December 2017 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganzfeld (Post 1967844)
I totally agree. That aspect is cringeworthy and clearly the worst part of his character. I don't think that's why most people complain about him. They usually talk as if he's just too much of a buffoon or not cool enough, too slapstick, or other supposedly uncool cliches (IMO - don't want to be accused of straw humanoids). But the movies are pretty much just one cliche after another.

I guess the other main criticism I hear about Jar Jar is that he ceased to have any relevance to the film after the first five minutes. After the Jedi arrived in the Gungun city, Jar Jar could have been removed from the movie without anything being changed: he didn't even manage to make any significant contributions by accident (yes, he took out some droids at the final battle, but none of them were important or something that would have seriously changed things). So every minute the camera was focused on him was a minute that it wasn't focused on a more interesting character.

Of course, a lot of younger people who who were kids when they saw TPM liked him.

TallGeekyGirl 28 December 2017 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plurabelle (Post 1967845)
My husband is a huge Star Wars fan and wants to see the Lost Jedi, but the last movie we saw was The Force Awakens. Am I smoking crack, or was there another movie in between?

Quote:

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter (Post 1967846)
Yes, there was Rogue One, which is set slightly before A New Hope featuring an original group of main characters.

Disney's plan is starting with The Force Awakens, there will be a new Star Wars movie every December until... I guess until they decide to stop making them.

Odd-numbered years will be trilogy stories, and even-numbered years will be standalone movies. So in '15 we got Episode 7 (TfA), in '17 it's Episode 8 (TLJ), and in '19 it'll be Episode 9 (as yet unnamed). In '16 it was Rogue One (standalone), and in '18 it'll be the Han Solo movie (also as yet unnamed). A new trilogy will start in 2021, since they're calling an end to the Skywalker Story at Episode 9.

Gutter Monkey 28 December 2017 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter (Post 1967846)
Yes, there was Rogue One, which is set slightly before A New Hope featuring an original group of main characters.

I'm pretty sure that the movie is called Rouge One. At least according to most of the posts I saw about it on social media. :lol:

DawnStorm 28 December 2017 03:23 PM

Boy will those people's faces be red once they realize their misspelling! :fish:

Crius of CoH 28 December 2017 09:09 PM

You just can't makeup something like that.

Pinecone 28 December 2017 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beachlife! (Post 1967736)
I also had some minor issues like why would Luke bother to put a glove on his mechanical hand?

It makes sense to me - less likely to rust, and otherwise he'd forever be picking bits of grit and stuff out of the joints. More grip for holding objects too.

TallGeekyGirl 28 December 2017 09:40 PM

Why does he even have it bare metal anyway? When he got it, it had realistic skin on it. Did he not care for it properly and the flesh died or something?

Always read the paperwork your 2-1B medical droids give you, kids! It's important to properly care for your cybernetic appendages! Bacta can't cure everything!


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.