Bleck

that's not how your justice system works

the US criminal justice system also thinks that being trans is a justifiable reason for someone to attempt to murder you - they're not exactly the pinnacle of logical pointing out that an excessively flawed justice system functions in a way that lends credence to your argument is not exactly a convincing argument I'm not saying that's what your position is - I'm saying I would be surprised if it wasn't, since the logic is essentially the same yeah - but when people do that, people complain that they're trying to censor things, as seen in this very thread

how to neblix; constantly debate semantics, accuse other people of debating semantics, feel superior to other people anyways your problem is you're one of those people who are probably like "instead of gun control, why don't we fix whatever makes people want to shoot people?" and then all the reasonable people are like "yeah but also in the meantime how about we have fucking gun control" this is why your thinking is bad; the only reason people argue that moral character is something that can exist outside of people's observable action is so that they can assume that there must be some reason that excuses poor behavior (e.g. "I did a bad thing, but I'm not a bad person, so it's not so bad") it's a bad thing to think because it gives people carte blanche to make up their own excuses as to why their actions aren't as bad as other people say they are, because the implication is that people can evaluate the social effects of their own actions, when in reality how you perceive the effects of your actions is irrelevant if they're different than what others perceive a popular louis c.k quote; "When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't." ^ yeah that

that's uh a really protracted way of saying "yes there is" in response to me saying there's no such thing as an internal person your process here assumes that "deliberation" is some kind of separate process from, you know, thinking (it's not), and that the fact that people think must therefore mean that people can be something internally without necessarily affecting their actions (it doesn't) again, people are the sum of their actions; there is no "the real me", and the only reason people tend to claim as much is to imply that there's a certain degree of separation between what people "are" and what people do so as to imply that the way people's actions make other people feel doesn't matter (like, for example, saying that sexist media isn't a problem) saying that we should go after "what people are instead of what people do" is functionally arguing that people's actions aren't capable of being problematic (which implies that you believe that the negative effects of these things don't actually matter, which is probably because you're likely not a victim of them) I should also point out that everyone who ever argues this never actually has any idea on how to actually change "sexist people" at their imaginary cores

I don't understand that post

your problem here is that you think what a person or group of people "does" is somehow different than what they "are", which is a very widely held belief that doesn't make any sense people are only the sum of what they do - if society is sexist, it's because they do sexist things, not because some magical internal mechanism is set to the wrong setting as such the idea that we should "fix what society is instead of what it does" is specious - society is what society does

how dare people on the internet talk to each other, on a forum that only exists for that very purpose, ugh!!!

the implication here is that you feel that people creating sexist media is not symptomatic of a sexist society - in essence, you're saying that someone doing a sexist thing is somehow disconnected from society (a.k.a people) being sexist and you're doing what everyone usually does in discussions on OCR, where you argue that long posts must be good posts (despite how fond you are of pointing out that correlation doesn't imply causation)

dude you just wrote a several paragraph long post that implies that actions are not considered behavior, you're not exactly being "logical" here

but when evidence that demonstrates correlation is presented - as seen in this thread - detractors point out that correlation does not imply causation, and promptly disregard it

there isn't really a functional difference in those sentences

social sciences are not often based on observation of physically objective phenomena - the problem here, even in this thread, is that people keep saying that correlation does not imply causation (which is true) and then implying that it's possible for social sciences to do anything other than point out correlation (which is not) the reason why I, as such, say "arbitrary standards" is because you demand a kind of evidence that isn't actually real, and then denounce any idea that fails to present it like I said, whether or not sexist behavior is, in fact, caused directly by sexist media doesn't matter, because the question demands an answer that is not possible to ascertain

I think you may have misunderstood my post and as such I also don't understand yours

"the world is more complicated than 'the ends justify the means', and that's why we should dismiss any ideas that aren't presented flawlessly to my arbitrary standards"

I'm not changing your argument to something else, I'm implying it's irrelevant whether or not there's actually a fancy journal entry detailing the exact process through which sexist media is influenced by and/or influences sexist behavior doesn't matter - there is sexist media, and there are a lot of sexist people, and I can't think of a reason why anyone would try to argue that these things aren't related beyond something dumb like implying sexism isn't real you're trying really hard to prove that criticism is functionally the same thing as censorship, and there straight up can't be any other reason for that than to undermine the idea that this media is something that needs to be criticized like, can you explain why else this argument matters? is there a point to spending this much time denouncing people who believe sexism is, hey, a real thing, other than arguing in favor of sexism?

every second post in this thread = "media does not cause violent tendencies in people, therefore it is impossible for media to influence behavior in any capacity" ~ video gamers have you considered that maybe the reason video games don't increase violent behavior is because there are a significant number of social hurdles that exist to prevent violent behavior, which can not really be said for sexist or otherwise discriminatory behavior like maybe you guys can talk about that instead of Strawman Quest (sorry djp your posts are well-typed and long and that's cool and all but it doesn't change the fact that you're trying to argue that someone's stance is wrong by changing it to a different stance)

somebody deleted my post saying that somebody was making a slippery slope argument, I wouldn't have been surprised if someone was offended that zircon did essentially the same

the terminology specifics regarding gender don't matter because gender isn't real maybe somebody's deleting your posts

because Link isn't representative of "male" as a gender, at least not in any way that's not overtly sexist - he's meant to be a blank slate character (and often is), and there's no reason why a female Link would have to be any different in appearance or mannerism you could literally change, for example, A Link To The Past by just changing the very few gendered third-person references to Link to be female instead, and bam - that's literally all that needs to be done one could (and I do,) even argue that Link's appearance is already androgynous enough that this could work in literally any Zelda game

somebody rename this thread to Strawman Quest

https://youtu.be/6v_MdaIHOtk I screamed like a little girl and burst into tears

this game is great and if you haven't played it you should

smh

yes