Remove this ad

#41 [url]

Mar 15 16 11:48 AM

Sindy wrote:
No we won't hate you for what you're arguing here if you post somewhere else. We've all disagreed on things or agreed on other topics throughout the forum.

​Anyway we should probably stop spinning in circles in this thread. You're someone who thinks jokes are irrelevant and anything's free game. Most of us in here are pretty tired of edgy jokes for different reasons. You won't budge, we won't budge, sssoooo...

​Also is your username related to that story about magical number 23?

I said that because you guys seemed pretty upset with me. Also, no, I just held my finger down on a random key and then decided to put the amount of the letters in at the end.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

Nomstuff

Regular User

Posts: 151

#42 [url]

Mar 15 16 3:53 PM

What you intend and mean doesn't mean anything. What matters id how it's taken. Especially in the context of writing and the arts. People will always draw their own meaning from it, if they happen to be correct, yay! but most likely not.

Quote    Reply   

#43 [url]

Mar 15 16 5:02 PM

Nomstuff wrote:
What you intend and mean doesn't mean anything. What matters id how it's taken. Especially in the context of writing and the arts. People will always draw their own meaning from it, if they happen to be correct, yay! but most likely not.

That wasn't my main point.

Quote    Reply   

#44 [url]

Mar 15 16 7:34 PM

Actually, the Suck for a Buck Lady was a missed opportunity. It came from a real life encounter where a prostitute really offered Sohmer (I think it was a first-hand account that involved him, but maybe I misremember) a blowjob for a dollar. He was struck by the fact that a pack of gum costs more. When Rayne encounters her for the first time, that is also the "punchline." Rayne is outraged that he bought a pack of gum for more. I'm putting punchline in quotes not because it wasn't funny, but because it could have been intended as a sombering moment. When this came up, Sohmer told the story in his blog-under-the-comic. So it could have been played seriously and drawn attention to how sad problems like prositution can get, but nothing in the comic hinted that this happens in real life. She was an absurd, outlandish character, and later a running gag. When Rayne wasn't coping well that everything around him was changing, he ran into her, saw that the price had gone up on her sign, and freaked out more (ba-dum-tss!).

I guess this pertains to Sohmer's writing more than the topic. I just felt like being the guy who butts into the conversation with, "Actually..."

Quote    Reply   

#45 [url]

Mar 15 16 7:56 PM

Bob the Inept wrote:
Actually, the Suck for a Buck Lady was a missed opportunity. It came from a real life encounter where a prostitute really offered Sohmer (I think it was a first-hand account that involved him, but maybe I misremember) a blowjob for a dollar. He was struck by the fact that a pack of gum costs more. When Rayne encounters her for the first time, that is also the "punchline." Rayne is outraged that he bought a pack of gum for more. I'm putting punchline in quotes not because it wasn't funny, but because it could have been intended as a sombering moment. When this came up, Sohmer told the story in his blog-under-the-comic. So it could have been played seriously and drawn attention to how sad problems like prositution can get, but nothing in the comic hinted that this happens in real life. She was an absurd, outlandish character, and later a running gag. When Rayne wasn't coping well that everything around him was changing, he ran into her, saw that the price had gone up on her sign, and freaked out more (ba-dum-tss!).

I guess this pertains to Sohmer's writing more than the topic. I just felt like being the guy who butts into the conversation with, "Actually..."

That suggested joke was so subtle and clever that I doubt many people would get it.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,964

#46 [url]

Mar 15 16 9:14 PM

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:
That wasn't my main point.
I believe your main point was misogyny isn't so inherently awful that it merits being singled out in a comic that also expresses hatred for men. I actually agree with that but I wouldn't edit it out of an existing review (I do not believe you were in favor of that either).

I wanted to weigh in on something I couldn't find to quote, regarding the difference between sexism and misogyny/misandry/misanthropy. My understanding is it is a nuanced difference. Sexism is more about expectations whereas the three hatreds mentioned are much more rooted in emotions.

For example, if you have a pet dog, you likely view that dog as exponentially less intelligent than a human being. That's a prejudice people don't think about because it will always be correct. However, you don't hate the dog as a result of thinking it's stupider than humans and always will be, because being intellectually on par with humans isn't why you'd have a pet dog in the first place. Sexism works like that; you attribute positive or negative expectations to someone but there's no emotional connection to the expectations. It may just be based on bad, unchallenged information you've had rattling around in your head so long you don't recall where you even learned it.

Gender hatred, on the other hand, tend to be personal. The obvious example is someone who feels like they're never going to have a good relationship, so they hate their desired gender for what really is their own problem. Instead of just believing men are too aggressive or women are unreliable you get an "and that's why they're subhuman" added to the end.

Quote    Reply   

#47 [url]

Mar 16 16 8:07 PM

SmashLampjaw wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:
That wasn't my main point.

I believe your main point was misogyny isn't so inherently awful that it merits being singled out in a comic that also expresses hatred for men. I actually agree with that but I wouldn't edit it out of an existing review (I do not believe you were in favor of that either).

I wanted to weigh in on something I couldn't find to quote, regarding the difference between sexism and misogyny/misandry/misanthropy. My understanding is it is a nuanced difference. Sexism is more about expectations whereas the three hatreds mentioned are much more rooted in emotions.

For example, if you have a pet dog, you likely view that dog as exponentially less intelligent than a human being. That's a prejudice people don't think about because it will always be correct. However, you don't hate the dog as a result of thinking it's stupider than humans and always will be, because being intellectually on par with humans isn't why you'd have a pet dog in the first place. Sexism works like that; you attribute positive or negative expectations to someone but there's no emotional connection to the expectations. It may just be based on bad, unchallenged information you've had rattling around in your head so long you don't recall where you even learned it.

Gender hatred, on the other hand, tend to be personal. The obvious example is someone who feels like they're never going to have a good relationship, so they hate their desired gender for what really is their own problem. Instead of just believing men are too aggressive or women are unreliable you get an "and that's why they're subhuman" added to the end.

Welp, glad this thread is dead.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

plarblman

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,168

#48 [url]

Mar 16 16 9:52 PM

I think this whole issue could have been averted by pointing out the fact that a lot of the reviews on this site were written back in the aughts, when the word "misogyny" hadn't been used to death by the likes of Salon.com, Jezebel, the Mary Sue, and so forth. That being said, correcting factual inaccuracies is one thing, but making changes because you don't like the tone is another. Generally our policy is not to change another reviewer's article unless it really needs it.

Quote    Reply   

#49 [url]

Mar 18 16 5:31 PM

plarblman wrote:
I think this whole issue could have been averted by pointing out the fact that a lot of the reviews on this site were written back in the aughts, when the word "misogyny" hadn't been used to death by the likes of Salon.com, Jezebel, the Mary Sue, and so forth. That being said, correcting factual inaccuracies is one thing, but making changes because you don't like the tone is another. Generally our policy is not to change another reviewer's article unless it really needs it.

It's not even the connotation, I just don't like the very concept of it. Yeah, I'm not asking to change them.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,964

#50 [url]

Mar 19 16 9:31 PM

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:
Welp, glad this thread is dead.
You're welcome. I also kill parties, weddings, and Bar Mitzvahs.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,964

#52 [url]

Apr 4 16 7:11 PM

This website doesn't write reviews as a whole. Authors get a lot of lenience. I am thinking of abusing the word misandry in an upcoming review, though, if that's any consolation.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,966

#56 [url]

Apr 4 16 11:25 PM

SmashLampjaw wrote:
This website doesn't write reviews as a whole. Authors get a lot of lenience. I am thinking of abusing the word misandry in an upcoming review, though, if that's any consolation.

Please please please use this .gif.

image

http://i.imgur.com/pTJZ71Y.gifv

Last Edited By: Shan Apr 4 16 11:30 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Sindy

Living Spambot

Posts: 833

#57 [url]

Apr 5 16 5:34 AM

> "I don't like the use of the word misogyny and I believe it should be scrapped entirely"
​> "Creators of content can't be misogynistic"
​> "Even if creators of content are misogynistic, their creations still aren't because they're creations and inherently cannot be misogynistic because reasons"
​> "Misogynistic creations are automatically satire, and as such cannot be offensive"
​> "ED is misogynistic and offensive and you are hypocrites for linking to obviously satirical articles"

​Pick one. Careful, though. It can only be one.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#58 [url]

Apr 5 16 5:42 AM

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:
Also, one last thing because I refuse to let this bullshit die, it seems even more hypocritical when you consider that this website frequently links to ED, which is an extreamly "misogynistic" website.

Encyclopedia Dramatica links to our articles, though I assume they do so on their own accord.  We never asked their permission when we added links to them, so why shouldn't they have the same right?

Quote    Reply   

#59 [url]

Apr 5 16 11:02 AM

Sindy wrote:
> "I don't like the use of the word misogyny and I believe it should be scrapped entirely"
​> "Creators of content can't be misogynistic"
​> "Even if creators of content are misogynistic, their creations still aren't because they're creations and inherently cannot be misogynistic because reasons"
​> "Misogynistic creations are automatically satire, and as such cannot be offensive"
​> "ED is misogynistic and offensive and you are hypocrites for linking to obviously satirical articles"

​Pick one. Careful, though. It can only be one.

Misogyny shouldn't be scrapped as a word, it's just very rarely used in a way that actually matters to describe a comic.
Never said anything like this or anything implying this.
Originally, I had a fairly common misconception of misogyny. I said this but then I also had a second point. Why does it matter?
I never said "automatically" and I even gave times where the criticism wouldn't be moot.
ED is more "misogynistic" than every other comic talked about (besides Angel Corps). I do not have a problem with this. I think that would be self-evident since I put it in quotes and I've made what I think fairly clear but you could just be trying to mischaracterize me; judging by your other points, you probably are. 

Quote    Reply   

#60 [url]

Apr 5 16 11:05 AM

Long Tom wrote:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 wrote:
Also, one last thing because I refuse to let this bullshit die, it seems even more hypocritical when you consider that this website frequently links to ED, which is an extreamly "misogynistic" website.

Encyclopedia Dramatica links to our articles, though I assume they do so on their own accord.  We never asked their permission when we added links to them, so why shouldn't they have the same right?

ED and Bad Webcomics K-I-S-S-I-N-G in a tree...

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help