Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 103
  1. #61
    Astonishing Member boots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,546

    Default

    all good points but on this

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    I don't think May should be conservative. The woman who said that Mary Jane would make a good wife for Peter in the '60s even if MJ was certainly not by the standards of the time, marriage material (evidenced by the prejudices of many writers after that who aren't as wise as May) wouldn't be as narrow-minded. She would be big hearted in fact. As Ta-Nehisi Coates pointed, "Mary Jane is not the girl you take home to mother, unless you had a mother like mine or Peter." So May was open and accepting, and warm-hearted and loving.

    sure, but i think some attributes can be drawn from generational gaps. an argument could be made that previous generations leaned more towards ableism no matter what side of the political spectrum.

    as for accepting mj and her "type", yes to all that. i prefer that depiction of may, but there's also room for her simply not picking up the "signals". she missed that her nephew was a superhero for years, she might miss some of the social cues on his friends too. my mum certainly did, and it wasn't due to her conservative politics.
    troo fan or death

  2. #62
    Astonishing Member boots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I responded to a point someone else made about conservative fans and social justice warriors, so I'm going with the most generous take on that phrase "conservative fans" rather than picking on the most disgusting members of a political subset. I am conservative so I don't appreciate any implication that I've got anything to do with neo-nazis or Gamer-Gate. It seems intellectually dishonest to bring that baggage to a political argument. It would be like implying all Democrats are socialists, eco-terrorists and/ or minority separatists.
    i'm not sure that's lee's implication here; its that gamersgate and comicsgate and breitbart and the proudboys and all those "subsets of the right" have brought the term sjw to its current useage. you may be part of circles where it's still used as a term to expose hypocrisy, but its wider and more immediate use has become a catch all for "the enemy".

    to say it isn't...well, that would be either intellectually dishonest... or out of touch.

    and i'm no expert on north american political associations, but i'd assume most democrats would be socialist leaning. coming from a country that benefits from socialist policies, that ain't a bad thing.

    again, the idea of peter parker employing the term in any way just seems beneath him.
    Last edited by boots; 04-17-2019 at 03:51 PM.
    troo fan or death

  3. #63
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boots View Post
    all good points but on this




    sure, but i think some attributes can be drawn from generational gaps. an argument could be made that previous generations leaned more towards ableism no matter what side of the political spectrum.

    as for accepting mj and her "type", yes to all that. i prefer that depiction of may, but there's also room for her simply not picking up the "signals". she missed that her nephew was a superhero for years, she might miss some of the social cues on his friends too. my mum certainly did, and it wasn't due to her conservative politics.
    The very reason why Aunt May wanted to hook Peter up.with MJ was she is the niece of her best friend Anna. She knew Anna going back many years, and if Anna says MJ is good for Pete, she believed her. It has nothing to do with making a statement on race, religion or political persuasion. I could understand this argument if we are talking Kitty Pryde ( Jewish), Michelle Gonzalez ( Latina) or Silk (Asian). Throw in the fact that the plan from Marvel was for Pete to end up with MJ ( reread the underrated ASM 122 and you see how she was there for him). It did not matter if the political beliefs belonged to Ditko, Lee, or Conway, once Gwen was killed, it took only one issue for MJ to stop playing party girl, and to start to become what Jarvis put best: She is "Indispensible" She was when Pete needed her in ASM 122, she still is needed today, which is a big reason why I despise OMD the way that I do, and really hope she is back for good..
    Last edited by NC_Yankee; 04-17-2019 at 05:29 PM.

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boots View Post
    i'm not sure that's lee's implication here; its that gamersgate and comicsgate and breitbart and the proudboys and all those "subsets of the right" have brought the term sjw to its current useage. you may be part of circles where it's still used as a term to expose hypocrisy, but its wider and more immediate use has become a catch all for "the enemy".

    to say it isn't...well, that would be either intellectually dishonest... or out of touch.

    and i'm no expert on north american political associations, but i'd assume most democrats would be socialist leaning. coming from a country that benefits from socialist policies, that ain't a bad thing.

    again, the idea of peter parker employing the term in any way just seems beneath him.
    Within the US context, some Democrats are socialists (and there's an argument that an avowed socialist is the frontrunner for the presidential nomination) but it would be misleading to suggest all Democrats are socialists.

    As for some subsets of the right bringing the term to current useage this gets a bit messy because the critics of the right aren't going to have a good understanding of the differences between the different segments, since much of their exposure of arguments and terminology is going to come from people on the left outraged at the more extreme arguments.

    I don't think I've suggested that Peter would use the phrase SJW (except perhaps ironically) since it doesn't fit his political leanings. This would probably be a topic best avoided because of the difficulty a writer will have being fair tackling a contentious question, especially when the readers come at it from different frames of reference.

  5. #65
    Astonishing Member boots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NC_Yankee View Post
    The very reason why Aunt May wanted to hook Peter up.with MJ was she is the niece of her best friend Anna. She knew Anna going back many years, and if Anna says MJ is good for Pete, she believed her. It has nothing to do with making a statement on race, religion or political persuasion. I could understand this argument if we are talking Kitty Pryde ( Jewish), Michelle Gonzalez ( Latina) or Silk (Asian). Throw in the fact that the plan from Marvel was for Pete to end up with MJ ( reread the underrated ASM 122 and you see how she was there for him). It did not matter if the political beliefs belonged to Ditko, Lee, or Conway, once Gwen was killed, it took only one issue for MJ to stop playing party girl, and to start to become what Jarvis put best: She is "Indispensible" She was when Pete needed her in ASM 122, she still is needed today, which is a big reason why I despise OMD the way that I do, and really hope she is back for good..
    i don’t think we can ever fully divorce ourselves from subconscious bias on race, religion, gender etc but we’re humans. our decision making process is complex and will always involve all that AND more
    troo fan or death

  6. #66
    Astonishing Member boots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post

    As for some subsets of the right bringing the term to current useage this gets a bit messy because the critics of the right aren't going to have a good understanding of the differences between the different segments, since much of their exposure of arguments and terminology is going to come from people on the left outraged at the more extreme arguments.
    mets, as one of the most stubbornly fair-minded people on this board, i'm surprised you didn't catch your own cognitive bias there. the irony of what you're saying can't be lost on you?

    actually "irony" is a good example of the common use of a word evolving beyond its original intent.

    as for the "left" not having a good understanding of the "right" due to triggered naivety, i'd point to the well documented discussions of the terms from the media and academia (whose professions hinge on their ability to explore and understand the complexities of what they're talking about).


    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I don't think I've suggested that Peter would use the phrase SJW (except perhaps ironically).
    no one said you did, my dude.
    troo fan or death

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boots View Post
    i don’t think we can ever fully divorce ourselves from subconscious bias on race, religion, gender etc but we’re humans. our decision making process is complex and will always involve all that AND more
    In Roger Stern's run, after MJ returned to the ongoing after a gap of 40 issues, May told Peter, after a fashion why she thought MJ and he would make a good pair, "You and Mary Jane have so much in common. You've both lost so much." Stern remember created Mary Jane's backstory, which May seems to have known all along.

  8. #68
    Astonishing Member boots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    In Roger Stern's run, after MJ returned to the ongoing after a gap of 40 issues, May told Peter, after a fashion why she thought MJ and he would make a good pair, "You and Mary Jane have so much in common. You've both lost so much." Stern remember created Mary Jane's backstory, which May seems to have known all along.
    compassion and empathy seem to be the motivators there
    troo fan or death

  9. #69
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boots View Post
    compassion and empathy seem to be the motivators there
    That is exactly right. Let me tell you a different story: Not that different then Pete and MJ, but it is a true story. There is an Australian Golfer named Stuart Appleby. He competed in the British Open one year and saw his wife cross the street and get killed by a bus. A couple of years later, he was set up on a date with a woman named Ashley. He apparently was not interested and she wanted to know why? He finally broke down and explained, and they both cried together. In 2002, they got married and are still together with 4 four kids. The compassion and understanding that Ashley had for Stuart, helped him get over something so horrible, and give him a happy life.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boots View Post
    mets, as one of the most stubbornly fair-minded people on this board, i'm surprised you didn't catch your own cognitive bias there. the irony of what you're saying can't be lost on you?

    actually "irony" is a good example of the common use of a word evolving beyond its original intent.

    as for the "left" not having a good understanding of the "right" due to triggered naivety, i'd point to the well documented discussions of the terms from the media and academia (whose professions hinge on their ability to explore and understand the complexities of what they're talking about).




    no one said you did, my dude.
    You used the phrase "again, the idea of peter parker employing the term in any way just seems beneath him." in response to a post of mine, so that could leave the impression I suggested (often enough that you have to add an "again") that Peter might employ the phrase.

    I might be sleep-deprived, so what am I missing in terms of cognitive bias/ ironic lack of awareness?

    Did I make some point about the left that might suggest I'm not familiar with various divisions? Or is the argument that since I wouldn't follow gamergate/ Breitbart types, I wouldn't quite know their views?

  11. #71
    Astonishing Member boots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    You used the phrase "again, the idea of peter parker employing the term in any way just seems beneath him." in response to a post of mine, so that could leave the impression I suggested (often enough that you have to add an "again") that Peter might employ the phrase.
    yeah, the "again" was a throw back to my previous (repeated) statements regarding peter and the term. i thought "new paragraph, new topic" would be enough, but in future, i'll make it clearer when making an aside


    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I might be sleep-deprived, so what am I missing in terms of cognitive bias/ ironic lack of awareness?

    Did I make some point about the left that might suggest I'm not familiar with various divisions? Or is the argument that since I wouldn't follow gamergate/ Breitbart types, I wouldn't quite know their views?
    "critics of the right aren't going to have a good understanding of the differences between the different segments, since much of their exposure of arguments and terminology is going to come from people on the left outraged at the more extreme arguments."

    the idea that critics of the right will have a lack of understanding of the right because of a lack of exposure is not only highly presumptive and unsupportable but seems to willingly show a lack of understanding of "different segments" of the left and their experiences.

    as i said, there is a mountain of academic and journalistic work on and around the topic.

    as an aside (lel), have to agree with scott that tribalism is more the problem than politics themselves.
    Last edited by boots; 04-17-2019 at 11:58 PM.
    troo fan or death

  12. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boots View Post
    yeah, the again was a throw back to my previous (repeated) statements regarding peter and the term. i thought "new paragraph, new topic" would be enough, but in future, i'll make it clearer when making an aside




    "critics of the right aren't going to have a good understanding of the differences between the different segments, since much of their exposure of arguments and terminology is going to come from people on the left outraged at the more extreme arguments."

    the idea that critics of the right will have a lack of understanding of the right because of a lack of exposure is not only highly presumptive and unsupportable but seems to willingly show a lack of understanding of "different segments" of the left and their experiences.

    as i said, there is a mountain of academic and journalistic work on and around the topic.

    as an aside (lel), have to agree with scott that tribalism is more the problem than politics themselves.
    Fair enough. I should have added a qualifier, like "most" as there may be some critics of the American right who understand the distinctions (and in some cases, overlaps) between Gamergate, the older MAGA crowd, the Fox News Republicans, the Intellectual Dark Web, the Never-Trump establishment Republicans, the Trump-agnostic establishment Republicans, the older religious right, the younger religious right, the libertarians, various professional grifters and other groups as readily as someone within one of those communities who is attuned to the sub-differences in the other communities. It doesn't happen very often, and I think it was an issue in trying to determine how conservatives view the phrases "social justice" and "social justice warrior."

    I still maintain the primary criticism comes down to a belief that the social justice warriors are ineffective in their efforts to make the world a better place (and this criticism is sometimes in error on various levels), although the main way to test this out would be to consider things that are considered emblematic of social justice warriors.

  13. #73
    Astonishing Member boots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    Fair enough. I should have added a qualifier, like "most" as there may be some critics of the American right who understand the distinctions (and in some cases, overlaps) between Gamergate, the older MAGA crowd, the Fox News Republicans, the Intellectual Dark Web, the Never-Trump establishment Republicans, the Trump-agnostic establishment Republicans, the older religious right, the younger religious right, the libertarians, various professional grifters and other groups as readily as someone within one of those communities who is attuned to the sub-differences in the other communities. It doesn't happen very often, and I think it was an issue in trying to determine how conservatives view the phrases "social justice" and "social justice warrior."
    i don't know how you or i could begin to know how often it happens. or if it were "most". it still looks like you're painting your own group as diverse and complex while the outsiders are one amorphous mass of group thinkers except for a tiny exception.

    in my own anecdotal experience, i tend to follow more conservative and right wing pages and groups on social media because i'm always curious about how others think. and i'm keen not to live in an echo chamber.

    (i'd add that not all libertarians are necessarily right or conservative either)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I still maintain the primary criticism comes down to a belief that the social justice warriors are ineffective in their efforts to make the world a better place (and this criticism is sometimes in error on various levels), although the main way to test this out would be to consider things that are considered emblematic of social justice warriors.
    sure, that's your experience and that's valuable. but i'll always take empirical data over anecdotal.

    personally, i have been an active member (as well as a donor) of equity groups that have had a measurable affect on diversity/representation and improved pay for my particular industry. and the push back from some of the public has been the assertion that these improvements have been sjw pandering/madness/etc.
    Last edited by boots; 04-17-2019 at 11:53 PM. Reason: granma! i mean grammar
    troo fan or death

  14. #74
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boots View Post
    i don't know how you or i could begin to know how often it happens. or if it were "most". it still looks like you're painting your own group as diverse and complex while the outsiders are one amorphous mass of group thinkers except for a tiny exception.

    in my own anecdotal experience, i tend to follow more conservative and right wing pages and groups on social media because i'm always curious about how others think. and i'm keen not to live in an echo chamber.

    (i'd add that not all libertarians are necessarily right or conservative either)



    sure, that's your experience and that's valuable. but i'll always take empirical data over anecdotal.

    personally, i have been an active member (as well as a donor) of equity groups that have had a measurable affect on diversity/representation and improved pay for my particular industry. and the push back from some of the public has been the assertion that these improvements have been sjw pandering/madness/etc.
    The empirical evidence that pressure groups make things better is exactly the opposite. Look at the trillions spent since the Great Society under LBJ to satisfy these groups. Do we still have extreme poverty? Crime? Look at the breakup of the family ( particularly in the black community). The answer is obvious. Government that has the efficiency of the Post Office and compassoon of DMV is bad enough they do not need to do more. Look at the 2016 Election. Why did Hillary lose? Russia? Or was it calling millions of people "Stupid, inherently racist and deplorable."? Maybe it is because the new left looks down on people and thus will let them.rot if they do not share tbeir political beliefs.

  15. #75
    Astonishing Member boots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NC_Yankee View Post
    The empirical evidence that pressure groups make things better is exactly the opposite. Look at the trillions spent since the Great Society under LBJ to satisfy these groups. Do we still have extreme poverty? Crime? Look at the breakup of the family ( particularly in the black community). The answer is obvious. Government that has the efficiency of the Post Office and compassoon of DMV is bad enough they do not need to do more. Look at the 2016 Election. Why did Hillary lose? Russia? Or was it calling millions of people "Stupid, inherently racist and deplorable."? Maybe it is because the new left looks down on people and thus will let them.rot if they do not share tbeir political beliefs.
    cool

    10char
    troo fan or death

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •