Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[TheRay]

Most acts of violence happen because people can’t handle authority or strong willed people.

[DrNewGod]

Most acts of violence happen because people can’t handle authority or strong willed people.

Um. Sure. All those Poles were just asking for it in 1939. Just like all the rape victims over the millennia.

[Agent Z]

Um. Sure. All those Poles were just asking for it in 1939. Just like all the rape victims over the millennia.

What, you mean the Holocaust wasn't the Nazis' fault after all?

[TheRay]

Um. Sure. All those Poles were just asking for it in 1939. Just like all the rape victims over the millennia.

I said most, and honestly “violence” is pretty ambiguous. I was more so thinking about armed conflict/fist fights. Also, why did you leap to Poland here? In that example, the group in question would be the Nazis not the Poles, unless the Poles actually did attack first. Which to my knowledge they definitely didn’t. Also this is controversial opinions, really strange thread to be picking battles on.

[DrNewGod]

Um. Sure. All those Poles were just asking for it in 1939. Just like all the rape victims over the millennia.

I said most, and honestly “violence” is pretty ambiguous. I was more so thinking about armed conflict/fist fights. Also, why did you leap to Poland here? In that example, the group in question would be the Nazis not the Poles, unless the Poles actually did attack first. Which to my knowledge they definitely didn’t. Also this is controversial opinions, really strange thread to be picking battles on.

The examples were extreme to the point of absurdity, and deliberately so (although the second less than the first). The point being, violence need not only be fired by insecurities rubbing up against assertiveness. Nothing brings out the worst in a bully like perceiving someone as a helpless victim.

As for the thread, counterpoints are easily 1/2 it's content.

[CaptCleghorn]

The examples were extreme to the point of absurdity, and deliberately so (although the second less than the first). The point being, violence need not only be fired by insecurities rubbing up against assertiveness. Nothing brings out the worst in a bully like perceiving someone as a helpless victim.

As for the thread, counterpoints are easily 1/2 it's content.

I'd add that "authority" about the nazis and their European conquests could be construed as being the authority which set terms for Germany post WW1 and for the will of the Jewish people to live their own lives and have their differences from other groups. In a nutshell, violence could be the first refuge of the incompetent and the response for the incompetent not getting their way easily.

[TheRay]

The examples were extreme to the point of absurdity, and deliberately so (although the second less than the first). The point being, violence need not only be fired by insecurities rubbing up against assertiveness. Nothing brings out the worst in a bully like perceiving someone as a helpless victim.

As for the thread, counterpoints are easily 1/2 it's content.

Hardly a good way to start off a conversation by using nonsense. “The worst in a bully”. What’s being discussed here is the bully’s initial motivation to become a bully in the first place, not the results of those motivations.

If all of the “counterpoints” are presented the way you’re presenting yours, I’d try to refrain from using that model. If you want to present counterpoints sure go ahead, but especially in a thread about controversial opinions, ridicule and belittlement really have no place.

[DrNewGod]

Hardly a good way to start off a conversation by using nonsense. “The worst in a bully”. What’s being discussed here is the bully’s initial motivation to become a bully in the first place, not the results of those motivations.

If all of the “counterpoints” are presented the way you’re presenting yours, I’d try to refrain from using that model. If you want to present counterpoints sure go ahead, but especially in a thread about controversial opinions, ridicule and belittlement really have no place.

Challenging your opinion of violence's sources? Yes.

Belittling? It's unfortunate you took it that way, which was not the intent. But sarcasm (lowest form of humor that it may be), is a frequent discussion tool around here

[godisawesome]

Here’s one:

It’s utter nonsense to argue that some works of art are more “artistic” and thus must be evaluated on some arbitrary curve where some frankly “less popular“ aspects are weighed as greater than other “more popular“ aspects.

Most of the time someone rolls out that praise or defense for something that isn’t going to make any real splash in pop-culture but *is* going to sweep multiple awards away before sinking into obscurity or suffering critical dissonance, what they’re actually talking about is niche artwork.

Genuinely good art can and *will* work on multiple levels with all sorts of people, and will ultimately have a greater impact than some deeply personal and demographically limited “artisté” type of artwork.

So, to put it bluntly, something having more success with pop culture isn’t only equal to “true art” but usually superior on some level.

And escapism should never be considered a knock against a film, book, or TV show‘s artistic value. You *can* make arguments about stories being heavily reliant on accepted precepts, audience desires, or unfortunate sociological elements... but that often applies to “award-worthy” art just as often; there’s a reason why a lot of major Best Picture winners aren’t watched by people who aren’t old white dudes, and just because they find it satisfying doesn’t mean it actually has any advantage over anybody else’s entertainment... and often, it’s can be just as trashy, but in a different way.

(I though about this while arguing in my head about how The Last Jedi is in no way a more “artistic” movie than The Force Awakens, and how I think a lot of its praise and defenses are really more defending it as being a more niche film than it’s predecessor... with plenty of bias, just bias some people are more comfortable with.)

[DrNewGod]

Here’s one:

It’s utter nonsense to argue that some works of art are more “artistic” and thus must be evaluated on some arbitrary curve where some frankly “less popular“ aspects are weighed as greater than other “more popular“ aspects.

Most of the time someone rolls out that praise or defense for something that isn’t going to make any real splash in pop-culture but *is* going to sweep multiple awards away before sinking into obscurity or suffering critical dissonance, what they’re actually talking about is niche artwork.

Genuinely good art can and *will* work on multiple levels with all sorts of people, and will ultimately have a greater impact than some deeply personal and demographically limited “artisté” type of artwork.

So, to put it bluntly, something having more success with pop culture isn’t only equal to “true art” but usually superior on some level.

And escapism should never be considered a knock against a film, book, or TV show‘s artistic value. You *can* make arguments about stories being heavily reliant on accepted precepts, audience desires, or unfortunate sociological elements... but that often applies to “award-worthy” art just as often; there’s a reason why a lot of major Best Picture winners aren’t watched by people who aren’t old white dudes, and just because they find it satisfying doesn’t mean it actually has any advantage over anybody else’s entertainment... and often, it’s can be just as trashy, but in a different way.

(I though about this while arguing in my head about how The Last Jedi is in no way a more “artistic” movie than The Force Awakens, and how I think a lot of its praise and defenses are really more defending it as being a more niche film than it’s predecessor... with plenty of bias, just bias some people are more comfortable with.)

Well said. You put me in mind of All About Eve. Gary Merrill pretty much quotes you in attacking the pretentions of The Theatre.

[TheRay]

Belittling? It's unfortunate you took it that way, which was not the intent. But sarcasm (lowest form of humor that it may be), is a frequent discussion tool around here

That’s quite an ineffective argument tool, probably why there are so many needless arguments on here. Sarcasm should be reserved for people you know well and have had conversations with before that have gone smoothly, hardly something you jump out of the gate with. It comes off as not taking the other person seriously before you’ve really talked to them and gotten their side. I use sarcasm as much as anybody, and we are talking about a serious thing here, I just wouldn’t use it before I know what the conversation is even about.

[Gray Lensman]

Challenging your opinion of violence's sources? Yes.

Belittling? It's unfortunate you took it that way, which was not the intent. But sarcasm (lowest form of humor that it may be), is a frequent discussion tool around here

I thought the lowest form of humor was the pun. I know a couple people who force puns as much as possible and conversations with them are a damn chore as they try to derail things by deliberately taking the wrong meaning at every opportunity.

Sarcasm has the issue of primarily being a spoken form of humor - it doesn't translate to the written word very well unless that sarcasm is well established by the writer.

[DrNewGod]

I thought the lowest form of humor was the pun. I know a couple people who force puns as much as possible and conversations with them are a damn chore as they try to derail things by deliberately taking the wrong meaning at every opportunity.

Sarcasm has the issue of primarily being a spoken form of humor - it doesn't translate to the written word very well unless that sarcasm is well established by the writer.

That is true, and I should be more careful in articulating it.

[CaptCleghorn]

I thought the lowest form of humor was the pun. I know a couple people who force puns as much as possible and conversations with them are a damn chore as they try to derail things by deliberately taking the wrong meaning at every opportunity.

Sarcasm has the issue of primarily being a spoken form of humor - it doesn't translate to the written word very well unless that sarcasm is well established by the writer.

Pun wars are built on trying to get your opponent to suffer from attrition and lack of material. They are truly affronts to almost everyone except those doing battle.

[Agent Z]

"Allowing for more story opportunities" is a bullshit argument. There is no such thing as a choice that allows for infinite story opportunities and more often than not, people are using this argument to defend ideas that limited the storytelling potential rather than expand it.

Escapism is not the only goal if fiction and this includes superheroes. If you're whining about a lack of escapism in everything, you are either not looking hard enough or just being entitled and obnoxious.