Comments on: Debunking the Myth of Frivolity [Understanding Popular Culture, Part 2]

By: Ridiculousness? You bet. « Let’s call it a night

Ridiculousness? You bet. « Let’s call it a night — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:37:56 +0000

[…] isn’t there something more important AAM should be doing? Like telling the Chinese government to stop using so many children in their […]

By: Girls read comics » Blog Archive » I Am Not Doing This Twice.

Girls read comics » Blog Archive » I Am Not Doing This Twice. — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:59:42 +0000

[…] Andrea Rubenstein - De-Bunking the Myth of Frivolity […]

By: Long and disjointed response to various emails « Crimitism

Long and disjointed response to various emails « Crimitism — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:50:31 +0000

[…] 5. BUT BUT BUT BUT… “But objectification isn’t always bad!” (@ Definition) “But it’s just a game / movie / comic / harmless entertainment!” (@ Shrub) “But it’s just a joke!” (@ Stormcloud) “But men are ALSO objectified!” (@ Like Scratches In The Sand) “But feminism has already achieved equality!” (@ Shrub again) […]

By: Official Shrub.com Blog » Blog Archive » Is gender inclusive game design important?

Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:14:22 +0000

[…] Which brings me to the subject of Fable and why I think that its male-only protagonist design is just as important as what happened with Intel’s game. I’m not going to waste my time debunking the “it’s just a game” claim, as I’ve already done that in another post of mine. What I do want to look at, however, was the difference in the way that the problem was handled. […]

By: arielladrake

arielladrake — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:15:45 +0000

Oso, the simple explanation is that criticism isn’t attacking people. Critical analysis of media and media messages isn’t an attack. Assuming that it’s not WW’s job to educate people, I really don’t see how someone else taking up the role of providing information about how the product perpetuates misogyny and racism is an attack. It’s only an attack if one takes the idea that criticism of any form is an attack. Strangely enough, that charge gets laid at the feet of feminists and other anti-oppression activists all the time. Yeah, people are free to produce what they wish within the law, particularly in countries with protected free speech. However, speech that engages critically with other free speech is *also* protected as … wait for it … free speech.

The other simple explanation is, okay, so you don’t think voicing criticisms to WW is a valid response. Guess what? You aren’t the authority on what is and isn’t valid.

And, to finish with a genuine question - Since you’re such an advocate of ‘if you don’t like it, don’t engage with it’, what exactly are you doing commenting here?

By: Oso

Oso — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 03:08:57 +0000

while i dont defend the practices of anyone at WW. I also do not believe it is their job to educate people. IF you dont like the game dont buy it. Whats hard about that? I dont like strip clubs, because I think it degrades women,but I dont openly attack anyone, because they are exotic dancers, nor do I put up giant bulletins that anyone going into such an establishment is going to hell. Simply put if you dont like it dont buy it. I understand you are offended by the game, but negative energy begats negative energy. If you dont want your kids to play it, fine, dont let them play it, you dont want to play it fine dont play it, But you may as well want to boycott every other product in the united states because at some point in time if you dig long enough, somone got offended because of the buisness practices, that arent going to lose any buisness because you got offended.

Martin Luther King had a peacful protest and boycotted, and many buisness lost hard, you dont like it dont buy it. But thats really not going to do anything important, they are still one of the leading RPG houses in the country.

-Oso

By: Official Shrub.com Blog » Blog Archive » Baby, it’s Cold Outside

Official Shrub.com Blog » Blog Archive » Baby, it’s Cold Outside — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:31:16 +0000

[…] Also known as the “you have no sense of humor” or “it’s just a song” argument. Tekanji posted about this in “Debunking the Myth of Frivolity”, and it’s a better rebuttal than any I could give here. […]

By: tekanji

tekanji — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:08:37 +0000

Jeremy: This is Part II of a series; I highly recommend that you read all of it to get a better idea of my opinions on this matter.

While I don’t agree with the idea that “in a Liberty-based society, [externally imposed censorship] is ALWAYS wrong,” (I think there are instances in which it’s needed to equalize an inequal situation), I think that most times externally imposed censorship not only doesn’t solve the problem, but is often done for the wrong reasons. Because that (and probably some other reasons), I believe that the best way to fix these problems is through education and discussion.

I thought I had addressed that directly in another part of hte series, but looking through it I couldn’t find a concrete point where I said that. It looks like you’ve helped me to come up with the next installment of this series

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 03:19:44 +0000

Certainly pop-culture entertainment has an effect on society, but with this acknowledgement, I ask what is being ultimately proposed from the author to solve the problem that comes from this kind of negative expression? Though I realize the current discussion is centered on a media company’s refusal to acknowledge the reality of what their products are capable of, it all leads to ‘what is to be done’ about the negative impact.

The reason company’s like White Wolf are resistant to acknowledging that their product has an effect is out of fear of externally imposed censorship, which, in a Liberty-based society, is ALWAYS wrong. If you’re trying to argue that entertainment media companies should not be aloud to make products that groups of people find offensive, simply because they find them offensive, or because they have a potentially negative psychological impact on society, I will vehemently disagree with you. If, however, you argue that the solution is through education and discussion I will agree in kind.

Taking offense at somebody’s speech or product is not grounds for legal action or legistlative recourse, the typical path that these situations tend to take. It is, however, grounds for discussion until an opinion prevails. That is all that can be done. That is the price of living in a Liberty-based society: tolerance of ideas that offend. But while you have to tolerate it, you by no means have to accept it.

Liberty first.

By: NancyP

NancyP — Mon, 29 May 2006 15:48:04 +0000

As I am sure real gamers know (I am not a gamer), the U.S. Armed Forces has been using free war-theme computer games as a recruiting tool to gain the interest of younger pre-signup-age teens. Apparently the Army etc consider that popular culture can have an effect on real life.