StingingVelvet's forum posts

#1 Posted by StingingVelvet (574 posts) -

Just felt the need to hop in here and say that the popularized image of MLK as a totally peaceful, non-aggressive person does a disservice to his actual writing, speeches and message. He certainly advocated nonviolent protests, but works like Letter from a Birmingham Jail were fiery and charged; most of us just don't see it that way at first glance today, because we live in a very different, more socially progressive society compared to the past. He never minced words, and he wasn't afraid to call it like he saw it. Of course, that doesn't sit well with a society who prefers activism to be rosy, calmly spoken, and easily pushed to the side, so his image has been molded by history books and schoolteachers to fit their own needs. Our society tends to neuter the work that our more radical figures accomplished right after they pass away and lose the ability to contest their representation.

I do think there's a fine line to walk between being passionate and essentially insulting your audience, but sometimes there's just no way to sugarcoat things without being safely put aside and ignored by the white, patriarchal majority. Sometimes you have to get raw in order to do the subject justice.

I'm not saying Samantha Allen's critique is perfect, but please understand that arguments should not be dismissed simply because they weren't presented with a bow and a soothing voice. King was never that.

I'm a sociology teacher, so I have a read a lot of his stuff too. I guess at a certain point it's subjective, but I always took him as fiery and angry at times, but never hateful. And he always balanced his anger with words of peace and nonviolence. My main point was the comparison with the Black Panthers, who in contrast saw it as a war they were willing to fight to win.

Neither really applies exactly to a much different modern debate, of course. However gay marriage and LGBT acceptance is unarguably winning the debate, and it's doing that by making people empathize with those who just want to love their significant other and not be demonized for it. When we turn it into a war and start throwing around the bigot label we do ourselves a disservice, in my opinion. We put those who might be creeped out by homosexuality or who were raised to dislike it into a defensive position of insisting they're not bigots, rather than trying to get them to empathize with a dude who just wants to marry his boyfriend and live his life in peace.

Obviously there are still times to get angry, but I think some go overboard, and that was my only point. When Ben Kuchera starts calling Nintendo executives bigots who should be fired I think he does the movement a disservice.

#2 Posted by StingingVelvet (574 posts) -
#3 Posted by StingingVelvet (574 posts) -

@evajolli said:

@stingingvelvet: no problem, i'm glad we had a respectful debate where you call women crazy because you lack empathy

I wish you'd stop editing your above comment. As for this one: it's very telling you saw my comments in this way. Have a nice day.

#4 Posted by StingingVelvet (574 posts) -

@evajolli said:

@stingingvelvet: i'm going to pretend you didn't bring up mlk jr to make your point about being tolerant of the intolerant.

Well you're not really saying anything or addressing my points at all, so I'm going to stop attempting to debate with you. Thanks.

#5 Posted by StingingVelvet (574 posts) -

@evajolli said:

@stingingvelvet: it is about dumbing it down to people like you who can't read it without getting upset. yes i read it and i agree with her statements, it is bigoted to label my people a social statement, it's straight up republican handbook shit. if you really did agree with the male author who doesn't seem "crazy" to you, you'd know why the lgbt community is upset, and in turn understand why samantha allen is upset. that is, if your empath works.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say because your writing is a little haphazard here. Of course my empathy works and of course I understand the issues, that's all beside the point. The point we're actually making is all about tone and style. When you write aggressively, and "hate the hate" for lack of a better term, you invite anger back at you. When you write with the goal of making people understand your feelings, how it feels to be treated this way, then you invite empathy from your audience.

One is convincing one is not. Go back in time and compare Martin Luther King Jr. with the Black Panthers. Which do you think did more to bring about racial tolerance in America?

#6 Posted by StingingVelvet (574 posts) -

@evajolli said:

@stingingvelvet: be empathetic to calling your people a political statement? lolollol

she shouldn't have to "dumb it down" for you, i guess in a way it's her fault for assuming the audience could handle it

It's not about dumbing down or politics, it's about talking to people like you're trying to convince them, trying to make them understand, rather than like they're dumb children you have to scold. Even if those people ARE acting like dumb children you can't talk to them that way, unless all you want to do is fight and yell and say hateful things to each other. If you want to change minds you talk in a wise, empathetic tone. Did you even read the article I linked to?

#7 Posted by StingingVelvet (574 posts) -

@stingingvelvet:

And he does it all without sounding like an angry, hateful maniac.

The irony of criticising someone as hateful and then calling them a manic in the same breath.

"Sounding like."

Write in a hateful voice, get hate back. Write in an empathetic, wise voice, get empathy back. Simple.

#8 Posted by StingingVelvet (574 posts) -

And if the gender roles were reversed, you would have no problem with it either I suppose? If this were a man who "clearly felt like he and his peers have been fucked over by women in life and was using the internet so show his anger," would you then support him for making a misogynist joke?

Would you be defending a man who said "If I had a nickel for every time someone said to me, 'can you start putting the word "some" in front of the word "women." We're not all bitches."?

Their view is that you can mock the "privileged" and not the other way around. Which is true to some extent, but at some point you just come across as angry and hateful, not wise, which unfortunately is a trap Ms. Allen frequently falls into. Ben Kuchera as well, among others.

If you want to see properly done criticism on this issue check out this opinion piece on Gamasutra, a very professional gaming site: http://gamasutra.com/blogs/ChristianNutt/20140508/217351/Understanding_Nintendos_Tomodachi_Life_problem.php

He covers WHY people were upset, the feelings involved, and why it's important. And he does it all without sounding like an angry, hateful maniac. It's a much better way to get people to empathize with you. Yelling at people and calling them names doesn't tend to sway opinion, it just causes conflict.

#9 Posted by StingingVelvet (574 posts) -

@thecheese33: Promoting inclusiveness is awesome. Asking Nintendo to support gay marriage is awesome. However there is definitely a time, and definitely some people, who go too far and spew hate and intolerance from the OTHER side. It happens. We shouldn't be scared to point it out when it does.

Samantha Allen has said some things which fall into that category.

#10 Posted by StingingVelvet (574 posts) -

Embiggen not working for me :(