Dangerously Chloe 4-03--19 Teddy Who

Discuss EC/MC/DC here!

Moderators: Dave Zero1, Don Alexander, Giz, midgetshrimp, Cassandra

User avatar
Valkog
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:19 am
Contact:

Re: Dangerously Chloe 4-03--19 Teddy Who

Post by Valkog » Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:49 pm

brasca wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:12 pm
Exactly! But in this day and age no persecuted or disadvantaged group can ever be bad.
Or maybe those persecuted and disadvantaged groups are sick of being portrayed as assholes in the majority of media that actually gets seen. I haven't seen anyone at all saying "Nope, you can't ever show us being anything less than perfect angels". Instead, what people really want is for "asshole" to stop being the default state of portrayal. You know, a little bit of variety, shake things up a little bit. But certain other groups have a certain sort of interest in portraying them that way, for certain less-than-pleasant reasons. I'm sure you can figure out who those groups are, and probably even what those reasons are. And you can most likely figure out why people might be particularly sensitive to that sort of thing, when it's the default public perception of them.
**== **== **== **==

User avatar
Cortez
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:53 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 4-03--19 Teddy Who

Post by Cortez » Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:20 pm

brasca wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:12 pm
Exactly! But in this day and age no persecuted or disadvantaged group can ever be bad.
No offense, but you can't possibly be ignorant to the history of negative portrayals of non-white, none-straight groups in media.

Varanus
Posts: 1127
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:23 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 4-03--19 Teddy Who

Post by Varanus » Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:50 pm

I don't think brasca was saying anything like that, given they outright call them persecuted/disadvantaged groups. The point is that ideally no group should be above criticism, nor should those who criticize them immediately be labeled and dismissed as being motivated by bias.

User avatar
lordoffiling
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 4-03--19 Teddy Who

Post by lordoffiling » Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:02 pm

This is a conversation I’d love to go deeper on, but on reflection I think I’m too close to it, like I said.

It’s one of those things that is just going to have to wait. It is obviously true that no one is perfect, there are going to be examples of horrible people in any group, but during a time when they are fighting for that legitimacy, for their basic rights and freedoms, it’s just not the right time to call them on things being performed by the obviously extreme minority.

It’s much harder to type that when you’ve got a living breathing example of that kind of awful behavior crashing in your guest room, trust me.
"Rather than simply enjoying these comics, we log in to these forums to argue about them. [...] We are some strange people, and I guess we have nothing better to do." - lordoffiling

User avatar
brasca
Posts: 3770
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:04 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 4-03--19 Teddy Who

Post by brasca » Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:00 pm

Varanus wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:50 pm
I don't think brasca was saying anything like that, given they outright call them persecuted/disadvantaged groups. The point is that ideally no group should be above criticism, nor should those who criticize them immediately be labeled and dismissed as being motivated by bias.
Exactly! Lordoffiling's example is one of many. It doesn't mean every family with two same sex parents want their children to be gay, but it doesn't mean that there aren't some exceptions that do. Turning a blind eye to such things on the basis of power structures is dangerous because the only people who can ever criticize are those that are within that same group or socio power level. It's also boring from a storytelling perspective because everything has to be contrived so as never to offend.

User avatar
Cortez
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:53 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 4-03--19 Teddy Who

Post by Cortez » Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:50 pm

Not that many, most "negative examples" are bullshit stories or conspiracy theories made up by Alt-right bigots.

And it really shouldn't be hard for you why bigoted and problematic portrayals of a group of people that are constantly facing prejudice is a bad thing.
Last edited by Cortez on Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fluffy
Posts: 3585
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:14 pm

Re: Dangerously Chloe 4-03--19 Teddy Who

Post by Fluffy » Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:02 am

Cortez wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:50 pm
Not that many, most "negative examples" are bullshit stories or conspiracy theories made up by Alt-right bigots.

And it really shouldn't be hard for you why bigoted and problematic portrayals of a group of people that are constantly facing prejudice is a bad thing.
Especially if there's an attempt to incorporate such a thing into a 'dark comedy' comic (seriously fail to understand how something like that could be passed as funny - by any stretch of the word).
Please, don't come to me expecting me to fix your problems.

tanonev
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 4-03--19 Teddy Who

Post by tanonev » Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:36 am

I'm inclined to give Dave the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant what he said when he said he wanted to make Lacy's joke one of misunderstanding/miscommunication as opposed to brainwashing, and simply didn't realize that the phrasing/pacing could lead down the latter path instead. With that in mind I'm more concerned about the forumgoers who leapt (and apparently are still leaping) to defend the latter path as a good option. Even independent of the issues with marginalized groups in real life that Cortez has raised, Fluffy's point warrants thinking about: What exactly was the punchline going to be for Lacy in that case? Shock or discomfort for the sake of shock or discomfort is not inherently "funny" or "clever" or "edgy" or "deep". I have a similar issue with the racial stereotype acting strippers (who were apparently a Stripperella reference? I'd never heard of it before and never would have learned if I hadn't read the forums): What punchline did they enable that wouldn't have worked if they weren't portraying racist stereotypes on stage?

JoybuzzerX
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:02 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 4-03--19 Teddy Who

Post by JoybuzzerX » Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:23 am

Cortez wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:50 pm
Not that many, most "negative examples" are bullshit stories or conspiracy theories made up by Alt-right bigots.

And it really shouldn't be hard for you why bigoted and problematic portrayals of a group of people that are constantly facing prejudice is a bad thing.
Or you know, those left homophobes, which are a plenty.

Also, it's not problematic because it's fiction one can either choose to engage with or not engage with. Don't like the fiction, don't watch/read it. By that theory, one saying one group is all good and sunshine could be problematic, in that it can lead others to believe they can't do no wrong.

Which, if you believe fiction can do something one way, have to go with the other.

Varanus
Posts: 1127
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:23 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 4-03--19 Teddy Who

Post by Varanus » Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:23 pm

tanonev wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:36 am
Even independent of the issues with marginalized groups in real life that Cortez has raised, Fluffy's point warrants thinking about: What exactly was the punchline going to be for Lacy in that case? Shock or discomfort for the sake of shock or discomfort is not inherently "funny" or "clever" or "edgy" or "deep".
Certainly I agree it'd be a stupid joke regardless, I don't think people were defending it as a good joke so much as defending against the idea that the joke's target made it inherently worse than stupid jokes depicting negative things about other groups of people, that such a joke should be off limits, etc. Which led to debating about double standards in many other areas, justifications for them and so on. As I recall the previous argument even at some point had someone claiming that only certain races of people could be racist (when the definition of racism has nothing to do with what race the person who holds the views is).

But it all gets way too off topic way too fast, and probably gives a lot more attention to a stupid joke than it ever deserved.

User avatar
brasca
Posts: 3770
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:04 am

Re: Dangerously Chloe 4-03--19 Teddy Who

Post by brasca » Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:39 pm

Valkog wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:49 pm
Or maybe those persecuted and disadvantaged groups are sick of being portrayed as assholes in the majority of media that actually gets seen. I haven't seen anyone at all saying "Nope, you can't ever show us being anything less than perfect angels". Instead, what people really want is for "asshole" to stop being the default state of portrayal. You know, a little bit of variety, shake things up a little bit. But certain other groups have a certain sort of interest in portraying them that way, for certain less-than-pleasant reasons. I'm sure you can figure out who those groups are, and probably even what those reasons are. And you can most likely figure out why people might be particularly sensitive to that sort of thing, when it's the default public perception of them.
What media portrayals are you referring to where a gay couple were portrayed badly? Aside from conservative blowhards on opinion shows or religious programming I can't think of any and those examples are hardly mainstream.

It's interesting that you have Dumbing of Age's Ruth Lessick as your avatar since she her story arc involved bullying Jennifer "Billie" Billingsworth in a clumsy attempt at flirting. If you only ever look at that part of Ruth's character and not her overall story you could conclude that the writer is negatively portraying bisexual women. However, Ruth is a complicated character and there's a lot more to the story which I'm going to assume you've stuck around to read.
Cortez wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:50 pm
Not that many, most "negative examples" are bullshit stories or conspiracy theories made up by Alt-right bigots.

And it really shouldn't be hard for you why bigoted and problematic portrayals of a group of people that are constantly facing prejudice is a bad thing.
I'm not saying that there aren't media portrayals with stock bad guys that are usually cast with people of color and the situations are overly simplisitc, but you can't argue that the marginalized never do anything wrong. Just a few weeks people thought Jussie Smollett was the victim of a hate crime perpetrated by Donald Trump supporters. Now the evidence is mounting that he orchestrated the attack just to get a pay raise.

As such it's not out of the realm of possibilities that Lacy's mothers are as heterophpobic as some parents are homophobic even if that's the kind of propaganda espoused by the Moral Majority. Ultimately, Lacy's heterophobic parents wasn't a good punchline since parents suppressing their sexuality isn't funny, but I don't like authors having to make changes to avoid offending people nor do I like the charges thrown around that someone has some kind of homophobic agenda especially after everything that's been produced by Pixie Trix Comix so far.

Post Reply