Steam Forums and Pride Month

[Th3Crims0nHunter99]

18 minutes ago, pinkxblack said:

you called thats an INSULT? omg then if you say so, im speechless.

You don't see what tends to happen in the media from time to time? White people get blamed for everything, they get blamed for this and that, told to check their privilege, told that they are racist simply for being white, etc.. Not only that, you also got these comedians and comedy sketches on TV making overused and predictable jokes about White people. I mean, at least back in the day, it was funnier and more daring because the climate was different, but now? Its just repetitive garbage. Not only that, they didn't just limit to White people, they also made fun of everyone, which was just funny

Edited June 11 by R3dIgnisDrag0n200

[pinkxblack]

12分钟前 , R3dIgnisDrag0n200 说:

You don't see what tends to happen in the media from time to time? White people get blamed for everything, they get blamed for this and that, told to check their privilege, told that they are racist simply for being white, etc.. Not only that, you also got these comedians and comedy sketches on TV making overused and predictable jokes about White people. I mean, at least back in the day, it was funnier and more daring because the climate was different, but now? Its just repetitive garbage. Not only that, they didn't just limit to White people, they also made fun of everyone, which was just funny

thats not what i mean i dont really hate all white people, but when someone said white people rule the world is definitely not an insult/joke, its just fact/common sense.

[stormy505]

On 2024-06-02 at 6:25 AM, _Eclips3_ said:

I mean you're not wrong, but unless the company takes steps to verify age such as sending in their photo ID like YouTube does (which isn't entirely fool proof) then they should be a little more cautious since there's still that risk of a child lying about their age.

The company is only so responsible for picking up the slack of bad parents. If you can't control what content your kid consumes its not someone else's fault.

 

On 2024-06-02 at 6:01 AM, _Eclips3_ said:

Agreed, it's a celebration that is sexual in nature. It's about peoples sexual preferences and not everyone wants to see themes about sexual preferences plastered all over the game they play and in their gaming news feeds. And what about the younger audience that play the game? I used to play this game on my Xbox in my early teens (for legal reasons since it's rated M, under my parents supervision in the living room), I don't think it's appropriate to advertise peoples sexual preference and what they do in their bedroom to legally speaking, children.

It's hardly plastered sexual themes... an actual pride event, yeah, especially the older ones its a lot about openly expressing love and acceptance of everyone. In warframe it's a couple of colors. Also, this is a mature game, kids shouldn't really be playing it, and if they are they shouldn't be surprised and/or shouldn't complain when they see mature themes... 
 

On 2024-06-02 at 6:21 AM, Prexades said:

Star Trek's Seven of Nine, suddenly turned gay in the Picard series because of representation. Which was soundly rejected by the fans.

They also got a bunch of crap for Nyota Uhura in the 60's for having a black female lead. Star Trek has always been pushing for diversity in casting and usually get harsh feedback at the start but when people take a retrospective look at the series it's seen generally positively. Literally during the peak of the civil rights movements... The first interracial kiss on TV... 

On 2024-06-02 at 6:21 AM, Prexades said:

But if you ask for special treatment while also wanting to be seen as normal is getting on peoples nerves. You can't have both, pick one and stick with it.

It's hilarious how much you're echoing the points from the 60's... They also said "why do black people feel the need to appear on TV, you got your rights, don't push it." You couldn't have picked a worse franchise for your point it's truly fascinating how history repeats itself...

[Legatus_Rhino]

I am watching this video to remind myself of this!

[.Diabrete.]

Hate speech and hate crimes are two concepts that dont make sense. So lets say for the sake of argument, that i stab someone over some dispute, doesn't matter. Is that action worse, if the guy was gay and i hated gay people for example? Same goes for speech, it doesn't make sense that such a thing as hate speech exists, speech can be hateful for everyone. What are your thoughs on this?

[stormy505]

14 minutes ago, carecaplatonico said:

Hate speech and hate crimes are two concepts that dont make sense. So lets say for the sake of argument, that i stab someone over some dispute, doesn't matter. Is that action worse, if the guy was gay and i hated gay people for example? Same goes for speech, it doesn't make sense that such a thing as hate speech exists, speech can be hateful for everyone. What are your thoughs on this?

There's a lot of factors that go into the punishment for a crime, but one of the key ones is logic behind the crime. In the stabbing example, why the stabbing happened would impact the punishment given. If it was in the heat of the moment, say someone cheated on you, the punishment would be less severe than a stabbing that was pre-meditated over something like a business partner screwing you over, but that would be less severe than a stabbing that happened seemingly without motive. The severity of the punishment depends on how well the person who committed the crime can get the Jury/Judge to sympathize with them. People are going to sympathize more with someone who had a more understandable reason to stab someone, again, like losing all your life savings or your SO cheating on you, compared to completely illogical crimes like stabbing someone over their skin color or sexual identity.

Hate speech/Hate crimes are inherently illogical, It just doesn't make sense to speak ill of someone or commit a crime against someone who hasn't wronged you, motivated purely by things that have legitimately no impact on your life.

If you ask a general audience, they'll be more lenient to the more logically founded motivations compared to the completely illogical motivations of a crime.

Now, what's logical and illogical depends on the beliefs of the society you live in. What makes sense to a Western or European society will come off as barbaric to other societies and vice versa. 

TLDR: A bunch of things determine culture (history, people, geographic location etc), culture separates the logical from the illogical, and what's logical and illogical sets the rules and respective crimes/punishments for breaking the rules.

[SneakyErvin]

19 hours ago, Genitive said:

It's not diversity that is bad, it's bad writing. Look at Baldur's Gate 3, it had plenty of diversity, yet it is universally praised. On the other hand, let's say Star Wars sequel trilogy is not that good, but not because of diversity, but because of poor script and lack of planning. In fact, the sequel trilogy doesn't have that much diversity at all.

15 hours ago, Genitive said:

But an example like this also boils down to how it is written. In Battlestar Galactica remake they changed one of the main characters from male to female and it was a change for the better.

Indeed. However I cant agree on the reasoning regrding the Star Wars prequel. The reason it was bad due to a poor script was rooted in the diversity push taking the focus and screwing the script completely. And this is practically all about Rey and how she is written to push a "strong female" agenda by being so broken in the story that it turns compeltely ridiculous. It was just the mindset of Disney at the time. I hope you havent missed the first draft they had for The Acolyte? Which was supposed to be written for Brie Larson, with a Sith more powerful than anything seen, like magnitudes of bonkers for the universe only to push another "strong female". Luckily people intervened and it was put on hold and scrapped to later be turned into The Acolyte the just started.

And this mindless implementation also oozes through CBS and their Star Trek universe, most notably in Picard as mentioned earlier. Where the push for it is so horribly out of place, since the way the characters act, it just doesnt fit into the "utopia" setting where they come from i.e the Federation of a distant future. Both 7 and her girlfriend act like angry current day red feminists and not like people that have grown up in a future where everything is accepted no matter if it is same sex relationships or inter-species, with cross breeding and so on aswell.

BSG is a good example of something done right with "benders". But it also shows that it comes from a time when the token bending wasnt the focus, but simply making a good story with good characters. Just the idea of bending for the sake of bending is horrible, since most media where it is done already have characters available to fill those roles without any need to bend and already exsisting character.

Just look at Marvel. Throughout the MCU there have been no need to bend anything, even though they've ended up doing it anyways. You have the strong females, and their own shows or the shows where they've had leading roles have been good. Hawkeye was a hoot from start to finish. Great chemistry, hilarious interactions between characters and chicks that could kick ass. Echo was interesting and good, the one flaw was it wasnt long enough imo. S.H.I.E.L.D shield with Quake and the rest was also great, plenty of strong women aswell, smart women at that. Very enjoyable show. Black Widow was good, but they just had to mess it up with a forced female taking over instead of Tony as Taskmaster, when they could have just used Tony's daughter instead that already exsists as a female TM. Ms. Marvel was a good show, but I can see how some people have no interest in it. I as a straight white guy enjoyed it, loved what they did with the mid-easter djinn myth, loved the family banter and so on. I kinda wish Moon Knight was as good, since I love epyptian mythologiy and so on, however that show was a mess.

Then we have shows from elsewhere with diversity implemented well, like Dead Boy Detectives, Doom Patrol (although the "Street" kinda got overdone eventually) or Criminal Minds Evolution where one of the main characters turns out to be bi, which also adds to the story of the season based on her relationship with an important person. Or Eric as I mentioned earlier, which actually tackles the subject of homosexuals well and highlights problems they have to gone through. While also not hiding the darker sides within the community.

In Marvel we have benders that also work, together with some that just dont, that turn pointless and add bloat while removing character. Heimdal and some of the other Asgardian benders are implemented well, since it makes sense because they are "gods" representing Earth/Midgard. So that Heimdal is black isnt odd, or that the Vanir are represented as more asian inspired also makes sense. But it is like one of those braindead Steam complaints about Valheim and some other "Viking" games "why can I make a black toon!?". Well, you can make black toons because in this lore the only gods that exsist are the asa and vanir gods, so well... they created mankind as a whole. Just as if I'd expect to be able to make a "white toon" if I played a game where only african or asian gods exsisted, since they would at that point have created everything and every race.

That said I have massive issues with "King" Valkyrie, since it is just another case of Marvel/disney being lazy and stupid at the same time. Which started back with the comics when Jane simply became female Thor. Slight research would have show that she would have been Thordis or Thora for instance, because that would be the proper bending on the name Thor to fit a female. Which would end up meaning Thunder godess or Thunderess instead of Thunderer. Anyways, in Valkyries case, giving her the title "King" is stupid, since King was not created in these regions (which the asgardians inspired or are inspired by) until there was a need to differentiate male and female power on the throne. Where King (Kung) and queen (Drottning) saw the light of day. Prior to that when both had the same power they both went by the same title, the title of Drott. During the time of drotts the queen wouldnt lose her power to her children incase her husband died, and when her husband was away she had all the power at home. The children would only inherit the throne if the mother also died, or passed it on willingly. With the implementation of the queen her power was diminished and if the husband died the oldest boy would take over if he was of appropriate age, otherwise it most often came down to a steward to rule and not the queen. 

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

8 hours ago, carecaplatonico said:

Hate speech and hate crimes are two concepts that dont make sense. So lets say for the sake of argument, that i stab someone over some dispute, doesn't matter. Is that action worse, if the guy was gay and i hated gay people for example? Same goes for speech, it doesn't make sense that such a thing as hate speech exists, speech can be hateful for everyone. What are your thoughs on this?

 

@stormy505 already gave an excellent explanation and reply to this.

I wanted to add a bit more. Such things can potentially be complex and nuance. For example, with your example, well things don't happen in vacuums. So Stormy505 addressed some of the ideas behind the logic, perception, and punishment aspects. 

Also related is concepts around recidivism, repeat offences, patterns in criminology, which also ties into intent, as far as attitudes, behaviour, world views. How that can influence current and future motivations, behaviour, actions, including crime. Consider how much more complicated law is, in the present, compared to 3000 years ago. 3000 years ago, a society might have a law like "No killing" but then the people in power/authority may use discretion, invoke divinity or some other knowledge right, if they weren't consistent with rulings. Either through biases or important distinctions, like early ideas around self defence, power hierarchy (wealthy farmer rights vs peasant thief). Modern day systems tend to be more exhaustive, complex, because modern day tends to have far more moving parts, variables. Still not perfect though, adjustments, modifications, progress/regress can still generally happen. 

Anyway if someone stabs someone with extenuating circumstances, a pattern can be established that it only happened because of those extenuating circumstances, it can be established and argued that person isn't the type to just stab people flippantly, or casually. More specifics would still matter and be worth establishing, but I am being general here. If someone was motivated by stabbing someone else because of say immutable characteristics (not the only example), but their skin colour, their orientation, etc, that may mean such behaviour and attitudes would motivate or prompt them to repeat such actions in the future. 

So you have two different problems, with two different solutions. Personally I am more for restorative justice over punitive justice, for statistical, scientific and ethical reasons, so that also means that efforts to rehabilitate, and address the problems would be different as well. Also depends what the extenuating circumstances were of course (thats a pretty vague and broad variable). 

There are more reasons that hate crimes and hate speech exist as concepts, to do with power structures, acknowledging and understanding those that may be relatively vulnerable as a class/people, because of power imbalances, protections, rights, traditional and historical acts of marginalisation, but also how that all interacts and overlaps in certain specific ways (as opposed to just existing in a vacuum). 

Hope that helps, take care! 

 

[Th3Crims0nHunter99]

9 hours ago, carecaplatonico said:

Hate speech and hate crimes are two concepts that dont make sense. So lets say for the sake of argument, that i stab someone over some dispute, doesn't matter. Is that action worse, if the guy was gay and i hated gay people for example? Same goes for speech, it doesn't make sense that such a thing as hate speech exists, speech can be hateful for everyone. What are your thoughs on this?

Well, the hate crime part does make sense, but like @stormy505 pointed out, it really depends on the culture.

One thing I will say is that hate speech and hate crimes are of course, different. One is just a bunch of idiots saying stupid stuff (mostly online), and the other one is an actual felony and the perpetrator(s) should be charged with a crime and be put in jail for it

Edited June 11 by R3dIgnisDrag0n200

[Th3Crims0nHunter99]

On 2024-06-10 at 6:18 PM, Genitive said:

SBI is just a scarecrow gamers use to justify their rants.

Um, not exactly. There's more but SBI is part of the problem, if you have time, you can look at these

SBI and BRIDGE

There's apparently government funding and the ADL is involved as well

Here is the SBI website, if you scroll further down, they list their clients, they have quite a handful of AAA companies

In case you didn't watch the video, the CEO of Sweet Baby Inc (Kim Belair) says how you should tell the company to add diversity and inclusion, and if they don't, she basically says to "terrify" them into doing it, like tell them what's going to happen if they don't. This is the video with Sweet Baby Inc CEO Kim Belair, it skips to around 24:55 in the video. SBI is not a scapegoat, its real and its based on available information

On 2024-06-10 at 6:18 PM, Genitive said:

And the Pokemon Go seems unrelated. They botched the character creator and people were justifiably upset, but I doubt it was caused by their desire for inclusivity. They could have easily achieved that without breaking the character models. Unless you have a source for this reason, then sure, feel free to link it.

But then again, why did they make the female model look to have a more androgynous body? If you think I'm exaggerating, here's a before and after for the female model in Pokemon Go. You can clearly see that the female model was curvier

Edited June 11 by R3dIgnisDrag0n200

[L3512]

18 hours ago, carecaplatonico said:

Hate speech and hate crimes are two concepts that dont make sense. So lets say for the sake of argument, that i stab someone over some dispute, doesn't matter. Is that action worse, if the guy was gay and i hated gay people for example? Same goes for speech, it doesn't make sense that such a thing as hate speech exists, speech can be hateful for everyone. What are your thoughs on this?

It's about motivation,

You stab someone for some reason and they happen to be gay, not a hate crime.

You stab someone because they are gay, hate crime.

Hate speech is another can of worms entirely.

[Genitive]

7 hours ago, Th3Crims0nHunter99 said:

In case you didn't watch the video, the CEO of Sweet Baby Inc (Kim Belair) says how you should tell the company to add diversity and inclusion, and if they don't, she basically says to "terrify" them into doing it, like tell them what's going to happen if they don't. This is the video with Sweet Baby Inc CEO Kim Belair, it skips to around 24:55 in the video. SBI is not a scapegoat, its real and its based on available information

The CEO of SBI can think whatever she wants. She can even believe it, but thinking that a contractor has any real power over a developer is deluded. It's the developer's decision to implement any suggestions. People just don't know how consulting firms work.

 

7 hours ago, Th3Crims0nHunter99 said:

But then again, why did they make the female model look to have a more androgynous body? If you think I'm exaggerating, here's a before and after for the female model in Pokemon Go. You can clearly see that the female model was curvier

Because they're stupid. Sometimes bad decisions don't have a good justification and there is no need for conspiracies.

[L3512]

On 2024-06-09 at 2:42 AM, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Then we also start getting into the idea of people as seperate entities and ones self, and the nature of validation as a generally neutral concept or as an insult or derogative.

Validation is a driving force, the desire to fit in and be validated is maybe one of the most power factors in human society. Hence it can be incredibly destructive to individuals and groups, add in another evolutionary quirk of tribalism and things can spiral very quickly. It's probably better to look at validation as a drug (dopamine etc), though I would say there are both positive and negative aspects to alcohol, the positive aspects are pretty much on the low to moderate side of the consumption of alcohol spectrum. Same goes for validation, where you should probably try to keep an eye on your sources of validation and judge if that is healthy or not.

It's also important to remember that validation serves an important evolutionary role, it ties the individual to the group though hopefully within mutually beneficial rules (not always). Validation is the softer hand of reinforcing group behavior while purposeful social isolation is the harsher one, it's why ridicule is so powerful in social interactions as it separates an individual from the group.

Seeking validation is also a tricky subject, I suspect humans are very good at subconsciously detecting the need for validation and just how much they should give to maintain their position in social or group hierarchy in most cases, anyone seeking validation beyond a somewhat normal amount is very likely to get preyed upon. People that need no validation are probably trending towards psychopathy/narcissism etc.

 

On 2024-06-09 at 2:42 AM, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

If someone works in a field, with peers they have mutual respect for, the field often requires cooperation, reliance on others, and an individual contributes significantly to the field, is having that work validated by others not just a relatively mundane and neutral if not positive exchange?

These are known and valued quantities, if you are good at your job and you also respect someone else in that field for their ability than validation can be an important motivator. but so can constructive criticism. This is different from seeking validation from a group or individuals, that you do not know personally, for sheerly existing. I would not go to a pride parade for validation nor would I expect the people participating there to grant validation for my attendance, for all they know I might be one of the nazi bigots this thread makes reference to, hoping to find some sort of damning evidence.

 

On 2024-06-09 at 2:42 AM, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

If a high schooler with trauma, has a lot of internal conflict and pressure about them, is struggling with maintaining healthy relationships with others, starts hanging out with people who may give them a type of validation, but in exchange also abuses them and uses them, but they hang on for the validation they are getting, is that not a more negative and destructive situation, where your advice is much more pressing and relevant? 

I feel I've addressed this however I do find it odd that you've stacked the deck here against said high schooler with the litany of issues they face. What about the young person that joins a gang and starts beating up minorities because validation, adrenaline and violence are a potent combination, especially for young men, are they also not a victim of validation seeking despite potentially having an relatively untroubled childhood?

What about relatively normal people that join a cult? I find the fallback position that everything bad is rooted in some historical trauma idea a bit of an over reach, even statistically it probably has no base.

 

On 2024-06-09 at 2:42 AM, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

In lieu of that, someone wanting or needing to attend a Straight Pride event, will probably still be better off attending a Pride Pride event, because depending on what part of the world you are talking about, a lot of Straight Pride events aren't actually about a sincere celebration, but usually more of a spite thing, and counter culture to other types of events, cultures, parades, and a naive young person looking for validation will probably end up with an objectively worse crowd. Actual Pride apart from actually being genuine and not about spite, usually has some pretty chill, friendly and accepting people. Granted some can be defensive, but usually its a sincerity/intentions thing. 

Seems like a generalisation, I've never been to a straight pride parade, though even if it is counter culture, how does that diminish the love that straight people have for each other? As the entirety of the pride month seems to come from counter culture, I have no idea why you have a bone to pick with straight pride parades apart from the specter of bigots and spite. That's like someone pointing out that children were flashed in a pride parade, and other people pointing out that is not the norm.

In fact I could just pull a page from the pride parade book and say that love is love and if you question it you are a bigot. While it's fun, it's hardly constructive.

 

On 2024-06-09 at 2:42 AM, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

So its a bit like, which path do you want a young bullied, poor kid to go down, which makes me think of This Is England. Do you want him to end up like Combo? Who is sometimes friendly, supportive, and a bit like an older brother, but might snap and violently beat one of your friends because they have a lot of issues around identity, race, class, patriotism, or more like Woody? Or even better, forge his own path ahead. Ideally, yeah he should rethink a lot of his behaviour, decisions, attitudes and circumstance, but ideally his life would have started off better, he wouldn't have been bullied as much, he might have had supportive parents or influences in his life.

Never seen it, What about Scum (1979 film)? Wants have nothing to do with it, do you do what Banks did? Carlin? Archer?

To paraphrase Thucydides, the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. Now the strong might be benevolent sort of like where with Carlin there were fewer attacks on minorities or younger boys shown after he took control. Or even Archer where he was strong enough to stand outside the system the inmates(?) had created but as a result was consistently punished by the guards and governor. Davis is ultimately shown to not fully understand the brutality of the system he is in, leading to a tragic ending. That ignorance was weakness and it crushed him, not once, but twice.

A good film but sad and disturbing, you can watch it for free on youtube but I would not recommend going in blind.

 

3 minutes ago, Genitive said:

Because they're stupid. Sometimes bad decisions don't have a good justification and there is no need for conspiracies.

Maybe the first time, but when it keeps happening it becomes a pattern.

Sry, replies got merged, don't read all that if you don't want to.

Edited June 12 by L3512

[Genitive]

38 minutes ago, L3512 said:

Maybe the first time, but when it keeps happening it becomes a pattern.

Please elaborate.

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

30 minutes ago, L3512 said:

I feel I've addressed this however I do find it odd that you've stacked the deck here against said high schooler

 

We both have with our respective statements, and I find it odd, that you find it odd, since could you not infer its for comparative purposes? Like we agree on quite a bit based on your reply, and I think I gave enough context. To put it another way, what would you consider a good example of neutral to positive validation and a negative example. What point do you think I was trying to make? 

 

37 minutes ago, L3512 said:

Seems like a generalisation,

 

As opposed to? An authoritative claim on every single parade thats ever happened in all realities? It is a generalisation. Here your perception is accurate. 

 

38 minutes ago, L3512 said:

I've never been to a straight pride parade, though even if it is counter culture, how does that diminish the love that straight people have for each other?

 

It doesn't, the point is that many events and ideas that involve Straight Pride, the founders and organisers of, often and historically are out of spite, hate, to diminish or attack LGBQT+ peoples and efforts, religious objections. From Proud Boys, Ku Klux Klan, White Aryan Resistance, Tea Party, Destiny Church, Super Happy Fun America (yes thats their actual name) to Burn a "***" in Effigy. People who are straight, who happen to love, isn't what I am talking about. I personally consider you pretty intelligent with your replies, so I think you understand the distinction yes? 

Am I claiming that every single Straight Pride parade has definitely always been about spite, as a challenge to LGBQT+ Pride, amongst several other warped ides as far as black people, minorities, etc and none have ever been sincere ever? No, but I know many have been, and they often get reported on, and then such things get noted, because often the people hosting or organising them, like them for recruitment reasons, and other people like to remember because its really really sad, the motivations behind such events, and to make note, in case we end up in situations where other people who may be apathetic or complacent forget and think everything is dandy for LGBQT+ people. 

 

50 minutes ago, L3512 said:

As the entirety of the pride month seems to come from counter culture

 

Counter culture inherently isn't a negative, as I am sure you already know, it depends on context, which I believe I established well enough. Since yes, Pride itself can be considered counter culture and certainly started off that way. Less seems, but was/is. Especially depending on the country/area. 

 

53 minutes ago, L3512 said:

I have no idea why you have a bone to pick with straight pride parades apart from the specter of bigots and spite.

 

You could always ask if you were sincere, instead of inferring that I was attempting to diminish the love between straight people. I also don't really have a bone to pick or grievance. Its just more matter of fact that many Straight Pride ideas and views, are as I claimed they are. I know the subject well, as well as history on the subject. Anyone can just spend a few hours Googling for Straight Pride events or parades and find many examples of its organisers, hosts, creators etc having either overt or obvious ties to some pretty execrable groups, ideologies, viewpoints, with the events not actually being intended to be sincere or about actual straight people loving each other, and more about sending a message to LGBQT people and groups. There have also been some that could be argued to be more neutral or as a light hearted joke, but even then, thats usually more on the side of some people who may happen to attend. 

 

1 hour ago, L3512 said:

That's like someone pointing out that children were flashed in a pride parade, and other people pointing out that is not the norm. In fact I could just pull a page from the pride parade book and say that love is love and if you question it you are a bigot. While it's fun, it's hardly constructive.

 

No, I don't think so, I disagree. I think its, a false false equivalency. The better example, would also be if LGBQT+ Pride parades were organised, hosted, created by people who were doing it to spite straight people specifically, wanted straight people to burn and die, believed in the biological superiority of.. rainbows?!? I could believe that some of them might be prone to potentially be a little unfair and too judgemental towards straight CIS people as a generalisation, on a personal level, (there are after all certain terms, that some LGBQT+ people use to describe straight or CIS people that can be less than flattering) but even then, the actual event, parades, etc usually seem far more sincere about the general goals, as stated, and for LGBQT+ (and anyone else) to celebrate, commemorate, raise awareness, have a fun time. With those usually being the intention and catalyst for the events/parades. 

You could try and pull that page, but its not really that fun or constructive. This isn't a "both sides" issue. Its not a matter of questioning love, but just having a semi decent awareness and understanding as far as this topic, history, and news around Pride, and anti-Pride ideas, conflict, and historic events and examples. What's hardly constrictive is not knowing this, and trying to paint "straight pride" as just innocent sincere love between straight people. That's all. All those historic examples of events, parades where it was actually about spite, trying to diminish LGBQT+ Pride, incite violence against them, get tied into a bunch of other alt right ideas, pfft, cherry picked examples right? Anyway such points or tactics are as easy to address as I just did. 

 

1 hour ago, L3512 said:

Never seen it, What about Scum (1979 film)? Wants have nothing to do with it, do you do what Banks did? Carlin? Archer?

To paraphrase Thucydides, the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. Now the strong might be benevolent sort of like where with Carlin there were fewer attacks on minorities or younger boys shown after he took control. Or even Archer where he was strong enough to stand outside the system the inmates(?) had created but as a result was consistently punished by the guards and governor. Davis is ultimately shown to not fully understand the brutality of the system he is in, leading to a tragic ending. That ignorance was weakness and it crushed him, not once, but twice.

A good film but sad and disturbing, you can watch it for free on youtube but I would not recommend going in blind.

 

Its pretty good, I would recommend it. There are some violent scenes, one in particular, but from the sounds of the movie you mentioned, likely not as graphic as it. Though I can't speak of the sequel material/series. 

Thanks, I'll try and check it out. Your example though, could you give more context? Could you rephrase the point you are trying to make? Then I might be able to address it better. Thanks. 

Also, I didn't address many of your other points, mostly because I either agreed completely, thought was generally accurate and well written, or just didn't have much to add, or don't necessarily disagree with them, or think they needed addressing. 

Cheers and hope you have a good one. 

 

[SneakyErvin]

4 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

We both have with our respective statements, and I find it odd, that you find it odd, since could you not infer its for comparative purposes? Like we agree on quite a bit based on your reply, and I think I gave enough context. To put it another way, what would you consider a good example of neutral to positive validation and a negative example. What point do you think I was trying to make? 

Read through the convo between you and @L3512and I wanted to give my opinion on this part. Personally I dont think there is any real form of positive validation. The furthest I'd go to see a slight positive anywhere in it would be in work situations, where you might want to be validated as the good worker among the others and your bosses. Since that likely makes you put in more effort (which would be the positive). However it can also result in you stepping on the toes of others. But in social situations I can really only see the negative, since the person seeking the validation likely ends up changing whom they really are in order to fit in.

Which also lets those that are to validate this person exploit the situation for their own benefit. It's like convertees etc. that end up being more extreme than those born into it, because they need to become validated in the eyes of their peers or their new friend on high. Which is why we get Jihad Janes etc. Same deal with prospects and similar within gang culture. I've experienced the gang part myself in my younger years as I attended both left and right parties (as in booze and "fun" not the political kind... although they got kinda political), aswell as having friends in a local biker club that were prospects to HA. Some of the newer people in these circles were #*!%ing insane and the biker club became whack all over the moment they became prospects. And it was all to show themselves to their overheads. It was also horrible to see the S#&$ these people went through at the order of the others.

I guess raising children could be seen as a positive validation process, but it isnt like the children are insecure in themselves and seek out other people. It is just the parent validating them for doing the correct things you expect from a child in order for them to grow up to be a normal person. So they get into adulthood knowing what is seen as wrong and right.

One of the oddest experiences I've had was when I went with some skinhead friends to Gothenburg and we ended up with some W.A.R people they knew. One of the fellows turned out to be a black guy that had freely had himself castrated. People think M.J went a bit too far... but this was... wow! It's one of those moments you think "if he can do that to himself, imagine what he'd do to others if he doesnt like em". Scared the S#&$ out of me.

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

15 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Personally I dont think there is any real form of positive validation. The furthest I'd go to see a slight positive anywhere in it would be in work situations, where you might want to be validated as the good worker among the others and your bosses. Since that likely makes you put in more effort (which would be the positive). However it can also result in you stepping on the toes of others. But in social situations I can really only see the negative, since the person seeking the validation likely ends up changing whom they really are in order to fit in.

Which also lets those that are to validate this person exploit the situation for their own benefit. It's like convertees etc. that end up being more extreme than those born into it, because they need to become validated in the eyes of their peers or their new friend on high. Which is why we get Jihad Janes etc. Same deal with prospects and similar within gang culture. I've experienced the gang part myself in my younger years as I attended both left and right parties (as in booze and "fun" not the political kind... although they got kinda political), aswell as having friends in a local biker club that were prospects to HA. Some of the newer people in these circles were #*!%ing insane and the biker club became whack all over the moment they became prospects. And it was all to show themselves to their overheads. It was also horrible to see the S#&$ these people went through at the order of the others.

I guess raising children could be seen as a positive validation process, but it isnt like the children are insecure in themselves and seek out other people. It is just the parent validating them for doing the correct things you expect from a child in order for them to grow up to be a normal person. So they get into adulthood knowing what is seen as wrong and right.

One of the oddest experiences I've had was when I went with some skinhead friends to Gothenburg and we ended up with some W.A.R people they knew. One of the fellows turned out to be a black guy that had freely had himself castrated. People think M.J went a bit too far... but this was... wow! It's one of those moments you think "if he can do that to himself, imagine what he'd do to others if he doesnt like em". Scared the S#&$ out of me.

 

The more the merrier. 

If someone doesn't think that validation can have positive or neutral application and only exist negatively, whilst I might disagree, I wouldn't be interested in trying to change their mind or think less of them. It would just be something we can agree to disagree over. The other user implied neutral and positive applications, as do you with some of your examples. Which is ultimately all my original point was. Its fine if people have differences of opinion about the resulting variables and degrees. 

That being said, I think your positive example is good, and I like to remind myself of the general definition of the term. There can be a few general definitions, but the type I am personally using generally in this thread are, "to recognise, establish, or illustrate the worthiness or legitimacy of", "Validation is making sure that something is true.", "the feeling that other people approve of and accept you, or something that gives you this feeling:". to myself, these are pretty broad ideas that overlap a little, and whether positive, neutral or negative, may require more specifics and context. Not to dissimilar to our discussion and your views on technology. To some it just depends. 

For example, lets say a child doesn't have the most open and direct relationship with parents, who may be employing a very strict and authoritarian type parenting style. Lets say that they struggle with homework, and start to believe they are stupid and worthless. Well a teacher could explain to them, that there is a difference between intelligence and knowledge, and further explain that not all people learn the same way, but they can listen to the child's sense of frustration and lack of progress, sympathise, understand it, acknowledge it, and recontextualize so the child doesn't feel stupid or worthless, has their feelings acknowledged and validated, but with a more optimistic outlook (and potentially a more specific goal plan involving education. Like if they are more of a visual learner etc). 

Many young people (and people in the past) also often experienced intrusive thoughts, or even really understand or knew the term intrusive thoughts. Semi relevant, think of l'appel du vide, or the call of the void. Some people can think negatively of themselves or to think something is wrong with them, especially in cultures with a strong separation of your public and work persona, and your persona among those you are more intimate with. Human brains can think up some pretty silly things, that don't necessarily reflect or say anything about a person or their actual values, thoughts, ethics, morals, beliefs. Sometimes our brains just silly lil guys, throwing out random junk stuff.

Do you think hippopotamuses know their own reputation as being so deadly to humans? I mean the answer is obviously no, since hippopotamuses (likely) do not have access to books, magazines, the Internet and lack the world wide social infrastructure and systems of communication humans do, and likely also lack the same level of self reflection and awareness we do for that to be a yes to the question... However thats the first intrusive thought and question I had when I just paused to see what my mind would think about. It sort of just randomly popped in my head. Then I started to think about hippopotamuses and sex, and the idea of some of them doing sexy dances for each other, and then the awkwardness one would have, if an elephant wandered in and saw them doing a sexy dance. Realistic no, silly? Yes, weird? A little, but also normal, in that most people, likely have intrusive thoughts. Its just that some people might not observe or reflect on them, have that terminology for them, and some people may not know how normal, widespread or common they are among most people. 

So having a young person struggling with intrusive thoughts and explaining to them, how its okay, that they are not some abnormal weird freak, how its pretty common, how adults, teachers, etc will also likely have intrusive thoughts too, but how to approach them, ignore them, minimise them, depending on what they are exactly. Thats also a type of validation as well. Doesn't necessarily have to be a teacher to a student either, can be a parent to a child, a friend to a friend. Can even be a random stranger to a random stranger. 

Do you also think its possible that you can been conditioned to view the word and idea more negatively than it might actually be? The same way that emotion is often used in a passive aggressive, or insulting way. People using it to be dismissive. "Yeah well you are just being emotional. Go find validation elsewhere, I am not going to validate your weird ideas. You just agree with those people because they are validating your own beliefs." and those sorts of comments? Since language can often determine and influence our attitudes around ideas. To think about it a different way, consider what the synonyms for validation are, "acceptance, affirmation, authorisation, corroboration, endorsement, proof, recognition" etc, and of course synonyms are just synonyms, but in my opinion, validation whilst it can have some very negative aspects to it, depending on the scenario, especially around abuse, thats like most things. Its lighter more neutral application is just that. Its also an important aspect to raising children and understanding the best ways to raising children, and also semi relevant to teaching as well, as well as psychology and therapy. There, more positive application is common. 

Its a bit like peer pressure as well. The negative aspects get brought up a lot, and they can be apparent, but there are neutral and positive applications as well (sincere, compassionate friends, encouraging a friend to do something a little bit out of their comfort zone, for example, if they are shy, encouraging them to speak to a girl or boy at a dance. To audition for a part in a play they want to, but maybe a bit shy over) etc. 

Ha, that example is yeah. Pretty wild. Maybe they wanted to sing an octave higher? Hopefully it was done medically and not self induced. Or maybe its a bizarre new intimidation technique. 

Cheers. 

 

 

[SneakyErvin]

4 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Do you also think its possible that you can been conditioned to view the word and idea more negatively than it might actually be? The same way that emotion is often used in a passive aggressive, or insulting way. People using it to be dismissive. "Yeah well you are just being emotional. Go find validation elsewhere, I am not going to validate your weird ideas. You just agree with those people because they are validating your own beliefs." and those sorts of comments? Since language can often determine and influence our attitudes around ideas. To think about it a different way, consider what the synonyms for validation are, "acceptance, affirmation, authorisation, corroboration, endorsement, proof, recognition" etc, and of course synonyms are just synonyms, but in my opinion, validation whilst it can have some very negative aspects to it, depending on the scenario, especially around abuse, thats like most things. Its lighter more neutral application is just that. Its also an important aspect to raising children and understanding the best ways to raising children, and also semi relevant to teaching as well, as well as psychology and therapy. There, more positive application is common. 

I think this is the part that explains why we look at it differently. The examples do fit in on my line of thinking. I see validation as the negative out of all the synonyms. The word that describes someone that actively seeks the validation of others, either because of low self esteem or because they are "junkies". While the synonyms are just things that occur even if you might not actively seek them out.

Validation would for me be the insecure kid trying to get into the crowd where they might find security and belonging even if it might be the good crowd. Or the "junkie" doing a good deed not because it is good, but for the attention and validation that comes from others. Or the fellow with way too many social media "friends" posting S#&$ pics of everything they do, including what they managed to produce while taking a literal S#&$, all in order to feel even better as they get positive feedback validating them for that poop, or that onehundredandfiftyeleventh dish pic of whatever they just cooked up (again).

While acceptance for instance to me either indicates the group just accepting someone for who they already are. Or in the case of an individual, he/she accepting that what they are is OK as is. Like the example you gave with the kid that might not have the best parents, but comes to realization through their teacher instead, that the situation they are in is fully normal and OK.

All of this though likely also depends on our upbringing, how we see different words. How some can have a negative sound to some and not to others. Heck, just look at a word like "Patriot" that ranges from "you're a nazi" to "would die for the country".

edit: Also, again, amazingly intersting to read your thoughts.

Edited June 13 by SneakyErvin

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

9 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

I think this is the part that explains why we look at it differently. The examples do fit in on my line of thinking. I see validation as the negative out of all the synonyms. The word that describes someone that actively seeks the validation of others, either because of low self esteem or because they are "junkies". While the synonyms are just things that occur even if you might not actively seek them out.

Validation would for me be the insecure kid trying to get into the crowd where they might find security and belonging even if it might be the good crowd. Or the "junkie" doing a good deed not because it is good, but for the attention and validation that comes from others. Or the fellow with way too many social media "friends" posting S#&$ pics of everything they do, including what they managed to produce while taking a literal S#&$, all in order to feel even better as they get positive feedback validating them for that poop, or that onehundredandfiftyeleventh dish pic of whatever they just cooked up (again).

While acceptance for instance to me either indicates the group just accepting someone for who they already are. Or in the case of an individual, he/she accepting that what they are is OK as is. Like the example you gave with the kid that might not have the best parents, but comes to realization through their teacher instead, that the situation they are in is fully normal and OK.

All of this though likely also depends on our upbringing, how we see different words. How some can have a negative sound to some and not to others. Heck, just look at a word like "Patriot" that ranges from "you're a nazi" to "would die for the country".

edit: Also, again, amazingly intersting to read your thoughts.

 

The examples you give where its negative, I also think are negative too. Social media is definitely relevant as well. As are many viral trends, where people act like idiots in stores, breaking things, etc just to get "validation" from random anonymous people who give them attention on social media. Just that other terms can technically be as negative as well. Like if get accepted into the "We Castrate Ourselves" gang, thats probably not good either... If a person looks at a mirror in the morning and repeats words like "I am weak and soggy and I am scared of everything" thats kind of a twisted version of self affirmation. So ultimately just about context. 

I do generally understand what you mean, because validation carries with it a certain level of vulnerability which could also mean, potential for manipulation, and abuse, and all sorts of self destructive behaviours in the pursuit of. Also, ideally, the idea is, that you want people who grow up, to be emotionally, mentally, financially independent, whose own personal ideas, and ideals, can withstand weaker or inferior ideas and manipulations. Just that the reality is often more complicated. Like in psychology and raising children, educational systems. We both mentioned earlier in this thread about not planning on having children, so thankfully that is something we probably won't have to worry about either lol. 

Yeah patriot is one of those words too, Freedom is another. Certain words can get a bit loaded in some contexts. 

Thanks, I appreciate that. I enjoyed hearing your thoughts too. We sometimes veer a little off topic, but I think its nicer if threads like this can have more conservations where people talk and listen, even if they aren't 100% in agreement or 100% in disagreement either. 

 

[OneOmniverse]

On 2024-06-02 at 7:55 AM, C11H22O1 said:

Well it would be good to not give them attention, no? Let them waste their time hating while regular people move on with their day

true